Implementing decision 2017/259 - Revised performance targets and appropriate measures included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation 549/2004 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) - Main contents

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 38/76

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, the Member States are to adopt national or functional airspace block (‘FAB’) plans, including binding national targets or targets at the level of FABs, ensuring consistency with the Union-wide performance targets. That Regulation also provides that the Commission is to assess the consistency of those targets on the basis of the assessment criteria referred to in point (d) of its Article 11(6). Detailed rules in this regard have been set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

Union-wide performance targets in the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency for the second reference period (2015-2019) were adopted by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (3).

On 2 March 2015, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 (4) concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the initial performance plans with the Union-wide performance targets as well as setting out recommendations to revise those targets. This Decision was addressed to Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and required revisions of targets in the key performance areas of capacity and/or cost-efficiency.

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic all submitted by 2 July 2015 revised national or functional airspace block plans including revised performance targets. Spain and Portugal submitted an amendment to the functional airspace block plan with further revised performance targets on 4 February 2016.

The Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, submitted its assessment report to the Commission on 15 October 2015.

The assessment of the revised performance targets regarding their consistency with the Union-wide performance targets has been done by using the same assessment criteria and methodologies that were used in the assessment of the initially submitted performance targets and by considering the appropriate measures, if any, taken by Member States concerned to ensure consistency of performance targets with the Union-wide performance targets.

Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the revised targets submitted by the Member States for en route air traffic flow management (ATFM) delay has been assessed, in accordance with the principle laid down in point 4 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by using the respective FAB reference values for capacity that, when applied, ensure at Union level that the Union-wide performance target is met, calculated by the Network Manager and set out in the Network Operations Plan (2014-2018/2019) in its most recent version (‘Network Operations Plan’). That assessment has demonstrated that the targets submitted by Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC and by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta as regards Blue Med FAB have not been revised and are not in conformity with the respective reference values and therefore not consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target. In addition, the appropriate measures taken by Member States listed in this recital are insufficient since they lack concrete timelines with specific milestones and, thus, not adequate in respect to the revision of the targets to be achieved.

Concerning the key performance area of cost-efficiency, the targets expressed in en route determined unit costs submitted by the Member States have been assessed, in accordance with the principles laid down in point 5, in conjunction with point 1, of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by taking account of the trend of en route determined unit costs over the second reference period and the combined period of the first and the second reference period (2012-2019), the number of service units (traffic forecast) and the level of en route determined unit costs in comparison to Member States having a similar operational and economic environment. That assessment has demonstrated that the revised targets submitted by France, Germany and the Netherlands as regards FABEC are still not consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target, for the below reasons. In addition, the appropriate measures taken by Member States listed in this recital are insufficient since they lack concrete timelines with specific milestones and, thus, not adequate in respect to the revision of the targets to be achieved.

As regard France, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by 1,1 % per year on average. This is significantly below the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the planned en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,4 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The revised target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs that are equal to the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of France but around 22 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 7,9 % above the actual costs in 2014. In addition, in revising its targets, France did not revise downwards its en route determined costs and only revised upwards the forecasted traffic expressed in service units.

As regard Germany, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by 3,5 % per year on average. This is slightly above the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). However, over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,8 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs in 2019 that are substantially above (+ 12,6 %) the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of Germany and around 34 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 3,9 % above the actual costs in 2014.

As regard the Netherlands, its revised targets are based on a planned reduction of its en route determined unit costs over the second reference period by only 0,4 % per year on average. This is significantly below the targeted reduction of the average Union-wide en route determined unit costs over the second reference period (– 3,3 % per year). Also over the combined period of the first and the second reference period the planned en route determined unit costs do not decrease in line with the Union-wide trend (– 0,2 %, compared to – 1,7 %). The revised target for 2019 is based on planned en route determined unit costs that are slightly above (+ 1,3 %) the average en route determined unit costs of the Member States having a similar operational and economic environment to the one of the Netherlands and around 19 % above the Union-wide performance target in 2019. Furthermore, the planned en route determined unit costs in 2015 are 3,4 % above the actual costs in 2014. In addition, in revising its targets, the Netherlands did not revise downwards its en route determined costs, nor did it revise the forecasted traffic expressed in service units.

It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to issue a Decision concerning the need for corrective measures to be adopted by the Member States concerned to ensure that their national supervisory authorities propose revised performance targets, which address the remaining inconsistencies identified in this Decision. Suggestions for such corrective measures should be specified, in accordance with Article 15(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, in light of the reasons for the shortcomings identified and the relevant Union-wide performance targets. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, the Member States concerned should, in addition to adopting corrective measures, communicate to the Commission the elements demonstrating their consistency with this Decision. Both should be communicated to the Commission within two months of the notification of this Decision.

In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of capacity, it should be ensured that the corrective measures lead to revised performance targets that are in line with the FAB reference values for capacity set out in the Network Operations Plan. In particular, this concerns the following area control centres (ACC): Maastricht UAC (Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands), Bordeaux, Brest, Marseille and Reims (France) as regards FABEC; Nicosia (Cyprus), Athens and Makedonia (Greece) as regards Blue Med FAB.

In order to address the inconsistencies in relation to the key performance area of cost-efficiency, it should be ensured that the corrective measures lead to revised performance targets.

The Single Sky Committee did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,

Expediting the implementation of a new air navigation services provider (ANSP) organisation;

Re-planning performance to provide the required capacity by considering:

Implementation of:

Improved air traffic flow and capacity management (ATFCM) techniques.

Implementing measures to improve performance by considering separation of the ANSP entity from the government;

Re-organisation of the ANSP to allow timely development and implementation of operational plans and staff recruitment;

Building a comprehensive restructuring plan to implement new techniques to improve flexibility, seasonal configuration changes and flexible rostering.

Enhanced ATCO cross-training allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times at sector group level;

Development and implementation of re-sectorisation proposals;

Implementation of planned ATM system enhancements.

Improved ATFCM techniques;

Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures to reduce disruption.

Implementation of re-sectorisation proposals;

Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times;

Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;

Improved ATFCM techniques.

Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times, especially at weekends;

Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;

Improved ATFCM techniques;

Actions for route design and sectorisation, with focus at the interface with Barcelona ACC;

Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures.

Actions for route design and sectorisation;

Flexible rostering allowing better alignment between traffic demand and sector opening times;

Flexible configurations opening, according to the traffic flows;

Improved ATFCM techniques;

Flexible transition plan for the new ATM system, coordinated with Network Manager, to include appropriate mitigation measures.

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.

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.

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.

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.