This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
by Frank Brenner
Director General EUROCONTROL
Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you to Brussels for this workshop on the Centralised Service (CS) Number 2, the 4D Trajectory Flight Profile Calculation for Planning Purposes Service, the first in a series of days over the next three weeks in which we will be going into detail on each of the nine CS. It’s a chance to reach a common understanding of the chances, the risks, the detail, and so on. Most of you have taken the chance to join one of the stakeholderspecific workshops which we organised over March/April. We started with the EUROCONTROL Member States, and thereafter had dedicated workshops for the ANSPs, the Airspace Users and the ATM Manufacturing Industry. We used these workshops to give an overview on the EUROCONTROL proposal to the European Commission on the development and implementation of 9 centralised services to be run at what we call the pan-European level, covering the airspace of the 39 current EUROCONTROL member states, soon to be 40 with the accession of Georgia. I’m also happy to announce that a Declaration of Intent has been signed with Estonia, which will then become our 41st Member State, in 2015 most probably. Today, I’d like to give you some info and background on the proposal, which is designed to focus on raising the competitiveness of Europe and how best to continue with that. Even if this is today the first of a series of 9 workshops to individually address the Centralised Services proposed, I like to give a few small lead in information on the subject. Those of you who plan to attend more than one workshop need not worry that you will hear the same opening speech over and over! – I will place this opening delivery on our public website, along with all the slides presented, later today; the other workshops will open with intros focusing on the specific aspects of that particular CS. So, the question is: why do we need centralised services? For me the answer is very simple: It’s all about performance. We need to have a competitive European ATM industry, one that’s competitive with regard to other areas of the world, be they the US, the Gulf, or Asia. The representatives of the EUROCONTROL Member States see the need for change, to overcome some issues, to become more competitive and to re-establish an ATM environment that is as good as any in the world. We have currently excellent statistical numbers for safety and that’s important – we must never neglect safety, it’s of the utmost importance. But we’re falling a long way short on other measures, particularly the cost issue. Airspace users in Europe are paying nearly twice as much per controlled flight hour as they are in the US; we are still trying to reach out to Asian countries to establish the required agreements to do a detailed comparison to that region. But, from the figures that are available today, it is very likely that some Asian countries are also significantly cheaper than we are, and most probably cheaper than the US. That would leave us in third place when compared to the other major regions of the world – and if you are in place 3 of 3, that’s not a very comfortable situation. We need to be listened to around the world, we need to be listened to in ICAO – and in recent years we’ve been very successful in that regard. But the indication is: new markets are developing, and they will also seek to influence at the top table. We need collectively to get our act together, to avoid that our influence goes away, rather to ensure that we have modern hi-tech solutions that are the envy of the rest of the world. But is it fair to compare the US with EU in respect to the costs to control one flight for one flight hour? Indeed, we are talking about the United States of America, while over here we do not have
we’re more expensive”. EAD and CRCO. They should support and in no way contradict the performance targets of the States. we come to the magnificent sum of 2. The need to change this situation is partially recognised in the targets set in the European Union’s Performance Scheme.a “United States of Europe”. I say it is partially recognised. and to find together a common approach that suits the overall aim of raising the performance and increasing the costeffectiveness of European ATM. such as labour law. safe operations were guaranteed. If we total the amounts together. we need to find areas where we can be more competitive. exercised at central European level. Europe is now at the stage of deploying what has been very successfully developed within SESAR. The SES Committee very recently said go ahead. that’s about 700 million for each grouping. have all financed the SJU in terms of resources and money. not minor. the equipment was there. we all have a shared responsibility to deliver and make the Single European Sky happen – a common contribution to making Europe more competitive. So. or EUROCONTROL. bringing significant benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness and harmonisation. What is important is to come together. The results look magnificent too – but now we have the responsibility to ensure that we do major. but perhaps 30% could be candidates for regional/FAB or pan-European implementation. investments were almost always all at local level. and in the next few years there are going to be a large number of projects moving towards implementation. building on our experience with CFMU. overall. which is itself a very important group. Many SESAR solutions indeed need to be implemented at a local level – but there is a possibility to save money if we look at solutions at a regional level or at the level of the Functional Airspace Blocks in Europe. but instead a different institutional set-up of sovereign states with different histories and different backgrounds. not just to the EU 27 or 28. work together and overcome the specific interests of any one group.1 billion € roughly committed. But is this a good enough argument to justify that our aviation industry pays twice as much? There are areas in which we currently cannot compete. The project costs for ATM infrastructure are already 1 billion euro per year in Europe. which I think is true. . the industry (be they ATM manufacturers or ANSPs). in the future at 41 States. That’s an ANS service or related function. But the cost of deploying at a local level was high. Many ANSPs also say they cannot increase the investments under the current performance targets. but that does not mean we should sit back and relax and say. We now need to find the money to deploy. things. This is a magnificent amount of money. the ANSPs. So we need to address these questions and find a common way out of what could be seen as a vicious circle. to find common approaches. social conditions. Many ANSPs tell me that they have not foreseen the sums needed for this as investments so far. let alone if we were to seek to be competitive vis-à-vis the US! And even if these targets only partially recognise the necessity to improve dramatically the situation and to make Europe as competitive as other areas in the world. EUROCONTROL with State contributions mainly via end-user fees. but ideally to the pan-European membership of EUROCONTROL. be it the ATM manufacturers. in many cases they are currently not being reached. the SESAR JU. but this does not really help deployment. “bad luck. Following a request from the European Commission in November 2012 we defined what centralised services on a pan-European level. at any specific stakeholder group. the states. the targets would be even more challenging. It is important not to point the finger into any direction. No. We proposed that ten would be candidates for operating at a central level. because if it had been fully recognised. They should support the implementation of SESAR developments on a central basis and to become pan-European – which means. and we are speaking of extending the programme into the future to ensure the delivery of these ideas. be they the European Commission with taxpayers’ money via State contributions. It worked well. I think this is also in a way true. For SESAR the different stakeholders. to put the SESAR ideas into the investment planning for the oncoming years. Together we have to ask the question: “Does it make sense for each ANSP to implement all of the SESAR solutions in each and every one of our round about 80 European centres?” In the past. supporting ATC services could be.
a feeling that things are going in the wrong direction. and found the proposals were too ambitious. Which phase of the centralised service programme are we currently in? Well. This is a slide that the Swedish ANSP used some years ago when the closed the local AIS Reporting Offices and consolidated the service in Stockholm. That’s normal and very human. indeed should be. Some currently are. the CFMU or now the Network Manager or the EAD. or should ANSPs not provide such services on a contractual basis for the NM? This slide gives you an overview of what has been done in the recent months in regard to presentations and discussions. when people change their views and embrace the change. It was and is seen as something being taken away from the natural national ANSP monopoly and it means change I fully understand these concerns. In the past. managing change is a key element in any project and CS is no different. even if NM ops is based on the data they provide. but in our plans. We’ve also been busy . I have received lots of calls over the past months to say: You’re messing up manufacturers’ business plans! You’re changing ANSPs’ business models! Well. we’ve tried to support the unbundling idea but to make it concrete and limited in scope: just 9 services. We’re open to suggestions. Change processes of this nature and magnitude always seem to follow the same pattern. EUROCONTROL as you can see partially does a lot. We were asked by the Commission to develop the CS idea last November. The circle starts with the Deny situation: refusing to accept that something might be coming. followed by “Dislearning”. coming from an ANSP myself and having been involved in some change programmes and having seen the efforts needed to conduct them in a proper and successful way. everyone is never in the same phase. we submitted a revised proposal in March. They should allow the implementation of market mechanisms following a tender process. The next stage is Aggressiveness: finger-pointing and solidarity with the “we against them” syndrome. and that’s why I proposed these nine CS. they will go out to be operated by stakeholder groups of interested parties. which entails decreased motivation. This slide shows who brings what to the table. That’s key: EUROCONTROL commits not to offer this service internally. implemented at network level. who currently does what. ANSPs (24/04). and stakeholders said it wouldn’t work. the tenth is as you see to be defined. That’s something the Commission sought in the past.They should support the unbundling of ancillary services. and a feeling of resignation. After all. others might already be in phase 4. With the CS. the idea of centralisation was not much liked in the past by the European ANSPs – while everybody acknowledges the positive results achieved by the CRCO. This often is followed by a disruption in communications in the Lack of discussion phase. The Commission analysed why it didn’t. So let’s use today to see if we can advance forward. and propose to give to others services that currently we do internally with our own staff – so the change syndrome affects not only the ANSPs. airspace users (29/04) and the manufacturing industry (17/05). CFMU is a good example of a service that reached the final Stable phase. and finally Stability and acceptance of change. I looked at it and saw that it’s still relevant: some of the fears and responses are similar to CS. already we have received some proposals and we have our own ideas and we’re looking into both. but also EUROCONTROL and its staff. These are the 9 projects that from our perspective could be. and in each case to show what they would look like – not a set of nebulous ideas! They should enable service providers and the manufacturing industry to work together. and this was then followed by a series of workshops for specific stakeholder groups – EUROCONTROL Member States (04/03). which then probably sees the changes applied for many years before the cycle starts again with discussion on what could be done differently. The question I asked was: is EUROCONTROL the right organisation to run them. But more centralisation was and is looked at suspiciously. and be run via performance-based contracts between EUROCONTROL and the selected service provider. without clearly defined benefits and impacts. My first criteria was: we must contribute ourselves. and while a few are still in phase 2. Then. going beyond national boundaries. I argued EUROCONTROL should not operate these. the cycle picks up with Increased curiosity that things are happening that could after all look promising. As a former ANSP person.
CS will deliver this data. the AAB. and responsibilities. Thank you. it will reduce the cost of parallel deployments and help contribute to achieving performance targets. It is designed to provide a central reference for the 4D Trajectory Profile for all ATM planning activities with increased accuracy. the PC/CN. allowing reduction of buffers around airspace occupancy. or for safety. helping improve cost-effectiveness. and airspace users alike. This slide gives you a quick view on the thematic workshops. airports. Fourth. So. with FAB states and ANSPs approaching their financial targets. scarce resources – see also CS 6 and CS 7. So. is for control purposes – we simply want to improve the quality of data and improve accuracy of planning. i. harmonisation on a pan-European basis. First. This brings us to governance and what the NM does. e.consulting the various Agency bodies for their input. it will save money. The industry has a clear and unambiguous role. as is a common communication infrastructure that specifies the user interface. on CS2. the evolution of European ATM delivered through SESAR is dependent on high-quality data used by ANSPs. which was recently asked by Mexico if it could connect to the data.e. and will continue over the summer. the NM is governed by the NMB. Currently. as part of a new NM mandate. Here we reiterate some of the key characteristics I have mentioned earlier today. with representation from a wide range of stakeholders. beyond national boundaries. the MAB.g. does the remit of the NMB need to be extended to cover the CS or is it fit-for-purpose? It’s an open question and a political decision that has now started as part of the consultation process. it offers ANSPs the chance to go pan-European. It’s also a unique opportunity for the operators of CS to step beyond the pan-European dimension and offer services to other parts of the world – take EAD. . to reduce overall costs. Third. CS will allow some SESAR ideas to be deployed much more efficiently than on a local/national level. The CS represent a unique chance to develop ops concepts which harmonise info. a task that we have as the network manager. At the moment. CS 2 is about 4D Trajectory Flight Profile Calculation for planning purposes service (4DPP). and interoperability. I repeat what I already said: the CS are the building blocks folr a cost-effective European network operation. And sixth. Fifth. The integration and interface between new CS and existing services is crucial. All will be linked through a network service-oriented architecture. but they reduce the capacity of the network. The NM runs what was formerly known as the CFMU plus a few additional tasks under the Implementing Rule. the 4D Trajectory Flight Profile Calculation for Planning Purposes Service. The set-up and operation of the CS will be put to tender: we put on the table our services too. which is a problem for efficiency. an extension of the Implementing Rule could be envisaged to cover the nine or ten CS that we are proposing. So. buffers are built in to avoid over-delivery. of course. it will enable the manufacturing industry to provide cutting-edge technology stemming from SESAR developments. We’d like to reduce these buffers and raise the safety value – because more predictable flows means less unforeseen incidents. So. the first of which is of course today’s discussion. reducing under/over-delivery. for ANSPs and manufacturers alike. ideally ten. defragmentation. What this CS is not. it’s a great chance to move forward and be part of a wider network technical services provision. the discussion and the dialogue are ongoing. And the nine. EAD was the basis for developing standards that are now accepted worldwide. and twice at the NMB. We believe that the centralised data provisions as proposed with the extensive linkage of the different data will result in better efficiency and lower costs – we estimate that just these centralised projects could save as much as 150 to 200 million euro every year. We also looked hard at the interlinkages. Second. to conclude. A service provider relationship will be established at a formal contract level with the consortia who operate the services after successfully completing the Call for Interest/Tender phases. as well as yielding even greater benefits by reducing the costs of the airspace users. If the Member States through the Comitology procedure agree to SES2+ package and if the Parliament supports it. also a unique opportunity to influence global interoperability. and reducing the cost to airspace users. be they the PC.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?