2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan
Annex E: RP2 SOWEPP – PRB template version
June 2014
FAB Performance Plan
SW FAB
Second Reference Period (2015-2019)
2
3
Signatories
Performance plan details
FAB Name
Version number
Date of issue
Date of adoption
Member State
Portugal
Spain
SW FAB
1.0
27/06/2014
30/06/2014
Name, title and signature of representative
Luis Miguel Pereira Trindade Santos - Chairman of the Board of the Portuguese Civil Aviation Authority INAC, I.P.
Isabel Maestre - Director of the Aviation Safety and Security Agency- AESA
Signatures are at the beginning of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
According to CHAPTER III (THE ADOPTION OF PERFORMANCE PLANS) Article 13 of the Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air
navigation services and network functions;
Additional comments
Initial adoption of performance plans
“On the proposal of the national supervisory authorities, Member States shall adopt performance plans
containing binding performance targets and submit them to the Commission at the latest six months
before the beginning of the reference period.”
The National Supervisory Authorities of Portugal and Spain (AESA and INAC) propose this draft SW FAB
Performance Plan for the second reference period of the European ANS Performance Scheme (20152019).
4
5
Table of Content
STRUCTURE AND PURPOSE
MAPPING BETWEEN THE TEMPLATE FOR THE FAB PERFORMANCE PLAN AND ANNEX II OF THE PERFORMANCE
REGULATION
SIGNATORIES
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE SITUATION
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MACROECONOMIC SCENARIO INCLUDING OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS
1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
1.4 ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE NETWORK STRATEGY PLAN AT FAB LEVEL AND OTHER GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.5 LIST OF AIRPORTS FOR RP2
2 INVESTMENT
3 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL
3.1 KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS
3.1.(a) Safety
3.1.(a).(i) Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management
3.1.(a).(ii) Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT)
methodology
3.1.(a).(iii) Safety KPI #3: Just Culture
3.1.(a).(iv) Optional section - Additional Safety KPI(s)
3.1.(b) Environment
3.1.(b).(i) Description of the process to improve route design
3.1.(b).(ii) Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
3.1.(b).(iii) Optional section - Additional Environment KPI(s)
3.1.(c) Capacity
3.1.(c).(i) Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight
3.1.(c).(ii) Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
3.1.(c).(iii) Capacity plans
3.1.(c).(iv) Optional section - Additional Capacity KPI(s)
3.1.(d) Cost-efficiency
3.1.(d).(1) Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS
3.1.(d).(2) Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS aggregated at FAB level
3.1.(d).(3) Cost efficiency KPI #2: Determined unit cost (DUC) for terminal ANS
3.1.(d).(4) Optional section - Additional Cost-Efficiency KPI(s)
3.2 CONSISTENCY WITH UNION-WIDE TARGETS
3.3 INTERDEPENDENCIES AND TRADE-OFFS
3.4 CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ANSP
4 INCENTIVE SCHEMES
4.1 ENVIRONMENT
4.1 CAPACITY
4.1 COST-EFFICIENCY
5 MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
ADDITIONAL (KEY) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (AND TARGETS)
6 ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN
6.1 ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY
6.2 COMPARISON WITH RP1
6
7 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN
8 ANNEXES
ANNEX A. PUBLIC CONSULTATION MATERIAL
ANNEX B. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IN LINE WITH THE NSP
ANNEX C. REPORTING TABLES
ANNEX D. ANSPS INVESTMENT PLANS
ANNEX E. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
7
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the
performance Regulation
IMPORTANT NOTE FOR SECTION 3.1.(d) – Cost-efficiency:
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan,
aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1. In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data
requested being pre-filled by the PRB):
• The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution
to the performance of the European ATM network;:
• The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
o The traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
o The inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
• The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
• A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2. In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones
(ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
• The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the
charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
• The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as
per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
A detailed list of the information to be provided in the body of the performance plan and Annex C will be found in Paragraph 3.1(d)
below, showing that duplication has been avoided and workload reduced to the minimum required by the performance and
charging Regulations.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
The table below shows the correspondence between Annex II of EU Regulation 390/2013 and the Performance Plan template
with its Annexes.
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Annex C
Body of
For cost-effiency
Performance
Other annexes
Plan
RT ref.
AI ref.
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1. Description of the situation (scope of the plan, 1.1.
list of air navigation service providers covered, etc.).
1.2. Description of the macroeconomic scenario for 1.2.
the reference period including overall assumptions
(traffic forecast, etc.)
1.3. Description of the outcome of the stakeholder 1.3.
consultation in order to prepare the performance
plan and the agreed compromises as well as the
points of disagreement and the reasons for
disagreement.
Annex A
1.4. Description of the actions taken by air
1.4.
navigation service providers to implement the
Network Strategy Plan at functional airspace block
level and other guiding principles for the operation
of the functional airspace block in the long term
perspective..
Annex B
8
1.5. List of airports submitted to the performance 1.5.
scheme in application of Article 1 of the Regulation,
with their average number of IFR air transport
movements.
1.6. List of exempted airports pursuant to Article
1(5) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
together with their average number of IFR air
transport movements.
2. INVESTMENT
2
2.1. Description and justification of the cost, nature
and contribution to achieving the performance
targets of investments in new ATM systems and
major overhauls of existing ATM systems, including
their relevance and coherence with the European
ATM Master Plan, the common projects referred to
in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, and,
as appropriate, the Network Strategy Plan.
Annex D
2.2. The description and justification referred to in
point 2.1 shall in particular:
(i) relate the amount of the investments, for which
description and justification is given following point
2.1, to the total amount of investments;
(ii) differentiate between investments in new
systems, overhaul of existing systems and
replacement investments;
(iii) refer each investment in new ATM systems and
major overhaul of existing ATM systems to the
European ATM Master Plan, the common projects
referred to in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No
550/2004, and, as appropriate, the Network
Strategy Plan;
(iv) detail the synergies achieved at functional
airspace block level or, if appropriate, with other
Member States or functional airspace blocks, in
particular in terms of common infrastructure and
common procurement;
(v) detail the benefits expected from these
investments in terms of performance across the
four key performance areas, allocating them
between the en route and terminal/airport phases
of flight, and the date as from which benefits are
expected;
(vi) provide information on the decision-making
process underpinning the investment, such as the
existence of a documented cost-benefit analysis,
the holding of user consultation, its results and any
dissenting views expressed.
3. PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL
3.1. Performance targets in each key performance
area, set by reference to each key performance
indicator as set out in Annex I, Section 2, for the
entire reference period, with annual values to be
used for monitoring and incentive purposes:
3
3,1
(a) Safety
3.1.(a)
9
(i) level of effectiveness of safety management:
local targets for each year of the reference period;
3.1.(a).(i)
(ii) application of the severity classification based on 3.1.(a). (ii)
the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology: local
targets for each year of the reference period
(percentage);
(iii) just culture: local targets for the last year of the 3.1.(a). (iii)
reference period.
3.1.(a). (iv) Optional section Additional Safety
KPI(s)
(b) Environment
3.1.(b)
(i) description of the process to improve route
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
design;
(ii) average horizontal en route flight efficiency of
the actual trajectory.
3.1.(b).(iii) Optional section Additional
Environment KPI(s)
(c) Capacity
(i) minutes of average en route ATFM delay per
flight;
(ii) minutes of average terminal ATFM arrival delay
per flight;
(iii) the capacity plan established by the air
navigation service provider(s).
(d) Cost-efficiency
(i) determined costs for en route and terminal air
navigation services set in accordance with the
provisions of Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation
(EC) No 550/2004 and in application of the
provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No
391/2013 for each year of the reference period;
(ii) en route and terminal service units forecast for
each year of the reference period;
(iii) as a result, the determined unit costs for the
reference period;
(iv) description and justification of the return on
equity of the air navigation service providers
concerned, as well as on the gearing ratio and on
the level/composition of the asset base used to
calculate the cost of capital comprised in the
determined costs;
(v) description and explanation of the carry-overs
from the years preceding the reference period;
3.1.(c)
3.1.(c).(i)
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv) Optional section Additional Capacity
KPI(s)
3.1.(d)
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
3.1.(d).1.C
3.1.(d).2.C
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
RT 1 (5.4)
RT 1 (5.5)
(vi) description of economic assumptions, including: 3.1.(d).1.B
RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6)
AI 1 e)
RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6)
AI 3 c), d), e)
RT 1 (5.1-5.2)
10
RT 1 (5.1-5.2)
— inflation assumptions used in the plan as
3.1.(d).2.B
compared to an international source such as the
IMF (International Monetary Fund) Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the forecasts and Eurostat
Harmonised Index of Consumer Price for the
actuals. Justification of any deviation from these
sources,
— assumptions underlying the calculation of
pension costs comprised in the determined costs,
including a description on the relevant national
pension regulations and pension accounting
regulations in place and on which the assumptions
are based, as well as information whether changes
of these regulations are anticipated,
AI 4 b)
— interest rate assumptions for loans financing the
provision of air navigation services, including
relevant information on loans (amounts, duration,
etc.) and explanation for the (weighted) average
interest on debt used to calculate the cost of capital
pre tax rate and the cost of capital comprised in the
determined costs,
RT 1 (3.7)
— adjustments beyond the provisions of the
International Accounting Standards;
(vii) if applicable, description in respect to the
previous reference period of relevant events and
circumstances set out in Article 14(2)(a) of
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 using
the criteria set out in Article 14(2)(b) of
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
including an assessment of the level, composition
and justification of costs exempt from the
application of Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013;
AI 4 c)
AI 1 Item c)
RT 3 (3.1-3.12)
AI 3 b)
(viii) if applicable, a description of any significant
restructuring planned during the reference period
including the level of restructuring costs and a
justification for these costs in relation to the net
benefits to the airspace users over time;
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 d)
(ix) if applicable, restructuring costs approved from
previous reference periods to be recovered.
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 e)
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 e)
3.2. Description and explanation of the consistency
of the performance targets with the relevant Unionwide performance targets. When there is no Unionwide performance target, description and
explanation of the targets within the plan and how
they contribute to the improvement of the
performance of the European ATM network.
3.3. Description and explanation of the
interdependencies and trade-offs between the key
performance areas, including the assumptions used
to assess the trade-offs.
3.1.(a).(i)
3.1.(a). (ii)
3.1.(a). (iii)
3.1.(a). (iv)
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
3.1.(b).(iii)
3.1.(c).(i)
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv)
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
3,3
11
3.4. Contribution of each air navigation service
provider concerned to the achievement of the
performance targets set for the functional airspace
block in accordance with Article 5(2)(c)(ii).
3.1.(a).(i)
3.1.(a). (ii)
3.1.(a). (iii)
3.1.(a). (iv)
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
3.1.(b).(iii)
3.1.(c).(i)
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv)
4
4,1
4. INCENTIVE SCHEMES
4.1. Description and explanation of the incentive
schemes to be applied on air navigation service
providers.
5. MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
5
Description of the civil-military dimension of the
plan describing the performance of FUA application
in order to increase capacity with due regard to
military mission effectiveness, and if deemed
appropriate, relevant performance indicators and
targets consistent with the indicators and targets of
the performance plan.
6. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON
WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN
6
6.1. Sensitivity to external assumptions.
6.2. Comparison with previous performance plan.
6,1
6,2
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN 7
Description of the measures put in place by the
national supervisory authorities to achieve the
performance targets, such as:
(i) monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the ANS
safety programmes and business plans are
implemented;
(ii) measures to monitor and report on the
implementation of the performance plans including
how to address the situation if targets are not
reached during the reference period.
12
RT 1 (All)
AI 4 a)
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
1. INTRODUCTION
Other annexes
AI ref.
1
1.1.
1.1. Description of the situation (scope of the plan,
list of air navigation service providers covered, etc.).
1.2. Description of the macroeconomic scenario for
the reference period including overall assumptions
(traffic forecast, etc.)
1.3. Description of the outcome of the stakeholder
consultation in order to prepare the performance
plan and the agreed compromises as well as the
points of disagreement and the reasons for
disagreement.
1.4. Description of the actions taken by air
navigation service providers to implement the
Network Strategy Plan at functional airspace block
level and other guiding principles for the operation
of the functional airspace block in the long term
perspective..
1.5. List of airports submitted to the performance
scheme in application of Article 1 of the Regulation,
with their average number of IFR air transport
movements.
1.6. List of exempted airports pursuant to Article 1(5)
of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
together with their average number of IFR air
transport movements.
1.2.
1.3.
Annex A
1.4.
Annex B
1.5.
13
1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 - The situation
NSAs responsible for drawing up the AESA (Spain)
Performance Plan
INAC (Portugal)
NSA responsible for the coordination AESA
within the FAB
AESA (Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea - Spanish NSA)
INAC (Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil - Portuguese NSA)
EA-NSA (Ejército del Aire - Spanish Air Force NSA)
ANS-MET (Secretaría de Estado de Medioambiente - Spanish NSA for MET services)
AENA (Spanish ANSP)
List of accountable entities
NAV Portugal (Portuguese ANSP)
AEMET (Agencia Estatal de Meteorología - Spanish MET provider)
IPMA (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera) - Portuguese MET provider)
EA-ANSP (Ejército del Aire - Spanish Air Force ANSP)
SAR (Search and Rescue Portugal)
Geographical scope
Spain: Madrid FIR/UIR, Barcelona FIR/UIR and Canarias FIR/UIR.
Portugal: Lisboa FIR/UIR
Additional comments
See section 1.4 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
14
1.2 - Description of the macroeconomic scenario including overall assumptions
Economic Assumptions
The inflation forecasts considered in the development of the RP2 SOWEPP cost-efficiency data are included within the table below. Actual data
is source Eurostat HICP, and forecasts are in line with those of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Traffic Assumptions
Traffic forecasts in the RP2 SOWEPP are in line with STATFOR February 2014 forecasts.
See section 1.5 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
15
1.3 - Stakeholder consultation
Number of Meetings
Name of meeting
Date
Type of event
Level
Stakeholders
Deadline for responses
Main issues
Actions agreed upon
Points of disagreement and reasons
Additional comments
Name of meeting
Date
Type of event
Level
Stakeholders
Deadline for responses
Main issues
Actions agreed upon
Points of disagreement and reasons
Additional comments
Name of meeting
Date
Type of event
Level
Stakeholders
Deadline for responses
Main issues
Actions agreed upon
Points of disagreement and reasons
4
Meeting #1
Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation
10th of April
European-wide consultation
Union
IATA, TAP Portugal, Lufthansa, Air France, Iberia
Cost-efficiency information and targets
Meeting #2
Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation
24th of April
European-wide consultation
Union
Aena Aeropuertos S.A., DGAC, ACETA, Ryanair, AENA, AESA
Cost-efficiency information and targets
Meeting #3
Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum
25th of April
National workshop
National
Spanish national stakeholders: Aena Aeropuertos S.A. (Airport operator), DGAC, ACETA (airline
association), Ryanair, AENA (ANSP), AESA (NSA)
Not Established
This meeting was an operational consultation, focused on capacity and environment targets.
Traffic: STATFOR low scenario forecast chosen for Spain in the SOWEPP is considered too
conservative by the users.
En-route Capacity: targets are not considered ambitious. The users think targets should not be
above 2013 actual figures (0,41 minutes of delay per flight). There is a lack of information regarding
the action plan and its contribution to the targets.
Incentive mechanism: is considered appropriate.
Terminal capacity: targets are considered quite conservative, and not consistent with actual
performance in the last few years, in particular in the case of Barcelona.
The airport operator (Aena Aeropuertos S.A.) agreed to facilitate their own traffic forecasts for the
Spanish airports within the scope of the RP2 SOWEPP, as well as their target proposal.
AENA agreed to further detail capacity and FUA information.
Main points of disagreement were focused on:
Traffic corecasts: the users found unrealistic (too low), and the main reason is current actual traffic
figures in the first three months of 2014.
Capacity targets: the users considered them very little ambitious. In particular with regard to the
terminal targets.
Additional comments
Name of meeting
Date
Type of event
Level
Meeting #4
RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation
20th of May
European-wide consultation
Union
16
Stakeholders
Deadline for responses
Main issues
Actions agreed upon
Points of disagreement and reasons
Additional comments
Staff assosiations: APROCTA
Users' assosiations and airlines: IATA, ACETA, ALA, Iberia, Ryanair
Accountable entities: ANSMET, AENA, NAV Portugal, Spanish Air Force, AESA, INAC, AEMET
Other: DGAC, Aena Aeropuertos S.A.
3 June
The RP2 SOWEPP Consultation document covered the whole content of the Performance Plans. The
consultation meeting presented all the main topics of the RP2 SOWEPP.
The final RP2 SOWEPP will be drafted by the NSAs on the basis of the consultation document and
considering the comments recieved from all the stakeholders.
Traffic forecasts: users find them very little ambitious.
Safety: users do not see an actual FAB approach, as the targets show a completely independent
evolution in Portugal and Spain.
Environment: some users consider the targets not ambitious enough. Some inconsistencies in the
content and the dates of the actions of the flight efficiency plan are raised. Users believe shorter
routes towards South America would be chosen if Canarias unit rate was lower.
Capacity targets: users do not think en-route targets are consistent with EU-wide targets. There is
information missing regarding terminal targets.
Incentive scheme: users agree that the important thing is that the target is set appropriately, so
that poor performance is not awarded. IATA believes the maximum incentive should be low (not
1%) and that the incentive formula should not be symmetrical.
Cost-efficiency: Users think targets do not represent in RP2 an evolution consisten with the EU-wide
targets. Efforts made in the past have been important for the users, but in their view further
improvement has to be done in RP2.
See Annex A of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
17
1.4 - Actions to implement the Network Strategy Plan at FAB level, and other guiding principles for the
operation of the FAB in the long-term perspective
10
Number of Actions
Development of Just Culture
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Planned date of entry into operation
Progressive implementation
Description
Common areas of interest of Just Culture during RP2. Aena action plan includes development of Just
Culture Policy, Crisis and Incicent Stress Management CISM (2015), monitoring tools (in particular ASMT
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO7/2, SO7/3
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance Common just culture policy enhancement plan at SW FAB level and improvement of safety culture MO in
targets
which AENA is currently Level C to reach Level D in 2019 and development of a common Just Culture
Additional comments
Improvement of the EoSM
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Planned date of entry into operation
Progressive implementation
Description
Improvement of effectiveness of safety management through regular planning of safety culture surveys,
implementation of a "Just Culture Policy", development of ASMT, better definition of individual safety
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO7/2, SO7/4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance All EoSM management objectives shall be Level D by 2019, except for Safey Culture, which should be at
least Level C.
targets
Additional comments
FRA (Free Route Airspace)
2015
2016
2017
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2018
X
2019
Implementatios of the Lisboa/Madrid/Brest free route airspace project
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO3, SO3/3 SO3/1, SO3/4, SO5/5
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance The extension of SWFAB FRA towards the French coast to accommodate main traffic flows into the West
Airspace Operational Block of the SW FAB airspace, creates one of the biggest Free Route Airspace in the
targets
Additional comments
Canarias TMA project
2015
2016
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2017
2018
2019
X
Implementation of a new P-RNAV based TMA in Canarias FIR to provide enough capacity and efficiency
to main traffic flows between Europe and the Canaries.
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO6/5, SO4/2, SO5/5, SO5/4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance This project enhances the efficiency in TMA operations enabling flights to operate close to user preferred
trajectories and improving the quality of ATM procedures. Also it improves the capacity.
targets
Additional comments
Madrid TMA project
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Planned date of entry into operation
Progressive implementation
Description
Design and implementation of a new P-RNAV structure for Madrid TMA, reorganisation of Madrid
approach sectors and implementation of independent parallel approaches.
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO6/5, SO4/2, SO5/5, SO5/4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance This project improves the efficiency in TMA operations, the routes design, the quality of ATM procedures
and the capacity.
targets
Additional comments
Barcelona TMA project
2015
2016
18
2017
2018
2019
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
X
Design and implementation of a new P-RNAV structure for Barcelona TMA, including a re-organisation of
ATC sectors. New SID/STARs will be introduced in Barcelona airport prior to the implementation of the P-
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO6/5, SO4/2, SO5/5, SO5/4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
This project improves the efficiency in TMA operations, the quality of ATM procedures and the capacity.
targets
Additional comments
ATS network improvements projects
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
X
Implementation of short‐term improvements agreed by the Route Network Development Sub‐Group
(RNDSG) which affect to SW FAB.
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO6
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
Impact on capacity at local level (either en-route or TMA/Airport)
targets
Additional comments
Implement Airport CDM
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2015
2016
X
X
2017
2018
2019
Implement Airport CDM in Madrid (2014), Palma (2015) and Barcelona (2016).
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO6/4, SO5/4, SO4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance The implementation of CDM consolidates the operational relationship between the actors involved in
airport and network operations minimising airport disruptions and delays, with a positive impact on
targets
Additional comments
SW FAB/Marseille FIR interface
2015
2016
2017
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2018
2019
X
Restructuration of SWFAB and Marseille interface
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO3/3
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance The restructuration of this interface will allow a better flow organisation and better transfer of traffic
targets
between the eastern part of the SWFAB airspace and FABEC airspace.
Additional comments
Casablanca Dualisation project
2015
2016
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2017
2018
2019
X
Initiative developed by SW FAB and ONDA Morocco that consisns on the split of ATS airway in the LisboaCasablanca-Canarias interface.
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO3/3
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
Acommodate main traffic flows between Europe and South Atlantic Region, including the Canary Island.
targets
Additional comments
SACTA Evolution
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Reference to NSP and evidence of
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
2015
2016
2017
Progressive implementation
2018
2019
Implementation SACTA
SO4/1, SO4/2, SO8/3
Improvement of the controller tools by improving the quality of airspace and flight plan data, and
optimisation of the use of CNS infraestructure essential to ensuring day-to-day continuos and safe ATM
19
REDAN
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Planned date of entry into operation
X
This project seeks to establish a network of quality communications between centres involved,
Description
Reference to NSP and evidence of
SO8/3
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
Increasy security and availability of communication service.
targets
Additional comments
Safety nets
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Reference to NSP and evidence of
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Progressive implementation of STCA/APW from 2015, MSAW from 2016
To reduce incidents, especially the short term conflict alert (STCA in TMA), area proximity warning (APW)
833
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Reference to NSP and evidence of
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Progressive implementation
The coordinated introduccion of air ground voice communications by reducing the channel spacing to
MODO S
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Reference to NSP and evidence of
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Progressive implementation of new radars
The future surveillance system is the evolution to a cooperative surveillance using mainly Mode S as
SO7/2
Reduction of the human contribution to risk in operations by implementing new tools enhancing Safety
of operations
SO8/1
This project allows more frequencies to service, avoiding possible delays and the increase of congestion
and associated cost and ensuring an optimised and cost-efficient use of the aeronautical radio
SO8/2
The use of the downlinked aircraft identification (Modo-S) as the primary means of identification.
SO9 - Flexible rostering and sector opening
2015
2016
scheme
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Flexible rostering and sector manegment
Reference to NSP and evidence of
Links to NSP SO9
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
SO4 - Enhanced ATFCM procedures
2015
2016
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Enhanced ATFCM procedures
Reference to NSP and evidence of
Links to NSP SO4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
SO3 - Free Route Extension
2015
2016
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Free Route Extension to SMA FIR
Reference to NSP and evidence of
Link with NSP SO3
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
SO8 -Data link
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
2015
2016
during 2016
Data link
20
2017
2018
2019
2018
2019
2017
During 2017
2018
2019
2017
2018
2019
During RP2
2017
During RP2
Reference to NSP and evidence of
Links with NSP SO8
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
SO4 Sectors redesign/split
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
during RP2
Planned date of entry into operation
Description
Vertical split of West Sector, Sectors redesign Optimisation according to Casablanca project,increase
Reference to NSP and evidence of
Links with SO4
compliance
Contribution to reaching the performance
targets
Additional comments
21
1.5 - List of airports for RP2
List of airports submitted to the Performance and Charging Regulations
6
Number of airports
IFR air transport movements
ICAO code
GCLP
LEBL
LEMD
LEMG
LEPA
LPAZ
LPFL
LPFR
LPHR
LPMA
LPPD
LPPR
LPPS
LPPT
Airport name
GRAN CANARIA
BARCELONA
MADRID BARAJAS
MALAGA
PALMA DE MALLORCA
SANTA MARIA
FLORES
FARO
HORTA
MADEIRA
PONTA DELGADA
PORTO
PORTO SANTO
LISBOA
State
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
Portugal
2011
109.123
302.923
429.204
106.523
179.779
3.188
1.343
42.194
4.385
21.750
12.062
61.114
2.991
143.040
List of airports exempted from the Performance and Charging Regulations
Additional comments
22
2012
98.759
289.885
373.079
100.738
173.307
2.630
1.202
40.829
4.113
20.366
11.903
58.621
2.715
144.142
2013
93.900
276.407
333.027
100.421
169.401
2.472
1.123
42.918
3.957
21.059
11.764
59.477
2.521
145.934
Average
100.594
289.738
378.437
102.561
174.162
2.763
1.223
41.980
4.152
21.058
11.910
59.737
2.742
144.372
SECTION 2: INVESTMENTS
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
2. INVESTMENT
2
Other annexes
AI ref.
Annex D
2.1. Description and justification of the cost, nature
and contribution to achieving the performance
targets of investments in new ATM systems and
major overhauls of existing ATM systems, including
their relevance and coherence with the European
ATM Master Plan, the common projects referred to in
Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, and, as
appropriate, the Network Strategy Plan.
2.2. The description and justification referred to in
point 2.1 shall in particular:
(i) relate the amount of the investments, for which
description and justification is given following point
2.1, to the total amount of investments;
(ii) differentiate between investments in new
systems, overhaul of existing systems and
replacement investments;
(iii) refer each investment in new ATM systems and
major overhaul of existing ATM systems to the
European ATM Master Plan, the common projects
referred to in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No
550/2004, and, as appropriate, the Network Strategy
Plan;
(iv) detail the synergies achieved at functional
airspace block level or, if appropriate, with other
Member States or functional airspace blocks, in
particular in terms of common infrastructure and
common procurement;
(v) detail the benefits expected from these
investments in terms of performance across the four
key performance areas, allocating them between the
en route and terminal/airport phases of flight, and
the date as from which benefits are expected;
(vi) provide information on the decision-making
process underpinning the investment, such as the
existence of a documented cost-benefit analysis, the
holding of user consultation, its results and any
dissenting views expressed.
23
SW FAB
2 - INVESTMENTS
Number of ANSPs
2
Aena
Number of capex
11
Name of capex 1
SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS
Airport Collaborative Decision Processes (A-CDM), Arrival Manager (AMAN), Departure Manager (DMAN), Electronic Flight Strips (EFS), DATALINK
Communications and Functional Configuration 2 (CF2).
This project brings together a set of short-term investments needed in order to complete the ongoing deployment plan of IDP projects, applicable regulations
and other local improvements.
These investments are grouped as follows:
• A‐CDM: collaboration between the different actors involved in the process of rotation of an aircraft at airports (ie. ATC, Airlines, Handling Agents and Airport
Operator).
• AMAN: coordinated sequence of arrivals that allows greater precision in the calculation of the estimated arrival time, contributing to the effectiveness of the
A-CDM and allowing a separation according to the sequence number.
• DMAN: reduces the complexity in the ATS services management and helps the performance of runways as well as the use of advanced TMA to facilitate the
management of delay because of the better flight path accuracy (PBN), and the use of a dynamic sectorisation to improve the management of flows in both en
route and TMA.
• EFS: replaces the flight progress strips for electronic flight strips, removing the printers of flight strips and allowing free assignment of roles without physical
limitations.
• DATALINK: (Commission Regulation (EC) 29/2009) Controller‐pilot communication via datalink.
• CF2: Associated to DATALINK, adds updated and additional information to flight labels, leading to better situational awareness and allowing controllers to
foresee conflicts by reducing their workload in annotation of levels.
Description
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
A-CDM, Initial DMAN, AMAN en route interface, Electronic Flight Strips (EFS) in relation with CWP and Electronic Flight Strips, AG DATA LINK
European Master Plan objectives: AOP05, ATC07.1, ITY-AGDL, ITY-COTR, ATC17
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
24
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Yes
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Impact
Expected benefits per KPA
Safety
Yes
EFS: Improves the ATCOs’ situational awareness regarding flights, resulting in
increased operational safety and service quality.
CF2: Reduces ATCOs’ workload.
DATALINK: Ensures the integrity of transmitted data, resulting in the safety of
operations and allows ADS-C/ADS-B surveillance to be incorporated,
improving safety
Environment
No
KPA
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
No
Name of capex 2
A-CDM: Improvement in arrival process and punctuality by having a shared
and optimal arrival time.
AMAN: Improves the accuracy of the calculation of the estimated time of
arrival and sequence information available to all ATCOs, including delays
information.
EFS: Improves the ATCOs’ situational awareness regarding flights, resulting in
increased operational safety and service quality and improves the quality
indicators monitoring by the airport.
CF2: Reduces ATCOs’ workload.
DATALINK: Allows the planner ATCO to assume non-strategic functions based
on data link, freeing the executive ATCO of certain tasks, allowing an increase
in capacity
Date of expected
benefits
2017
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
CF2: En-route / Terminal
DATALINK: En-route / Terminal
A-CDM, AMAN, EFS: Terminal/Airport
CF2, DATALINK: En-route / Terminal
Description
SURVEILLANCE EVOLUTION – Mode-S, ADS-B
The future surveillance system is the evolution to a cooperative surveillance using mainly Mode-S with ADS-B as a supporting feature to traditional surveillance
Radar.
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
No
25
European Master Plan objective: ITY-SPI
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 3
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Area
Date of expected
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
benefits
Provides additional information to the air traffic control system about the
Progressively from En-route
short-term intention of aircrafts and increases operational safety.
the implementation
of the new radars in En-route
each location.
Reduces the congestion of the radio-electric area, reducing the appearance of
En-route
garbling, one of the main problems of using SSR information and increases
airspace capacity by selective interrogation
Expected benefits per KPA
Multilateration of Extended Area allows, at low cost, to cover areas close to
airports
REDAN – Data Network
This project seeks to establish a network of quality communications between centres involved, facilitating also future system expansions.
Description
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Terminal
Overhaul of
existing system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
PENS/SWIM
European Master Plan objectives: COM09, COM10 contributing also to IDP project implementation.
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
26
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 4
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Increases security of communications services
Date of expected
benefits
2018
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route / Terminal
Increases availability of communications services
En-route / Terminal
Provides increased capacity for the deployment of other planned projects
En-route / Terminal
Description
833 – Communication Channels
The EU 1079/2012 Regulation lays down requirements for the coordinated introduction of air-ground voice communications by reducing the channel spacing
to 8.33 kHz below FL195 flight level.
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
No
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
European Master Plan objective: ITY-AGVCS2
EU 1079/2012 Regulation
Availability of new frequencies in the area.
In the SOWEPP context
27
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
No
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
No
Name of capex 5
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Allows more frequencies to service, avoiding possible delays and the increase Benefits already in En-Route / Terminal
of congestion and associated costs.
place in places
where 8,33
compatible
equipment is in use.
Complete
implementation
expected by 2019.
Description
COMETA – Voice over Internet Protocol
The COMETA Project implements a new IP Voice Communications System, with the aim of having a homogeneous solution with voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) in all ACCs.
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Overhaul of
existing system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
No
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
European Master Plan objective: COM11
In the SOWEPP context
28
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
No
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Replaces obsolete equipment with an improvement in costs and capacity.
Reduces operating costs.
Name of capex 6
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Progressively along En-route
with the equipment
deployment in the En-route
units.
iTEC – Flight Data Processing
From the SACTA 3.5 Operation Mode (in phase of operational implementation), which supports the management of Tactics and Transfers authorizations and
operation using Data Link, the concept of operation SACTA 4 will be developed with tools that improve strategic ATC processes, aligned with the iTEC common
requirements for flight data processing.
ANSP
Description
Accountable entity
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
No
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
Yes
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
KPA
European Master Plan objectives: FCM03, ITY-FMTP
Yes
The evolution of iTEC is linked to regulatory requirements arising from Plan iTEC-FDP.
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Impact
29
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Safety
Yes
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
No
Name of capex 7
Incorporates risk management functionalities which contribute to improve
safety.
After 2019, when
En-Route
new concept is fully
implemented
Improves capacity by reducing the number of air traffic control tactical
interventions.
After 2019, when
En-Route
new concept is fully
implemented
Description
SAFETY NETS – STCA, APW, MSAW
An important element in reducing incidents is the Safety Nets project, especially the short term conflict alert (STCA in TMA), area proximity warning (APW) to
reduce penetrations in airspace without authorization and the minimum safe altitude warning (MSAW) to reduce CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain).
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
European Master Plan objectives: ATC02.2, ATC02.5, ATC02.6, ATC02.7
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Safety Nets (STCA, APW, MSW, APM)
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
No
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Reduces the number of incidents due to proximity infringements.
30
Date of expected
benefits
From 2015-2016
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route / Terminal
Capacity
No
Cost efficiency
No
Name of capex 8
PBN PLAN – Performance Navigation
Procedures for precision navigation in the main TMAs.
The concept of area navigation (Area Navigation RNAV) permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path based on the automatic determination of the
position of the aircraft by aircraft equipment from the information received from ground systems and / or satellite.
ANSP
Description
Accountable entity
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
European Master Plan objectives: NAV03, NAV10
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
RNP Approach and PRNAV in TMAs
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
One of the projects planned to be developed within the SW FAB includes the reorganization of Canaries TMA, Madrid TMA, Barcelona
TMA, Faro TMA (new CNS infrastructure to develop P-RNAV procedures) and Lisbon TMA (terminal area will be restructured taking
advantage of P-RNAV)
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
More direct and efficient routes
More flexible routes
Take advantage of the benefits of on-board equipment currently available and
reduce the need to maintain routes and procedures based on specific sensors,
with its associated costs
31
Area
Date of expected
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
benefits
Local improvements Terminal Area
according to
Terminal Area
implementation
plan
Terminal Area
En-route / Terminal
Name of capex 9
CWP – Controller Working Position
The objective is to define a common position control iTEC based on common Operation Mode and HMI for AENA, DFS, NATS and LVNL.
Description
ANSP
Accountable entity
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Overhaul of
existing system
Differentiation
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
No
Joint investment
Yes
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 10
Electronic Flight Strips (EFS) in relation with CWP and Electronic Flight Strip
Evolution of Controller Working Position in line with iTEC requirements
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Expected benefits per KPA
Improvement of the controller working capabilities (ergonomics,
communication needs, auxiliary information, etc)
Contributes to reduction of controller workload
The CWP responds to a decrease of manufacturing, installation and
maintenance costs
Area
Date of expected
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
benefits
In line with the last En-route
phase of iTEC
project, beyond RP2
framework
En-route
En-route
Description
ICARO – Aeronautical information
The ICARO system automates the management of aeronautical information NOTAM as air navigation services provider, integrating in a single framework all the
operational information required for the aeronautical user.
Accountable entity
ANSP
32
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Overhaul of
existing system
Differentiation
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
Future requirements from international regulation and required performance, including EU 73/2010 on aeronautical data integrity (ADQ).
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
No
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
No
Name of capex 11
Aeronautical Information Exchange.
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Accuracy and integrity of data.
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
All
Improvement of aeronautical information quality.
All
Expected benefits per KPA
Date of expected
benefits
Description
PROJECT FACILITATORS
This project brings together a group of investments that, serve as a tool or facilitator to achieve the goals of the European ATM Master plan, mainly formed by
the integration of the navigation infrastructures management and control, Safety improvements, Airspace Management improvements and Simulation.
Accountable entity
ANSP
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Overhaul of
existing system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
No
33
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
No
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Yes
Decision-making process
Name of investment
In the SOWEPP context
According to AENA’s AN internal process related to ATM/CNS Projects Management (process S22‐06), once the initial proposal is submitted
by any business unit that detects a need, an initial study is prepared indicating the relevance of cost-benefit analysis and the possible
association with SES interoperability regulation, being subsequently approved by the Services Committee or the Air Navigation Steering
Committee.
Yes
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Expected benefits per KPA
Contributes to the achievement of the other main projects objectives so the
expected benefits apply to all KPAs to which they contribute
2015
SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS
SURVEILLANCE EVOLUTION –
Mode-S, ADS-B
REDAN – Data Network
833 – Communication
Channels
COMETA – Voice over Internet
Protocol
iTEC – Flight Data Processing
SAFETY NETS – STCA, APW,
MSAW
PBN PLAN – Performance
Navigation
CWP – Controller Working
ICARO – Aeronautical
Lifecycle
(Amortisation
period in years)
Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in national currency)
Total CAPEX for the project (in RP2)
2016
2017
2018
Area
Date of expected
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
benefits
Progressively
En-route / Terminal
according to the
other main projects
implementation
2019
Allocation en
route / terminal
ANS (%)
Planned date of
entry into
operation (IOC /
FOC dates)
7,2
6,3
0,9
0,0
0,0
0,0
12 (i)
2016
17,8
2,6
3,8
3,5
3,8
4,1
12 (i)
N/A (v)
16,1
5,5
4,6
4,7
0,8
0,6
12 (i)
2017
11,4
1,8
3,2
3,5
2,9
0,0
12 (i)
2018
42,8
4,8
10,7
9,3
9,1
8,8
12 (i)
N/A (iv)
50,8
4,4
8,0
10,6
13,7
14,1
12 (i)
N/A (ii)
0,4
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
12 (i)
N/A (iii)
4,3
1,1
0,8
0,8
0,8
0,9
12 (i)
N/A (iv)
1,5
5,3
0,0
1,3
0,0
1,3
0,5
1,0
0,5
1,0
0,6
0,8
12 (i)
12 (i)
2019+
34
PROJECT FACILITATORS
91,6
21,8
16,5
15,8
17,3
20,1
PROJECT FACILITATORS - CNS
and automation
infrastructures
64,5
16,6
11,4
11,6
9,1
15,7
PROJECT FACILITATORS - Other
27,1
5,2
5,1
4,2
8,2
4,4
249,2
49,8
49,8
49,6
50,0
50,0
127,5
376,6
25,8
75,5
25,7
75,5
25,5
75,1
25,4
75,3
25,2
75,2
Sub-total of main capex above
(1)
Sub-total other Capex (2)
Total capex (1) + (2)
18 (i)
N/A
Additional comments
(i) Different investments of each project have different amortisation period; given value corresponds to the maximum lifecycle.
(ii) Progressive implementation new SACTA versions.
(iii) Progressive implementation of STCA/APW (from 2015), MSAW (from 2016).
(iv) Progressively from the implementation in each new location.
(v) Progressive implementation of new radars in each location.
In global terms, contribution of CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan deployment corresponds to a 66.2% of the total investment planned for RP2 (249,2 MEUR out from 376,6 MEUR in nominal terms).
This contribution is dedicated to the projects defined in order to address the implementation of Master Plan / ESSIP / IDP objectives, as well as to the enabling activities which support / facilitate the accomplishment of these projects.
NAV Portugal
(Continental)
8
Number of capex
Name of capex 1
Description
Accountable entity
LISATM V9.2
The project scope is the introduction of new functionalities on the existing Lisbon ACC ATM system to accommodate AMAN (2014) and RAM (Route Adherence
Monitoring) monitoring aids (MONA). The ATM system will be also upgraded to include CPDLC for Route Sectors and Pre-Departure Clearance on the ALS and
electronic flight strips to accommodate the Lisbon Airport/Terminal traffic.
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Overhaul of
existing system
Replacement investment
No
Common project
Yes
Introduction of new functionalities on the existing ACC ATM system
AF: AF # 1 - Extended AMAN and PBN in high density TMAs; AF # 2 - Airport Integration and Throughput Functionalities
IDP: SWP5.2.1 and WP4
35
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Click to select
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 2
ESSIP Objectives: ATC07.1 Implement arrival manager tools; ATC 15 Implement, in En-Route operations, information exchange
mechanisms, tools and procedures in support of Basic AMAN operations
Master Plan: [TS-0102]-Basic Arrival Management Supporting TMA Improvements (incl. CDA, PRNAV); [TS-0305]-Arrival Management
Extended to En Route Airspace
Linked to the SW FAB project ref "WP 5.1 ATM.1 ATM IR CONFORMITY".
Expected benefits per KPA
EFS and AMAN: Improves the ATCOs’ situational awareness regarding flights,
resulting in increased operational safety and service quality.
AMAN: Reduced holding and low level vectoring has a positive environmental
effect in terms of noise and fuel usage.
AMAN: Improves airport/TMA capacity by the calculation accuracy of the
estimated time of arrival and sequence information available to all ATCOs,
Reduced costs through reduction in delays.
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route and Terminal
Terminal
2015
En-route and Terminal
Terminal
Lisbon ACC New System
Description
The project scope is the replacement of Lisbon ACC ATM system in line with the SES/SESAR deployment requirements.
The ATM system will Integrate an FDP and a new Middleware in the LISATM. This system will be compliant with the Single Sky interoperability requirements
and will include a set of new functionalities as:
• SYSCO; Advanced TP; MTCD; DMAN; MSAW
The new ATM system will also have a new system architecture:
• Two synchronized central systems located in different sites
• The ATC positions of all Lisbon FIR ATC Units connected to both central systems.
With the introduction of the new system the operational controller working positions will be changed to take advantage of the new system capabilities as well
to reduce de electrical consumption and cooling required by the system hardware.
In order to avoid major risks (technological, training, development, etc.) the large number of functionalities of the new ATM system are planned to be
delivered in different phases.
Accountable entity
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
New system
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
Yes
Installation of new ACC ATM system
AF#3 Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route;
36
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
ESSIP Objectives: ATC02.6 Implement ground based safety nets - Minimum Safe Altitude Warning - level 2, ATC02.7 Implement ground
based safety nets - Approach Path Monitor - level 2, ATC07.1 Implement arrival management tools, ATC12 Implement automated support
for conflict detection and conformance monitoring.
Master Plan steps: [CM-0801]-Ground Based Safety Nets (TMA, En Route), [CM-0202]-Automated Assistance to ATC Planning for Preventing
Conflicts in EnRoute Airspace; [CM-0203]-Automated Flight Conformance Monitoring.
Joint investment
Yes
The investment will deployed in collaboration with others ANSP to deliver a system with a common core to share costs and risk and provide
a seamless platform across several European ANSPs.
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
See above.
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Name of capex 3
Description
Accountable entity
Expected benefits per KPA
Impact
Yes
Date of expected
benefits
The systematic presentation to the controller of possible infringements of,
eminent and unauthorized penetrations into airspace volumes, and minimum
safe altitude ahead of their occurrence and of deviations from the glide path
as provided by MSAW and APM are major safety assurance functions. Early
and systematic conflict detection reduces the need for tactical interventions.
SYSCO improve the integrity of communication during the coordination.
AMAN reduces holding and low level vectoring with a positive environmental
effect in terms of noise and fuel usage.
The inclusion of some advance functionalities as SYSCO, Advanced TP, DMAN
and MTCD will increase system automation will contribute to a reduction of
controller workload and improve the en-route, TMA and airport capacities.
Early conflict detection will enable smother flight courses without frequent
and sudden control interventions. This will have a moderate influence on
airline costs and moderate benefit for ANSPs due to reduced workload per
aircraft and better workload distribution. DMAN will allow cost reduction
through reduction in delays. In addition, the new system architecture used in
the ATM system will reduce deployment and maintenance costs.
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route/ Terminal
Terminal
2020
En-route/ Terminal
En-route/ Terminal
Comunication systems
The project scope is the replacement of air.ground and ground-ground communications systems in several ATS units in the Lisbon FIR as well on external
communication stations.
Includes:
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
37
Overhaul of
existing system
Differentiation
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
Yes
Replacement and overhaul of communications systems in several ATS units in the Lisbon FIR as well on external communication stations.
AF: #5 iSWIM functionality, AF#6 Initial Trajectory Information Sharing (towards i4D);
IDP: 4.1 DataLink Technological update; 4.2 DataLink Operational activities; 5.1 OLDI migration from X.25 to IP; 5.2 Complementary OLDI
messages
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
ESSIP Objectives: COM09-Migrate ground international or regional X.25 data networks or services to the Internet Protocol (IP), COM11 Implementation of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in ATM, ITY-AGVCS2 Implement air-ground voice channel spacing requirements
below FL195;
Master Plan steps: [CTE-C8]-Digital voice/VoIP for ground telephony, [CTE-C5]-8.33 kHz Voice communications Air-Ground, [CTE-C11a]Extend PENS to support the SESAR testing and validation activities, [CTE-C11b]-Expand the network communication services offered by
PENS and enlarge the scope to other non-ANSP users (within and outside ECAC).
Parts of the project are linked to the SW FAB projects ref "WP 5.1 ATM.1 ATM IR CONFORMITY", "WP 6.1 CNS.1 DATALINK", "WP 6.2 CNS.2
Evolution of the Aeronautical Messaging Networks (AMHS", "WP 6.3 CNS.3 IP INTERCONNECTION"
Expected benefits per KPA
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Various
En-route/Terminal
VoIP: Maintained or improved by providing enhanced signalisation functions.
VoIP: Enabler for dynamic sectorisations.
VoIP: Maintained or improved by providing enhanced signalisation functions.
Prerequisite of dynamic sectorisation through
dynamic allocation of voice resources.
AGVCS2: Increased capacity by satisfying the demand for new frequency
assignments in the VHF band.
VoIP: Reduced costs by reusing Internet off the shelf technologies that can be
based on standard hardware.
Name of capex 4
Navigation systems
Description
The project scope includes the installation of new ILS systems (or the replacement of old systems) in the Oporto, Lisbon and Faro airport. The project will also
include the replacement of aging en-route navigation stations and then installation of navaids in the Porto TMA to support PRNAV operations.
Accountable entity
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Overhaul of
existing system
See capex description.
38
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
Yes
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 5
Description
Accountable entity
AF#3 Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route
ESSIP Objective: NAV03 - Implementation of P-RNAV;
Master Plan step: [AOM-0601]-Terminal Airspace Organisation Adapted through Use of Best Practice.
Parts of the project are linked to the SW FAB projects ref "WP 3.X TMA´s PROJECT"
Expected benefits per KPA
PRNAV: Increase safety of flight operations by increased situational awareness
and indirect benefit to both ATC and pilot through
PRNAV: Emissions and noise nuisance reduced by use of optimal flight
procedures and routings.
PRNAV: Indirect benefit by enabling optimisation of En-Route and terminal
airspace.
PRNAV: Fuel cost reduction through optimised routes and TMA procedures.
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
2019
En-route/Terminal/Airport
NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM
The Project will install two surveillance multilateration networks in the extremes North and South of the Lisbon FIR.
The project objectives are the coverage improvement of the North/Northeast region of the mainland at low altitudes, not guaranteed with the current
systems, and ensure double surveillance coverage in the Madeira sector.
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Date of expected
benefits
New system
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
No
See capex description.
ESSIP Objective: ITY-SPI Surveillance performance and interoperability.
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
39
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Click to select
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Linked to the SW FAB projects ref "WP 6.4 CNS.4 SURVEILLANCE IP" and "WP 6.7 CNS.7 NEW SURVEILLANCE SENSORS SHARING".
Expected benefits per KPA
Date of expected
benefits
Improved safety through the deployment of surveillance in areas/levels not
currently covered.
2015-2016
Potential for capacity increase through the deployment of surveillance in an
area (Madeira sector) currently with a single radar coverage.
2015-2016
Facilitate the deployment of the most efficient surveillance solution.
2015-2016
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route
En-route
En-route
Name of capex 6
Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement
Description
The project scope is the replacement of the Lisbon Terminal approach radar station (PSR & MSSR), with more than 15 operation years for a new Mode S and
PSR sensors.
Accountable entity
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Click to select
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
No
ESSIP objective: ITY-SPI Surveillance performance and interoperability;
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
No
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
See capex description.
Expected benefits per KPA
Impact
40
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Name of capex 7
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
2017
En-route/Terminal
Reduction of costs in the support of equipment at end of life cycle.
SSR Mode S
The project scope is the replacement of several secondary monopulse radar stations (MSSR), with more than 15 operation years for Mode S radar sensors.
Description
NAV Portugal
Accountable entity
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Overhaul of
existing system
Differentiation
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
No
The replacement of aging conventional SSR Radar stations with Mode-S Radars will allow the congestion reduction of the radio-electric
area, lowering the garbling.
ESSIP objective: ITY-SPI Surveillance performance and interoperability;
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Radar information of some NAV Portugal stations is shared with Spain (AENA), Morocco (ONDA) and the Portuguese Military.
Linked to the SW FAB projects ref "WP 6.4 CNS.4 SURVEILLANCE IP" and "WP 6.5 CNS.5 NEW RADARS SHARING".
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
Date of expected
benefits
Various
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
En-route
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
Various
En-route
Assurance of the current level maintenance.
Various
En-route
Reduction of costs in the support of equipment at end of life cycle.
Various
En-route
Expected benefits per KPA
41
Name of capex 8
Buildings and electromechanical systems
Description
Facilities' maintenance (ACC, TWRs and external stations) in the Lisbon FIR of ATM to keep the buildings operationality, with the technical upgrade of
installations as well the compliance with the regulations (security, environment, etc.)
Accountable entity
NAV Portugal
Justification of the cost, nature and contribution
Differentiation
Name of investment
New system
Replacement investment
Yes
Common project
No
Facilitate's master plan indirect support by their ancillary role to the ATM and CNS systems.
Other investment (in line with
interoperability Regulations, the IDP,
Master Plan essentials or the NSP)
Yes
Joint investment
No
Synergies achieved at FAB level or other
MS
Yes
Some of the external stations to be maintened are shared (Radar and A/G stations) with Spain (AENA), Morocco (ONDA) and the
Portuguese Military.
Consultation with stakeholders
Click to select
Decision-making process
Click to select
KPA
Impact
Safety
Yes
Environment
Yes
Capacity
Yes
Cost efficiency
Yes
Date of expected
benefits
Area
<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases
Contribution to the achievement of the other main project's objectives so the
expected benefits apply to all KPAs to which they contribute.
Contribution to the achievement of the other main project's objectives so the
expected benefits apply to all KPAs to which they contribute.
Contribution to the achievement of the other main project's objectives so the
expected benefits apply to all KPAs to which they contribute.
Contribution to the achievement of the other main project's objectives so the
expected benefits apply to all KPAs to which they contribute.
Various
En-route/Terminal
Lifecycle
(Amortisation
period in years)
Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in national currency)
Total CAPEX for the project
2015
LISATM V9.2
Lisbon ACC New System
Comunication systems
Navigation systems
Expected benefits per KPA
0,8
20,1
4,6
8,5
2016
2017
0,6
2,1
1,6
2018
0,2
4,5
0,5
1,4
7,4
1,4
42
2019
1,7
0,3
1,9
6,5
0,3
3,6
8
8
8 to 10
8 to 10
Allocation en
route / terminal
ANS (%)
100%/95%/5%
various
various
Planned date of
entry into
operation (IOC /
FOC dates)
2015/2017
2020/2020+
various
various
NORMAW - Norte e Madeira
WAM
Lisbon Terminal approach
Radar replacement
SSR Mode S
Buildings and
electromechanical systems
Sub-total of main capex above
(1)
Sub-total other Capex (2)
Total capex (1) + (2)
2,6
2,6
10
100%/-
2015/2016
4,9
0,5
2,0
2,4
8
100%/-
2017
8,2
0,4
3,8
0,3
2,7
1,0
10
100%/-
various
4,0
0,9
1,7
0,6
0,4
0,4
10
various
various
53,7
8,7
16,3
9,9
7,0
11,8
0,5
54,2
0,1
8,8
0,3
16,6
0,0
9,9
0,0
7,0
0,1
11,9
Additional comments
Some investments of have a different amortisation period; given their nature and lifecycle.
Several CAPEX have progressive implementation, as the new Lisbon ACC ATM versions, radars in each location, as well on the buildings and electromechanical systems.
Several CAPEX (e.g. comunications, navigation, buildings) have different allocation route / terminal considering the services provided (progressive implementation, as the new Lisbon ACC ATM versions, radars in each location, as well
onm the buildings and electromechanical systems.
43
SECTION 3: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
3. PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL
3
3.1. Performance targets in each key performance
area, set by reference to each key performance
indicator as set out in Annex I, Section 2, for the
entire reference period, with annual values to be
used for monitoring and incentive purposes:
3.2. Description and explanation of the consistency
of the performance targets with the relevant Unionwide performance targets. When there is no Unionwide performance target, description and
explanation of the targets within the plan and how
they contribute to the improvement of the
performance of the European ATM network.
3.1
3.1.(a).(i)
AI ref.
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 e)
RT 1 (All)
AI 4 a)
3.1.(a). (ii)
3.1.(a). (iii)
3.1.(a). (iv)
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
3.1.(b).(iii)
3.1.(c).(i)
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv)
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
3.3. Description and explanation of the
interdependencies and trade-offs between the key
performance areas, including the assumptions used
to assess the trade-offs.
3.4. Contribution of each air navigation service
provider concerned to the achievement of the
performance targets set for the functional airspace
block in accordance with Article 5(2)(c)(ii).
3.3
3.1.(a).(i)
3.1.(a). (ii)
3.1.(a). (iii)
3.1.(a). (iv)
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
3.1.(b).(iii)
3.1.(c).(i)
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv)
44
Other annexes
SECTION 3.1.(a): SAFETY KPA
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
(a) Safety
3.1.(a)
(i) level of effectiveness of safety management: local 3.1.(a).(i)
targets for each year of the reference period;
3.1.(a). (ii)
(ii) application of the severity classification based
on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology: local
targets for each year of the reference period
(percentage);
(iii) just culture: local targets for the last year of the 3.1.(a). (iii)
reference period.
3.1.(a). (iv) Optional section Additional Safety
KPI(s)
45
AI ref.
Other annexes
3 - PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL
3.1 - Key Performance Areas
3.1.(a) - Safety
3.1.(a).(i) - Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management
2015
Target
-
2016
Target
-
2017
Target
-
2018
Target
-
2019
Target
C
-
-
-
-
C
D
Regulatory authorities
B
B
Description of the consistency between local and Union- Targets are fully consistent.
wide targets
Not applicable.
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
B
B
C
ANSPs (for Safety Culture MO)
C
C
ANSPs (for all other Mos)
C
C
Description of the consistency between local and Union- Targets are fully consistent.
wide targets
Not applicable.
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
C
C
C
C
D
D
Select Number of States >>
2
C
B
C
C
C
D
D
E
D
C
D
D
Union-wide targets at State level
Union-wide targets For Safety Culture MO
at ANSP level
For all other MOs
FAB level
National level
Portugal
Spain
B
B
B
B
2
Select Number of ANSPs for Safety Culture MO >>
National level
AENA
NAV Portugal
C
D
C
D
C
D
2
Select Number of ANSPs for all other MOs >>
National level
B
B
AENA
NAV Portugal
D
C
Additional comments
See section 2.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
46
D
C
D
C
3.1.(a).(ii) - Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology
2015
Target
-
Ground Score
Union-wide targets
SMIs
Ris
ATM-S
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
FAB level
Description of the consistency between local and Union-wide targets
2016
Target
-
2017
Target
>= 80%
>= 80%
>= 80%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Targets are fully consistent.
NAV Portugal
90%
90%
90%
95%
95%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2
Select Number of ANSPs >>
National level
2019
Target
100%
100%
100%
Not applicable.
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
Aena
2018
Target
-
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
Additional comments
See section 2.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
2015
Target
-
Overall Score
Union-wide targets
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
FAB level
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
Description of the consistency between local and Union-wide targets
2016
Target
-
2017
Target
>= 80%
>= 80%
>= 80%
40%
60%
25%
53%
53%
65%
Targets are fully consistent.
Spain
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
85%
80%
80%
100%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
90%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
100%
80%
80%
100%
2
Select Number of States >>
National level
2019
Target
>= 80%
>= 80%
100%
Not applicable.
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
Portugal
2018
Target
>= 80%
>= 80%
-
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
SMIs
RIs
ATM-S
20%
20%
80%
60%
30%
25%
Additional comments
See section 2.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
47
50%
50%
80%
70%
55%
50%
3.1.(a).(iii) - Safety KPI #3: Just Culture
2019 Target
Have you established a common FAB approach in certain areas for Just Culture improvements?
Regulatory authorities
NO
If YES, please specify details and level of presence. If NO, please specify any impediments, intent for
common FAB approach.
The establishment of a common SW FAB approach among the NSAs on just culture is on-going as
part of the target for RP2.
FAB level
Have you established a common FAB approach in certain areas for Just Culture improvements?
ANSPs
NO
If YES, please specify details and level of presence. If NO, please specify any impediments, intent for
common FAB approach.
The establishment of a common SW FAB approach among the ANSPs on just culture is on-going as
part of the target for RP2. NAV Portugal and AENA, although with different maturity levels
regarding Just Culture have agreed to work on common policy and targets for this KPI at the FAB
level.
2
Number of States
Portugal
What actions have you undertaken to optimise Just Culture?
See additional information.
National level
Spain
What actions have you undertaken to optimise Just Culture?
See additional information.
2
Number of ANSPs
Aena
What actions have you undertaken to optimise Just Culture?
See additional information.
National level
NAV Portugal
What actions have you undertaken to optimise Just Culture?
See additional information.
Additional comments
See section 2.3 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
48
3.1.(a).(iv) - Optional section - Additional Safety KPI(s)
Number of additional Safety KPIs
Click to select number of additional KPIs
49
SECTION 3.1.(b): ENVIRONMENT KPA
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
(b) Environment
3.1.(b)
(i) description of the process to improve route
design;
(ii) average horizontal en route flight efficiency of
the actual trajectory.
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)
3.1.(b).(iii) Optional section Additional
Environment KPI(s)
50
AI ref.
Other annexes
SW FAB
3.1.(b) - Environment
3.1.(b).(i) & (ii) - Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
Union-wide targets
2015
Value
-
2016
Value
-
2017
Value
-
2018
Value
-
2019
Target
2,60%
FAB reference values
3,85%
3,71%
3,57%
3,43%
3,28%
FAB level
3,85%
3,71%
3,57%
3,43%
3,28%
SOWEPP targets for RP2 are fully in line with the reference values proposed by the Network
Description of the consistency between FAB targets Manager, and are hence considered an adequate contribution to the achievement of the EU-wide
and FAB reference values
targets.
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
ANSP contribution to local targets
Not applicable.
The ANSPs contribute to the achievement of the targets set at FAB level throught the
implementation of the actions of the flight efficiency plan they ar accountable for.
Description of the process to improve route design
See section 3 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
Additional comments
See section 3 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
51
3.1.(a).(iii) - Optional section - Additional Environment KPI(s)
Click to select number of additional KPIs
Number of additional Environment KPIs
52
SECTION 3.1.(c): CAPACITY KPA
Mapping between the PRB FAB performance plan template and the Annex II of EU Regulation 390/2013
Link with PRB template
Structure of ANNEX II of Regulation 390/2013
Level 1'
Level2'
FAB PP
FAB PP
FAB PP - Annex C
Other annexes
RT ref.
(c) Capacity
3.1.(c)
(i) minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight; 3.1.(c).(i)
(ii) minutes of average terminal ATFM arrival delay
per flight;
(iii) the capacity plan established by the air
navigation service provider(s).
3.1.(c).(ii)
3.1.(c).(iii)
3.1.(c).(iv) - Optional
section - Additional
Capacity KPI(s)
53
AI ref.
SW FAB
3.1.(c) - Capacity
3.1.(c).(i) - Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight
2015
Value
0,50
2016
Value
0,50
2017
Value
0,50
2018
Value
0,50
2019
Target
0,50
FAB reference values
0,30
0,31
0,31
0,30
0,30
FAB level
Description of the consistency between FAB targets and FAB
reference values
0,52
0,52
0,52
0,52
0,52
Union-wide targets
Detailed justification in case of inconsistency
See section 4.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document. Additional justifications are
provided as responses to the consutlation process, as summarised in section 11 of
the RP2 SOWEPP document.
Select Number of ANSPs >>
Aena
National level
2
0,48
0,48
0,48
See section 4.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document
0,48
0,48
ANSP contribution to FAB targets
NAV Portugal (Continental)
ANSP contribution to FAB targets
0,20
0,20
0,20
See section 4.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
0,20
0,20
Additional comments
See section 4.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
54
SW FAB
3.1.(c).(ii) - Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
Number of States
2
Portugal
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Value
Value
Value
Value
Target
National level
0,60
0,60
0,60
0,60
0,60
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,75
0,75
0,75
0,02
0,02
0,02
Contribution to the improvement of the European ATM network performance
Number of airports
Airport level
2
LPPT (LISBOA)
Airport contribution to national targets
LPPR (PORTO)
Airport contribution to national targets
Others*
Airport contribution to national targets
0,5
0,5
For monitoring purposes only.
0,75
0,75
For monitoring purposes only.
0,02
0,02
For monitoring purposes only.
Additional comments
See section 4.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP
Spain
National level
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Value
Value
Value
Value
Target
0,80
0,80
0,80
0,80
0,80
Contribution to the improvement of the European ATM network performance
Number of airports
Airport level
5
GCLP (GRAN CANARIA)
Airport contribution to national targets
LEBL (BARCELONA)
Airport contribution to national targets
LEMD (MADRID BARAJAS)
Airport contribution to national targets
LEMG (MALAGA)
Airport contribution to national targets
LEPA (PALMA DE MALLORCA)
Airport contribution to national targets
0,32
0,32
For monitoring purposes only.
0,91
0,91
For monitoring purposes only.
0,83
0,83
For monitoring purposes only.
0,11
0,11
For monitoring purposes only.
1,29
1,29
For monitoring purposes only.
Additional comments
See section 4.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP
55
0,32
0,32
0,32
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,83
0,83
0,83
0,11
0,11
0,11
1,29
1,29
1,29
3.1.(c).(iii) - Capacity Plans
In order to avoid duplication, Member States will not be requested to attach ANSPs capacity plans when submitting the performance plans, for
as long as they are already available to the PRB and the Commission. In any case, they are an integral part of the FAB performance plans.
A summary of the capacity plans for Portugal and Spain included in the 2014-2018/19 European Network Operations Plan is provided in section
4.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
56
3.1.(c).(iv) - Optional section - Additional Capacity KPI(s)
Number of additional Capacity KPIs
Click to select number of additional KPIs
57
SECTION 3.1.(d): COST-EFFICIENCY KPA
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
(d) Cost-efficiency
3.1.(d)
(i) determined costs for en route and terminal air
navigation services set in accordance with the
provisions of Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation
(EC) No 550/2004 and in application of the
provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No
391/2013 for each year of the reference period;
(ii) en route and terminal service units forecast for
each year of the reference period;
3.1.(d).1.A
3.1.(d).2.A
3.1.(d).1.A
AI ref.
RT 1 (5.4)
3.1.(d).2.A
3.1.(d).1.C
3.1.(d).2.C
(iii) as a result, the determined unit costs for the
reference period;
3.1.(d).1.A
RT 1 (5.5)
3.1.(d).2.A
(iv) description and justification of the return on
equity of the air navigation service providers
concerned, as well as on the gearing ratio and on the
level/composition of the asset base used to
calculate the cost of capital comprised in the
determined costs;
(v) description and explanation of the carry-overs
from the years preceding the reference period;
(vi) description of economic assumptions, including: 3.1.(d).1.B
RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6)
AI 1 e)
RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6)
AI 3 c), d), e)
RT 1 (5.1-5.2)
3.1.(d).2.B
— inflation assumptions used in the plan as
compared to an international source such as the
IMF (International Monetary Fund) Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the forecasts and Eurostat
Harmonised Index of Consumer Price for the actuals.
Justification of any deviation from these sources,
— assumptions underlying the calculation of
pension costs comprised in the determined costs,
including a description on the relevant national
pension regulations and pension accounting
regulations in place and on which the assumptions
are based, as well as information whether changes
of these regulations are anticipated,
— interest rate assumptions for loans financing the
provision of air navigation services, including
relevant information on loans (amounts, duration,
etc.) and explanation for the (weighted) average
interest on debt used to calculate the cost of capital
pre tax rate and the cost of capital comprised in the
determined costs,
— adjustments beyond the provisions of the
International Accounting Standards;
(vii) if applicable, description in respect to the
previous reference period of relevant events and
circumstances set out in Article 14(2)(a) of
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 using the
criteria set out in Article 14(2)(b) of Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 including an
assessment of the level, composition and
justification of costs exempt from the application of
Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Implementing Regulation
(EU) No 391/2013;
(viii) if applicable, a description of any significant
restructuring planned during the reference period
including the level of restructuring costs and a
justification for these costs in relation to the net
benefits to the airspace users over time;
(ix) if applicable, restructuring costs approved from
previous reference periods to be recovered.
AI 4 b)
RT 1 (3.7)
AI 4 c)
AI 1 Item c)
58
RT 3 (3.1-3.12)
AI 3 b)
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 d)
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 e)
Other annexes
restructuring planned during the reference period
including the level of restructuring costs and a
justification for these costs in relation to the net
benefits to the airspace users over time;
(ix) if applicable, restructuring costs approved from
previous reference periods to be recovered.
RT 3 (4.1)
AI 4 e)
IMPORTANT NOTE FOR SECTION 3.1.(d) – Cost-efficiency:
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at
optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1. In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being
pre-filled by the PRB):
• The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the
performance of the European ATM network;:
• The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
o The traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
o The inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
• The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
• A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2. In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs
including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
• The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging
Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
• The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per
Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
59
SW FAB
3.1.(d) - Cost Efficiency
List of En Route Charging Zones
Number of en route charging zones
3
1 Portugal Continental
2 Spain Canarias
3 Spain Continental
List of Terminal Charging Zones
Number of terminal charging zones
2
1 Portugal
2 Spain
60
3.1.(d).1 - En Route Charging Zone #1
A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS
in EUR
Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast)
Local currency (Nominal and 2012 prices)
Portugal Continental
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in
nominal terms (in national currency)
2010 A
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012)
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in real
terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)
Total en route Service Units (TSU)
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in national currency at 2012
prices)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
€2009 prices
2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
2014 D
111.001.402
0,4% 3,4% 0,8% 2,9%
2,80%
0,40%
0,70%
1,20%
1,50%
1,50%
1,50%
1,50%
93,90
97,28
100,00
100,40
101,10
102,32
103,85
105,41
106,99
108,59
99,8
1,6% 1,4% 1,4% 1,7%
133.067.852 117.513.673 123.793.212 118.060.986 108.932.815 107.587.150 109.181.766 113.152.433 115.292.681 116.695.205 118.154.856
111.273.893
-1,2% 1,9% -0,6% 1,2%
92,60
2.501.219
2.624.149
2.821.265
2.782.280
2.876.753
3.072.372
3.190.044
3.201.847
3.219.457
3.244.891
3.269.228
3.018.536
2,7% 1,2% 1,9% 1,6%
53,20
44,78
43,88
42,43
37,87
35,02
34,23
35,34
35,81
35,96
36,14
36,86
-3,8% 0,6% -2,4% -0,4%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
133.067.852 117.513.673 123.793.212 118.060.986 108.932.815 107.587.150 109.181.766 113.152.433 115.292.681 116.695.205 118.154.856
111.273.893
-1,2% 1,9% -0,6% 1,2%
36,86
-3,8% 0,6% -2,4% -0,4%
53,20
-11,7%
5,3%
-4,6%
-7,7%
-1,2%
1,5%
3,6%
1,9%
1,2%
1,3%
44,78
43,88
42,43
37,87
35,02
34,23
35,34
35,81
35,96
36,14
-15,8%
-2,0%
-3,3%
-10,8%
-7,5%
-2,3%
3,3%
1,3%
0,4%
0,5%
100,00
101,40
105,05
107,99
108,42
109,18
110,49
112,15
113,83
115,54
117,27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
99.625.285 101.101.893 104.778.716 106.760.578 108.059.309 109.410.940
103.039.195
-1,2% 1,9% -0,6% 1,2%
34,14
-3,8% 0,6% -2,4% -0,4%
123.220.317 108.817.207 114.632.036 109.324.017 100.871.366
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)
2013 A
3,60%
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009)
2012 A
Average pct variation p.a.
2009A- 2014F- 2011A- 2014D2019D 2019D 2019D 2019D
1,40%
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)
2011 A
RP1 PP
123.220.317 110.340.648 120.421.412 118.060.986 109.368.546 108.773.621 111.710.452 117.509.678 121.528.327 124.851.807 128.309.686
Inflation %
2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
€2012 prices
2009 A
RP2 Performance Plan
49,26
-11,7%
5,3%
-4,6%
-7,7%
-1,2%
1,5%
3,6%
1,9%
1,2%
1,3%
41,47
40,63
39,29
35,06
32,43
31,69
32,72
33,16
33,30
33,47
-15,8%
-2,0%
-3,3%
-10,8%
-7,5%
-2,3%
3,3%
1,3%
0,4%
0,5%
See section 5.1 of RP2 SOWEPP document
Description of the consistency between local and Unionwide targets
61
107,73
B - Inflation assumptions
Portugal Continental
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
Inflation %
Inflation index (2012=100)
Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)
Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2,80%
100,00
2,80%
100,00
0,40%
0,70%
1,20%
1,50%
1,50%
100,40
101,10
102,32
103,85
105,41
0,40%
0,70%
1,20%
1,50%
1,50%
100,40
101,10
102,32
103,85
105,41
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
Actual inflation used was Eurostat HICP and forecasts based on IMF estimated data
Justification and data source in case of deviation from
inflation references
2018 D
2019 D
1,50%
106,99
1,50%
106,99
0,00
0,00
1,50%
108,59
1,50%
108,59
0,00
0,00
C - Service Units forecast for en route
Low
Baseline
Portugal Continental
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
Total en route service units (TSU)
Year on Year variation TSU
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Baseline
scenario)
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2.782.280
2.876.753
3,4%
3.072.372
6,8%
3.190.044
3,8%
3.201.847
0,4%
3.219.457
0,6%
3.244.891
0,8%
3.269.228
0,8%
2.782.280
2.876.753
3.104.230
3.248.219
3.324.178
3.388.496
3.463.978
3.539.802
3,4%
0,00
0,00
7,9%
-0,01
-0,01
4,6%
-0,01
-0,02
2,3%
-0,02
-0,04
1,9%
-0,01
-0,05
2,2%
-0,01
-0,06
2,2%
-0,01
-0,08
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Low scenario)
2.782.280
2.876.753
3.072.402
3.190.389
3.201.718
3.219.395
3.244.689
3.269.406
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
3,4%
6,8%
3,8%
0,4%
0,6%
0,8%
0,8%
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
Considering the historical traffic gap in RP1, where base scenario was chosen and significant revenue losses have
been assumed by the ANSP and SAR entities, we are founding our determined unit cost on the STATFOR low traffic
scenario for RP2. Our aim is to reduce traffic risk, instead of obtaining any advantage from lowering unit costs based
on a more optimistic traffic forecast.
Explanation of the differences (if any), justification,
rationale and source
D - Alert thresholds (en route service units)
Portugal Continental
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
Local thresholds
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Local thresholds set by the European Commission
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Same thresholds
Detailed justification in case of deviation
IMPORTANT NOTE
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being pre-filled by the PRB):
•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the performance of the European ATM network;:
•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
62
oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
63
3.1.(d).1 - En Route Charging Zone #2
A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS
in EUR
Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast)
Local currency (Nominal and 2012 prices)
Spain Canarias
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in
nominal terms (in national currency)
2010 A
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012)
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in real
terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)
Total en route Service Units (TSU)
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in national currency at 2012
prices)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
€2009 prices
2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
2014 D
98.618.556
98.845.129
99.101.794
98.596.469
98.431.342
111.384.844
-2,0% -1,4% -0,8% -2,4%
2,40%
1,50%
0,27%
0,84%
0,90%
1,04%
1,02%
1,05%
94,72
97,66
100,00
101,50
101,78
102,63
103,55
104,63
105,70
106,81
101,54
1,4% 1,0% 1,1% 1,0%
129.411.993 115.267.168 107.578.601 110.927.726 104.957.222 103.693.051
96.093.282
95.456.851
94.715.884
93.280.529
92.153.924
109.698.038
-3,3% -2,3% -1,9% -3,4%
92,82
1.492.498
1.539.855
1.665.737
1.599.207
1.515.812
1.515.812
1.531.000
1.528.000
1.531.000
1.537.000
1.543.000
1.795.248
0,3% 0,4% -1,0% -3,0%
86,71
74,86
64,58
69,36
69,24
68,41
62,77
62,47
61,87
60,69
59,72
61,10
-3,7% -2,7% -1,0% -0,5%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
129.411.993 115.267.168 107.578.601 110.927.726 104.957.222 103.693.051
96.093.282
95.456.851
94.715.884
93.280.529
92.153.924
109.698.038
-3,3% -2,3% -1,9% -3,4%
61,10
-3,7% -2,7% -1,0% -0,5%
-10,9%
86,71
-6,7%
3,1%
-5,4%
-1,2%
-7,3%
-0,7%
-0,8%
-1,5%
-1,2%
74,86
64,58
69,36
69,24
68,41
62,77
62,47
61,87
60,69
59,72
-13,7%
-13,7%
7,4%
-0,2%
-1,2%
-8,2%
-0,5%
-1,0%
-1,9%
-1,6%
100,00
102,04
105,21
107,73
109,35
109,64
110,56
111,55
112,72
113,87
115,07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
99.858.605 102.967.393
97.425.341
96.251.887
89.197.489
88.606.729
87.918.936
86.586.583
85.540.825
101.825.948
-3,3% -2,3% -1,9% -3,4%
56,72
-3,7% -2,7% -1,0% -0,5%
120.125.202 106.995.429
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)
2013 A
Average pct variation p.a.
2009A- 2014F- 2011A- 2014D2019D 2019D 2019D 2019D
3,10%
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009)
2012 A
RP1 PP
2,04%
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)
2011 A
120.125.202 109.180.983 105.057.227 110.927.726 106.531.581 105.533.670
Inflation %
2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
€2012 prices
2009 A
RP2 Performance Plan
80,49
0
-6,7%
3,1%
-5,4%
-1,2%
-7,3%
-0,7%
-0,8%
-1,5%
-1,2%
4.637
59,95
64,39
64,27
63,50
58,26
57,99
57,43
56,33
55,44
###########
-98,7%
7,4%
-0,2%
-1,2%
-8,2%
-0,5%
-1,0%
-1,9%
-1,6%
See section 5.1 of RP2 SOWEPP document
Description of the consistency between local and Unionwide targets
64
109,39
B - Inflation assumptions
Spain Canarias
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
Inflation %
Inflation index (2012=100)
Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)
Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2,40%
100,00
0,00%
100,00
2013 A
2014 F
1,50%
101,50
0,00%
100,00
0,02
0,01
0,27%
101,78
0,00%
100,00
0,00
0,02
2015 D
0,84%
102,63
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,03
2016 D
0,90%
103,55
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,04
2017 D
1,04%
104,63
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,05
2018 D
2019 D
1,02%
105,70
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,06
1,05%
106,81
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,07
N/A
Justification and data source in case of deviation from
inflation references
C - Service Units forecast for en route
Low
Baseline
Spain Canarias
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
Total en route service units (TSU)
Year on Year variation TSU
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Baseline
scenario)
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
1.599.207
1.515.812
-5,2%
1.515.812
0,0%
1.531.000
1,0%
1.528.000
-0,2%
1.531.000
0,2%
1.537.000
0,4%
1.543.000
0,4%
1.599.207
1.515.812
1.644.584
1.720.754
1.748.296
1.773.260
1.804.963
1.837.492
-5,2%
0,00
0,00
8,5%
-0,08
-0,08
4,6%
-0,04
-0,11
1,6%
-0,02
-0,13
1,4%
-0,01
-0,14
1,8%
-0,01
-0,15
1,8%
-0,01
-0,16
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Low scenario)
1.599.207
1.515.812
1.613.632
1.665.852
1.662.665
1.665.504
1.672.495
1.679.370
-5,2%
0,00
0,00
6,5%
-0,06
-0,06
3,2%
-0,02
-0,08
-0,2%
0,00
-0,08
0,2%
0,00
-0,08
0,4%
0,00
-0,08
0,4%
0,00
-0,08
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
N/A
Explanation of the differences (if any), justification,
rationale and source
D - Alert thresholds (en route service units)
Spain Canarias
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
Local thresholds
Local thresholds set by the European Commission
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
N/A
Detailed justification in case of deviation
IMPORTANT NOTE
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being pre-filled by the PRB):
•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the performance of the European ATM network;:
•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
65
•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
66
3.1.(d).1 - En Route Charging Zone #3
A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS
in EUR
Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast)
Local currency (Nominal and 2012 prices)
Spain Continental
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in
nominal terms (in national currency)
2010 A
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012)
Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in real
terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)
Total en route Service Units (TSU)
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in national currency at 2012
prices)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
€2009 prices
2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
2014 D
719.078.766
-2,2% 0,2% -0,3% -2,6%
2,4%
1,5%
0,3%
0,8%
0,9%
1,0%
1,0%
1,1%
94,72
97,66
100,00
101,50
101,78
102,63
103,55
104,63
105,70
106,81
101,54
1,4% 1,0% 1,1% 1,0%
847.418.510 699.512.075 660.247.574 662.049.221 613.099.291 613.928.920 607.047.592 603.330.444 597.351.493 594.559.666 590.507.854
708.189.076
-3,5% -0,8% -1,4% -3,6%
92,82
8.358.173
8.641.861
9.099.189
8.443.969
8.447.044
8.669.000
8.880.000
8.936.000
9.018.000
9.128.000
9.238.000
9.857.260
1,0% 1,3% 0,2% -1,3%
101,39
80,94
72,56
78,40
72,58
70,82
68,36
67,52
66,24
65,14
63,92
71,84
-4,5% -2,0% -1,6% -2,3%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
847.418.510 699.512.075 660.247.574 662.049.221 613.099.291 613.928.920 607.047.592 603.330.444 597.351.493 594.559.666 590.507.854
708.189.076
-3,5% -0,8% -1,4% -3,6%
71,84
-4,5% -2,0% -1,6% -2,3%
-17,5%
101,39
-5,6%
0,3%
-7,4%
0,1%
-1,1%
-0,6%
-1,0%
-0,5%
-0,7%
80,94
72,56
78,40
72,58
70,82
68,36
67,52
66,24
65,14
63,92
-20,2%
-10,4%
8,1%
-7,4%
-2,4%
-3,5%
-1,2%
-1,9%
-1,7%
-1,9%
100,00
102,04
105,21
107,73
109,35
109,64
110,56
111,55
112,72
113,87
115,07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
786.606.534 649.314.078 612.867.255 614.539.613 569.102.400 569.872.494 563.484.980 560.034.580 554.484.687 551.893.205 548.132.157
657.368.405
-3,5% -0,8% -1,4% -3,6%
66,69
-4,5% -2,0% -1,6% -2,3%
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)
2013 A
3,10%
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009)
2012 A
Average pct variation p.a.
2009A- 2014F- 2011A- 2014D2019D 2019D 2019D 2019D
2,04%
Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)
2011 A
RP1 PP
786.606.534 662.577.362 644.773.022 662.049.221 622.295.781 624.826.557 623.000.439 624.745.893 625.012.428 628.442.875 630.732.562
Inflation %
2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
€2012 prices
2009 A
RP2 Performance Plan
94,11
-17,5%
-5,6%
0,3%
-7,4%
0,1%
-1,1%
-0,6%
-1,0%
-0,5%
-0,7%
75,14
67,35
72,78
67,37
65,74
63,46
62,67
61,49
60,46
59,33
-20,2%
-10,4%
8,1%
-7,4%
-2,4%
-3,5%
-1,2%
-1,9%
-1,7%
-1,9%
-37,0%
See section 5.1 of RP2 SOWEPP document
Description of the consistency between local and Unionwide targets
67
109,39
B - Inflation assumptions
Spain Continental
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
Inflation %
Inflation index (2012=100)
Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)
Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2,40%
100,00
0,00%
100,00
2013 A
2014 F
1,50%
101,50
0,00%
100,00
0,02
0,01
0,27%
101,78
0,00%
100,00
0,00
0,02
2015 D
0,84%
102,63
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,03
2016 D
0,90%
103,55
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,04
2017 D
1,04%
104,63
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,05
2018 D
2019 D
1,02%
105,70
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,06
1,05%
106,81
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,07
N/A
Justification and data source in case of deviation from
inflation references
C - Service Units forecast for en route
Low
Baseline
Spain Continental
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
Total en route service units (TSU)
Year on Year variation TSU
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Baseline
scenario)
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
8.443.969
8.447.044
0,0%
8.669.000
2,6%
8.880.000
2,4%
8.936.000
0,6%
9.018.000
0,9%
9.128.000
1,2%
9.238.000
1,2%
8.443.969
8.447.044
8.757.179
9.040.381
9.292.851
9.512.622
9.764.652
10.022.540
0,0%
0,00
0,00
3,7%
-0,01
-0,01
3,2%
-0,01
-0,02
2,8%
-0,02
-0,04
2,4%
-0,01
-0,05
2,6%
-0,01
-0,07
2,6%
-0,01
-0,08
STATFOR en route service units forecast (Low scenario)
8.443.969
8.447.044
8.668.773
8.879.789
8.935.602
9.018.312
9.127.753
9.237.640
0,0%
0,00
0,00
2,6%
0,00
0,00
2,4%
0,00
0,00
0,6%
0,00
0,00
0,9%
0,00
0,00
1,2%
0,00
0,00
1,2%
0,00
0,00
Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
N/A
Explanation of the differences (if any), justification,
rationale and source
D - Alert thresholds (en route service units)
Spain Continental
2009 A
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
2013 A
2014 F
Local thresholds
Local thresholds set by the European Commission
2015 D
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
N/A
Detailed justification in case of deviation
IMPORTANT NOTE
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being pre-filled by the PRB):
•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the performance of the European ATM network;:
•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
68
•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
69
3.1.(d).2 - En Route ANS at FAB level
A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS aggregated at FAB level
Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast)
2009 A
Total en route Service Units (TSU)
12.351.890
Trend in Total en route Service Units (TSU)%n/n-1
€2012 prices
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
1.109.898.355
Trend in total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
%n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)
89,86
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)%n/n-1
€2009 prices
Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
1.029.952.052
Trend in total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
%n/n-1
Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)
Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)%n/n-1
83,38
2010 A
2011 A
2012 A
RP2 Performance Plan
2013 A
2014 F
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
2014 D
14.671.044
1,3% 1,2% 0,4% -0,9%
929.161.007
-3,2% -0,6% -1,3% -2,9%
63,33
-4,5% -1,7% -1,7% -2,1%
862.233.548
-3,2% -0,6% -1,3% -2,9%
58,77
-4,5% -1,7% -1,7% -2,1%
12.825.456
12.839.609
13.257.184
13.601.044
13.665.847
13.768.457
13.909.891
14.050.228
3,68%
6,09%
-5,60%
0,11%
3,25%
2,59%
0,48%
0,75%
1,03%
1,01%
891.619.387 891.037.934 826.989.329 825.209.121 812.322.640 811.939.728 807.360.059 804.535.399
800.816.635
-16,00%
-4,36%
-0,07%
-7,19%
-0,22%
-1,56%
-0,05%
-0,56%
-0,35%
-0,46%
72,80
65,63
69,47
64,41
62,25
59,73
59,41
58,64
57,84
57,00
-18,98%
-9,86%
5,86%
-7,29%
-3,36%
-4,05%
-0,52%
-1,31%
-1,36%
-1,46%
827.357.895 826.831.022 767.399.107 765.749.666 753.784.362 753.420.025 749.164.200 746.539.097
743.083.923
-16,00%
-4,37%
-0,06%
-7,19%
-0,21%
-1,56%
-0,05%
-0,56%
-0,35%
-0,46%
67,56
60,90
64,47
59,77
57,76
55,42
55,13
54,41
53,67
52,89
-18,98%
-9,86%
5,86%
-7,29%
-3,36%
-4,05%
-0,52%
-1,31%
-1,36%
-1,46%
Description of benefits and synergies achieved at functional airspace block level
70
2009A- 2014F- 2011A- 2014D2019D 2019D 2019D 2019D
2016 D
13.586.191
865.126.714
Average percentage
variation per annum
2015 D
12.805.865
932.292.916
RP1 PP
3.1.(d).3 - Terminal Charging Zone #1
A - Cost efficiency KPI #2: Determined unit cost (DUC) for terminal ANS
in EUR
Avg pct
var p.a.
RP2 Performance Plan
€2012 prices
Local currency (Nominal and 2012 prices)
Portugal
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
27.415.133
28.435.188
29.565.111
30.376.069
32.254.463
Inflation %
1,20%
1,50%
1,50%
1,50%
1,50%
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012)
102,32
103,85
105,41
106,99
108,59
1,5%
26.794.562
27.380.815
28.048.119
28.391.592
29.701.744
2,6%
186.658
187.236
188.023
189.734
192.086
0,7%
143,55
146,24
149,17
149,64
154,63
1,9%
Total terminal determined costs in nominal terms (in national
currency)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in national currency at
2012 prices)
Total terminal Service Units (TSU) used for the determined unit cost
Real terminal DUCs (in national currency at 2012 prices)
2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
1
1
1
1
1
26.794.562
27.380.815
28.048.119
28.391.592
29.701.744
2,2%
2,4%
1,2%
4,6%
146,24
149,17
149,64
154,63
1,9%
2,0%
0,3%
3,3%
110,49
112,15
113,83
115,54
117,27
1
1
1
1
1
24.811.661
25.354.529
25.972.450
26.290.505
27.503.700
2,2%
2,4%
1,2%
4,6%
135,41
138,13
138,57
143,18
1,9%
2,0%
0,3%
3,3%
Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices)
143,55
Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009)
€2009 prices
2015D2019D
2015 D
2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real terminal DUCs (in €2009 prices)
132,93
Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1
See section 5.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
Description and justification of how the local targets contribute to the
performance of the European ATM network
B - Inflation assumptions
Portugal
2015 D
Inflation %
Inflation index (2012=100)
Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)
Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
Justification and data source in case of deviation from inflation
references
1,20%
102,3
1,20%
102,32
2016 D
1,50%
103,9
1,50%
103,85
2017 D
1,50%
105,4
1,50%
105,41
2018 D
2019 D
1,50%
107,0
1,50%
106,99
1,50%
108,6
1,50%
108,59
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
Actual inflation used was Eurostat HICP and forecasts based on IMF
estimated data
0,00
0,00
C - Service Units forecast for terminal
Portugal
Total terminal service units (TNSU)
Year on Year variation TNSU
STATFOR terminal service units forecast (Baseline scenario)
Year on Year variation TNSU STATFOR
2015 D
186.658
191.986
71
2016 D
187.236
0,3%
197.686
3,0%
2017 D
188.023
0,4%
202.477
2,4%
2018 D
189.734
0,9%
207.866
2,7%
2019 D
192.086
1,2%
212.539
2,2%
4,1%
2,6%
1,9%
2,6%
1,9%
Difference in percentage
Cumulative difference in percentage
-0,03
-0,02
-0,05
-0,07
See section 1.5 of the RP2 SOWEPP document
-0,02
-0,09
-0,01
-0,10
2018 D
10%
10%
2019 D
10%
10%
Explanation of the differences (if any), justification, rationale and
source
D - Alert thresholds (terminal service units)
Portugal
Local thresholds
Local thresholds set by the European Commission
Detailed justification in case of deviation
2015 D
2016 D
10%
10%
10%
10%
Same thresholds
2017 D
10%
10%
IMPORTANT NOTE
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at
optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being
pre-filled by the PRB):
•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to
the performance of the European ATM network;:
•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs
including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging
Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per
Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
72
3.1.(d).3 - Terminal Charging Zone #2
A - Cost efficiency KPI #2: Determined unit cost (DUC) for terminal ANS
in EUR
Avg pct
var p.a.
RP2 Performance Plan
€2012 prices
Local currency (Nominal and 2012 prices)
Spain
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
99.975.360
99.297.142
97.825.774
96.705.317
95.465.801
Inflation %
0,84%
0,90%
1,04%
1,02%
1,05%
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012)
102,63
103,55
104,63
105,70
106,81
1,0%
97.415.343
95.893.369
93.496.336
91.491.341
89.377.509
-2,1%
641.951
646.445
653.556
663.359
671.983
1,1%
151,75
148,34
143,06
137,92
133,01
-3,2%
Total terminal determined costs in nominal terms (in national
currency)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in national currency at
2012 prices)
Total terminal Service Units (TSU) used for the determined unit cost
Real terminal DUCs (in national currency at 2012 prices)
2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)
1
1
1
1
1
97.415.343
95.893.369
93.496.336
91.491.341
89.377.509
-1,6%
-2,5%
-2,1%
-2,3%
148,34
143,06
137,92
133,01
-2,2%
-3,6%
-3,6%
-3,6%
110,56
111,55
112,72
113,87
115,07
1
1
1
1
1
90.424.677
89.011.923
86.786.904
84.925.790
82.963.650
-1,6%
-2,5%
-2,1%
-2,3%
137,69
132,79
128,02
123,46
-2,2%
-3,6%
-3,6%
-3,6%
Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices)
151,75
Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1
Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009)
€2009 prices
2015D2019D
2015 D
2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=)
Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)
Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1
Real terminal DUCs (in €2009 prices)
140,86
Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1
See section 5.2 of RP2 SOWEPP document.
Description and justification of how the local targets contribute to the
performance of the European ATM network
B - Inflation assumptions
Spain
2015 D
Inflation %
Inflation index (2012=100)
Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)
Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF
0,84%
102,6
0,00%
100,00
Difference in percentage points
Cumulative difference in percentage points
Justification and data source in case of deviation from inflation
references
2016 D
2017 D
2018 D
2019 D
0,90%
103,5
0,00%
100,00
1,04%
104,6
0,00%
100,00
1,02%
105,7
0,00%
100,00
1,05%
106,8
0,00%
100,00
0,01
0,04
0,01
0,05
0,01
0,06
0,01
0,07
N/A
C - Service Units forecast for terminal
Spain
Total terminal service units (TNSU)
Year on Year variation TNSU
STATFOR terminal service units forecast (Baseline scenario)
Year on Year variation TNSU STATFOR
Difference in percentage
Cumulative difference in percentage
2015 D
641.951
2016 D
2017 D
646.445
653.556
0,7%
1,1%
649.130
666.929
682.091
2,7%
2,3%
-0,02
-0,01
-0,03
-0,04
See section 1.5 of the RP2 SOWEPP document
Explanation of the differences (if any), justification, rationale and
source
73
2018 D
663.359
1,5%
700.574
2,7%
-0,01
-0,05
2019 D
671.983
1,3%
721.569
3,0%
-0,02
-0,07
-1,1%
-2,1%
-3,2%
-2,1%
-3,2%
D - Alert thresholds (terminal service units)
Spain
Local thresholds
Local thresholds set by the European Commission
Detailed justification in case of deviation
2015 D
10%
10%
N/A
2016 D
10%
10%
2017 D
10%
10%
2018 D
10%
10%
2019 D
10%
10%
IMPORTANT NOTE
The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at
optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:
1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being
pre-filled by the PRB):
•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to
the performance of the European ATM network;:
•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.
oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR
oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.
•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.
•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.
2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs
including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:
•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging
Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;
•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per
Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.
Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.
74
3.1.(d).4 - Optional Section - Additional Cost-Efficiency KPIs at FAB and local level
Number of additional Cost-Efficiency KPIs
Click to select number of additional KPIs
75
3.2 - Consistency of the performance targets with the relevant Union-wide performance targets or,
when there is no Union-wide target, contribution to the performance of the European ATM network
This section has been integrated within each individual KPI.
76
3.3 - Description of KPAs interdependencies and trade-offs
This section has been integrated within each individual KPI.
See sections 3 and 4 of the RP2 SOWEPP document for environment and capacity trade-offs respectively. See also section 7 of the
RP2 SOWEPP document for a general consolidation of the interdependencies.
77
3.4 - Contribution of each air navigation service provider
This section has been integrated within each individual KPI.
78
SECTION 4: INCENTIVE SCHEMES
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
4. INCENTIVE SCHEMES
4
4.1. Description and explanation of the incentive
schemes to be applied on air navigation service
providers.
4.1
79
AI ref.
Other annexes
4 - INCENTIVE SCHEMES
4.1 - Incentive schemes for the environment targets
Number of incentive schemes
Click to select number of incentive schemes
80
4.1 - Incentive schemes for the capacity targets
Number of incentive schemes
Entity being incentivised
KPI description
Type of incentive
Formula
Justification
Description of performance variation
levels and the applicable level of
bonuses and penalties
Additional comments
1
<Insert Incentive Scheme #1>
ANSPs: AENA and NAV Portugal
Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight
Financial
The incentive mechanism formula at FAB level consists of symmetric linear function, with a dead band
around the FAB target. The dead-band has a width of 0.02 minutes/flight at each side of the target,
considering potential economic impact on the users. It represents around 4% of margin around the target.
The maximum bonus/penalty is awarded at 0.14 minutes/flight from the target.
The formula described is applied at FAB level and distributed among the ANSPs.
When the FAB target is not met: there is no bonus for any ANSP, and only the ANSPs that have not met
their individual target are penalised.
When the FAB target is met: there is no penalty for any ANSP, and only the ANSPs that have met their
individual target can receive the bonus.
The incentive mechanism set within the SOWEPP is a balanced approach in consistency with Performance
and Charging Regulations (390/2013 and 391/2013), providing for an equal applicable level of bonus and
penalties.
The maximum bonus/penalty is established at 0.50% of the total en-route income.
The incentive mechanism is applied on the KPI considering all causes of delay. Nevertheless, an adjustment
is introduced to mitigate the impact when for a given year, the minutes of delay due to causes other than
those specified in Article 15.1 (g) of the Charging Regulation, are unusually high (20% higher than the
average of the three previous years). In this case, the excess of minutes is discounted from the KPI before
it is applied in the calculation of the bonus/penalty, against the SW FAB targets.
For full detail, see section 4.3 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
81
4.1 - Incentive schemes for the cost-efficiency targets
The parameters used by the Member States in the setting of the risk-sharing mechanism defined in Article 13 and 14 of the charging Regulation
will be detailed under lines 3.13 and 3.14 of Reporting Table 2 as per Annex VI of the same Regulation.
Therefore, the information is included in the Reporting Tables attached in Annex C.
82
SECTION 5: MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
5. MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
5
Description of the civil-military dimension of the
plan describing the performance of FUA application
in order to increase capacity with due regard to
military mission effectiveness, and if deemed
appropriate, relevant performance indicators and
targets consistent with the indicators and targets of
the performance plan.
83
AI ref.
Other annexes
5 - MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
See section 8 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
Additional (Key) Performance Indicators (and targets) relevant to civil military performance
84
SECTION 6: ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE
PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
6. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH
THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN
6.1. Sensitivity to external assumptions.
6
6.2. Comparison with previous performance plan.
6.2
6.1
85
AI ref.
Other annexes
6 - ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN
6.1 - Sensitivity to external assumptions
See section 9.1 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
86
6.2 - Comparison with previous performance plan
See section 9.2 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
87
SECTION 7: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN
Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation
Link with PRB Performance Plan template
Structure of ANNEX II of the performance
Regulation
Annex C
Body of
Performance Plan
For cost-effiency
RT ref.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN
7
Description of the measures put in place by the
national supervisory authorities to achieve the
performance targets, such as:
(i) monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the ANS
safety programmes and business plans are
implemented;
(ii) measures to monitor and report on the
implementation of the performance plans including
how to address the situation if targets are not
reached during the reference period.
88
AI ref.
Other annexes
7 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN
See section 10 of the RP2 SOWEPP document.
NSA commitment for data provision
Active
Date of implementation
Periodicity
Focal point
Airport dataflow
Civil Military dataflow
Number of other dataflows
Click to select number of other dataflows
Additional comments
89
Inactive
8 - ANNEXES
The following annexes should be provided as part of the local performance plans. These should be completed with any other documentation
relevant for the targets justifications.
Annex A. Public consultation material
See section 11 of the RP2 SOWEPP document. In addition, some relevant information such as slides, meeting agendas, and
attendance lists are provided in Annex A to the RP2 SOWEPP document.
Annex B. Relevant documentation in line with the NSP
This information is provided within section 1.4 of this template version.
Annex C. Reporting Tables
Reporting Table 1 (Total costs) and Table 2 (Unit rate calculation) and “additional information” as per Article 9 of the charging Regulation
(Transparency of costs and of the charging mechanism) for each entity and consolidated at national/charging zone/FAB level from June 2014.
This information is provided in Annex C to the RP2 SOWEPP.
Annex D. ANSPs investment plans
This information is provided within section 2 of this template version
Annex E. Additional material
90

Fertility Awareness-Based (FAB) Methods

Three-phase Input

london winter run at a glance london winter run

Summary of the main changes in the new RCD

ダウンロードはこちら

Who is it for? Why do you need it? What is inside? Key benefits

uk global funding our people our voice technology

Marine Terminal Management Training Program - Cms-plus

Dec

GRACEWORKS flights - Mission Travel Group

RBS expert reveals smart TOS practices

please read on here!

The age of the steroid selfie