Annex A: Public consultation material

Transcripción

1 South West FAB Performance Plan June 2014 Annex A: Public consultation material Four public consultation meetings have taken place during the elaboration of the RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan: 1. RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 10 April Portugal and Spain NSAs arranged consultation meetings focused only on cost-efficiency and open to EU-wide airspace users. In addition, AESA (the Spanish NSA) presented the main elements of the operational part of the RP2 SOWEPP. Discussion focused on environment and capacity targets, and in particular Spain allocation. Comments circulated and views raised during these first three thematic consultation meetings, were taking into account when drafting the consultation document that was distributed among main stakeholders for the SW FAB consultation meeting held in Madrid on May the 20th. This Annex A to the RP2 SOWEPP provides relevant information regarding the SW FAB consultation meeting (meeting agenda, attendance list, slides, minutes, written comments, etc) is provided in Annex A to this RP2 SOWEPP document. Some more information on the consultation meetings is shown in section 1.3 of the RP2 SOWEPP template version (Annex E).

2 South West FAB Performance Plan June RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014 Meeting Agenda

3 RP2 SOWEPP - Consultation Meeting Agenda 20 th May South West FAB Performance Plan Consultation Meeting Agenda 10:00-10:15 Introduction 10:15 11:00 Safety 11:00-11:45 Environment Targets and plans associated to: Level of EoSM Application of the RAT methodology Just Culture 11:45-12:30 En-route Capacity: 12:30 13:30 Break 13:30 14:15 Terminal Capacity Targets and plans associated to: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) Traffic forecast At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values and plans associated to: En route ATFM delay per flight Incentive Scheme Traffic forecast Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight 14:15 15:00 En route Cost Efficiency Traffic forecast At National level, and for each accountable entity: En route Determined costs En route Determined Unit Costs Investments 15:00 15:45 Terminal Cost Efficiency 15:45 16:00 Any other issues Traffic forecast At National level, and accountable entity: Terminal Determined costs Terminal Determined Unit Costs Investments

4 South West FAB Performance Plan June RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014 Attendance List

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 South West FAB Performance Plan June RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014 Meeting Slides

12 Draft South West FAB Performance Plan RP2 SOWEPP SW FAB USERS CONSULTATION DAY 20th May 2014 AESA

13 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE MEETING To consult the relevant elements of the South West FAB Performance Plan for the (RP2 SOWEPP): With the main stakeholders In the presence of the accountable entities But What is the RP2 SOWEPP? 2

14 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY (SES) PERFORMANCE SCHEME The RP2 SOWEPP is encompassed within the framework of the Single European Sky Performance Scheme. This is an initiative aimed at improving the performance of the air navigation services in Europe through: European-wide targets in four key performance areas: safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency. The elaboration of performance plans at FAB level, consistent with and adequately contributing to the EU-wide targets. Periodic monitoring, review and assessment of performance. 3

15 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK RP2 SOWEPP The RP2 SOWEPP is the SW FAB Performance for (known as RP2 Reference Period 2). This plan affects the Air Navigation Services provided in Portugal and Spain within the scope of: SES Performance Regulation (390/2013) Charging Regulation (391/2013) COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 11 March 2014: setting European-wide targets 4

16 BACKGROUND RP1 NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLANS We are now in the midst of the fist reference period ( RP1) of the SES Performance Scheme. There are National Performance Plans in place for Portugal and Spain: Portugal: National Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services, First Reference Period Spain: Spanish National Performance Plan (PNER) for RP

17 South West FAB SW FAB A FAB (Functional Airspace Block) is an airspace block based on operational requirements and established regardless of State boundaries. The Performance Regulation requires Performance Plans for RP2 to be elaborated at FAB level. The SW FAB includes Spain, and Portugal (only Lisboa FIR) 6

18 SCOPE OF THE RP2 SOWEPP SCOPE The RP2 SOWEPP covers: En-route air navigation services provided in the Barcelona, Canarias, Lisboa and Madrid FIR/UIRs. Terminal air navigation services provided at airports in Portugal and Spain with more than 70,000 IFR movements per year. All the entities accountable for determined costs of en route air navigation services that are financed by en route charges. 7

19 SOWEPP ELABORATION TIMELINE 24/04/2014 Spanish User s (IATA) consultation on COST - EFFICIENCY 25/04/2014 Spanish Air Navigation Users consultation on CAPACITY AND ENVIRONMENT 10/04/2014 Portuguese User s (IATA) consultation on COST - EFFICIENCY 20/05/2014 SW FAB Users Consultation April May June July 30/04/14 SOWEPP consultation document 9/05/14 SOWEPP updated consultation version 03/06/14 Deadline for comments on SOWEPP 10-16/06/14 SOWEPP final version 27/06/14 SOWEPP Formal Adoption 8

20 CONSULTATION MEETING AGENDA SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 9

21 SAFETY SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 10

22 LEVEL OF EOSM LEVEL OF EOSM The level of EoSM is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) with two parts: NSA part: evaluates the maturity of the State Safety Programme ANSP part: evaluates de maturity of the air navigation services provider Safety Management System 11

23 LEVEL OF EOSM LEVEL OF EOSM PROPOSED TARGETS Proposed targets on the level of EoSM go beyond the European-wide targets: Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management NSAs Union-wide Target C SW FAB Target B B B B C Spain - AESA B B B C C Portugal - INAC B B B B C ANSPs For Safety Culture MO C Union-wide Targets For all other MOs D SW FAB Targets For all MOs C C C C D AENA For Safety Culture MO C C C C D For all other MOs D D D D D NAV For Safety Culture MO D D D D E For all other MOs C C C C D 12

24 LEVEL OF EOSM LEVEL OF EOSM NSA part AESA (Spanish NSA) and INAC (Portuguese NSA), shall focus on the areas in which they have lower performance levels, to reach level C of maturity by E Level of EoSM - SOWEPP targets D C B A Portugal - INAC Spain - AESA SW FAB Target Union-wide Target 13

25 LEVEL OF EOSM LEVEL OF EOSM ANSP part According to the Safety Plans of AENA (Spanish ANSP) and NAV (Portuguese ANSP), it shall be possible to achieve level D in all management objectives by 2019 E Level of EoSM - ANSP targets Safety Culture MO E Level of EoSM - ANSP targets All Other MOs D D C C B B A A NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain) SW FAB Targets Union-wide Targets NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain) SW FAB Targets Union-wide Targets 14

26 APPLICATION OF THE RAT METHODOLOGY APPLICATION OF THE RAT This KPI considers the percentage of application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology, both in terms of ground and overall score (including the airborne part), as a minimum to: Separation minima infringements (SMIs) Runway incursions (RIs) ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S) 15

27 APPLICATION OF THE RAT METHODOLOGY APPLICATION OF THE RAT PROPOSED TARGETS Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets: Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology Ground Score SMIs % - 100% Union-wide Targets RIs % - 100% ATM-S % - 100% SMIs 90% 90% 90% 95% 100% SW FAB Targets RIs 90% 90% 90% 95% 100% ATM-S 90% 90% 90% 95% 100% SMIs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Spain RIs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATM-S 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SMIs 80% 80% 80% 90% 100% Portugal RIs 80% 80% 80% 90% 100% ATM-S 80% 80% 80% 90% 100% 16

28 APPLICATION OF THE RAT METHODOLOGY APPLICATION OF THE RAT PROPOSED TARGETS Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets: Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology Overall Score SMIs % 80% 80% Union-wide Targets RIs % 80% 80% ATM-S % - 100% SMIs % 80% 80% SW FAB Targets RIs % 80% 80% ATM-S % 80% 100% SMIs 60% 70% 80% 80% 80% Spain RIs 30% 55% 80% 80% 80% ATM-S 25% 50% 80% 80% 100% SMIs % 80% 80% Portugal RIs % 80% 80% ATM-S % 80% 100% 17

29 JUST CULTURE JUST CULTURE The aim is to increase the level of presence of a just culture: AESA and INAC shall work together during RP2 in close cooperation, in order to identify common areas for potential improvement towards the establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach AENA and NAV Portugal shall work together to find common areas of interest and development of Just Culture during RP2. The result is intended to be reflected in a common just culture policy and enhancement plan at SW FAB level, despite of the different maturity levels 18

30 SAFETY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS SAF Q #1: Do you agree with the proposed targets on the Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM)? SAF Q #2: Do you agree with the proposed targets on Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology? SAF Q #3: Do you agree with the idea of setting a qualitative target on Just Culture (JC), like the proposed common plan and policy statement at SW FAB level? SAG Q#4: What are your views on the proposed actions and plans? SAF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP safety targets? 19

31 ENVIRONMENT SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 20

32 HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL TRAJECTORY (KEA) KEA The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle), summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace. 21

33 HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL TRAJECTORY (KEA) KEA PROPOSED TARGETS The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight efficiency of at least 2.6 % in Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference values for each FAB. The SW FAB targets for RP2 are fully consistent with this reference values. Flight efficiency plans of the ANSPs would allow to meet the targets. Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) Union-wide targets % FAB reference values 3.85% 3.71% 3.57% 3.43% 3.28% SW FAB Targets 3.85% 3.71% 3.57% 3.43% 3.28% 22

34 Specific SOWEPP Environment presentation 23

35 ENVIRONMENT CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ENV Q #1: Do you agree with the FAB level environment target on the KEA indicator, in particular considering the trade-offs with other KPAs? ENV Q #2: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP environment targets and associated plans? 24

36 EN ROUTE CAPACITY SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 25

37 INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS TRAFFIC FLIGHT FORECAST The SOWEPP flight forecast for RP2 is consistent with the low scenario of February 2014 STATFOR forecasts 5,0% 4,0% 3,0% 2,0% 1,0% 0,0% IFR flights - Annual variation Portugal (*) Spain (**) SW FAB (*) Lisboa FIR only (**) Spain Overall: Canarias + Continental Airspace RP2 SOWEPP Forecast IFR Flights Spain Overall Portugal (Lisboa FIR) SW FAB Flights (000) 1,618 1,622 1,648 1,656 1,671 1,691 1,711 Annual variation % 0.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% Flights (000) Annual variation % 4.3% 2.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% Flights (000) 1,661 1,671 1,694 1,703 1,718 1,739 1,758 Annual variation % 0.6% 1.4% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 26

38 EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY The Performance Regulation requires targets to be set at FAB level on the average minutes of en route ATFM delay per IFR flight. The targets are broken down at National level for reasons of transparency. The ANSPs are responsible for meeting the targets: AENA in the case of Spain NAV in the case of Portugal The en route ATFM delay is defined as the difference between the estimated take-off time requested by the aircraft operator in the last submitted flight plan and the calculated take-off time allocated by the central unit of ATFM. 27

39 EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY PROPOSED TARGETS The EU-wide target for RP2 is an average en route ATFM delay per flight of no more than 0.50 minutes per flight, to be reached for each calendar year. Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference values for each FAB. Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight Union-wide targets FAB reference values SW FAB Target AENA (Spain) NAV Portugal (Portugal)

40 EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY PROPOSED TARGETS The capacity plans included in the Network Operations Plan ( ) would allow to meet the target. 0,60 SW FAB ATFM Delay targets 0,40 0,20 0, NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain) SW FAB Target FAB reference values EU-wide targets 29

41 EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES INCENTIVE SCHEME The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB level. The amount of the incentive is calculated at FAB level on the basis of the achievement of the SOWEPP FAB target for a given year. Incentives shall be calculated on a calendar year basis and be paid in year n+2. The incentive formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band. Therefore, bonuses are awarded for achievement of performance which goes beyond the target. Only the ANSPs that have achieved their individual reference value are awarded a bonus, and only the ANSPs that have not met their reference value are penalised. 30

42 EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES INCENTIVE SCHEME FAB AENA NAV Result Both ANSPs receive a bonus, calculated according to the FAB common function Only AENA receives a bonus, NAV is not penalised as the FAB target has been met Only NAV receives a bonus, AENA is not penalised as the FAB target has been met Both ANSPs pay a penalty, calculated according to the FAB common function Only NAV pays a penalty, AENA is not penalised as Spain value has been met Only AENA pays a penalty, NAV is not penalised as Portugal value has been met max Bonus Penalty Target T T+X T -Y T-X T+Y Dead band -max 31

43 Time for the Capacity Experts 32

44 EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CAP Q #1: Do you consider the en route capacity targets at SW FAB level are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CAP Q #2: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of AENA to the SW FAB targets? If not, why? CAP Q #3: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of NAV to the SW FAB targets? If not, why? CAP Q#4: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity targets, ANSPs contribution and associated plans? 33

45 EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CAP Q #8: Do you agree with the incentive mechanism established for the en route capacity? If not, please explain. CAP Q #9: What parameters (see table 4.2) do you think are the most appropriate for the incentive mechanism, in particular for the maximum value (0.75% to 1%) and the width of the transition area (0.06 to 0.14 minutes/flight)? CAP Q #10: What option (out of the three described in paragraph 4.46) do you think the most appropriate in the calculation of the bonus/penalties, regarding the delay causes? CAP Q #11: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity incentive mechanism? 34

46 TERMINAL CAPACITY SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 35

47 TERMINAL CAPACITY TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS AFTM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity targets are set at national level with a breakdown at airport level for monitoring purposes. The KPI is the average minutes of arrival ATFM delay per flight attributable to terminal and airport air navigation services and caused by landing restrictions at the destination airport. There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other external reference: 36

48 TERMINAL CAPACITY TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS ATFM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT PROPOSED TARGETS There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other external reference. The SOWEPP terminal and airport ANS capacity targets, and reference values per airport are set out below: Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight Breakdown at airport level Spain (*) GCLP Gran Canaria 0,32 0,32 LEBL Barcelona 0,91 LEMD Madrid-Barajas 0,83 LEMG Málaga 0,11 LEPA Palma de Mallorca 1, ,32 0,32 0,32 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29 37

49 Specific Terminal Capacity presentation 38

50 TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CAP Q #5: Considering there is no EU-wide reference, do you agree with the terminal capacity target established for Spain, encompassing GCLP, LEBL, LEMD, LEMG and LEPA? If not, why? CAP Q #7: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP terminal capacity targets and associated plans? 39

51 COST-EFFICIENCY SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 40

52 EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY EN ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY The Performance Regulation requires a target for en route cost-efficiency for en route service to be expressed in terms of the determined unit costs (DUCs) at charging zone level and in local currency. There are three enroute charging zones within the SW FAB: Portugal Lisboa Spain Canarias Spain Continental ERT-CZ 1: Portugal Lisboa ERT-CZ 3: Spain Continental Consequently there are three targets. ERT-CZ 2: Spain Canarias 41

53 EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY EU-WIDE ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS EU-wide en route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide for a reduction in determined unit costs by 3.3 % per year over RP2. Union-wide En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #1.1: En-route DUC Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real 6, , ,904,294 5, , EUR 2009) Total en route Service Units (000) 108, , , , ,305 Real (EUR 2009) en-route DUC

54 INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS TRAFFIC EN ROUTE SERVICE UNITS FORECAST The SOWEPP en route service unit forecast for RP2 is consistent with the low scenario of February 2014 STATFOR forecasts, except for Spain Canarias forecast, which is below STATFOR low scenario. RP2 SOWEPP Forecast Total en- route service units Spain - Continental Spain - Canarias Portugal Lisboa FIR 8,0% 6,0% 4,0% 2,0% 0,0% -2,0% En route service units - Annual variation Portugal (*) Spain Canaries Spain Continental (*) Lisboa FIR only SUs (000) 8,447 8,669 8,880 8,936 9,018 9,128 9,238 Annual variation % 0.0% 2.6% 2.4% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% SUs (000) 1,516 1,516 1,531 1,528 1,531 1,537 1,543 Annual variation % -5.2% 0.0% 1.0% -0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% SUs (000) 2,877 3,072 3,190 3,202 3,219 3,245 3,269 Annual variation % 3.4% 6.8% 3.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 43

55 TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION 44

56 SERVICE UNITS EVOLUTION -10,2% -12,3% -6,2% -13,2% PNER1 CON Forecast SU (NPP) Actual SU Actual / forecast SU (in %) 103,9% 99,9% 89,8% 87,7% CAN Forecast SU (NPP) Actual SU Actual / forecast SU (in %) 101,7% 103,0% 93,8% 86,8% 45

57 SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY POLICY - STABILITY ON DETERMINED COSTS - STABILITY ON UNIT RATE ALL RP1 & RP2: CONTINENT UNIT RATE: CANARY ISLAND UNIT RATE : 71,69 /US 58,36 /US 46

58 TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION RP2 47

59 SPAIN CONTINENT EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 ( ) CONTINENT: COSTS & DUC Total Determined Costs ( 2009) Cost Target EU Comision ( 2009) DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) 76,22 63,55 62,65 61,43 60,37 59,17 DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 76,42 75,28 72,77 70,48 68,06 65,79 Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) CONTINENT: ANUAL COST REDUCTION Total Determined Costs ( 2009) -10,68% -0,78% -1,05% -0,52% -0,81% Cost Target EU Comision ( 2009) -0,95% -2,13% -2,13% -2,13% -2,13% DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) -16,63% -1,40% -1,95% -1,72% -1,99% DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) -1,49% -3,33% -3,16% -3,43% -3,33% Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) 7,14% 0,63% 0,92% 1,22% 1,21% RP2 Cost Reduction over EU target Anual Reduction -2,8% -1,9% -4,7% -2,9% 48

60 CANARY ISLANDS EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 ( ) CANARY ISLANDS: COSTS & DUC Total Determined Costs ( 2009) Cost Target EU Comision ( 2009) DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) 64,56 58,82 58,54 58,00 56,92 56,00 DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 64,60 62,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96 Traffic AENA forecast April ,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96 CANARY ISLANDS: ANUAL COST REDUCTION Total Determined Costs ( 2009) -7,99% -0,67% -0,73% -1,47% -1,23% Cost Target EU Comision ( 2009) -2,26% -2,26% -2,26% -2,26% -2,26% DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) -8,90% -0,48% -0,92% -1,86% -1,62% DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) -3,16% 1,60% -2,45% -2,31% -2,66% Traffic AENA forecast April ,99% -0,20% 0,20% 0,39% 0,39% RP2 Cost Reduction over EU target Anual Reduction -2,4% -2,3% -2,8% -1,8% 49

61 EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS SPAIN CANARIAS TARGETS Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly improvement of -3.7% (more than a -31% aggregated improvement) in the two reference periods (2019 vs 2009). Such improvement is aligned with the proposed reduction of the costefficiency Union-wide target for the determined unit costs (3.3% per year over RP2). Spain Canarias En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #1.2: Spain Canarias En-route DUC Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Nominal) Inflation index (base 2012) Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real EUR 2012) Total en route Service Units (000) 1,531 1,528 1,531 1,537 1,543 Real (EUR 2012) en-route DUC

62 EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS SPAIN CONTINENTAL TARGETS Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly reduction of -4.5% (a total -37% aggregated improvement) since the introduction of the Performance Scheme (2019 vs 2009). Such improvement goes beyond the proposed EU-wide targets: annual reduction of en route unit costs of 3.3% per year over RP2. Spain Continental En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #1.3: Spain Continental En-route DUC Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Nominal) Inflation index (base 2012) Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real EUR 2012) Total en route Service Units (000) 8,880 8,936 9,018 9,128 9,238 Real (EUR 2012) en-route DUC

63 INVESTMENTS - SPAIN INVESTMENTS - AENA AENA s (Spanish ANSP) CAPEX Plan for RP2 is set out below: Name of investment Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR) Total CAPEX for RP2 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS - Airport Collaborative Decision Processes (A-CDM), Arrival and Departure Manager (AMAN/DMAN), Electronic Flight Strips (EFS), DATALINK Communications and Functional Configuration 2 (CF2). SURVEILLANCE EVOLUTION ModeS, ADSB REDAN Data Network Communication Channels COMETA Voice over Internet Protocol itec Flight Data Processing SAFETY NETS STCA, APW, MSAW PBN PLAN Performance Navigation CWP Controller Working Position ÍCARO Aeronautical information PROJECT FACILITATORS Sub-total of main CAPEX above (1) Sub-total other Capex (2) Total CAPEX (1) + (2)

64 INVESTMENTS - SPAIN INVESTMENTS - AENA 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). All relevant information on every investment project is included in Appendix A of the consultation document. Every view is welcomed. 53

65 EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CEF Q #1: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Spain Canarias charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #2: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Spain Continental charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EUwide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #4: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Spanish en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the Spanish en-route costefficiency targets? 54

66 Spain cost-efficiency targets have many accountable entities, and many variables must be considered I leave you with the Cost-Efficiency experts 55

67 COST-EFFICIENCY SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EN ROUTE CAPACITY TERMINAL CAPACITY COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL 56

68 EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS PORTUGAL TARGETS En-route cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below. Real en route unit costs (in 2009 prices) are expected to decrease at a pace of 3.8% over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global reduction of more than 32% over the 10 year horizon. Such decrease is aligned with the proposed reduction of the EU-wide target for the en route determined unit costs (3.3% per year over RP2). Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #1.1: Portugal Lisboa En-route DUC Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Nominal) Inflation index (base 2012) Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real EUR 2012) Total en route Service Units (000) 3,190 3,202 3,219 3,245 3,269 Real (EUR 2012) en-route DUC

69 INVESTMENTS - PORTUGAL INVESTMENTS NAV PORTUGAL Name of Investment CAPEX Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR) Total CAPEX for RP2 Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1) 8,7 16,3 9,9 7 11,8 53,7 1) LISATM V9.2 0,6 0,2 0,8 2) Lisbon ACC New System 7,4 4,5 1,7 6,5 20,1 3) Comunication systems 2,1 1,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 4,6 4) Navigation systems 1,6 1,4 1,9 3,6 8,5 5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM 2,6 2,6 6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement 0,5 2 2,4 4,9 7) SSR Mode S 0,4 3,8 0,3 2,7 1 8,2 8) Buildings and electromechanical systems 0,9 1,7 0,6 0,4 0,4 4 Sub-total other Capex (2) 0,1 0, ,1 0,5 Total CAPEX (1) + (2) 8,8 16,6 9,9 7 11,9 54,2 58

70 TERMINAL COST EFFICIENCY - PORTUGAL TERMINAL COST-EFFICIENCY Portugal terminal cost-efficiency targets are set for the determined unit costs of the following airports: Portugal Lisboa (LPPT) Porto (LPPR) Faro (LPFR) Madeira (LPMA) Porto Santo (LPPS) Ponta Delgada (LPPD) Santa Maria (LPAZ) Horta (LPHR) Flores (LPFL) 59

71 TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS PORTUGAL TARGETS Terminal cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below. Real terminal unit costs (in 2009 prices) are expected to decrease 1.6% over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global reduction of about 15% over the horizon. Portugal Terminal Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #2.1: Portugal Terminal DUC Total terminal determined costs (MEUR Nominal) Inflation index (base EUR 2012) Total terminal determined costs (MEUR Real ) Total terminal Service Units (000) Real (EUR 2012) terminal DUC

72 I leave you with the Portuguese Cost-Efficiency experts 61

73 EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CEF Q #7: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Portugal Lisboa charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #8: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Portugal en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #9: Do you have any other views on the Portugal Lisboa en-route cost-efficiency targets? 62

74 TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS CEF Q #10: What is your opinion on the terminal cost-efficiency targets for Portugal? CEF Q #11: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Portuguese terminal cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #12: Do you have any other views on the Portuguese terminal costefficiency targets? 63

75 Thanks for your attention Written comments are welcomed until the 3 rd of June performances.aesa@seguridadaerea.es 64

76 Draft South West FAB Performance Plan RP2 SOWEPP - ENVIRONMENT SW FAB USERS CONSULTATION DAY 20th May 2014 AESA

77 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This presentation is divided in four sections: ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN INTERDEPENDENCIES 2

78 ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN INTERDEPENDENCIES 3

79 KEA SCOPE The Performance Regulation establishes two environment KPIs: the horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA), applicable at FAB-level and horizontal en route flight efficiency of the last filed flight plan (KEP), applicable to the Network Manager 4

80 CONCEPTS RP2 vs RP1 RP1 KPI - average horizontal en route flight efficiency Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) which corresponds to the last filed flight plan Target European Network level only 5

81 CONCEPTS RP2 vs RP1 RP2 KPI - average en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of radar data Target European wide level FAB level Some changes have been introduced in the calculation of the KPI 6

82 CONCEPTS RP2 vs RP1 RP2 vs RP1 RP1 ( ) RP2 ( ) Average horizontal en route flight efficiency: based on flight plan trajectories EU-wide level KEP: based on flight plan trajectories Network Manager KEA: based on actual trajectories FAB 7

83 KPI DEFINITION KEA - Definition The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle), summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace. What exactly does this mean? 8

84 KPI DEFINITION KEA the basics As illustrated in the figure, the calculation of the KEA is based on the difference between: (L) the length of the flight s trajectory (blue line) between the Origin (O) and Destination (D) points, and (G) the Great Circle Distance between the Origin and Destination (green line) Within the EU-wide area 9

85 KPI DEFINITION KEA breakdown at FAB level A logical way to proceed would be to calculate FAB KEA figures as the difference between: L1, L2, L3: the length of the trajectory from entry to exit (blue lines), and G1, G2, G3: the great circle distances between entry and exit (dotted grey lines). FAB 1 FAB 2 FAB 3 10

86 KPI DEFINITION KEA breakdown at FAB level This way, the sum of the FAB actual trajectories (L1, L2, L3) is equal to the total actual trajectory (L), but The sum of the FAB great circle distances (G1, G2, G3) is greater than the total origin-destination great circle distance (G) FAB 1 FAB 2 FAB 3 11

87 KPI DEFINITION KEA breakdown at FAB level: Methodology Actual trajectory at FAB level is compared against the achieved distance: The achieved distance (H1, H2, H3) is proportion of the great circle distance between Origin (O) and Destination (D) points, related to the entry and the exit points of the FAB airspace. FAB 1 FAB 2 FAB 3 12

88 KPI DEFINITION KEA breakdown at FAB level: Methodology KEA = length of the actual trajectory (Li) Achieved distance (Hi) KEA = FAB route extension (Li - Gi) + Network Interface component (Gi - Hi) KEA at EU Network level (L G) is the sum of KEAs at FAB level (Σ (Li Hi)) FAB 1 FAB 2 FAB 3 13

89 KPI DEFINITION KEA - Definition In the measurement of the KEA, the 40 NM circles around the departure and arrival airports of the flight are excluded. 14

90 PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN INTERDEPENDENCIES 15

91 EU-WIDE TARGETS EU-wide target The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) at least 2.6 % in All FABs have to contribute to the achievement of this target. This target can be broken down per FAB. According to regulation, FAB targets shall be assessed against a reference value provided by the Network Manager 16

92 PERFORMANCE PROFILE Performance Profile The SW FAB is currently 5% the most inefficient FAB 4% in all Europe, regarding en 3% route horizontal flight 2% efficiency of the actual 1% trajectory (KEA) 0% KEA actual figures 17

93 EU-WIDE TARGET BREAKDOWN EU-wide target breakdown Consequently, according to the reference values estimated by the Network Manager, the SW FAB is the on that has to improve the most during RP2 1,2% 1,0% 0,8% 0,6% 0,4% 0,2% 0,0% KEA: required improvement 18

94 PROPOSED TARGETS KEA: Network Manager Reference Values - Targets SW FAB reference values proposed by the NM represent a KEA improvement of 0.99 points from 2012 to 2019 (23% inefficiency decrease) SW FAB Targets are the values proposed by the Network Manager 4,4% 4,2% 4,0% 3,8% 3,6% 3,4% 3,2% 3,0% KEA - SW FAB targets 4,27% 3,85% 3,71% 3,57% 3,43% 3,28%

95 PROPOSED TARGETS KEA: SW FAB Targets SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of current performance (improvements in 2013) and the action plans in place. Targets are a consequence of: Portugal: sustainment of the performance levels in Portugal, where free route airspace (FRA) is currently implemented above FL245 Spain: gradual improvement of the flight efficiency in the Spanish airspace by means of the actions planned at FAB level 20

96 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN INTERDEPENDENCIES 21

97 STARTING POINT STARTING POINT Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL): implemented since 2009 above FL245. Portugal Spain Cross border boundary limit definition irrespective of national borders since

98 SW FAB FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN Flight efficiency improvement action plan SW FAB The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects ranging from minor ATS route alignments to a large scale reorganization They are grouped in three main areas: Free Route Airspace Network Improvement Civil Military Coordination 23

99 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE Free Route Airspace Lisboa Madrid Brest The aim is to extend Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West Spain, towards the French coast to accommodate main traffic flows into the West Airspace Operational Block of the SW FAB airspace, creating one of the biggest Free Route Airspaces in the ECAC area 24

100 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE FRA: Lisboa Madrid - Brest Step 1: improvement of the interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs 25

101 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE FRA: Lisboa Madrid - Brest Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in Santiago (SAN) and Asturias (ASI) sectors, from FL245 to UNL (known as FRASAI) Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as continuation of Free Route Airspace in SW FAB 26

102 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT Network Improvement Several projects planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign The route network improvements within the SOWEPP deal with lateral and vertical interconnectivity, including interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent areas. There is a direct link with European Network Improvement Plan 27

103 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT Canarias TMA project Implementation of a new P RNAV based TMA in Canarias FIR TMA design will enhance current SID/STAR structure, enabling flights to operate close to user preferred trajectories 28

104 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT SW FAB / Marseille FIR interface project Restructuration of this interface to allow a better flow organisation and transfer of traffic between the eastern part of the SW FAB airspace and FABEC 29

105 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT SW FAB / Bordeaux interface project Restructuration of the interface between the Barcelona, Madrid and Bordeaux FIR/UIRs. Segregating major traffic flows and creating specialised ATC sectors, considering both civil and military airspace needs. 30

106 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT Casablanca Dualisation project Split of ATS airways in the Lisboa Casablanca Canarias interface to accommodate main traffic flows between Europe and South Atlantic Region, including the Canary Islands. 31

107 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT Madrid TMA project (OPTIMA) Design and implementation of a new P RNAV structure for Madrid TMA. Re organisation of Madrid approach sectors and implementation of independent parallel approaches. Barcelona TMA project New P RNAV structure for Barcelona TMA including a re organisation of ATC sectors. New SID/STARs will be introduced in the Barcelona airport (LEBL) prior to the implementation of the P-RNAV structure. 32

108 NETWORK IMPROVEMENT ATS Network improvements projects Implementation of short term improvements agreed by the Route Network Development Sub Group (RNDSG) which affect to SW FAB. Faro TMA New CNS infrastructure to develop P- RNAV procedures Lisboa TMA Terminal area will be restructured taking advantage of P RNAV 33

109 CIVIL MILITARY COORDINATION Civil Military Coordination Includes a FUA optimisation projects Flight efficiency projects previously listed require civil-military coordination enhancements as already explained in their description. Consequently, civil-military coordination must not be seen in isolation, but as a fundamental part in the implementation of broader initiatives. 34

110 INTERDEPENDENCIES ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN INTERDEPENDENCIES 35

111 INTERDEPENDENCIES Holdings Some inefficiency caused by the holdings in the terminal areas is currently being computed as enroute inefficiency. 40 NM 36

112 INTERDEPENDENCIES Flight Efficiency vs Capacity Actual trajectory modifications with respect to the filed flight plan, (such as direct routing, etc) may cause overload in other sectors It is considered as a good practice (to perform the actual trajectories as adherent as possible to the last filed flight plan. This recommended practices are followed, in particular in Spain where there is a very similar level of inefficiency contribution to the KEA and KEP indicators 37

113 INTERDEPENDENCIES Business choices Trade-offs between environment and cost-efficiency, are in many ways trade-offs made by the airspace users when looking for their better balance between the extra cost of fuel burnt, and the cost of route charges The consequences of this balance made by airlines for business strategic reasons, has an impact on the air navigation services provision 38

114 INTERDEPENDENCIES Business choices Example Traffic going from Europe to South America: recent traffic analysis reveals a decrease in the number of overflights in the Canary Islands airspace partly due to a deviation of the flights from the shortest routes between Europe and South America Shortest routes Actual routes 39

115 INTERDEPENDENCIES Economic benefits of flight efficiency Flight efficiency improvements, represent shorter flights and less fuel burnt. Consequently: cost savings for the airspace users. Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL) above flight level 245, implemented since 7 May 2009, has enabled an annual reduction of 1,300,000 NM (miles), representing: Fuel savings of more than 8,783 tons An emission reduction of about 27 Kton of CO2 An estimated save of over 12 million Euros per year, for the airspace users 40

116 Thank you very much! 41

117 CONSULTATION MEETING 20 MAY 2014 Draft RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan SOWEPP (CONSULTATION DOCUMENT) CAPACITY AENA 1

118 CAPACITY. En-route ATFM delay per flight Capacity targets AENA Spanish achievements in the performance area of capacity have been very significant during the first two years of RP1, with a 74% improvement in the en-route ATFM delay indicator in 2013 compared with 2011 values. 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, Spanish NPP RP1 NOP /19 SW FAB RP2 RP1 RP2 2

119 CAPACITY. Efforts carried out in SPAIN This reduction in delays has been achieved together with other improvements obtained in additional indicators equally associated to quality of service, such as ASMA, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 4% in the five main TMAs (10% in Madrid) and TAXI-OUT, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 14% in the five airports with more traffic (30% in Palma). ASMA (min/flight) Airport % Madrid 0,82 0,74-9,8% Barcelona 1,44 1,29-10,4% Palma Mallorca 1,6 1,42-11,3% Málaga 0,72 0,74 2,8% Gran Canaria 1,15 1,23 7,0% DATA PRB TAXI-OUT (min/flight) Airport % Madrid 4,37 3,85-11,9% Barcelona 4,67 4,36-6,6% Palma Mallorca 4,22 2,95-30,1% Málaga 2,26 2,31 2,2% Gran Canaria 1,99 1,48-25,6% DATA PRB 3

120 CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan Next table shows the information extracted from the draft NOP /19 which is still in approval process. 4

121 Full Implementation SACTA CF2 SACTA 3.z5.60 (AGDL) SACTA 4.1 (ITEC) SWFAB/FABEDC Marsella Interface, including LUMAS SWFAB7FABEC Bordeaux Interface Interfaz Sevilla/ Casablanca Safety Nets A-CDM PRNAV TMA CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan Barcelona ACC Canarias ACC Madrid ACC Palma ACC Sevilla ACC DATA NOP 5

122 CAPACITY. Terminal and Airport Targets Lack of experience in this KPI target setting. Issues with historic evolution recommend not to use it as the only reference. Need of deeper analysis at individual airport level. The accomplishment of the target requires success in various areas through the participation of the different stakeholders involved. Meteorologia MET 33% 33% AERODROME Capacidad Aeródromo CAPACITY 25% 25% Capacidad ATC ATC CAPACITY 32% 32% ATC Resto OTHER ATC 3% Resto OTHER Otras 7% Global target set as a function of the traffic forecast and the specific analyses carried out for each airport. Target is aligned with other FAB plans. 6

123 CAPACITY. Terminal and airport ANS ATFM delay per flight Gran Canaria (GCLP): The number of approach sectors to be used will continue to be just one, with the possibility to use two sectors when necessary. Barcelona (LEBL): The main capacity constraint is due to environmental issues, the structural and operational capacity of the airport has reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated). Flow Control measures will be taken in order to better balance traffic between two TMA sectors: T1 which is currently overloaded and T2, which has available capacity. Additionally, a new sector in Barcelona TMA will increase capacity to/from Barcelona (LEBL) by handling some of its flows and mainly by managing traffic to/from Girona (LEGE). ACDM (from 2016) will contribute to improving performance. Madrid-Barajas (LEMD): The main project planned for the future is the implementation of independent simultaneous approaches to parallel runways. Málaga (LEMG): The second runway will be used to satisfy demand when needed. Current approach sectors configurations are considered adequate. Palma de Mallorca (LEPA): Current runway lay out is a major constraint to improvement. Nevertheless, several developments in the ATC system will contribute to better performance: DMAN & ACDM; AMAN. 7

124 Draft South West FAB Performance Plan RP2 SOWEPP SW FAB USERS CONSULTATION DAY 20th May 2014 INAC

125 Portuguese Proposal for Cost-Efficiency Lisbon FIR 2

126 CONTENT COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS S PROPOSAL INVESTMENTS COST OF CAPITAL INTERDEPENDENCES CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY MAIN REMARKS Q&A 3

127 COST-EFFICIENCY RP2 Portuguese proposal Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets Cost efficiency KPI #1.1: Portugal Lisboa En-route DUC Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Nominal) Inflation index (base 2012) Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real EUR 2012) Total en route Service Units (000) 3,190 3,202 3,219 3,245 3,269 Real (EUR 2012) en-route DUC

128 COST-EFFICIENCY RP2 Costs in EUR '000 Determined costs by nature Cost details Detail by nature (in nominal terms) Staff Other operating costs (1) , Depreciation Cost of capital Total costs Total % n/n-1 5,0,% 3,3% 2,7% 2,7% Staff % n/n-1 3,6% 3,7% 2,8% 1,7% Other op. % n/n-1 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% Cost-efficiency KPI - Determined Unit Rate/Actual Unit Cost (in real terms) Inflation % 1,20% 1,50% 1,50% 1,50% 1,50% Price index 102,3 103,9 105,4 107,0 108,6 Total costs real terms Total % n/n-1 3,5% 1,8% 1,2% 1,2% (1) Including EUROCONTROL costs 5

129 COST-EFFICIENCY RP2 (000 euros) Determined costs by service Air Traffic Managment Communication Navigation Surveillance Search and Rescue Aeronautical Information Meteorological services Supervision costs (NSA) Other State Costs (EUROCONTROL) Total costs Total %n/n-1 5,03% 3,33% 2,68% 2,71% ATM %n/n-1 4,21% 4,31% 0,07% 2,16% CNS %n/n-1 11,1% 1,3% 11,7% 4,9% 6

130 EUR 2009 COST-EFFICIENCY RP2 Portuguese proposal vs EU wide targets 65,00 63,71 55,00 49,26 23% over the period 49,10 45,00 35,00 32% over the period 33,57 25, Lisboa DUC (low scenario) Union-wide DUC (low scenario) 7

131 INVESTMENTS Name of Investment CAPEX Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR) Total CAPEX for RP2 Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1) 8,7 16,3 9,9 7 11,8 53,7 1) LISATM V9.2 0,6 0,2 0,8 2) Lisbon ACC New System 7,4 4,5 1,7 6,5 20,1 3) Comunication systems 2,1 1,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 4,6 4) Navigation systems 1,6 1,4 1,9 3,6 8,5 5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM 2,6 2,6 6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement 0,5 2 2,4 4,9 7) SSR Mode S 0,4 3,8 0,3 2,7 1 8,2 8) Buildings and electromechanical systems 0,9 1,7 0,6 0,4 0,4 4 Sub-total other Capex (2) 0,1 0, ,1 0,5 Total CAPEX (1) + (2) 8,8 16,6 9,9 7 11,9 54,2 8

132 COST OF CAPITAL Cost of Capital considered in Effective rates 2011 & re Return on Equity 7,56% 6,44% 15,33% 9,50% 8,29% rd Average interest on debts 1,88% 0,45% 1,45% 0,94% 0,34% L Financial leverage 14,1% 1,7% 15,1% 12,6% 10,1% t Tax rate 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% WACC 6,76% 6,34% 13,24% 8,42% 7,49% 9

133 INTERDEPENDENCES CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY The capacity and cost-efficiency KPI s are closely related. The recent changes in traffic flows have required the adoption of a New Capacity Plan, whose main objectives are to meet the traffic demand and increase 3 movements per hour, avoiding a huge cost increase for airspace users; The status quo would lead to delays higher than 0,40 minutes per flight; According to the above mentioned plan, it will be possible to keep the delays at 0,20 minutes per flight, through the implementation of new operational procedures; A better capacity performance would require the opening of the 2 new sectors, as well as hire new ATCO (more 28 hours per day). 10

134 MAIN REMARKS The Lisbon FIR en-route charges will remain lower than the average of European Union; Notwithstanding the recent changes in traffic flows, with implications in the quality of services (delay), all efforts will be done in order to meet the demand without increasing costs and delays; Since 2009, the ANSP has been develloping all efforts in order to create more competitive advantages for its users. Until 2019, it is estimated that the costs will decrease by 32%, while the European average is 23%. 11

135 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. 12

136 South West FAB Performance Plan June RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014 Meeting Minutes

137 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June South West FAB Performance Plan Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting 1 MEETING ARRANGEMENTS Headquarters of the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento (Paseo de la Castellana, 67, Madrid, 3rd Floor, Auditorium), Tuesday 20th of May of 2014, 10:00-16:00. 2 ATTENDANCE LIST NAME ORGANIZATION Paco J. Fernández APROCTA Estrella Gutiérrez ANSMET/NSA-MET SPAIN Antonio Corpa IBERIA Ramón Montero ACETA Ángeles Pozo IBERIA Laurie O Toole IATA Pete Curran IATA Javier Valdés IATA Pilar Zuloaga IATA Luis Castillo DGAC Javier Martínez AENA Jesús Romero AENA Santi Cortés-Burns AENA Elena Vega AENA Afola Miranda NAV Portugal Nuno Simoes NAV Portugal Marifé Antón Spanish Air Force (support) Francisco J. Moreno Spanish Air Force, Operations Division Esperanza Herráiz AESA-DSATI Raquel Sanz AESA-DSATI María Da Luz Antonio INAC Portugal Pablo Hernández-Coronado AESA-DSATI Ana Gómez-Pineda AESA-DSANA David Nieto AESA-DSANA Juan Roca Ryanair Eduardo Abia AESA-DSANA (SENASA) Mª Isabel Izquierdo AESA-DSANA (SENASA) Pablo Olmeda ALA Cristina Montero AENA AEROPUERTOS Ricardo López AESA Emiliano C. Morona AENA Page 1

138 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 NAME ORGANIZATION Carmen Ferreirós AENA Carlos Oliver AESA (ISDEFE) Mª Victoria Arin AESA Leandro Calvo AESA Paloma Arriaga AEMET Sergio García AEMET José Antonio Fernández AEMET 3 AGENDA 10:00-10:15 Introduction 10:15-11:00 Safety Targets and plans associated to: Level of EoSM Application of the RAT methodology Just Culture 11:00-11:45 Environment Targets and plans associated to: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) 11:45-12:30 En route Capacity: Traffic forecast At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values and plans associated to: En route ATFM delay per flight Incentive Scheme 12:30-13:30 Break 13:30-14:15 Terminal Capacity Traffic forecast Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight 14:15-15:00 En route Cost-Efficiency Traffic forecast At National level, and for each accountable entity: En route Determined costs En route Determined Unit Costs Investments 15:00-15:45 Terminal Cost-Efficiency Traffic forecast At National level, and for each accountable entity: En route Determined costs En route Determined Unit Costs Investments 15:45-16:00 Any other issues Page 2

139 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June SUMMARY David Nieto from AESA welcomed all participants in the meeting room. No comments were made to the agenda. The SOWEPP was then presented to the audience. 4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE SOWEPP AESA-DSANA initiated the SOWEPP presentation by introducing the regulatory framework and clarifying that according to that only those Spanish airports of more than 70,000 movements have been included in the plan. INAC explained that for cost-efficiency matters, all airports have been included. Therefore, Azores and Madeira airports have been included in the common scheme, which makes the scheme cheaper. Comment #1. IATA: We have had cost-efficiency meetings with all the States who have asked to us to participate (i.e. Germany, France). 4.2 SAFETY ISSUES AESA-DSATI presented this safety part. According to ICAO, in 2013 the achieved figure of passenger fatalities per 100,000 flights worldwide was of 0.1. Therefore, safety is of paramount importance. It is important to note that the SW FAB is the gateway to Europe from the SW. Therefore, it manages a considerable number of flights throughout the year and safety is a paramount area. Concerning the level of EoSM, the proposed SW FAB targets at NSA level is to reach level C by 2019, according to the European-wide target. Nevertheless, at ANSP level the proposed SW FAB target of level D for all MOs go beyond the European-wide targets (level C for safety culture MO and level D for all other MOs). Concerning the NSAs (ESA and INAC), both will focus on the areas in which they have lower performance levels to reach level C of maturity by According to the safety plans of Aena and NAV Portugal, it will be possible to achieve level D in all management objectives by With respect to the application of RAT methodology to separation minima infringements (SMIs), runway incursions (RIs) and ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S) both in terms of ground an overall score, the proposed targets in the SOWEPP are consistent with the EU-wide targets (80% by 2017 and 100% by 2019 for ground score and for the overall score: 80% of SMIs and RIs by 2019 as well as 80% of ATM-S by 2017, 100% of ATM-S by 2019). Aena and INAC will work together during RP2 in order to identify common areas for potential improvements towards the establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach. Comment #2. IATA: asked whether the SW FAB has an overall safety policy and the SW FAB is working on a common safety policy and material. AESA-DSATI explained that both authorities and providers are working to develop a common safety policy and training material for the SW FAB. AESA-DSANA then added that a common safety policy is one of the priorities of the NSA groups, and a common safety policy is expected to be finalised by the end of this year. Page 3

140 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Comment #3. IATA: asked whether the NSAs plan to share this policy with the users. IATA wants to see a real collaboration as there is the impression that AENA and NAV Portugal are experiencing different evolutions which evidences that there is not a lot of cooperation and sharing of practices (two-state operations approach). They want to check that the strategy is at the right point and make a follow-up. AESA-DSANA then replied that they are developing common inspection procedures and framework as well as common safety oversight activities. There is an effort to join teams and facilities. Comment #4. IATA: asked whether they plan to do more with fewer resources or just do better work with the same resources. Any resource savings? AESA-DSANA replied that they expect to exploit synergies to take full advantage of both partners. The obligation as an NSA is to have adequate resources in place and number. The intention is to have a robust plan and exploit synergies. The challenge is to save effort. Nevertheless, from an NSA perspective, the SW FAB has developed a FAB Operational Plan under the remits of the SW FAB Committee. This is already considered an improvement. Comment #5. IATA: What is the practical implication? Cost savings? AESA-DSATI commented that the operational changes specified in the FAB Operational Plan have been assessed as a joint team. The practical implication of this activity is the enhancement of safety levels. Comment #6. IATA: According to the information provided, Portugal NSA plans to be in level B until 2018 and then achieve level C in They will appreciate more information about the safety plans. AESA-DSATI replied that there is a plan. There are only four questions in which we are at level B. The main points are: Implementation of QMS, best practices sharing, common safety policy and safety culture methodology to be applied not only on ANSPs but providers as well. INAC added that Portugal expects to achieve level C before the end of Nevertheless, they are going through an internal reorganization process of the authority to become more independent. They expect therefore to require more facilities and staff to undertake these activities. Nowadays they are still studying some common policies to save costs concerning training and the implementation of procedures. Comment #7. IATA: They would like to have the number of questions under level C, more quantitative information. They still see a gap between level C and D and they need more information to better understand if this target is ambitious or not. The document explains these values qualitatively but they want to have some quantitative information on this respect. AESA-DSATI explained that a procedure has been approved trying to achieve level C in order to promote safety. They are also developing a safety culture methodology. It is also important to note that AESA only applies RAT to SMIs and RIs from categories A, B and C and for ATM-S, RAT is applied to SMIs and RIs from categories AA,A, B and C. Comment #8. IATA: It seems that there are two different speeds in the FAB when looking at the targets for AENA and INAC regarding the RAT. Is there any practice sharing within the FAB? INAC comments that it is not 0% in 2015 and 2016, they are working to introduce values for these years in the final plan. The operators still need to check the values. Page 4

141 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Comment #9. IATA: insisted that it is clear for them that there is not a common FAB plan, but two plans one for Spain and another for Portugal. It seems not to be optimized in terms of resources and activities. Portugal then explained that the SW FAB is working in developing common procedures. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AESA-DSANA introduces the environmental KPI (KEA) and explains the differences with respect to RP1. In RP1 the KPI was defined as the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator, estimated from the difference between the actual trajectory versus de great circle distance, where the actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) or the last filed flight plan. The target was set at European Network level only. For RP2, the KPI is defined as the average en-route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory, estimated using as well the actual trajectory. However, this actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of radar data or actual trajectories. The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en-route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory at least 2.6% in All FABs have to contribute to the achievement of this target. The Network Manager has provided reference values for all the FABs. In the case of the SW FAB, it is proposed an improvement of 0.99 points in the target from 2012 to The proposed KEA values for the SW FAB are then the following: for 2012: 4.27%, for 2015: 3.85%, for 2016: 3.71%, for 2017: 3.57%, for 2018: 3.43% and for 2019: 3.28%. Comment #10. Iberia: Why is there no improvement for 2014? AESA-DSANA explained that this value has not yet being estimated for 2014.This value corresponds to RP1. Comment #11. ACETA: is there any reference value before 2012? This is a new indicator which has not been estimated before. AESA-DSANA explained that there is no experience on this indicator and AESA has already expressed its concerns concerning this target due to the fact that it is not possible to make any estimation from previous periods. AESA-DSANA continued explaining that the SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of current performance and the action plans in place. The starting point is the Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL) implemented since 2009 above FL245 and the definition of the Portugal-Spain cross-border boundary limit. The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects ranging from minor ATS route alignments to large scale reorganization. The Free Route Airspace initiative includes the following projects: Lisboa-Madrid-Brest project: extension of the Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West Spain towards the French coast. This project consists in 3 steps. Step 1: improvement of the interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs. Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in Page 5

142 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Santiago and Asturias sectors from FL245 to INL. Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as continuation of Free Route Airspace in SW FAB. Comment #12. IATA: It is always good to achieve the reference values. What is the timing for steps 1 to 3? AESA-DSANA replied that the overall project is expected to be implemented in Nevertheless not all the activities will be implemented at the same time. On one hand, step 2 FRASAI is already implemented since May On the other hand, step 1 is expected to be implemented in 2015, according to the NOP. AESA-DSANA then proposed to provide more detailed information on these activities in the performance plan in reply to IATA s request. IATA insisted that the evolution of the activities in the performance plan is not clear to them. Comment #13. IATA: Have you undertaken any cost-benefit analysis on this project? What is the magnitude of the investment on this project? AENA replied that they don t have that information at the moment, they need to ask internally for more information on investments. The presentation continued with the proposed network improvement initiatives. Several projects are planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign (Canarias TMA, Madrid TMa, Barcelona TMA, etc) and the interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent areas (SW FAB/Marseille FIR interface project, Casablanca dualisation project). These activities have a direct link with the European Network Improvement Plan. Regarding the he civil and military coordination activities, they are a fundamental part in the implementation of all the previously related initiatives and cannot be treated in isolation. Comment #14. IATA: they noted that the interface problems created with the military and the French airspace. Is there any use of FUA? AESA-DSANA commented that military issues need to be addressed more in depth. Comment #15. IATA: Any plan of free routes below FL245? According to the PCP proposal, free route above FL310 throughout Europe will be required for the next year. AESA-DSANA explained that what it is stated in the SW FAB plan is solid and consistent with the European Route Network Plan. Aena also commented that the plan includes what can be reasonably achieved. For instance, Aena is working on the extension of free routes in Canarias but this information is not included in the plan as it is not possible to do it in the way they would like to do it. It is also important to note that Aena is not the sole actor in this play. Furthermore, they have to cope with big inefficiencies in the Spanish airspace structure, which gives a lot of room for improvement. In addition, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the effect of the proposed measures and the initiatives in place. NAV Portugal added in this respect that the only way to improve efficiency is to review the route structure and extend the free routes. Page 6

143 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 The Spanish DGAC clarified that during the last SES Committee the PCP proposal included in the annex was not approved. Therefore, the future of the PCP annex remains open as Member States have expressed their concerns regarding its implementation. The annex of the PCP can then be subject of local revision in the coming future. To finalize with the discussion, IATA wondered whether we want confidence on the regulations. Concerning interdependencies in the case of the environmental indicators, the presentation continued with a list of identified causes of inefficiencies: holdings in the terminal areas, actual trajectory modifications with respect to the filed flight plan, business choices by which airspace users make a choice between the extra cost of fuel burnt that a selection of an alternative route might imply and the difference in the cost of route charges (example: traffic from Europe to South America). Comment #16. IATA: In relation to the business choices and more precisely the example of routes through Canarias, wind is also an important factor apart from the route charges. Comment #17. ACETA: In relation to the environmental target. This target is linked to the first SES objectives. ACETA would like this target to be more ambitious, between 2.60 and 2.28 from now to ACETA does not have technical information available but they really want to have a lower target more aligned with the SES objectives. Regarding the Atlantic routes, ACETA considers that a technical solution at FAB level should be found. Refuse the provision of direct routing is also affecting this environmental parameter. This way of operating is in place in Spain since 2 or 3 years ago. AESA then commented that we are the worst FAB in terms of performance right now. Hence this FAB has to improve the most because of structural problems. When looking at the required improvement to achieve it is a different story. The Network Manager has agreed with the proposed values and considers they are valid to achieve the target. Indeed, the deviation of some specific routes can be solved at FAB level. Concerning direct routing, the scarce provision of these direct routings causes inevitably inefficiencies that are captured by this environmental indicator. Anyway, it is important to note that the Network Manager also provides indications that are against this indicator. Comment #18. IATA: there seems to be a lot of projects in place, how are they going to be managed? Do you expect to increase the number of controllers? IATA s assumption is that there is operational capacity in the system to be explored and they are therefore interested in the business cases. AENA explained that they are carrying out an intense training program within the company. The free route initiative in Asturias is a big challenge for the company and they have identified that additional training is required. Operationally-related capacity initiatives will not be directly translated into extra resources. This is not what they plan to provide. 4.4 CAPACITY ISSUES As an introduction, it is explained to the audience that the SOWEPP flight forecast for RP2 is consistent with the STATFOR forecast for the LOW scenario as of February Page 7

144 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Concerning the en-route ATFM delay, AENA introduced the AENA targets. AENA target of 0.48 min of enroute ATFM delay per flight is below the delay forecast of the NOP Nevertheless, historically AENA has always over-performed their targets. Comment #19. IATA: Asks for the delay forecast of 2.1 for 2019 in the NOP. AENA explains that in that version of the NOP were plans independent from capacity. Aena has then thoroughly reviewed these figures in the NOP and gone through the interdependencies with other KPAs. An updated version will be published by the end of June by the Network Manager. This version of the NOP has been approved in the NETOPS. Comment #20. IATA: the FAB reference value remains in 0.30? AENA answered positively. Anyway this value was introduced in October AENA is putting priority on the costs area. AENA continued with the capacity plan included in the NOP. The Portuguese information has still to be included. Additional details on the operational and technical measures for the Spanish NSA were provided. NAV Portugal complemented this presentation by announcing a target of 0.2 for Portugal over the reference period. This is above the reference value provided by the PRB. Nevertheless, it is important to note that since February they have been provided with a new traffic forecast. The traffic increased 6% in 2013, which was not expected and now they foresee a 3% traffic improvement in They have asked to the Network Manager for an update of the NOP, considering different scenarios (opening of two new sectors, optimize resources, improve procedures) to deal with the issue of this changing traffic and maintain the 0,2 min of en-route ATFM delay/flight over the period. To meet this target, they have identified that they need to increase costs and improve operations in the critical areas. Otherwise, if nothing is done, the forecast delay is over 0.80 by Comment #21. IATA: Differences between the last version of the NOP and current draft are all related to traffic? What are the reasons? AENA replied that major changes in the NOP are not related to traffic. Major changes are due to the required number of new sectors to be opened according to the new version, when compared to the closure of some sectors as depicted in the previous version of the plan. In any case, it is important to note that service providers provide information (plans, projects) to the Network Manager and they include all this information in the machine and come up with a figure of the service level of quality. However, after the first version of the plan, they have also understood that it is not all about the methodology. Comment #22. IATA: Do you still feel comfortable with the STATFOR LOW scenario forecast? Traffic is growing above low scenario right now. Is the consequence in terms of traffic risk-sharing being considered? AESA-DSANA intervened to clarify that this point is commonly shared and they support IATA s concerns. The situation is stable neither for Spain nor for Portugal. We are not sure whether the traffic forecast might considerably change. Page 8

145 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Comment #23. IATA: What about the contribution to the EU-wide targets? Targets would be met with the reference value of 0.30 min of en-route ATFM delay per flight, but not with the proposed value of 0.52 min of en-route ATFM delay per flight. It is difficult for them to support this value. Is it a question of additional investment? It would be healthy to take a look at different scenarios: costs versus capacity. Looking for different options, IATA acknowledges the fact that there are many projects and they will appreciate to have more conversations on what solutions could be, particularly when missing the targets. AESA-DSANA replied that there are additional scenarios to be considered to that of reducing costs versus capacity. Airlines have expressed their interest to participate more. To that respect, Aena commented that it would be healthy to engage users in the ANPS projects decision making process. Today there is a meeting of the SW FAB Operational Board with the users with the aim at checking on whether the proposed projects are those that the airlines want. This forum with the airlines will be more focused in operational aspects rather than costs. AESA-DSANA suggested to AENA to extend the invitation to IATA. AENA thinks that they have been already invited but they will check the list of invitees. AENA finally commented in reference to the value that the reference values are figures delivered by a machine, while the proposed values are something solid. Comment #24. IATA: comments that this fact does not change the situation. Nevertheless, sticking to these activities and initiatives is the best possible scenario INCENTIVE SCHEME The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB level. The proposed incentive formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band. Therefore, bonuses are awarded for achievement of performance which goes beyond the target. Only the ANSPs that have achieved their individual reference value are awarded a bonus. And only the ANSPs that have not met their reference value are penalized. Comment #25. IATA: commented that this scheme is new for them. They found prudent not to go up to 1% for the maximum value. In fact, they would prefer to go lower than 1%. In terms of the symmetrical nature of the function, they requested to look at the scheme more carefully and consider other options before taking a final decision. Other FABs are taking other approaches. They consider a best practice to apply just penalties. AESA-DSANA comments that a final decision has not yet be taken. We are trying to find common points between NAV Portugal and Aena. NAV Portugal intervened afterwards to express their agreement with the proposed model. However, their views with respect to AENA were slightly different in some aspects. They haven t agreed on the parameters of the linear function yet. For instance, they did not foresee to reach the maximum value of 1% of income. They proposed instead a value for the maximum value of 0.75%. Their aim was to have a fair incentive scheme. AESA acknowledged the preference of airlines for non-symmetrical functions. Discussions are still ongoing regarding questions like dead-band or not, range for the maximum value, etc. Page 9

146 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Comment #26. IATA: added that probably the most important thing to do in the scheme is to take the target at the most appropriate level with very small percentage of revenues, something that will make sense. The maximum or minimun level of bonus/penalty is not that important particularly considering the lack of experience. With regard to the gradient, they needed to think more on what sort of gradient they would prefer. In any case, they could illustrate us on this because they have some ideas. Obviously, they would expect penalties to come faster than bonuses. Comment #27. IATA OT: considered that they are already paying for the service. The incentive is for improving the facilities and services that users are already paying for. AESA-DSANA expressed their support to the symmetrical model, they consider it is a good model. NAV Portugal also stated that, in their opinion, the symmetric model is the fairest and more balanced model. In their view, the open issue is to set the appropriate parameters. Comment #28. IATA: added that the UK has a scheme which was implemented years ago. They recommend learning from that. This scheme has evolved from a symmetric to a non symmetric model based on the experience TERMINAL CAPACITY AENA presented the capacity KPI for terminal and airports. This is a new KPI and there is no experience in setting up this type of target. There is need of a depth analysis at individual airport level to account not only for historical evolution. The aggregated proposed target is of 0.8 min of delay per arrival flight for each year of the period. In addition to that, specific targets for the selected airports (Gran Canaria, Barcelona, Madrid- Barajas, Málaga and Palma de Mallorca) are provided. These targets are aligned with the targets proposed in other FAB plans. Finally, the characteristics and local initiatives to improve terminal capacity on each of the selected airports were explained. INAC explained that they have not provided yet the figures for Portugal because they have identified differences in the airport information, which needs to be clarified. NAV Portugal added to this information that they have a list of 9 airports included in the terminal zone, of which 5 of those airports are located in the FIR. They have estimated the amount of delays from historical data for the period 2006 to Four of them have shown a delay of 0 min/arrival flight (Azores). The other 5 remaining airports consist in 3 airports located in the mainland and 2 airports in Madeira. According to the historical analysis results, the Porto airport has shown to experience the highest weather constraints (between 0.6 to 0.7 min/arrival flight). Lisbon airport, on its side, experienced the highest capacity constraints (between 0.4 to 0.55 min/arrival flight). For RP2, no increase in the delay estimation is foreseen for these two airports. In the forthcoming days, they expect to provide and distribute precise figures. Preliminary, they have estimated a global terminal KPI figure of 0.55 min/arrival flight. Comment #29. IATA: Considering that the deadline for providing comments is the 3rd of June, they would like to receive the data as soon as possible. Page 10

147 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 NAV Portugal committed to distribute the values by Friday. AESA-DSANA requested to NAV Portugal to circulate the figures directly to AESA, IATA and the Commission. Comment #30. IATA: This is the first time that this target is established. It would be useful to understand the historical performance of the airports. Are the figures limited to ATC Capacity? AENA replied that historical data is not homogenous throughout the years. Besides, there is not enough experience. These targets are estimated making use of the traffic forecast and an analysis tool introduced by EUROCONTROL. Concerning ATC Capacity, only 32% in average of this parameter is due to that cause. They have chosen a simple approach, a constant value throughout the period addressing all causes. Comment #31. IATA: Is there any ambition in Madrid and Barcelona? We would appreciate an improvement in the efficiency level. AENA explained that the environmental issues limit any potential progress at airports. In fact, they find the targets to be quite challenging. In Barcelona, there has been a substantial increase in the traffic compared with the traffic forecast for next years. They are also planning to deploy A-CDM in Barcelona by In the case of Madrid, as they mentioned before in the environmental part, they have plans to improve the TMA operations. The objective is to operate with independent parallel runway approaches instead of current segregated runway approaches. The proposed targets are both achievable and challenging. Comment #32. IATA: Is Madrid currently performing better than Barcelona? AENA explained that Barcelona airport performed better than Madrid airport last year, but from the ATC point of view it is more difficult to improve capacity. IATA commented that they will have to look to historical data and come back with more questions. Comment #33. ACETA: commented on the 0.48 target compared to the 0.41 actual value achieved in They consider that the target should not be worse than the 2013 value. Regarding the terminal target, taking out from the estimation those years that showed bad performance, they obtain an average value of 0.58 min/arrival flight. In relation to the incentive scheme, the bonus and penalties should be applied to both the ANSP and the user. It is important to note that a non ambitious target leads to easy bonuses as well as stringent targets lead to imminent penalties. AESA-DSANA then proposed to establish the following mechanism to consult airlines. It is clear that forecast traffic was not realistic for airports. [Action 01:]It is then proposed to circulate historical information (by tomorrow) so airlines will be able to comment on performance. 4.5 COST-EFFICIENCY Regarding cost-efficiency, the Performance Regulation requires that the target for en-route cost-efficiency for en-route services is expressed in terms of the determined unit costs, at charging zone level and in local currency. There are three en-route charging zones within the SW FAB: Portugal Lisboa, Spain Canarias and Spain Continental. The EU-wide en-route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide a reduction in determined unit costs by 3.3.% per year over RP2: from Real (EUR 2009 ) en-route DUC in 2015 to Page 11

148 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Real (EUR 2009 ) en-route DUC in In the SOWEPP, the en-route service unit variation for the RP2 period has been selected in consistency with the STATFOR forecast LOW scenario as of February This presentation continued with the detailed information provided by INAC on cost-efficiency followed by AENA COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL INAC presented the cost-efficiency part of the plan for all the accountable entities. Staff costs were increased to consider a 2% salary upgrade. The total CAPEX for RP2 was of 54 MEUR. The cost of capital was considered on the base of a low average interest on debts (lower than 1% according to the recommendations) for RP2. The Portuguese DUC is always lower than the European average throughout RP2 and is reduced at a higher pace. There are different interdependencies between meeting traffic demand or increase the number of movements (3 movements per hour), between increasing delays or implementing new operational procedures, between capacity (decrease delay) and cost-efficiency (change sectors and increase resources). What is better? A higher delay with lower costs, or the opposite? Their preferred option is to choose a balanced approach. The Portuguese proposal is a compromise between cost-efficiency and capacity targets. Taking that into account, not implementing free routes in all the airspace is a good proposal for them. Comment #34. IATA: the SOWEPP is not presented in line with the PRB template. The targets are set in terms of 3.3% yearly reduction of the DUC, and Portugal is actually increasing them by 1.3%. It seems, when looking at the tables that the ANSPs costs are increasing at a 12%. The SOWEPP has the highest ATCO employment costs, and a low productivity. ANSPs staff costs are still not good in average, so raising them is not reasonable. The government should put more measures. INAC answered that they have discussed the capping of staff costs. Nevertheless, costs are not only driven by wages. There are costs that do not entirely depend on NAV Portugal. Some of them stem from decisions issued by the Portuguese Government. For example the increase in the social security and pension costs. They are working to control the variation of these costs. Comment #35. IATA: expressed that it is still very difficult for them to accept that ANSPs cannot address staff costs. ANSPs have to adapt and take measures as others do. They did recognize that great improvements were made in the past. Nonetheless, they were mainly due to Governmental decisions. Many people were losing their jobs nowadays in the airlines. Therefore, it was not acceptable for them to hear that nothing else can be done. INAC replied that they were considering the scenario of decreasing costs. Nevertheless, staff costs can only be lowered by reducing staff hours, and that would have an impact on delays and capacity. Page 12

149 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 NAV Portugal added that operating costs have been discussed. They have worked to incorporate what the users suggested in a previous consultation in Lisbon (career progression is frozen, risk reduction, etc). No further improvement is possible. Comment #36. IATA: All SAR and supervision costs in Portugal are allocated to en-route? They considered that this is not a fair cost allocation. INAC replied affirmatively. Comment #37. IATA: ICAO fair cost allocation states that around 20% should be allocated to the terminal part. Is INAC looking at that? INAC clarified that the TNC in Portugal only covers the provision of ANS. IMAC and MET provider costs are not included in the terminal database costs COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN AESA-DSAPU explained that the unit rate and costs are frozen in RP2. Therefore few internal adjustments and corrections have been made. A minor correction relates to the actual military costs, which have been updated. In addition to that, a 10 MEUR reduction of terminal MET costs has been applied. It is important to note that we are still recovering from the situation caused by the important deviations experienced between reality and what was planned in RP1 NPP. In AESA s view, Spanish targets are more than compliant with the EU-wide targets. Those targets imply an RP2 cost reduction over the EU target of - 230M for Spain continent and -17 M for Canary islands. In addition, the real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly improvement of -4.7% for Spain continental and -3.7% for Spain Canarias within the two reference periods ( ). Comment #38. IATA: Spain is key for IATA. As for Portugal, they recognize the great improvements made in the past, even prior to RP1. The fact is that when only looking at the RP2 targets in isolation, the values are not that good. The result of that is that only a 1.8% per annum per determined costs improvement will be achieved in RP2, way below the target of 3.3% improvement of the EU-wide targets. Airlines are still in a very fragile situation. They appreciate what has been done. However, can we have more than the EU-wide target? AESA replied that the economic situation of the airlines is supervised periodically. Hence, we are not disconnected from the problems of the airlines. Maybe at the end of RP2 we will be in a better position to go further on cost-efficiency issues. In the case of Spain, the scheme is not working very well, because there are important differences between the traffic forecast and the real traffic as shown during RP1, this problem also applies to the costs. AENA s CAPEX Plan for RP2 was also presented. The CAPEX table includes information on short-term improvements, specific projects, project facilitators as well as other CAPEX investments. Contribution of CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan deployment corresponds to a 66% of the total investments planned for RP2. Page 13

150 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 Comment #39. IATA: They would like that the PCP costs are identified in isolation with respect to other project costs. PCP costs were discussed in the last CEF consultation. AENA replied that the PCP has not yet reached full maturity. Some of the investments make sense from the PCP point of view. Nevertheless, all the provided information on investments relate to operational improvements. It is important to note that only 10% of the PCP-related costs are addressing ATM related activities. The ATM MP is the basis for the investment scheme of AENA, which includes additional investments to that proposed in the PCP: validation activities, large scale exercises, training, etc. Comment #40. IATA: The PRB template requests the total percentage of PCP costs. PCP OPEX can also be included in the template. We would just like to know how much we are paying for PCP. What is the potential self-funding? The template has to be populated. AENA answered that they will populate the PCP line when required. The PCP is going ahead of reality right now. In addition, no other ANSPs are including this information. Comment #41. IATA: There is a lot of maturity in the PCP decision making process. They just noted some difficulties to understand the CAPEX information. How is cost-effectiveness identified? AENA noted IATA s point and highlighted that the ANSP business plan is robust as well. It took five years to generate the investment plan. They will do their best with respect to PCP and the related activities to master their investment plan. However, it is important to note that the PCP is asking for more time to get the full picture. Comment #42. IATA OT: expressed their feeling that we are too cautious with regards to traffic. A more ambitious traffic forecast could have a positive impact on cost-efficiency targets. They also found the Canaries unit rate too high, considering in particular that there is a large portion of oceanic airspace. The unit rate in the Canaries seems to mirror that one for the Continent. The Canaries unit rate is even higher than the unit rates for other Eurocontrol areas. They would expect more costs to be allocated to the Continental unit rate. In the end, that would mean more flights will cross the Canarian airspace. AENA explained that the evolution of the Canaries and Continental costs are very similar because costs evolve the same way, in particular staff. It is a political issue. AESA-DSANA added that they were trying to follow the business forecasts provided by AENA. AENA is still with debts. Anyhow, if traffic increases above forecast values, users should be paid. Eventually, the traffic forecasts for RP2 will be reviewed by This is a lesson learnt from RP1 where a lot of deviations were provided regarding the predictions included in the RP1 plan. Comment #43. ACETA: considered that the DUC targets are high: in Spain Continental the proposed values of in 2015 as well as of in 2019 are 21% and 30% higher than the EU-wide real en-route DUC for 2015 and 2019 respectively. NAV then answered that they have selected the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario for this reason as well as Spain. The ANSP is losing money due to RP1 assumptions based on the STATFOR forecasts for the BASE scenario. It is important to note that the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario foresee great traffic increases in 2015, which they consider unrealistic. According to their forecasts, until 2019 the traffic levels experienced before 2014 will not be recovered. Page 14

151 RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process Minutes of the meeting June 2014 The DGAC intervened to explain that a mid-term review of the targets and the traffic forecast has been proposed. Comment #44. IATA: asked how this will impact on the DUC. Will this represent a benefit? DGAC expressed his positive opinion. The European Commission seems to support the revision of the whole scheme in the middle of RP2. Comment #45. IATA: thanked for the organization of this meeting and requested to upload the documentation into the website. [Action 02:] Upload the presentations into the website. Page 15

152 South West FAB Performance Plan June RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014 Stakeholders Written Comments

153

154

155 26 April 2013 Appendix General remarks Overall comments FAB level The SW-FAB draft performance plan is not in line with the PRB draft PP template. Macro-economic Overall comments FAB level Portugal and Spain inflation figures are aligned with the latest IMF inflation forecast (with the exception of the year 2016: Spain forecast a 0.69% inflation rate while the IMF forecasts 0.90%). Traffic Overall comments FAB level Both Portugal and Spain are using the STATFOR low scenario in their en route traffic forecast. It is believed that traffic increase will be more aligned with the STATFORr base scenario, especially considering the growth in GDP rates in both countries (which will have a multiplier effect on air traffic growth in return). In such a situation, Portugal and Spain are required to provide a sound justification on the choice of the low scenario or to adjust traffic assumptions upward. Safety We appreciate that SW-FAB proposes to achieve safety targets in line with the EU-wide targets. Overall comments FAB level The overall approach to safety is considered to be lacking a FAB perspective. There is no overall strategy and progression between the entities is at differing rates suggesting little best practice/resource sharing. The activities to support progression towards achieving the targets by 2019 are in some cases unclear. In particular, INAC provides very limited information on how targets will be achieved. The approach to OVERALL application of the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology is a concern given the current levels of performance are considerably far from the target in the case of Spain and in the case of Portugal its appears the current performance level is not known. Environment

156 We appreciate that the SW-FAB horizontal en route flight efficiency targets are in line with the FAB reference values proposed by the Network Manager. Overall comments FAB level The current levels of horizontal en route flight efficiency within SW-FAB are relatively poor compared with other FABs. We therefore see considerable improvement possibilities, in particular across Spanish airspace. Given the planned activities to address the KPI, we believe an even better level of horizontal en route flight efficiency is achievable and encourage SW-FAB to expedite deployment of FRA across Spanish airspace. Capacity target & Incentive SW-FAB, Spain and Portugal en route ATFM delay per flight targets do not meet the FAB reference values by a considerable margin in any year of RP2. Additionally, we note that the NetOps assessment of SW-FAB planned capacity performance is considerably worse than the already poor proposed target. Additional effort to meet the target is required especially considering that the STATFOR low-case scenario for traffic evolution has been applied which we consider to be overly pessimistic. The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity targets are set at national level with a breakdown at airport level for monitoring purposes. Spain has proposed to establish such a scheme; however there is no scheme proposed for Portugal. Overall comments on FAB level For Spain, the approach to establishing a local terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight is unclear. There is no documented rationale for the proposed target of 0.8 min/flight. Given the relatively low levels of delay experienced during 2013 and considering that the STATFOR lowcase scenario for traffic evolution has been applied, the proposed Spanish target is lacking ambition. Additionally, the considerable capacity improvement actions planned during RP2 should deliver better performance and therefore encourage the setting of more ambitious targets. On the incentive scheme, we consider that the maximum bonus/penalty should be limited to a smaller amount than 1% of revenues during RP2 as this scheme is relatively immature. We would suggest not more than 0.5% be considered. In terms of the design of the scheme, we request the application of an asymmetric dead band, whereby a bonus is relatively more difficult to achieve than a penalty. We believe that this approach to be more equitable since the airspace users are already funding the capital and operational capabilities to deliver any level of service and further, that the impact of delay on airspace users carries significantly greater costs in terms of fuel and network impact whereas there is no additional impact on ANSPs.

157 Cost efficiency En-route Overall comments FAB level The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information presented in the report (and the related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Union-wide reduction targets are not met. Portugal proposed targets (in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D) Determined Cost 109, , , , ,025 Determined Cost change 3.5% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% Average % % DUC (EUR 2012 base) DUC % change 3.1% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% Average % % Total % % Portugal DC is increasing by 1.9% p.a. on average over the period while the DUC is increasing by 1.3% p.a. on average. Such increases are unacceptable and Portugal is urged to re-adjust its DC and DUC according to the EU-wide target of 16.5% decrease in DC and 3.3% average p.a. decrease in DUC. Airspace users appreciated Portugal good performance over RP1, but such good performance does not mean that Portugal is exonerated from contributing toward the RP2 targets. Portugal comments The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. ANSP staff costs are increasing by 12% over RP2 (and by 22% over the 2014D-2019D period!). We note that the draft performance plan mentions the need to increase salaries. Nonetheless, given that the latest ACE report shows that NAV Portugal has amongst the highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO hour (gate to gate), we strongly believe that there is room to reduce staff costs rather than increasing them. A 22% increase over is not acceptable. 2. The plans also mentions investment as a reason for not meeting the EU-wide target without any further information. Furthermore, while the asset base is increasing by 25% over RP2, depreciation costs are increasing by 84%. Such a difference is of concern, especially considering the lack of information related to investments planned by Portugal. More information and transparency are requested on investments, especially as regards amortization periods, ER/TNC allocation, shift of investments from RP1 to RP2, etc. 3. Supervision costs are increasing by 6% over the period (and by 46% over the 2014D-1019D period!). There is no justification for such an increase, which is not acceptable. 4. All SAR and supervision costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted to TNC DC. 5. Table 2 - NAV Portugal display an amount ('000 EUR) of for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 for costs exempt from cost sharing. What is the justification for this yearly amount?

158 Spain CON proposed targets (in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D) Determined Cost 608, , , , ,708 Determined Cost change -0.7% -1.1% -0.5% -0.8% Average % % DUC (EUR 2012 base) DUC % change -1.4% -2.0% -1.7% -2.0% Average % % Total % % While we note that Spain CON DC and DUC are decreasing, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5% decrease) in the DUC over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly. Similar to Portugal, the good performance of Spain over RP1 is appreciated by airspace users, but it does not exonerate Spain from contribution toward the EU-wide target for RP2. Spain CON comments The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. AENA employment costs per ATCO hour, which were the highest in 2011, have subsequently decreased and such decrease should continue in order to meet the RP2 targets. It is believe that more efforts must be made on the staff cost side. 1. Other operating costs are increasing over RP2: efforts could be made to control such costs in order to contribute to the RP2 targets. 2. Depreciation costs are decreasing much faster than the asset base: what is the explanation for the non-correlation of the two? 3. The reduction in the cost of capital from 6.7% in RP1 is appreciated, though it was understood that it would be reduced at 5.2% over RP2 (reporting tables are displaying a higher level - from 5.4% to 5.6% - which should be adjusted). It is believed that additional efforts can be made if AENA cost of capital is aligned is AEMET (4.1%). 4. All SAR costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted to TNC DC. 5. The presence of revenue from other sources is welcomed by the users: it must be ensured that such revenue will be available over the whole RP2 period. Spain CAN proposed targets (in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D) Determined Cost 96,146 95,475 94,713 93,262 92,121 Determined Cost change -0.7% -0.8% -1.5% -1.2% Average % % DUC (EUR 2012 base) DUC % change -0.5% -1.0% -1.9% -1.6% Average % % Total % %

159 Spain CAN comments Spain CAN DC and DUC are decreasing over RP2, which is welcome by airspace users, but they are decreasing at a slower rather than Spain CON DC and DUCs. Furthermore, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5% decrease) in the DUC over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly. As Spain CAN mostly mirrors Spain CON, same comments as above related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base, cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).

160 Cost- efficiency Terminal Overall comments FAB level The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information presented in the report (and the related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Unionwide reduction targets are not met in the case of Portugal. Portugal proposed targets (in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D) Determined Cost Determined Cost change 2.2% 2.4% 1.2% 4.6% Average % % DUC (EUR 2012 base) DUC % change 1.9% 2.0% 0.3% 3.3% Average % % Total % % Portugal comments The proposed increase in the unit rate of 1.9% p.a on average with a 2.6% p.a. increase in DC is not in line with the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development. We urge Portugal to review the cost base for TNC in order to work towards a cost reduction or at least a stable development. Portugal mentions the investment plans and the salary increase as a justification for not meeting the target. Nonetheless, it is believed that with efficient investments and adequate depreciation timeline as well as much-needed continuous effort on salaries (again, Portugal has amongst the highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO hour) it is possible to meet the EU target. It is therefore expected that the tables will be re-adjusted downwards. The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. All terminal costs are attributable to the ANSP: the reporting tables do not display any terminal costs attributable to the MET provider or the NSA. Costs attributable to these entities for terminal must be excluded from en route costs and shifted to terminal costs. 2. A cost of capital pre tax rate of 7.8% (far from the 6.1% rate for en route) is unacceptable and must be adjusted downward, at the level of the en route cost of capital. 3. Same comments as for Portugal en route related to staff costs, other costs and allocation of SAR and supervision costs apply.

161 Spain proposed targets (in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D) Determined Cost Determined Cost change -1.6% -2.5% -2.1% -2.3% Average % % DUC (EUR 2012 base) DUC % change -2.2% -3.6% -3.6% -3.6% Average % % Total % % Spain comments The proposed decrease in the unit rate of 3.2% p.a on average with a 2.1% p.a. decrease in DC is in line with the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development, which is appreciated by airspace users. Same comments as for Spain CON en route related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base, cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).

162 Investments Overall comments on FAB level

163 Buenas tardes, En relación al Documento de Consulta sobre el South West FAB Performance Plan de Navegación Aérea para el periodo , Aena Aeropuertos, como usuario de los servicios de tránsito de aeródromo, realiza los siguientes comentarios y propuestas de cambio: 1. Previsiones de tráfico: Se muestra en la tabla adjunta la última previsión oficial de operaciones de Aena aeropuertos, correspondiente a la Edición de mayo Las previsiones de Aena Aeropuertos son más optimistas y difieren de las presentadas en el Documento de Consulta, especialmente para el aeropuerto de Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas. 2. Propuesta de objetivos para el Airport ATFM Arrival Delay per Flight por Aeropuerto: la meta general propuesta se considera elevada, especialmente por el valor asignado al aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat. Por ello, se ha procedido a realizar un análisis considerando los siguientes argumentos: Las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo se tenderá a recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos durante el periodo En todos los aeropuertos, salvo en Madrid-Barajas, parece razonable que durante el periodo se exija, al menos, el mismo nivel de demoras que para el periodo En el caso de Madrid-Barajas, se ha tenido en cuenta la excepcionalidad de los años 2010 y 2011, tanto por motivos operativos como de meteorología, excluyendo por tanto estos años a la hora de calcular las medias. Atendiendo a lo anterior, se adjunta tabla con la propuesta de objetivos: Propuesta de objetivo : Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight Aeropuerto Aena Aeropuertos Aena (**) (*) Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas 1,16 0,87 0,83 Barcelona-El Prat 0,27 0,27 0,91 Palma de Mallorca 1,08 1,08 1,29 Málaga-Costa del Sol 0,13 0,13 0,11

164 Gran Canaria 0,23 0,23 0,32 TOTAL 0,69 0,57 0,80 (*) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de , salvo en LEMD, en el que se excluirían los años 2010 y 2011 (**) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de , salvo en LEMD, en el que se excluiría el año Para la consecución del objetivo anterior también intervienen causas de demora externas al proveedor de servicios de Navegación Aérea, como Aerodrome Capacity o Weather : 3.1- Contribución de la causa Aerodrome Capacity En primer lugar, Aena Aeropuertos, después del enorme esfuerzo inversor realizado en la última década, dispone de unas infraestructuras aeroportuarias capaces de absorber, en términos generales, la demanda tanto actual como futura, especialmente en lo que se refiere al período Por este motivo, la capacidad de Aena Aeropuertos supone una mayor ventaja competitiva frente a otros aeropuertos, y la situación de saturación y problemas de crecimiento que existe a nivel europeo, no es extrapolable al caso de España, con lo que eso supone para el desarrollo de una de las industrias estratégicas de este país como es el turismo. Por ello, se solicita que se revisen las siguientes afirmaciones reflejadas en el documento de Consulta (página 30) sobre las limitaciones de capacidad de la infraestructura: Aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat: The main capacity constraint is due to environmental issues, the structural and operational capacity of the airport has reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated). Aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca: It is not possible to target more ambitius achievement, considering current runway configuration. En ambos casos Aena Aeropuertos considera que la capacidad de las infraestructuras aeroportuarias está por encima de los valores actualmente declarados y aún no se ha alcanzado ningún límite. Además de lo anterior, se ha producido durante el período de análisis un importante descenso de las demoras por causas Aerodrome Capacity (ver gráfico adjunto) que viene a reforzar el hecho de que las infraestructuras aeroportuarias no suponen ni van a suponer una limitación a la capacidad en los próximos años En cuanto contribución de la causa Weather, se puede afirmar que España no puede compararse con Europa, tal y como se observa en la gráfica adjunta, con las demoras atribuibles a distintas causas en los principales aeropuertos europeos, entre ellas la Meteorología (Weather).

165 4. Por otro lado, se resalta la preocupación de Aena Aeropuertos por la postura del proveedor de no aumentar la capacidad ni mostrar flexibilidad de adaptación durante todo el periodo , entendiendo que esto va en contra del principio de Cielo Único que no es otro que el de ir siendo cada vez más eficiente, sin aumentar (incluso disminuir) los costes. Tampoco se considera conveniente no incluir medidas para mejorar la capacidad, como las que van a venir impuestas por Europa a través del PCP, o la reestructuración del espacio aéreo en zonas actualmente con problemas de demoras/capacidad. 5. Se quiere destacar, que se han encontrado discrepancias entre las fechas de implantación del A-CDM en los aeropuertos de Barcelona- El Prat y de Palma de Mallorca que figuran en los distintos documento de consulta del remitidos por AESA. También existen discrepancias entre estos datos y el LSSIP (Local Single Sky ImPlementation), firmado el pasado 8 de mayo y en el que estaba prevista la implantación en 2015 para ambos aeropuertos. Atentamente, Rafael Fernández Villasante Director de Operaciones, Seguridad y Servicios

166 South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan Consultation Aena Navegación Aérea Comments. In the context of the elaboration of the South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan, Aena Navegación Aérea, as one of the main contributors to the achievement of the proposed actions and targets, has contributed to the elaboration of the current draft, and welcomes the opportunity to share its views on the proposal circulated for consultation. In this framework Aena N.A, would like to highlight the following points: Traffic The use of a STATFOR Low traffic profile (ref. February 2014), both for Capacity and for Cost- Efficiency, is considered adequate and supported as it is completely coherent with the Decision adopted by the Commission on 11 th March when establishing the traffic forecast underpinning the European Targets. Safety Aena N.A is committed to all the policies promoting safety increase. Capacity Aena N.A. evaluates the 0.48 minutes of delay per flight en-route and the 0.8 minutes of Terminal/Airport arrival delay targets as a rational approach, taking into account the evolution of the indicator throughout the first 2 years of RP1 (74% improvement achieved) and the optimum behavior of other quality of service indicators. It is also viewed as a coherent and challenging target when compared to the NOP forecasts, which indicate a worse evolution of delay in Spain using a base STATFOR traffic scenario. Although the current South West FAB Performance Plan proposal attempts to balance the continuation of a strict policy in terms of cost-efficiency with the expectation of improving the performance in the other Key Performance Areas, it has to be stressed that the targets in capacity are ambitious with the foreseen traffic increase and the context of restricted expenditures, and their achievement will require the effective and efficient accomplishment of all the planned actions. Aena N.A. agrees with the application of incentive mechanism only to the en-route capacity indicator, as the implications on the Terminal unit rate would be only partial (it is under contract agreements between Airports and Air Navigation companies) and complex when applied in the Spanish legal context. The applicability of the incentive scheme at FAB level is supported, as well as the establishment of the maximum incentive value around 0.75% of the ANSPs income. The maintenance of a symmetric function, addressing all causes with a buffer for unexpected behavior on those outside ANSPs control, is strongly recommended in order to really incentivize a good performance achievement. With respect to the specific values proposed in the document, a proposed transition area of 0.15 is considered to be a more reasonable value, taking into account the overall function and the potential impact on airspace users. Environment Aena N.A. supports the environment targets considering the current level of efficiency in the Spanish airspace, and taking into account that a share of responsibility with other involved actors to execute the planned improvements is needed.

167 Aceta Asociación de compañías españolas de transporte aéreo C/ General Perón nº 40, Portal B, 1ª planta MADRID Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014 Estimados amigos: En las páginas siguientes incluyo los comentarios que nos sugiere en ACETA la información contenida en su Documento de Consulta de fecha mayo de 2014, titulado: Draft RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan SOWEPP. Un cordial saludo Manuel López Colmenarejo PRESIDENTE Claudio Coello, 76 1º D Teléfonos: Fax: MADRID 1

168 Aceta Asociación de compañías españolas de transporte aéreo 1. Objetivos Generales: Todos los objetivos de este Plan deberían enmarcarse en los siguientes Objetivos Generales: I. Responder a previsiones realistas de evolución de tráfico II. Plantear mejoras de productividad de todos los sistemas III. Perseguir la convergencia de todos los países y gestores europeos en los siguientes objetivos: i. Objetivos de Seguridad ii. Objetivos de medio ambiente iii. Objetivos de Capacidad iv. Objetivos de Coste-Eficiencia IV. Plantear un escenario ambicioso que permita acercarse claramente a los objetivos generales del Cielo Único Europeo 2. Previsiones de Tráfico La banda baja de las previsiones de Eurocontrol del pasado mes de febrero (es la adoptada para España), parece poco realista por ser excesivamente baja (ofrecen un crecimiento de 2019 sobre 2013 del 5,7%). Las correspondientes a la banda básica, son más realistas (ofrecen un crecimiento de 2019 sobre 2013 del 15,7%). Estas previsiones entendemos que tienen que ver con el dimensionado de todos los sistemas. Mantener cifras muy bajas, claramente por debajo de los valores esperables, conducirá a dimensionar los sistemas por debajo de las necesidades reales. Por todo lo anterior, entendemos que se deberían adoptar las previsiones de la banda básica. 3. Objetivos de Seguridad Los objetivos de Seguridad contemplados para España en este documento, entendemos que están alineados con los previstos en el mismo para la Unión Europea, por lo que no tenemos ninguna consideración que añadir. 4. Objetivos de Medio Ambiente Este objetivo coincide con una de las propuestas iniciales del Cielo Único Europeo: la simplificación de la estructura de rutas y con ella la disminución de tiempos bloque, la disminución de consumos de combustible y, consecuentemente, la disminución de emisiones de CO2. Pasar la eficiencia en ruta, en los términos que está planteada, de 3,85 en 2015 a 3.28 en 2019 con una diferencia de -0,57 parece un objetivo poco ambicioso. En 2019 este objetivo debería quedar alineado con el general de la Unión Europea, situándose en 2,60. En este apartado, por las repercusiones directas que tiene para los costes de las compañías que tienen operaciones a través del Atlántico por una parte y consecuentemente para la mejora de este indicador, tendría un gran valor resolver el problema de diferencia de tarifa unitaria de la tasa de ruta entre Portugal Azores y España Canarias, diferencia que genera desviaciones para ahorrar tasas que incluso compensan el mayor consumo de combustible. Claudio Coello, 76 1º D Teléfonos: Fax: MADRID 2

169 Aceta Asociación de compañías españolas de transporte aéreo 5. Objetivos de Capacidad I. Demora en Ruta. Situar el objetivo de Demora en Ruta en 0,48, cuando en 2013 se consiguió 0,41 y a marzo de 2014 este valor se situa en 0,15, parece contradictorio. Un valor de 0,40 parece más alineado con una vocación necesaria de mejorar o, al menos no empeorar la calidad del servicio. Este valor cobra especial relevancia al servir de referencia para las bonificaciones/penalizaciones previstas, como se verá después. II. Demoras en llegadas a terminal. El valor propuesto de 0,80 a lo largo de todos los años parece muy alto. Este valor debe estar alineado con la evolución de los datos históricos, a los que AENA asigna valores de 0,47 y 0,29, en los años 2012 y 2013; el valor 0,91 al conjunto de años 2008 a 2013 y 0,84 al conjunto 2008 a 2013 excluido el En primer lugar el valor 0,84 no concuerda con los datos que ofrece la tabla; parece que debería ser 0,72. En segundo lugar parece que, además de excluir el año 2010 del grupo representativo, habría que excluir también el 2011, con lo que el grupo daría 0,58. A la vista de ese 0,58 de la serie representativa y del valor de 0,47 que se obtuvo en 2012, parece razonable adoptar este 0,47 como objetivo de 2015 a 2019, en vez del 0,80 propuesto. Al cambiar 0,80 por 0,47 en el objetivo global, los objetivos para los 5 aeropuertos considerados podrían ser: GCLP Gran Canaria: 0,32 (Igual que propuesto) LEBL Barcelona: 0,53 (Propuesto 0,91) LEMD Madrid: 0,53 (Propuesto 0,83) LEMG Málaga: 0,11 (Igual que propuesto) LEPA Palma de Mallorca: 0,53 (Propuesto 1,29) En esta tabla se respetan los valores del documento inferiores al 0,47 que planteamos para el conjunto de aeropuertos y se pone un valor máximo de 0,53 para los que superan ese valor, de forma que como media de esos cinco aeropuertos salga el 0,47 propuesto. 6. Esquema de incentivos El esquema propuesto de incentivos, contemplando una bonificación o penalización máximas del 1 % al separarse ± Y del objetivo, disminuyendo a 0% al llegar a separaciones de ± X, nos parece razonable, siempre que el valor del objetivo sea razonable. Poner un objetivo muy alto (sería el caso del 0,48 propuesto) conduciría a una subida casi segura del 1% de la tasa. Con el valor sugerido de 0,40 encajaría razonablemente el esquema de incentivos planteado. 7. Coste eficiencia El documento plantea los siguientes escenarios de coste eficiencia: EU global: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 56,64 en 2015 a 49,10 en 2019 (+0,00%) Portugal Lisboa: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 34,31 en 2015 a 36,10 en 2019 (-26,48%) España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 59,70 en 2019 (+21,59%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 63,83 en 2019 (+30,00%) Los porcentajes entre paréntesis al final de cada línea, son las diferencias de cada valor en 2019 con el valor de 49,10 planteado ese año a nivel global para la UE Claudio Coello, 76 1º D Teléfonos: Fax: MADRID 3

170 Aceta Asociación de compañías españolas de transporte aéreo Se sugiere para España: A) Converger con UE de forma que la diferencia con el nivel global en 2019 sea solo de un 10%, la mitad del 21,03 que difiere en 2015 el índice de España Continental: España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%) B) Mantener en 2019 el nivel de convergencia de 2015, es decir que la diferencia en 2019 sea la misma que en No divergir: España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,44 en 2019 (+10,88%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 59,43 en 2019 (+21,03%) Las dos series propuestas para España en el documento divergen de la serie global de la UE. Incrementan el porcentaje de diferencia con la UE del 10,88 en 2015 al 21,59 en 2019 en Canarias y del 21,03 en 2015 al 30,00% en España Continental. Las dos series A) propuestas aquí convergen con Europa a lo largo de los años del Plan. En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima de Europa y termina en 2019 solo un 10,00% por encima. En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de UE y acaba en 2019 un 10,00% Las dos series B) no convergen, pero no divergen. Acaban en 2019 con las mismas diferencias que había en 2015: En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima del global de la UE y termina en 2019 con esa misma diferencia. En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de la UE y termina en 2019 con esa misma diferencia. En este apartado creemos que si la convergencia planteada con las series A) no pudiera alcanzarse, al menos los objetivos deberían ser los de las series B). Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014 Claudio Coello, 76 1º D Teléfonos: Fax: MADRID 4

171 South West FAB Performance Plan June Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014 Attendance List

172

173 South West FAB Performance Plan June Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014 Meeting Slides

174 6ª REUNIÓN DEL SUBGRUPO DE NUEVOS INDICADORES DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA OBJETIVOS SW FAB PERFORMACE PLAN ( ) Abril de 2014 Departamento de Performance Eduardo Abia Isabel Izquierdo

175 OBJETIVO Consulta a los usuarios del espacio aéreo los objetivos propuestos en las áreas clave operativas para el plan SOWEPP de rendimientos La consulta se centra en los aspectos de: Capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos; y Medio ambiente; Para el SW FAB; Para el segundo período de referencia. 2

176 MARCO REGULATORIO En el segundo período de referencia RP2: Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 390/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece el sistema de evaluación del rendimiento de los servicios de navegación aérea y de las funciones de red. Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 391/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece un sistema común de tarificación de los servicios de navegación aérea. Decisión de Ejecución (2014/132/UE) del 11 de marzo de 2014 la Comisión Europea por la que la Comisión establece los objetivos de rendimiento de la red de gestión del tránsito aéreo y los umbrales de alerta para el segundo período de referencia ( ). 3

177 PLANIFICACIÓN ACTIVIDADES SOWEPP 25/04/2014 Consulta interna usuarios navegación aérea CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE 24/04/2014 Consulta usuarios IATA COSTE - EFICIENCIA 29/04/2014 Consulta interna usuarios aeropuertos CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE 20/05/2014 Consulta usuarios FAB abril mayo junio julio 29/04/14 Documento consulta sobre el SOWEPP 20/05/14 Versión intermedia SOWEPP 03/06/14 Fecha límite comentarios al SOWEPP 10/06/14 Entrega versión final SOWEPP 27/06/14 Aceptación del SOWEPP 4

178 CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES Evolución del tráfico Vuelos IFR Previsiones de tráfico en línea con las previsiones publicadas por STATFOR en febrero Se considera que el tráfico va a evolucionar a nivel FAB siguiendo la tendencia de las previsiones de febrero de 2014 de STATFOR para España Continental. RP2 SOWEPP Forecast IFR Flights Spain Overall Flights (000) Annual variation % % 1.6% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% 5

179 CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES Número de movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos La previsión tiene en cuenta la información presentada en la conferencia de slots de IATA. No obstante, la tendencia creciente del tráfico está por confirmarse. RP2 SOWEPP Forecast IFR arrival movements at airports GCLP: Gran Canaria Arrival movs Annual variation % 0,67% 0,37% 0,97% 0,26% LEBL: Barcelona Arrival movs Annual variation % 2,24% 1,71% 3,98% 2,70% LEMD: Madrid-Barajas Arrival movs Annual variation % 1,01% 0,94% 1,69% 1,38% LEMG: Málaga Arrival movs Annual variation % 1,25% 3,33% 2,76% 3,25% LEPA: Palma de Mallorca Arrival movs Annual variation % 1,39% 2,60% 3,57% 2,45% 6

180 CUESTIONES 1 Os parecen razonables las previsiones de tráfico para vuelos IFR? 2 Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre las previsiones de movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos? 3 Alguna consideración adicional a tener en cuenta? 7

181 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Los objetivos de capacidad se proporcionan para dos indicadores: Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada: atribuidas a servicios de navegación aérea en aproximación y aeropuerto; y ocasionadas por restricciones al aterrizaje en el aeropuerto de destino. 8

182 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta. Se calculan como la media de minutos de demora ATFM en ruta por vuelo. Se ha establecido un objetivo a nivel europeo. El objetivo se debe proponer a nivel FAB. Si bien, por razones de monitorización y de cara a los incentivos, se va a proporcionar también a nivel nacional. El Network Manager ha proporcionado valores de referencia a nivel FAB. Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight Union-wide targets 0,50 0,50 0,05 0,50 0,50 FAB reference values 0,30 0,31 0,31 0,30 0,30 SW FAB Target Upper limit 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 Lower limit 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,30 AENA 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48 Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, AESA ha propuesto un rango de objetivos a nivel SW FAB. Los valores indicados para AENA son los proporcionados por el proveedor de servicio. 4 Consideráis que los objetivos en ruta a nivel FAB propuestos contribuyen adecuadamente a los objetivos europeos? 9

183 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Justificación de los valores propuestos: La mejora en el área de capacidad ha sido significativa durante los dos últimos años del primer período de referencia: 74% de mejora en el indicador de demora ATFM en ruta en 2013 con respecto al valor del Los pronósticos de tráfico indican un incremento continuado de la demanda. Aumentar la capacidad para acomodar la demanda implica una mayor inversión y más personal controlador, lo cual no está en los planes de AENA. Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, no se prevé una mejora de los valores para el segundo período de referencia para Aena, proponiendo un valor de 0,48 min/vuelo para el período. 10

184 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Esquema de incentivos seleccionado a nivel FAB para capacidad en ruta El valor T es la meta (target) del SW FAB. Máxima penalización o incentivo a aplicar (valor max ) : 1% de los ingresos en ruta del ANSP. El valor X de la Dead Band se ha establecido en 0,02 min/vuelo. Representa más o menos un 4% del margen del target. Área de transición (de T-X a T-Y ): el máximo bonus o penalización se alcanza para un valor de Y de 0,15 min/vuelo Bonus Penalty max Target T T+X T -Y T-X T+Y Dead band -max 11

185 CUESTIONES 5 Consideráis adecuado el mecanismo de incentivos propuesto? 6 Alguna consideración adicional respecto al mecanismo de incentivos? 12

186 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Interdependencias: Las interdependencias entre capacidad y coste-eficiencia son claras: por un lado aumentar la capacidad conlleva un coste, y por otro un defecto de capacidad conduce a la demora, la cual tiene un coste. Como se ha comentado, aumentar la capacidad implica aumentar la inversión y la disponibilidad del personal. AENA no tiene previsto aumentar la contratación de controladores. El sistema no es lo suficientemente flexible para adaptarse a cualquier tipo de variación, como la estacionalidad del tráfico. La prioridad en RP2 continua siendo coste-eficiencia. AENA ha optado por no comprometer las metas en esta área y de ahí se derivan los valores que ha propuesto para capacidad. 13

187 CUESTIONES 7 Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto a la contribución de España a los objetivos del SW FAB? 8 Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto al plan de capacidad de España? 14

188 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada imputable a servicios de navegación aérea de aproximación y de aeropuerto. No se ha establecido objetivo a nivel europeo para este parámetro. AESA propone inicialmente un rango de valores a nivel FAB. Aena ha proporcionado valores a nivel nacional. Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight Reference values for Spain Upper value 0,47 0,47 0,47 0,47 0,47 Lower value 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27 Spain 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 Consistencia con NSP: Los planes son consistentes con el objetivo estratégico SO6 Integración completa de las operaciones en aeropuertos y de la red y está en consonancia con el proyecto estratégico del Network Manager. 15

189 OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada para área terminal y aeropuerto. Aena ha proporcionado los siguientes valores para los principales aeropuertos. Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight Breakdown at airport level GCLP Gran Canaria 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32 LEBL Barcelona 0,91 LEMD Madrid-Barajas 0,83 LEMG Málaga 0,11 LEPA Palma de Mallorca 1,29 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29 16

190 CUESTIONES 9 Considerando que no se han establecido objetivos a nivel europeo, estáis de acuerdo con los objetivos de capacidad en área terminal y aeropuerto propuestos por España? 10 Cuál es vuestra opinión respecto a los planes asociados? 11 Consideráis que la explicación sobre las interdependencias contribuye a aclarar las metas escogidas? 17

191 OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE El indicador es el índice de eficiencia horizontal en ruta (KEA). Este índice compara la longitud de la trayectoria real volada por la aeronave con la longitud de la ruta ortodrómica correspondiente. Se aplica a nivel FAB. El objetivo europeo es alcanzar una media horizontal de la eficiencia en ruta en vuelo del 2,6% en El Network Manager ha propuesto unos valores de referencia a nivel FAB. Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB se corresponden con los del NM. Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) Union-wide targets ,60% FAB reference values 3,85% 3,71% 3,57% 3,43% 3,28% SW FAB Targets 3,85% 3,71% 3,57% 3,43% 3,28% 18

192 OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Justificación de los valores propuestos: La propuesta es aceptable teniendo en cuenta los valores propuestos por el Network Manager y el plan de acción existente a nivel SOWEPP. Los objetivos son coherentes con las mejoras propuestas en la estructura de rutas. Los objetivos se basan en: la combinación de los niveles de eficiencia en Portugal, donde se ha implantado FRA a partir de FL245. la mejora gradual prevista en el espacio aéreo español mediante la implantación de un plan de mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo. Elementos del plan de mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo: Mejoras potenciales en las rutas más ineficientes. Introducción de free routing. Mejora de la gestión de la red. Coordinación civil-militar. 19

193 OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Plan a nivel SW FAB para la mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo: + Free Route Airspace (FRA): Durante RP2 se implantará a nivel FAB el proyecto de FRA para los tráficos en el eje Lisboa Madrid - Brest, según el cual se mejorarán las rutas ATS: en la interfaz Madrid y Brest. con la implementación de FRA H24 en los sectores de Santiago y Asturias, desde FL245 hasta UNL. + Proyectos de Gestión de la red: Proyecto TMA Canarias. Proyecto interfaz SW FAB / Marsella Proyecto interfaz SW FAB/Burdeos Proyecto dualización Casablanca Proyecto TMA Madrid (OPTIMA) Proyecto TMA Barcelona Proyecto mejoras red ATS TMA Faro TMA Lisboa 20

194 MEDIOAMBIENTE / DIMENSIÓN CIVIL - MILITAR + Coordinación civil-militar: A nivel SW FAB: proyecto optimización FUA con representantes militares en el comité operacional. Actividades y acciones asociadas: Mejoras en la red ATS ya previstas en el ERNIP. Definición de un plan de medidas comunes a nivel FAB a implantar durante RP2. Coordinación militar en proyectos de eficiencia en vuelo (proyecto interfaz Marseille y Bordeaux) y acciones de mejora de la red ATS del tipo CDR. Adicionalmente a nivel español se ha establecido un organismo permanente estratégico (OPGEA) entre AENA y el Estado Mayor del Aire con objeto de implantar medidas mitigadoras del impacto ambiental. 21

195 OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Interdependencias: Aspectos técnicos de cuantificación: dificultad para desvincular los efectos de los TMAs.. KEA vs KEP: AENA sigue la recomendación de adherirse al plan de vuelo, lo que va en contra de dar directos. Planificación de rutas por los operadores basándose en las tasas: coste del combustible frente al coste de las tarifas de ruta. Este fenómeno tiene consecuencias en distintas áreas: Medioambiente: los vuelos siguen trayectorias más largas y menos eficientes. Capacidad: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden congestionar sectores. Costes: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden reducir los ingresos de los proveedores. 22

196 CONSULTA 12 Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB para el indicador KEA de medio ambiente teniendo en cuenta los proyectos y consideraciones pertinentes son adecuados? 13 Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre estos objetivos y los proyectos presentados? 14 Consideráis que la explicación sobre las interdependencias contribuye a aclarar las metas escogidas? 23

197 Gracias por su atención 24