資料由法律人 LawPlayer整理提供·EU law / curated by LawPlayer from EUR-Lex
The performance targets concerning the key performance areas of capacity and cost-efficiency, listed in Annex I, and the appropriate measures included in the revised performance plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 are not adequate in respect to the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period set out in Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU.
Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC; Cyprus, Italy, Greece and Malta as regards Blue Med FAB shall take corrective measures regarding their performance targets in the key performance area of capacity, taking account of the suggestions set out in Part A of Annex II.
France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC shall take corrective measures regarding their performance targets in the key performance area of cost-efficiency, taking account of the suggestions set out in Part B of Annex II.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Malta and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
ANNEX I
Performance targets in the key performance areas of capacity and cost-efficiency included in the revised national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 that are not adequate in respect to the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period
Key performance area of capacity
En route air traffic flow management (ATFM) delay in min/flight
Member State
FAB
FAB target en route capacity
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Belgium/Luxembourg
FABEC
0,48
0,49
0,48
0,47
Consistent (0,43)
France
Germany
The Netherlands
[Switzerland]
Cyprus
Blue Med
0,35
0,36
0,37
0,37
0,38
Greece
Italy
Malta
Key performance area of cost-efficiency
Legend:
Key
Item
Units
(A)
Total en route Determined Costs
(in nominal terms and in national currency)
(B)
Inflation rate
(%)
(C)
Inflation index
(100 = 2009)
(D)
Total en route Determined Costs
(in real 2009 prices and in national currency)
(E)
Total en route Services Units
(TSUs)
(F)
En route Determined Unit Cost (DUC)
(in real 2009 prices and in national currency)
FABEC
Charging Zone: France — Currency: EUR
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
(A)
1 290 640 175
1 296 576 851
1 328 676 964
1 340 098 296
1 343 820 915
(B)
0,1 %
0,8 %
1,1 %
1,2 %
1,5 %
(C)
108,2
109,1
110,3
111,7
113,3
(D)
1 192 625 922
1 188 249 284
1 204 538 004
1 200 012 085
1 186 146 439
(E)
18 662 000
19 177 000
19 300 000
19 526 000
19 759 000
(F)
63,91
61,96
62,41
61,46
60,03
Charging Zone: Germany — Currency: EUR
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
(A)
1 069 142 223
1 039 589 465
1 036 418 901
1 036 540 416
1 035 149 924
(B)
1,4 %
1,6 %
1,7 %
1,7 %
1,7 %
(C)
109,9
111,7
113,6
115,5
117,5
(D)
972 517 385
930 743 590
912 394 284
897 248 041
881 066 280
(E)
12 801 000
13 057 000
13 122 000
13 242 000
13 365 000
(F)
75,97
71,28
69,53
67,76
65,92
Charging Zone: Netherlands — Currency: EUR
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
(A)
184 921 748
184 103 594
187 392 113
194 163 267
198 569 117
(B)
1,00 %
1,24 %
1,44 %
1,49 %
1,51 %
(C)
110,6
112,0
113,6
115,3
117,0
(D)
167 178 324
164 400 112
164 961 239
168 412 538
169 672 018
(E)
2 806 192
2 825 835
2 845 616
2 874 072
2 902 813
(F)
59,57
58,18
57,97
58,60
58,45
ANNEX II
Suggestions for corrective measures
A. Key performance area of capacity
The following are suggestions for corrective measures in the key performance area of capacity at the level of an Area Control Centre (ACC) to address the underlying reasons for lack of capacity.
BlueMed FAB
Cyprus (ACC Nicosia)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Inflexible use of staff, low sector capacities, lack of flexibility in sector configurations, lack of flexibility in opening scheme, failure to fully implement capacity enhancement measures planned in the capacity plan.
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Expediting the implementation of a new air navigation services provider (ANSP) organisation;
2.
Re-planning performance to provide the required capacity by considering:
(a)
implementation of re-sectorisation proposals;
(b)
sector capacities re-evaluations;
3.
Implementation of:
(a)
flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times;
(b)
flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;
4.
Improved air traffic flow and capacity management (ATFCM) techniques.
In its performance plan Cyprus indicated that improvements in overall performance would not occur until the institutional changes needed for the establishment of a new air navigation services provider ANSP organisation were in place and therefore it is suggested that Cyprus establishes these changes as quickly as possible.
Greece (ACCs Athens and Makedonia)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Lack of investments in air traffic control (ATC), lack of ATCO recruitment.
Suggestion for corrective measures:
1.
Implementing measures to improve performance by considering separation of the ANSP entity from the government;
2.
Re-organisation of the ANSP to allow timely development and implementation of operational plans and staff recruitment;
3.
Building a comprehensive restructuring plan to implement new techniques to improve flexibility, seasonal configuration changes and flexible rostering.
FABEC
Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (ACC Maastricht UAC)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Lack of capacity at sector group level following unexpected changes in the traffic patterns in 2015, capacity gains deriving from FABEC airspace projects are unlikely to be delivered during the planning period.
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Enhanced ATCO cross-training allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times at sector group level;
2.
Development and implementation of re-sectorisation proposals;
3.
Implementation of planned ATM system enhancements.
France (ACC Bordeaux)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Training and implementation of a new ATM system — ERATO.
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Improved ATFCM techniques;
2.
Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures to reduce disruption.
France (ACC Brest)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Training and implementation of a new ATM system — ERATO, sectorisation and sector opening schemes could be better adapted to traffic demand.
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Implementation of re-sectorisation proposals;
2.
Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times;
3.
Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;
4.
Improved ATFCM techniques.
France (ACC Marseille)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Lack of capacity on weekends due to non-adapted sector opening schemes, training and implementation of a new ATM system — 4Flight (2017-2019).
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times, especially at weekends;
2.
Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;
3.
Improved ATFCM techniques;
4.
Actions for route design and sectorisation, with focus at the interface with Barcelona ACC;
5.
Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures.
France (ACC Reims)
Reasons for lack of capacity: Training and implementation of a new ATM system — 4Flight (2017-2019), traffic distribution with higher traffic demand on shortest routes, lack of predictability of traffic demand in certain sectors.
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Actions for route design and sectorisation;
2.
Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times;
3.
Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;
4.
Improved ATFCM techniques;
5.
Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures.
The ATM system upgrades in France are required for long-term improvements and it is therefore suggested that France improves performance by better planning of phased implementation of the new system.
B. Key performance area of cost-efficiency
The following are suggestions for corrective measures in the key performance area of cost-efficiency that can be implemented in the short run, taking into account the interdependencies with the remaining key performance areas as well as essential system level investment capabilities. The suggestions are focused on three improvement considerations, namely the traffic forecast, rate of return on equity and interest rate on debt.
France
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Traffic: In July 2015, compared to the information provided in the initial performance plan, France already revised upwards the traffic planned over RP2 (by + 2,9 % on average), bringing the planned traffic forecast in line with the low-case Statfor February 2015 scenario. However, based on the actual 2015 traffic and the latest February 2016 forecast provided by Statfor, it is suggested that the planned traffic be further revised upwards to reflect the latest available information.
2.
Interest rate on debt: France assumed an interest rate on debts of 2,7 % for its ANSP (DSNA) over RP2. However, the monetary conditions have significantly evolved. Currently, long-term ‘risk-free’ government bond interest rates for France are historically low and based on the European Central Bank data, the harmonised long-term rate is below 1 %. Moreover, DSNA is not a corporatised entity and its debt (and associated risk premium) can be more closely assimilated to the long-term government benchmark rate. It is therefore suggested that France uses a lower interest rate to compute DSNA cost of capital.
Adjusting the planned traffic for 2018 and 2019 and capping the interest rate on debt, for example, at 1,5 % for the years 2018 and 2019 would result in an en route determined unit cost trend over the second reference period of – 2,2 % per year which is closer to the Union-wide trend (– 3,3 % per year) and an en route determined unit cost trend over the combined period of the first and the second reference period of – 1,1 % per year which is closer to the Union-wide target (– 1,7 % per year).
Germany
Suggestions for corrective measures:
Traffic: In July 2015, compared to the information provided in the initial performance plan, Germany already revised upwards the traffic planned over RP2 (by + 2,7 % on average) bringing the planned traffic forecast in line with the low Statfor February 2015 scenario. However, based on actual 2015 traffic and the latest forecast provided by Statfor (February 2016), it is suggested that the planned traffic be further revised upwards to reflect the latest available information.
Apart from this short-term measure, it is recognised that Germany has significantly reinvested in its ANSP for the second reference period. However, there is a risk of significant cost increases at the end of the second reference period and it is therefore suggested that Germany considers long-term measures to address the underlying cost base issues that would result, for example, in an en route determined unit cost trend over the combined period of the first and the second reference period of – 1,5 % per year which is closer to the Union-wide target (– 1,7 % per year).
The Netherlands
Suggestions for corrective measures:
1.
Traffic: In July 2015, compared to the information provided in the initial performance plan, the Netherlands did not revise the traffic growth planned over RP2, which was based on the Statfor February 2015 low scenario. Based on the actual 2015 traffic and the latest forecast provided by Statfor (February 2016), it is suggested that the planned traffic be revised upwards to reflect the latest available information.
2.
Interest rate on debt: The Netherlands assumed an interest rate on debts of 3,2 % for 2019 for its ANSP (LVNL). However, the monetary conditions have significantly evolved. Currently, long term interest rates for the Netherlands are historically low and, based on the European Central Bank data, the harmonised long-term rate is well below 1 %. It is therefore suggested that the Netherlands use a marginally lower interest rate to compute LVNL cost of capital.
Adjusting the planned traffic for 2018 and 2019 and capping the interest rate on debt, for example, at 3,0 % for the year 2019 would result in an en route determined unit cost trend over the second reference period of – 2,5 % per year which is closer to the Union-wide trend (– 3,3 % per year) and an en route determined unit cost trend over the combined period of the first and the second reference period of – 1,5 % per year which is closer to the Union-wide target (– 1,7 % per year).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/259 of 13 February 2017 concerning certain revised performance targets and appropriate measures included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council that are not adequate in respect to the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period and setting out obligations for corrective measures (notified under document C(2017) 729) (Text with EEA relevance. ) (EUR-Lex). Retrieved via LawPlayer, https://lawplayer.com/eu/act/32017D0259
© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU, provided the source is acknowledged.
本頁資料來源：EUR-Lex·整理提供：法律人 LawPlayer· lawplayer.com