SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY

1. SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY PROGRESS & CHALLENGES ATCOS’ VIEWS

2. PROGRESS

3. PROGRESS • SES I – LEGAL FRAMEWORK • SES II - SAFETY COST PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT

4. SES I • ESTABLISHMENT OF NSAs • HARMONISED LEVEL OF ATCO COMPETENCE • MORE TRANSPARENT AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES CHARGES • IMPROVED FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE • SESAR DEFINITION PHASE

5. SES I • DID NOT DELIVER EXPECTED RESULTS • INTEGRATION OF EUROPEAN AIRSPACE IN FAB • IMPROVEMENT OF COST EFFICIENCY

6. PERFORMANCE • SAFETY • SES II • TECHNOLOGY • AIRPORT CAPACITY

7. SES II • IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE AND CHARGING SCHEMES • NETWORK MANAGEMENT • IMPROVED SINGLE SKY SAFETY NETWORK • DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES • MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY • INTEGRATION OF SERVICE PROVISION

8. PERFORMANCE & CHARGING SCHEMES • DEVELOPED A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED CULTURE • HIGHER LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

9. NETWORK MANAGER(EUROCONTROL) • EUROPEAN ROUTE NETWORK DESIGN • MANAGEMENT OF SCARCE RESOURCES • TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT, SLOT COORDINATION AND ALLOCATION • MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF SESAR TECHNOLOGIES

10. EASA • EXTENDED COMPETENCES TO AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES • RULE-MAKING SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTING RULES • OVERSIGHT OF MEMBER STATES

11. SESAR • LAUNCHED TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGIES THAT COULD • INCREASE SAFETY TENFOLD • THREEFOLD INCREASE IN AIR TRAFFIC • HALF COST PER FLIGHT

12. CHALLENGES

13. CHALLENGES • FRAGMENTATION • DELAYS • ACHIEVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE GOALS • DEPLOYMENT OF BASIC ELEMENTS • OVERLAPS IN LEGISLATION

14. CHALLENGES • “QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ARE STILL BELOW EXPECTATIONS”European Court of Auditors • 0.5min PER FLIGHT HAS NEVER BEEN REACHED • ATFM DELAYS IN 2016 HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN IN 2008 HOWEVER, DELAYS GROWING SINCE 2013

15. CHALLENGES • BETWEEN 2011 AND 2016 ACTUAL UNIT RATE EXPERIENCED AN ACCUMULATED TOTAL REDUCTION OF ONLY 4% • (ACTUAL TRAFFIC BELOW THAT FORECAST ) • ENVIRONMENTAL KPI HAS BEEN ON A NEGATIVE TREND SINCE 2014

16. CHALLENGES • SHORTCOMINGS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE AND CHARGING SCHEMES • LACK OF LINK BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCHEME TARGETS AND SES HIGH LEVEL GOALS • KPIs ARE NOT ALWAYS FIT FOR PURPOSE • LENGTHY AND COMPLEX DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS • WEAK MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND UNIT RATES

17. CHALLENGES • “FABs PROMOTED COOPERATION STRUCTURES, NOT DEFRAGMENTATION” European Court of Auditors • SES I (INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT) VS SES II (ENHANCED COOPERATION) • SES II ELIMINATED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE EUIR TO BE CONFIGURED IN FABs

18. CHALLENGES • MEMBER STATES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT • PRESERVING SOVEREIGNTY • LEGACY OF ANSP • PRESERVING REVENUES • WORKFORCE

19. ATCOS’ VIEWS

20. ATCOS’ VIEWS • KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS DISPROPORTIONED FOCUS ON COST-EFFICIENCY AT THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS (SUCH AS SAFETY) TARGETS SET BY EC ARE NOT FLEXIBLE AND NOT REALISTIC

21. ATCOS’ VIEWS • NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN FAVOUR OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES MANY CONCERNED THAT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE ONLY MARGINAL BENEFITS TO THE OPERATION DO NOT TARGET THE REAL PROBLEMS OF SES LACK OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN DEVELOPMENT STAGES

22. ATCOS’ VIEWS • COST SAVING PRESSURED TO WORK UNDER NON-OPTIMUM CONDITIONS, AS ANSPs ARE RELUCTANT TO INCREASE THE CONTROLLER WORKFORCE LACK OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITH WORKERS INVOLVED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY RUNNING OF ATM

23. ATCOS’ VIEWS • SES 2+ LIBERALISATION PROCESS AND MARKET LIBERALISATION BY THE SES 2+ COULD LEAD TO REDUCTION IN SAFETY INCREASE IN INEFFICIENCIES LOSS OF JOBS/SOCIAL UNREST FEAR OF THE CREATION OF SUPER-MONOPOLY AT EU LEVEL

24. THANK YOU