Network Operations Report 2020

Main Report

SUPPORTING EUROPEAN AVIATION

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS

Document Title Document Subtitle Edition Number Edition Date Network Operations Main Report 1.0 Report 2020 Note

This document is the final version of the Network Operations Report 2020. The report is published after a consultation period with stakeholders.

STATUS AND ACCESSIBILITY Status Accessible via Working Draft  Intranet 

Draft  Extranet  Internet Proposed Issue   (www.eurocontrol.int)

Released Issue 

TLP STATUS Intended for Detail Red  Highly sensitive, non-disclosable information

Amber  Sensitive information with limited disclosure

Green  Normal business information Main Report - Draft for Consultation White  Public information

© 2021 The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and the extent justified by the non-commercial use (not for sale). The information in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue i

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS ...... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II LIST OF FIGURES IN MAIN DOCUMENT ...... III NOTICE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....IV

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 2 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE ...... 6 3 NETWORK OVERVIEW ...... 7

3.1 TRAFFIC ...... 7 3.2 PUNCTUALITY AND DELAYS ...... 8 3.2.1 ALL AIR TRANSPORT DELAYS (AIRLINE VIEW) ...... 9 3.2.2 ATFM DELAYS ...... 10 3.3 ENVIRONMENT ...... 11

4 TRAFFIC IN DETAIL ...... 13

4.1 NETWORK CONTRIBUTORS ...... 14 4.2 ROUTING ASPECTS ...... 15 4.3 OUTSIDE EUROPE ...... 16 4.4 AIRPORT TRAFFIC EVOLUTION ...... 17 4.5 AIRLINE INDUSTRY ...... 18 4.6 FLIGHT REDUCTIONS ...... 20

5 EUROCONTROL NETWORK MANAGER ...... 21

5.1 COVID-19 – MAIN ACTIONS ...... 21

6 EN-ROUTE ...... 22

6.1 ACC PERFORMANCE ...... 22 6.2 PLANNED EVENTS AND DISRUPTIONS ...... 25 6.2.1 EN-ROUTE PLANNED EVENTS ...... 25 6.2.2 EN-ROUTE DISRUPTIONS ...... 26

7 AIRPORTS ...... 27

7.1 AIRPORT PERFORMANCE ...... 27 7.1.1 HOT SPOTS (ARRIVAL ATFM DELAY) ...... 27 7.1.2 AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS ...... 28 7.2 COVID-19: MAIN SUPPORT ACTIONS ...... 29 7.2.1 COVID-19 IMPACT STUDY ...... 29 7.2.2 CONTRIBUTION TO NOP RECOVERY PLAN ...... 29 7.2.2.1 DEMAND AND CAPACITY BALANCING ...... 29 7.2.2.2 TURN-ROUND TIMES ...... 30 7.3 CONNECTING AIRPORTS AND THE NETWORK ...... 31 7.3.1 AIRPORT CDM AND ADVANCED ATC TOWER IMPLEMENTATIONS ...... 31 7.3.2 AOP/NOP INTEGRATION ...... 32 7.3.3 INTEGRATION OF REGIONAL AIRPORTS ...... 32 7.4 AIRPORT FUNCTION SERVICES ...... 32 7.5 AIRPORT CORNER – ENHANCED INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND NM ...... 33 7.6 AIRPORT CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE ...... 34

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue ii

7.7 DEPLOYING SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS / HARMONISATION ...... 34

8 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY ...... 35

8.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN ...... 37 8.2 AIRSPACE CHANGES VS. FLIGHT PLANNING ...... 38 8.3 ACTUAL TRAJECTORY ...... 39 8.4 CONDITIONAL ROUTES (CDR) ...... 40 8.5 FREE ROUTE OPERATIONS ...... 42 8.6 ROUTE AVAILABILITY DOCUMENT (RAD) ...... 44 8.7 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN ...... 46

9 REFERENCES ...... 48

List of Figures in Main Document

Figure 1 Average daily traffic 2015-2020 ...... 7 Figure 2 Average monthly traffic 2019-2020 ...... 7 Figure 3 Arrival Punctuality and ATFM Delay in 2020 ...... 8 Figure 4 Average departure delay per flight 2016-2020 ...... 9 Figure 5 Breakdown of the Network Average Delay per Flight on Departure ...... 9 Figure 6: Airline Arrival Punctuality 2020 ...... 10 Figure 7 : Average daily traffic and ATFM delay per flight (En-route and Airport) 2010- 2020...... 10 Figure 8 Reasons for ATFM Delays ...... 10 Figure 9 : Average ATFM delay per location in 2020 ...... 11 Figure 10 Actual Trajectory indicator (KEA) 2019-2020 ...... 11 Figure 11 Flight Planning Indicator (KEP) 2019-2020...... 11 Figure 12 Weekly excess fuel burn in 2020 ...... 12 Figure 13 : IFR Flights per day in NM Area ...... 13 Figure 14 Flight Losses (excluding overflights) across NM area in 2020 (vs 2019) ...... 14 Figure 15 Top extra-NM partners: Average number of flights/day and Flight decline...... 16 Figure 16 Monthly Rate of Operational Cancellations 2019-2020 ...... 20 Figure 17: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay locations during 2020 (delay/flight) ...... 22 Figure 18: Top 20 airport delay locations during 2020 ...... 27 Figure 19: Top 20 airport delay per flight locations during 2020 ...... 28 Figure 20: Comparison of the predicted number of ECAC Level 2 and 3 coordinated airport movements based on EUACA data and EUROCONROL traffic outlook ...... 30 Figure 21: Evolution of the average turn-around time per aircraft size along 2020 compared to 2019...... 31 Figure 27: Route efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle ...... 36 Figure 28: yearly evolution of the airspace design indicator (RTE-DES)...... 37 Figure 29: Potential yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles due to airspace design ...... 37 Figure 30: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator (KEP) ...... 38 Figure 31 Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to improved flight planning efficiency ...... 38 Figure 32: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory indicator (KEA) ...... 39

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue iii

Figure 33 Yearly savings in nautical miles (NM) due to improved flight efficiency ...... 39 Figure 34 Evolution of CDR availability 2016 - 2020...... 40 Figure 35 Rate of CDR availability (RoCA) in 2020 ...... 40 Figure 36 RAI (%) 2020 per AIRAC cycle...... 40 Figure 37 RAU (%) 2020 per AIRAC cycle ...... 40 Figure 38 Five year RAI evlution ...... 41 Figure 39 Five year RAU evolution ...... 41 Figure 40 CDR availability vs. usage in 2020 ...... 41 Figure 41: Map - Free Route Airspace Deployment by end 2020 ...... 43

Notice

Abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms used in this document are available in the EUROCONTROL Air Navigation Inter-site Acronym List (AIRIAL)i.

ATFM delay assignment: the report shows the operational ATFM delay situation before any agreed ATFM delay re-attribution.

NM Area: All figures presented in this report are for the geographical area that is within EUROCONTROL Network Manager’s (NM) responsibility unless otherwise stated.

Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions: For further information on the NM Area and the regulation reason groupings, go to the Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions documentii available on the EUROCONTROL website.

Traffic and Delay Comparisons: All traffic and delay comparisons are between the reporting year (2020) and the previous year, unless otherwise stated.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue iv

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Network traffic in 2020 reached unprecedented levels due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were fewer than 5 million flights, corresponding to a 55% reduction on 2019.

The decline started in early March and accelerated very quickly as strong mobility restrictions were enforced in Europe. The network showed some signs of recovery over the summer. The health situation deteriorated again at the end of August with renewed restrictions on travelling which were to last during the remaining of the year.

EUROCONTROL Network Manager (NM) in collaboration with NDOP, NMB and the stakeholders took a number of special measures to mitigate the impact the pandemic in the network.

Airlines recorded 90% of arrival punctuality during 2020, a significant improvement on 2019. Airline delay was 7.4 minutes per flight, a decrease of 5.6 minutes. ‘Government reasons’ was the only delay cause that increased in 2020.

The ATFM delay per flight decreased 76% to 0.53 minutes. En-route ATFM delay was 0.33 minutes per flight and airport ATFM delay was 0.20 minutes per flight.

ATFM delays were negligible for most of the year. The exceptions were the first two months of the year, which had exceptionally high ATFM delay, mostly due to industrial action in the French ACCs.

ATFM measures were implemented in some airports during the summer due to localised high demand, namely in aerodromes of southern France and on the Greek islands.

NM believes that more optimal flight profiles were possible as there were fewer vertical and horizontal restrictions. NM, together with the operational stakeholders, relaxed approximately 1,200 RAD measures.

The flight-planning indicator (KEP) decreased to 4.57% and the actual trajectory indicator (KEA) decreased to 2.56% in the NM area. The excess fuel burn on intra NM flights improved to 5.9% in 2020, compared to 8.6% in 2019.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 5

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

2 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE

The purpose of the annual Network Operations Report is to provide an overview of the European ATM network performance in 2020 in the areas of traffic, capacity, punctuality, delays and flight efficiency. The report analyses the annual results in light of the main events that took place in the course of the year.

The COVID-19, global pandemic had a major impact on aviation and ATM in 2020. The low levels of traffic meant the existing network infrastructure had plenty of capacity to accommodate the demand. Many of the ATFM issues commonly reported in previous editions simply did not exist. ATFM delay, usually the indicator influencing most of the analysis on ACCs or Airports performance, was almost non-existent.

For the reasons mentioned above, the editors decided to reduce significantly the content in sections which typically include extensive reports on ATFM delays, en-route capacity or more technical ATFM indicators. The section on ATFM Compliance (previously Section 9) was completely removed from this year’s report. In addition, Airspace users have expressed concerns about providing a meaningful feedback on performance. Annex I has therefore also been removed from the NOR 2020.

Despite the changes, the document still tries to keep its performance reporting function. The pandemic brought new challenges to the network and these were addressed here, especially in the traffic and flight efficiency sections.

The reviewed structure is as follows: Section 1: Executive Summary. Section 2: Introduction & Scope. Section 3: Network Overview contains the annual performance of the European ATM network: traffic, delays and punctuality, and flight efficiency. Section 4: Traffic in Detail is a detailed analysis of traffic growth in 2020 in the NM area and adjacent regions. Section 5: EUROCONTROL Network Manager is NM’s contribution to achieved performance results Section 6: En-Route Performance analyses the influence of events and disruptions; capacity and ACC performance. Section 7: Airports is an analysis of the performance of airport operations. Section 8: Flight Efficiency looks at the progress of airspace design and flight planning indicators Section 9: References Annex I: ACC contains a traffic and capacity evolution for each ACC in 2020. ACC plans for 2021 and beyond may be reviewed due to the on-going COVID-19 situation Annex II: Airports contains capacity, delay, arrival/departure punctuality status and a NM performance assessment of each of the selected airports in 2020.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 6

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

3 NETWORK OVERVIEW 3.1 TRAFFIC

Network traffic in 2020 reached unprecedented levels: 4.984.877 flights and a 55% reduction on 2019 (more than 6 million flights). These extreme figures were due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on global traffic.

The decline started in early March (Figure 2) and 35.000 accelerated very quickly as more mobility 30.000 30.427 29.057 30.166 restrictions were enforced in Europe. The traffic 25.000 27.094 27.844 in the network fell from around 26,000 at the 20.000 15.000 beginning of March to a daily average of 3,500 10.000 13.620 flights in April (traffic fell by 88 % that month). The 5.000 situation remained unchanged in May, with an - overall traffic reduction of 86%. The network Traffic Daily Average 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 reached a low of 2,099 flights on 12 April. Year

Figure 1 Average daily traffic 2015-2020

During this period, which corresponded to the 1st wave of the pandemic in Europe, about 30% of the flights were cargo operations, a segment that traditionally accounts for only 3% of the traffic. The top five airline groups (pre-COVID-19) were operating some 90% fewer flights. Leipzig and Oslo/Gardermoen (DHL and Widerøe main bases) were amongst the busiest airports.

As states lifted some of the health measures at the beginning of the summer (re-opening of Schengen borders on 15 June), the network showed signs of recovery with a 62% increase in traffic in June compared May. Nevertheless, the traffic levels were still 79% below 2019 in June.

A more robust recovery occurred in July, with a number of airlines resuming operations and traffic doubling on the previous month. The growth continued through August with a peak of 18,802 flights (-49% of 2019) on the last Friday of the month. This was the busiest day in the network in all the COVID-19 period.

40.000 0% -3% -41% -88% -86% -79% -61% -52% -54% -56% -62% -60% 35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000

10.000 Avg traffic daily Avg 5.000 - JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2019 2020

Figure 2 Average monthly traffic 2019-2020

The health situation in Europe deteriorated at the end of the summer with renewed restrictions on travelling. It was the beginning of the second wave of the pandemic. Traffic remained at around 55% of 2019 until the start of the winter season, when many airlines revised downwards their plans.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 7

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

The remaining of the year saw increased deterioration. Despite some important boost during the Christmas period, the month of December finished with 60% decrease on traffic and just over 10,300 daily flights.

3.2 PUNCTUALITY AND DELAYS

Punctuality was not a top priority for airlines in 2020. Nevertheless, airlines recorded 90% of Arrival Punctuality during 2020, 10 p.p. improvement on 2019. A greater share of cargo operations and fewer passenger scheduled flights drove the relatively lower figures observed during April-May (Figure 3). The main airline groups were able to resume operations in June while keeping high levels of punctuality. Arrival punctuality peaked in September, with an average of 93%.

100 160.000 90 140.000 80 120.000 70 60 100.000 50 80.000 40 60.000 30 40.000 20

10 20.000 ATFM delay(min) Arrival Arrival Punctuality(%) 0 -

En-route ATFM delay Airport ATFM delay Arrival Punctuality Av. Punctuality 2019

Figure 3 Arrival Punctuality and ATFM Delay in 2020

Airline schedule delay was significantly lower than 2019 levels with minor impact from network issues. CODA data shows that ‘Government reasons’ were amongst the main causes reported for schedule delay. It corresponded to 14% of all delays in June and July (2% in 2019). This includes delay reasons such as ‘security’ or ‘health’.

ATFM delays were negligible for most part of the year. The exceptions were the first two months of the year, which had exceptionally high ATFM delay (increase of 55% of en-route delay from 2019), mostly due to industrial actions in the French ACCs.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 8

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

3.2.1 ALL AIR TRANSPORT DELAYS (AIRLINE VIEW)

This section presents the all air transport delay situation by using the data collected by Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA) from airlines. Data coverage is 63% of the commercial flights in the ECAC region for 2020.

16,0 14,70 14,0 13,10 Based on airline data, the average delay 12,31 12,0 11,30 per flight from ‘All-Causes’ was 7.4

10,0 minutes, a decrease of 5.6 minutes 7,40 8,0 compared to 2019, where the average

6,0 delay per flight was 13.1 minutes.

4,0 Primary delay causes contributed 4.6

Average Delay per per Flight (Mins) Delay Average 2,0 minutes per flight (a 62% share), as

0,0 shown in Figure 4. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Reactionary Delay per Flight (CODA)

Average Delay per Flight Primary Delay All Causes (CODA)

Average ATFM en-Route Delay per Flight (CODA)

Average ATFM en-Route Delay per Flight (NM reported)

Average Delay Per Flight (CODA)

Figure 4 Average departure delay per flight 2016-2020

Breakdown of the Network Average Delay per Flight on Departure (Jan-Sep 2020) 6,0 5,68

5,0

4,0 3,39

2,84 3,0

2,33

causes delay per flight causes(Mins) per flight delay - 2,0 1,52

0,91 1,0 0,46 Minutes of of all Minutes 0,42 0,41 0,28 0,31 0,33 0,35 0,27 0,38 0,22 0,18 0,12 0,0 Reactionary Airline Government ATFM En-Rte ATFM Airport Other Weather Misc. Other Airport ATFM Weather 2019 2020 Figure 5 Breakdown of the Network Average Delay per Flight on Departure

Analysis of the delay causes shows the main change in delay came in relation to governmental causes. These delay codes are used to record delays due to mandatory security or immigration, customs and health related delays. The contribution of this cause to the average delay per flight almost doubled in 2020 - 0.5 minutes per flight compared to 0.3 minutes in 2019. This translates to a 10% share of generated primary delay minutes. Airline reported en-route ATFM delays fell to 0.4 minutes per flight with only a small amount of ATFM delays observed during the year, mainly in January and February when French industrial action occurred.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 9

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

50,0%

40,0% 34,8% Punctuality improved in 2020, with 89.9% of 30,0% 25,7% 22,7% 23,6% flights arriving within 15 minutes or earlier 20,5% 18,2% than their scheduled arrival time (STA).

% of of Flights % 20,0% 10,3% 11,3% 10,8% This sharp increase occurred as airlines 7,2% 10,0% 5,4% 4,2% 3,3% 2,0% that could operate flights, saw many of their 0,0% flights depart ahead of schedule, in turn Adv > 15 Adv 5-15 On-Time Del 5-15 Del 16-30 Del 31-60 Del > 60 arriving even earlier than their STA (Figure 2019 2020 6).

Figure 6: Airline Arrival Punctuality 2020

3.2.2 ATFM DELAYS

There were 2,642,522 minutes of ATFM delay in 2020, a drop of 89% vs 2019. The average ATFM delay per flight on the network was 0.53 minutes, a 76% decrease compared to 2019 ( Figure 7). En-route ATFM delay was 0.33 minutes per flight (79% decrease) and airport ATFM delay was 0.20 minutes per flight (67% decrease). There were 137,000 flights delayed by an ATFM regulation in 2020, a 91% decrease on 2019. About 40% of these flights were delayed by more than 15 minutes (same as 2019).

3,0 35000 2,5 30000 25000 2,0 20000 1,5 15000 1,0 10000

(mins) 0,5 5000 0,0 0

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Traffic Average

AIRPORT 0,67 0,48 0,39 0,42 0,69 0,67 0,62 0,60 0,60 0,20 Average delay per flight per delay Average EN-ROUTE 1,14 0,63 0,53 0,61 0,73 0,86 0,88 1,73 1,57 0,33 TRAFFIC 27146 26427 26215 26685 27094 27844 29057 30166 30427 13620

Figure 7 : Average daily traffic and ATFM delay per flight (En-route and Airport) 2010-2020

En-route disruptions (ATC) and airport weather were the main reasons for ATFM delay in the network, each representing 25% of all reasons (Figure 8).

AIRPORT EVENTS 24 ENROUTE EVENTS 65 ENROUTE CAPACITY 66 Marseille, Karlsruhe, Paris and Brest ACCs ENROUTE WEATHER 98 were the main En-route ATFM delay AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC) 100 AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC) 129 locations in 2020, with the delays occurring AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS 154 mostly in January and February. The AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC) 215 AIRPORT CAPACITY 335 French ACCs generated delay due to en- ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC) 364 ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS 924 route disruptions (industrial actions). En- ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC) 1037 route capacity was the main cause of delay AIRPORT WEATHER 1822 ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC) 1887 in Karlsruhe UAC (Figure 9). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Daily ATFM delay (minutes) Amsterdam/Schiphol and London Heathrow were the main Airport ATFM delay locations in 2020, due to weather events occurred in Figure 8 Reasons for ATFM Delays January and February.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 10

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

ATFM measures were implemented in some airports during the summer due to localised high demand, namely in aerodromes of southern France and on the Greek islands. Nonetheless, the amount of delay generated was negligible compared to the beginning of the year.

10% 665 543 540 531 8% 453 387 6% 374 250 4% 231 210 184 180 153 133 117 112 111 93 2% 91 89

LISBOA

PARIS PARIS ACC

REIMS REIMS ACC

BREST BREST ACC

PARIS PARIS ORLY

LISBOA LISBOA ACC

ZURICH ACC

MADRID ACC

SEVILLA SEVILLA ACC

NICOSIA NICOSIA ACC

Proportion of total ATFM delay ATFM totalof Proportion

CANARIAS CANARIAS ACC

MARSEILLE MARSEILLE ACC BORDEAUX ACC

KARLSRUHE KARLSRUHE UAC

BARCELONA BARCELONA ACC

BARAJAS

LONDON/GATWICK

LONDON/HEATHROW

AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL ADOLFO ADOLFO SUAREZ MADRID ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC) ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC) ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC) ENROUTE CAPACITY ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS ENROUTE EVENTS ENROUTE WEATHER AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC) AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC) AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC) AIRPORT CAPACITY AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS AIRPORT EVENTS AIRPORT WEATHER

Figure 9 : Average ATFM delay per location in 2020

3.3 ENVIRONMENT

NM, together with the operational stakeholders, relaxed approximately 1,200 RAD measures. This generated major distance flown savings amounting to 26,000 NM saved per day.

The pandemic crisis provided an opportunity to assess the potential of the network flight efficiency. As traffic dropped and route restrictions were lifted, aircraft operators could fly more efficient routes.

Before mid-March, inefficiencies at the NM interface with some neighbouring States still influenced environmental flight efficiency. In particular, the political crises in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the south Mediterranean region created inefficiencies. First quarter industrial action also produced flight inefficiency.

3,1% KEA 4,8% KEP 4,8% 2019-2020 2019-2020 2,9% 4,7% 4,7% 2,7% 4,6% 4,6% 2,5% 4,5% 4,5% 2,3% 4,4% 4,4%

2,1% 4,3%

Jul-19 Jul-20

Jan-19 Jan-20

Sep-19 Sep-20

Nov-19 Nov-20

Mar-19 Mar-20 May-20 May-19

Figure 10 Actual Trajectory indicator (KEA) Figure 11 Flight Planning Indicator (KEP) 2019- 2019-2020 2020

The average route extension based on the latest filed flight plan (KEP) decreased to 4.57% in 2020. The actual trajectory indicator (KEA) decreased to 2.56% for the NM area. KEA reached a minimum of 1.57% on 11 April.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 11

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

The excess fuel burn1 on intra NM flights improved to 5.9% in 2020, compared to 8.6% in 2019. The COVID- 19 period saw fuel burn drop to a weekly minimum of around 2% relative to the reference fuel burn. NM believes that more optimal flight profiles were possible as there were fewer vertical and horizontal restrictions.

30.000 12,0%

9,8%

9,2%

9,1% 9,0%

25.000 8,7% 10,0%

8,3%

8,2%

8,0%

7,8%

7,7% 7,5%

20.000 8,0%

4,9%

4,8%

4,7%

4,7% 4,7%

15.000 4,5% 6,0%

4,4%

4,3%

4,2%

4,2% 4,2%

4,1%

4,0%

3,9%

3,8%

3,7%

3,6%

3,5%

3,3%

3,2% 3,2%

2,8%

2,7%

2,6% 2,6%

10.000 2,5% 4,0% 1,8%

Average Daily TrafficAverage 5.000 2,0%

0 0,0%

% Actual vs reference reference fuel burn vs %Actual

W01 W02 W03 W04 W05 W06 W07 W08 W09 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W41 W42 W43 W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 excl. ACFT_TY = 'ZZZZ', circular and maintenance flights Figure 12 Weekly excess fuel burn in 2020

Section 8 Flight Efficiency provides extensive details on the evolution flight efficiency in 2020, including the flight-planning (KEP) and the route-extension (RTE-DES) indicators.

1 The excess fuel burn for an airport pair / aircraft type combination is the total fuel burn for flights in the combination divided by total fuel burn (enroute part only) if all flights had achieved the reference fuel burn. The reference used is the 10th percentile fuel-burn observation of each airport pair / aircraft type combination. The Intra NM excess fuel burn is the aggregation of all combinations within the scope.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 12

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4 TRAFFIC IN DETAIL

Figure 13 : IFR Flights per day in NM Area

Average daily traffic in the NM area decreased by 55.3% in 2020 compared to 2019 (taking the leap day into account, this was a 55.2% decline in total annual terms) totalling 6.13 million fewer flights in the network compared to 2019 volumes.

The pre-pandemic months continued a downward trend already observed in the last quarter of 2019 (-0.9% vs year-ago quarter), owing to a year hit by numerous airline failures and B737 MAX groundings. January and February recorded an average reduction of 0.4% and 2.6%2 respectively.

The first impact of the COVID-19 outbreak materialised in mid-March. Many European states had lockdowns (border closures, strict travel restrictions) leading to a 41.1% flight decrease in March (vs. March 2019). The restrictions continued in April until mid-June forcing the majority of airlines to ground their fleet.

During the second quarter of 2020, mainly repatriation and cargo flights operated. Total flights were down by 88.2% in April (the lowest number of flights in 2020 was recorded on 12 April with 2,099 flights). Traffic decreased by 85.9% in May and improved somewhat in June to -79% when EU states started to lift travel restrictions.

Summer traffic saw signs of recovery mainly linked to domestic traffic (within France, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Spain and UK), along with short-haul flows, rather than intercontinental flows that remained depressed. The number of flights decreased by 60.7% in July, 51.5% in August and 54.1% in September (vs same respective month a year ago). The highest number of flights in 2020 was recorded on 28 August with 18,802 flights.

The second wave of COVID-19 emerged towards the end of October and halted the recovery trend; traffic fell by 56.5% compared to October 2019. Failure to harmonise travel rules in Europe affected air travel demand at the end of the year, with November and December recording an average reduction of 61.1%.

2 Removing the effect of the leap year.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 13

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.1 NETWORK CONTRIBUTORS

The busiest states in 2019 had the largest traffic decline due to the COVID-19 crisis. Total flights (excluding overflights) declined in all states in 2020 with variations between -40.1% (Norway) and -72.6% (Georgia).

Figure 14 Flight Losses (excluding overflights) across NM area in 2020 (vs 2019)

In terms of daily flight losses, the most affected states were UK (-3,562, down 61.1%), Germany (-3,180, down 56.5%), Spain (including Canary Islands) (-2,802, down 60.6%), France (-2,341, down 54.3%), Italy (- 2,188, down 60.9%) and Turkey (-1,519, down 54.1%). At the other end of the scale, Ireland (-510, down 63.2%), Denmark (-552, down 60.1%) and Norway (-564, down 40.1%) and Austria (-568, down 58.5%) were less affected.

In terms of overall rate of decline, Norway was the least affected (-564 flights/day, down 40.1%) due to the state’s critical dependence on aviation connectivity; its domestic flow remained robust throughout the year and (only) decreased by 22.8% to 163 fewer daily flights compared to 2019. At the other extreme, Georgia, Israel and Morocco did not recover during the summer, unlike most of the states, which significantly improved during that period. Georgia (-92 flights/day, down 72.6%) was followed by Israel (-329 flights/day, down 67.9%) and Morocco (-357 flights/day, down 65.1%). Both Israel and Morocco were among the earliest to restrict air travel and the latest to ease restrictions.

Traffic levels in the NM area were driven by the larger states. Germany, UK, France, Spain (including Canary Islands), Italy and Turkey maintained strong traffic levels. This was due to a mix of repatriation, cargo, domestic flights and a rebound of holiday travel demand during the summer.

Traffic growth was driven by domestic flows which decreased by smaller percentages (-43% on average) than the busiest international flows (-61.8% on average). Eight out of the top 10 flows in 2020 were domestic France, Norway, Turkey, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain and Greece. The first non-domestic flows in the top ten were UK to and from Spain and UK to and from Germany.

Tourism flows between North Western Europe (UK, Germany) to South Europe (Spain, Italy, Turkey) showed some recovery over the summer.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 14

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.2 ROUTING ASPECTS

In 2019, aircraft operators were asked to avoid congested areas due to the eNM/S19 initiative (Enhanced NM/ANSPs Network Measures for summer 2019) to re-route flights and limit delays over Europe. Most of these measures moved traffic away from the busy core area (MUAC, Germany, France) to more northern routes rather than within Central Europe. In 2020, similar measures were about to enter into force but were finally lifted due to the drop in traffic. The main consequence was that Central European states welcomed again some of the flows [that were shifted away in 2019]. Another consequence was that, many flows moved from the routes via the Adriatic coast (e.g. Croatia, Bosnia) to fly shorter routes more East (via Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Austria). These were:

 Flows between North-West Europe (UK, Germany) and South-East Europe (Turkey, Greece) and  Flows between the Middle-East and North-West Europe (UK, Germany).

These changes were significantly positive for Austria and Hungary. On the other hand, Czech Republic lost a large amount of traffic compared to 2019, especially on flows between Germany and Turkey.

Flows between South-East Asia and North-West Europe (UK, Germany), flew more southern routes via Armenia, instead of going through Georgia and Azerbaijan. This resulted on traffic off-loaded from South- Eastern states (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria).

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 15

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.3 OUTSIDE EUROPE

The United States remained the busiest extra-NM partner in 2020, followed by the Russian Federation.

Figure 15 Top extra-NM partners: Average number of flights/day and Flight decline.

The United States had an average of 422 daily flights (both directions) in 2020, a decrease of 59.7% compared to 2019. On this flow, the all-cargo segment improved its flight share from 6.0% in 2019 to 16.6% in 2020 corresponding to a flight growth of 10.9% (70 flights/day) compared to 2019. This was mainly due to flows to and from the Netherlands (+577.1%), Turkey (+196.5%), UK (+13.2%) and Germany (+12.2%). The traditional scheduled segment, usually the main one on United States destinations was down -65.4% on 2019 whereas low-cost airlines were the most affected and declined by 90.1% (e.g. Norwegian contracted from 32 flights/day on average in 2019 to 3 flights/day in 2020).

The Russian Federation was the second destination with 305 daily flights, a decrease of 67.9% compared to 2019. On this flow, the all-cargo segment increased by 33.3% (33 flights/day) and reached 10.7% of all flights from 2.6% in 2019. The business aviation segment increased its flight share to 18.8% in 2020 from 7.7% in 2019 and reduced its flight decrease to -21.6% on 2019. The main segments, traditional scheduled and low- cost decreased by 78.8% and 75.8% respectively compared to 2019.

The United Arab Emirates was the third destination with 162 daily flights (down 51.9% on 2019). All-cargo flights were up 37.3% (18 flights/day) in 2020 compared to 2019. The low-cost and traditional scheduled segments decreased by 72.1% and 54.2% respectively compared to 2019.

Qatar was the fourth destination from the NM area and recorded 128 daily flights, a decrease of 39.5% on 2019 flight levels. The all-cargo segment recorded a modest increase of 1.6% (vs. 2019) and traditional scheduled flights were down 40.8%.

Egypt was the fifth destination with 112 daily flights (down 62.8%). Its low-cost and charter operators were the most affected by travel restrictions and recorded an average decline of 70.8% owing to its flows to and from Germany (-25 flights/day) and Ukraine (-23 flights/day) in 2020 compared to 2019.

China completed the top six destinations with 107 daily flights (down 45.1%). Traditional scheduled and charter flights increased significantly in May owing to some airlines (mainly Chinese operators) converting their passenger aircraft fleet to cargo operations.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 16

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.4 AIRPORT TRAFFIC EVOLUTION

Departures from the airports in the network decreased by 55% in 2020.

Nº ICAO ID AIRPORT NAME DEP % Nº ICAO ID AIRPORT NAME DEP % 1 EHAM AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL 322 -53,9% 26 EDDL DUESSELDORF 107 -65,4% 2 LFPG PARIS CH DE GAULLE 302 -56,4% 27 EDDK KOELN-BONN 106 -44,8% 3 EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN 290 -58,8% 28 LEPA PALMA DE MALLORCA 104 -65,0% 4 EGLL LONDON/HEATHROW 280 -57,3% 29 EFHK HELSINKI-VANTAA 99 -62,9% 5 LTFM IGA ISTANBUL AIRPORT 252 -43,6% 30 LFMN NICE-COTE D'AZUR 91 -54,5% 6 LEMD ADOLFO SUAREZ MADRID-BARAJAS 226 -61,3% 31 EGCC MANCHESTER 91 -67,3% 7 EDDM MUENCHEN 197 -65,3% 32 GCLP GRAN CANARIA 89 -47,7% 8 LTFJ ISTANBUL/SABIHA GOKCEN 170 -45,7% 33 EGGW LONDON/LUTON 87 -54,9% 9 LEBL BARCELONA/EL PRAT 168 -64,4% 34 LTAI ANTALYA 87 -68,7% 10 ENGM OSLO/GARDERMOEN 167 -51,6% 35 ENBR BERGEN/FLESLAND 85 -29,8% 11 LGAV ATHINAI/ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS 149 -50,7% 36 EDDP LEIPZIG/HALLE 84 -18,5% 12 LOWW WIEN SCHWECHAT 148 -61,7% 37 EDDH HAMBURG 82 -59,8% 13 LSZH ZURICH 144 -61,0% 38 EDDT BERLIN-TEGEL 81 -69,2% 14 LIRF ROMA/FIUMICINO 141 -66,8% 39 LEMG MALAGA/COSTA DEL SOL 78 -59,6% 15 EKCH KOBENHAVN/KASTRUP 134 -62,9% 40 LLBG TEL AVIV/BEN GURION 74 -67,7% 16 LIMC MILANO MALPENSA 127 -60,4% 41 LROP BUCURESTI/HENRI COANDA 71 -57,7% 17 EBBR BRUSSELS NATIONAL 125 -60,2% 42 LKPR PRAHA RUZYNE 68 -67,0% 18 LPPT LISBOA 122 -59,7% 43 EDDS STUTTGART 68 -62,6% 19 EIDW DUBLIN 119 -63,5% 44 LHBP BUDAPEST LISZT FERENC INT. 65 -61,1% 20 ESSA STOCKHOLM-ARLANDA 118 -63,0% 45 LFML MARSEILLE PROVENCE 65 -53,6% 21 EGSS LONDON/STANSTED 117 -57,0% 46 EGPH EDINBURGH 63 -65,0% 22 LFPO PARIS ORLY 116 -61,7% 47 LFLL LYON SAINT-EXUPERY 62 -61,3% 23 EGKK LONDON/GATWICK 110 -71,8% 48 LTAC ANKARA-ESENBOGA 62 -51,6% 24 EPWA CHOPINA W WARSZAWIE 109 -59,0% 49 EGNX EAST MIDLANDS 60 -35,5% 25 LSGG GENEVA 108 -55,9% 50 LPPR PORTO 59 -56,3%

Table 1: Top 50 airports per average daily departure traffic in 2020

Average daily departures at the busiest 50 airports in NM area have dropped between -18.5% (Leipzig/Halle) and -71.8% (London/Gatwick). Leipzig/Halle (DHL hub) recorded the smallest decline owing to all-cargo flights that were up by 7.8% on 2019. London/Gatwick had the largest decline partly due to low-cost flights decreasing by 69.8% at the airport that moved from 10th in 2019 to 23rd in 2020.

The airports with the lowest decreases in traffic were mostly those where all-cargo has driven some growth: apart from Leipzig/Halle, this was also the case in East Midlands (-35.5%) with all-cargo flights up 6.5% and Koeln-Bonn (-44.8%) with all-cargo flights up 2.6% on 2019.

Amsterdam/Schiphol became the busiest airport in terms of average daily departures in 2020 (to the detriment of Frankfurt Main) with 322 daily departures, -53.9% of 2019 flights. Paris Ch. de Gaulle moved from 3rd in 2019 to 2nd and recorded 302 departures per day (-56.4%). Frankfurt Main ranked 3rd with 290 flights per day (-58.8%).

The strong recovery of Turkish domestic flights in 2020 has lifted Istanbul/Sabiha Gokcen into the top 10 (from 19th in 2019) with 170 daily departures (-45.7%). The new IGA Istanbul airport which opened in April 2019 was the fifth busiest airport in 2020 with an average of 252 departures per day.

Robust, Norwegian domestic traffic enabled Oslo/Gardermoen to rank 10th from 14th in 2019 and to record 167 daily departures (-51.6%). Athens jumped from 23rd to 11th partly due to a rebound of holiday travel over the summer with 149 daily departures (-50.7%).

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 17

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.5 AIRLINE INDUSTRY

The all-cargo and business aviation segments increased their market share in 2020 to the detriment of traditional scheduled and low-cost segments.

Figure 21: Left: Market segment’s share in 2020. Right: Market segment’s growth in 2020.

The all-cargo segment was the least affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and finished 2020 at a growth rate of +2.3% compared to 2019. It was the only segment to record an increase in 2020 due to increased demand for medical supplies and booming e-commerce. The all-cargo segment also more than doubled its market share from 2.9% in 2019 to 6.6% in 2020 due the loss of belly-hold capacity in passenger aircraft. In April and May when almost all traffic came to a standstill (-87.1% on average), all-cargo remained robust and was down by -5.9% on average. The segment surged to a double-digit increase (+10.8%) in December 2020 (vs. December 2019) boosted by COVID-19 vaccine flights.

The low-cost segment operated the fewest flights during the second quarter of 2020 (-96.2% on average vs. 2019) as low-cost airlines were less involved in repatriation and cargo operations. It was the worst-hit of all the segments in April but it re-started quicker than traditional scheduled airlines over the summer (-59.1% on average vs. -65.8% for traditional scheduled) boosted by leisure travel. A lack of harmonisation of renewed travel restrictions in Europe from October onwards led to an average decrease of 73.8% for the rest of the year. Overall, low-cost flights were down by 64.1% in 2020, corresponding to 2.1million flights lost compared to 2019.

The traditional scheduled segment declined by -60.7% with flights down by 3.6 million in 2020 (vs. 2019) and was less affected than low-cost during the April-June period as it was operating some repatriation flights as well as (passenger) cargo transportation . The segment recovered more slowly during the summer July- September but ended 2020 above low-cost traffic levels at -66.2% on average (vs. -73.8% for the low-cost segment). COVID-19 saw the emergence of video-conferencing as a business communication solution, which resulted in less corporate business travel and impacted airlines business traffic.

The business aviation segment decreased by -24.4% in 2020 compared with 2019. Flights were down -70.8% at the lowest point in April but recovered from June when travel restrictions were lifted to ensure connectivity where connections operated by scheduled carriers were unavailable. In August, business aviation was back to 2019 levels (+0.3% vs August 2019). Its market share went from 6.4% in 2019 to 10.7% in 2020.

The charter segment (non-scheduled flights) was down by -41.5% in 2020 (vs. 2019) although it recovered from June onwards, from -59.4% to -12.2% in December and was the only segment, along with all-cargo to

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 18

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

continue growing in November and December 2020. The charter segment also improved its market share from 4.0% in 2019 to 5.2% in 2020. Noted that the charter segment has captured a portion of flights usually operated by traditional scheduled passenger carriers for cargo operations.

Figure 22: Oil and fuel prices evolution.

Oil prices oscillated within a wide range during 2020 and were at their monthly highest in January (€58/barrel) before collapsing to an average of €25/barrel in April owing to the impact of COVID-19 restricted travel measures that created an oversupply. Oil prices rebounded over the summer and averaged €37/barrel when lockdown measures were lifted and OPEC agreed to cut crude oil production. In December, Brent crude prices increased to an average of €41/barrel, boosted by the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 19

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4.6 FLIGHT REDUCTIONS

This analysis of operational cancellations covers the period 2019 - 2020 and is published while European aviation remains strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the situation NM cautions against any in-depth comparison with previous years.

Figure 16 Monthly Rate of Operational Cancellations 2019-2020

In 2020, the operational cancellation rate increased to 4.5% (compared to 1.7% in 2019). This change came amongst the unprecedented operational conditions airlines experienced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first and second quarters of the year, saw high cancellation rates (Figure 16) as states implemented travel restrictions and traffic levels were reduced. Some stability returned in the summer season as airlines revised schedules and some travel restrictions were eased. However, in addition to the strong reduction of scheduled flights, operational cancellation rates remained higher than 2019. As winter season started further travel restrictions were reinstated causing a further increase in cancellations.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 20

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

5 EUROCONTROL NETWORK MANAGER 5.1 COVID-19 – MAIN ACTIONS

NM reacted to the first signs of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in early February monitoring the situation in China and activating the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell (EACCC). During the following months, NM in collaboration with NDOP, NMB and all the stakeholders took a number of special measures, including:

- Weekly coordination teleconferences with stakeholders, aimed at ensuring business continuity and preparing for the recovery.

- NM coordinated the lifting of RAD and other restrictions to support aircraft operations. The eNM/S20 implementation was suspended. A consolidated view of all the relevant NOTAMs and government restrictions was made available on the NOP Portal on a daily basis.

- NM implemented an efficient coordination process to ensure effective planning, execution, assessment and reporting. The intended result was to ensure close to zero ATFM delay and to facilitate optimum trajectories during recovery.

- Business continuity plans were maintained in NOP in order to be able to monitor closely the situation in all ACCs and to spread this information across the Network to all the operational stakeholders.

- NM led the preparation and worked with the stakeholders on the weekly European Network Operations Plan (NOP) – 2020 Recovery Plan. The document provided traffic outlooks as well as updated ACC capacities for the weeks to come. NM became the single point for reliable traffic information in Europe.

- All major Airlines accepted to share their schedules with NM through Aircraft Operators Liaison Cell (AOLC). This allowed NM to evaluate the quantity of traffic and to support ANSPs in establishing their opening schemes.

- NM activated the airport function within the NMOC, providing additional tactical support to airports. The Airport Corner provided crisis-related information and airport representatives were invited to attend the ad-hoc NDOP meetings.

- The experience built with the NOP Recovery Plan during the peak of the crisis led to the creation of the NOP Rolling Seasonal Plan. This special version of the NOP was developed to address demand and capacity for the following six weeks while managing the execution and implementation of the 5- years NOP.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 21

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

6 EN-ROUTE 6.1 ACC PERFORMANCE

Despite the drop in total delay, some ACCs had higher or similar levels of delay per flight than the previous year (Canarias, Marseille TMA, Paris or Brest ACCs). This was due to the combination of high delays in the first quarter of the year and the reduced traffic levels during the remaining period. Figure 17 shows the main locations of ATFM delay per flight.

1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,49 0,47 0,6 0,50 0,37 0,37 0,26 0,4 0,28 0,27 0,23 0,20 0,13 0,11 0,11 0,10 0,2 0,29 0,06 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,02

0,0

route delay (min)flight delay perroute

BODO ACC BODO

PARIS ACC PARIS

REIMS ACC REIMS

BREST ACC BREST

PALMA ACC PALMA

LISBOA ACC LISBOA

ZURICH ACC ZURICH

MADRID ACC MADRID ACC ATHINAI

SEVILLA ACC SEVILLA

NICOSIA ACC NICOSIA

BREMEN ACC BREMEN

CANARIAS ACC CANARIAS

BRUSSELS ACC BRUSSELS

MARSEILLE ACC MARSEILLE ACC BORDEAUX

MARSEILLE TMA MARSEILLE

LONDON TMA TC TMA LONDON

KARLSRUHE UAC KARLSRUHE BARCELONA ACC BARCELONA

ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC) ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC) ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC) ENROUTE CAPACITY ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS ENROUTE EVENTS ENROUTE WEATHER PREV YEAR

Figure 17: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay locations during 2020 (delay/flight)

A series of strikes affecting French ACCs generated approximately 950,000 minutes of ATFM delay in the French airspace and neighbouring ACCs between December 2019 and February 2020. Karlsruhe UAC capacity and staffing issues had been a network constraint since summer 2017 and continued throughout the winter season 2019/20.

With the start of the COVID-19 pandemic some ACCs adopted preventive measures to ensure business continuity. The Spanish authorities introduced a 50% reduction of staffing levels on their ATC units, which led to very high delays.

As from mid-March, traffic demand dropped and remained low throughout the year. However, there were some periods with higher growth, especially after the lifting of local containment measures. The network responded well to these sudden traffic changes, with no major issues arising. Nevertheless, there were some local issues which required prompt coordination.

Terminal areas within Marseille TMA (Chambery, Montpelier TMAs and others) experienced high seasonal demand that led to capacity issues and traffic complexity. NM coordinated with Marseille FMP, Marseille TMA and relevant airport operating authorities during both pre-tactical and tactical operations to ensure minimal disruption from an ATFM perspective.

Table 2 shows the traffic growth and delay per flight for each of the ACCs in the network.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 22

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

En-Route COUNTRY ACC ACC Code Traffic Growth Delay NETWORK NETWORK ALL_DNM 0,33 -55,2%

ALBANIA TIRANA ACC LAAAACC 0 -54,1%

ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC UDDDACC 0 -68,9%

AUSTRIA WIEN ACC LOVVACC 0 -54,7%

AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC UBBAACC 0 -51,5%

BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC EBBUACC 0,06 -55,1%

BOSNIA SARAJEVO ACC LQSBACC 0 161,2%

BULGARIA SOFIA ACC LBSRACC 0 -57,8%

CROATIA ZAGREB ACC LDZOACC 0 -57,7%

CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC LCCCACC 0,2 -60,2%

CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC LKAAACC 0 -62,5%

DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC EKDKACC 0 -58,9%

ESTONIA TALLINN ACC EETTACC 0 -58,2%

EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC EDYYUAC 0,01 -55,4%

FINLAND TAMPERE ACC EFESACC 0 -57,1%

FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC LFBBALL 0,11 -60,4%

FRANCE REIMS ACC LFEEACC 0,13 -58,2%

FRANCE PARIS ACC LFFFALL 0,37 -56,6%

FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC LFMMACC 0,5 -58,4%

FRANCE MARSEILLE APP LFMMAPP 0,37

FRANCE BREST ACC LFRRACC 0,47 -62,7%

GEORGIA TBILISI ACC UGGGACC 0 -53,1%

GERMANY LANGEN ACC EDGGALL 0,02 -54,8%

GERMANY MUNCHEN ACC EDMMACC 0 -58,5%

GERMANY KARLSRUHE UAC EDUUUAC 0,23 -52,9%

GERMANY BREMEN ACC EDWWACC 0,11 -57,7%

GREECE ATHINAI ACC LGGGACC 0,02 -56,5%

GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC LGMDACC 0 -57,3%

HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC LHCCACC 0 -56,9%

IRELAND DUBLIN ACC EIDWACC 0 -64,2%

IRELAND SHANNON ACC EISNACC 0 -57,7%

ISRAEL TEL AVIV ACC LLLLACC 0 -67,3%

ITALY BRINDISI ACC LIBBACC 0 -62,0%

ITALY MILAN ACC LIMMACC 0 -60,0%

ITALY PADOVA ACC LIPPACC 0 -62,0%

ITALY ROME ACC LIRRACC 0 -58,8%

LATVIA RIGA ACC EVRRACC 0 -56,6%

LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC EYVCACC 0 -54,0%

MALTA MALTA ACC LMMMACC 0 -57,2%

MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC LUUUACC 0 -60,8%

MOROCCO AGADIR ACC GMACACC 0 -59,4%

MOROCCO CASABLANCA ACC GMMMACC 0,02 -62,2%

NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC EHAAACC 0,01 -55,3%

NORTH MACEDONIA SKOPJE ACC LWSSACC 0 -57,1%

NORWAY BODO ACC ENBDACC 0,02 -29,7%

NORWAY OSLO ACC ENOSACC 0 -52,7%

NORWAY STAVANGER ACC ENSVACC 0 -40,1%

POLAND WARSAW ACC EPWWACC 0 -59,3%

PORTUGAL LISBON ACC LPPCACC 0,28 -59,9%

ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC LRBBACC 0 -57,5%

SERBIA / MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC LYBAACC 0 -56,1%

SLOVAKIA BRATISLAVA ACC LZBBACC 0 -64,4%

SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC LJLAACC 0 -57,6%

SPAIN CANARIAS ACC GCCCACC 0,49 -51,9%

SPAIN BARCELONA ACC LECBACC 0,27 -64,5%

SPAIN MADRID ACC LECMALL 0,29 -60,2%

SPAIN PALMA ACC LECPACC 0,02 -63,3%

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 23

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

En-Route COUNTRY ACC ACC Code Traffic Growth Delay SPAIN SEVILLA ACC LECSACC 0,26 -56,9%

SWEDEN MALMO ACC ESMMACC 0,01 -58,1%

SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC ESOSACC 0 -59,0%

SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC LSAGACC 0,02 -60,2%

SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC LSAZACC 0,1 -60,4%

TURKEY ANKARA ACC LTAAACC 0 -55,4%

TURKEY ISTANBUL ACC LTBBACC 0 -50,1%

UKRAINE KYIV ACC UKBVACC 0 -57,3%

UKRAINE DNIPROPETROVSK ACC UKDVACC 0 -39,7%

UKRAINE L’VIV ACC UKLVACC 0 -63,6%

UKRAINE ODESA ACC UKOVACC 0 -53,2%

UNITED KINGDOM PRESTWICK ACC EGPXALL 0 -61,8%

UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC EGTTACC 0,01 -61,1%

UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC EGTTTC 0,03 -60,4%

Table 2: Overview of the ACC performances in 2020

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 24

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

6.2 PLANNED EVENTS AND DISRUPTIONS

6.2.1 EN-ROUTE PLANNED EVENTS

Out of eleven projects in the 2020 transition plan, only three generated ATFM delays during their implementation phases.

Lisbon ACC migrated to a provisional OPS room in January and February and generated 15,517 minutes of ATFM delay.

London TC implemented Farnborough airspace changes in February generating 2,248 minutes of ATFM delay.

Maastricht UAC implemented new DFL in the Brussels East sectors generating 1,919 minutes of ATFM delay.

The 19,684 minutes of total ATFM delay generated by the transition plan projects appears to have been moderate, considering the number of projects and their complexity. It should be underlined that all projects scheduled for implementation from the month of March were realised in the conditions of significantly reduced traffic due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 3 shows the technical and the airspace related projects that might have imposed capacity reductions in several ACCs and that were included in the NOP Transition Plansiii.

Major Projects / Special Events Jan - March April - June July - Sept. Oct - Dec

France - Reims ACC 4 Flight training France - Marseille ACC 4 Flight training MUAC BRU East DFL change Germany - Munich ACC IPO at EDDP Germany - Bremen ACC Training & transition to BER Portugal - Lisbon ACC Transition to a new OPS room Portugal - Lisbon ACC New Lisbon TMA Switzerland - Zurich ACC Virtual centre Switzerland - Geneva ACC Virtual centre UK - London TC Farnborough airspace change Hungary - Budapest ACC MATIAS ATM system upgrade

Table 3 System Upgrade / Transition Projects

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 25

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

6.2.2 EN-ROUTE DISRUPTIONS

There were over 700,000 minutes of ATFM delay caused by ATC industrial action (including indirect delays in neighbouring ACCs), representing 45% of the total en-route delay. Preventive COVID-19 measures applied by some ACCs accounted for 230,000 minutes of ATFM delay during the month of March.

Table 4 shows an overview of the unplanned events or disruptions3 that imposed capacity reductions in certain ACCs in 2020.

Traffic Impact Date Location Event ATFM Delay Impact (Cancellations) French ACCs– 51,251 minutes 08-10 January France ATC industrial action 530 flights Neighbouring ACCs – 1,390 minutes 1970 flights to/from/via French ACCs– 54,463 minutes 13-17 January France ATC industrial action French airspaces Neighbouring ACCs – 556 minutes 14 January Italy ATC industrial action - Italian ACCs – 5,147 minutes 540 flights to/from/via French ACCs – 48,650 minutes 23-25 January France ATC industrial action French airspaces Neighbouring ACCs – 1,751 minutes 240 flights to/from/via French ACCs – 19,058 minutes 28-30 January France ATC industrial action French airspaces Neighbouring ACCs – 93 minutes 29 January Bodo ACC Complete electrical failure - 2,939 minutes French ACCs– 161,993 minutes 05-08 February France ATC industrial action - Neighbouring ACCs – 7,375 minutes 12 February Malmö ACC Power supply issue - 2,081 minutes Voice Communication System 18 February Lisbon ACC - 1,972 minutes (VCS) problem French ACCs– 126,131 minutes 19-21 February France ATC industrial action - Neighbouring ACCs – 3,331 minutes French ACCs – 205,817 minutes 04-09 March France ATC industrial action - Neighbouring ACCs – 21,082 minutes 12-21 March Canarias ACC Preventive COVID-19measures - 57,434 minutes 12-19 March Madrid ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 76,771 minutes 13-15 March Palma ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 2,830 minutes 13-17 March Sevilla ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 44,521 minutes 14-16 March Barcelona ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 14,643 minutes 14-19 March Reims ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 2,460 minutes 15-21 March Lisbon ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 16,582 minutes 15-19 March Marseille ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures _ 12,153 minutes 20 March Brest ACC Preventive COVID-19 measures - 3,378 minutes 07-08 October Greece ATC Industrial action - Greeks ACCs – 3,435 minutes 18-19 October Greece ATC industrial action - Greeks ACCs – 2,200 minutes

Table 4: Unplanned Events/Disruptions

3 The main source for the event description is the remark field on the NM ATFM Regulation (ANM)

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 26

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

7 AIRPORTS

Departures from all of the top 50 airports in the network decreased drastically in 2020, as reported in section 4.4. The total airport ATFM delay in 2020 decreased to a daily average of 3,014 minutes with an average delay per flight at 0.22 minutes. Compared to 2019, weather remains the biggest contributor (65.7%) to the total airport delays.

The following sub-sections present: - 2020 background data with an overview of airport ATFM delays and associated main airport disruptions, - NM’s direct support to airport stakeholders since the COVID-19 pandemic started and - All other 2020 achievements in the airport-related areas.

7.1 AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

7.1.1 HOT SPOTS (ARRIVAL ATFM DELAY)

In 2020, weather alone accounted for 65.5% of the total airport delays, generating an average of 1,822 minutes per day. It remains the main airport delay cause as in 2019. The airport with the highest average daily weather delay was Amsterdam/Schiphol (417 minutes per day), followed by London/Heathrow (385 minutes per day). Low visibility impacted operations in January 2020 at both airports followed by strong winds and heavy rain throughout February.

Airport capacity delay, as in 2019, also remained the second biggest contributor to airport ATFM delay. Lisbon airport had the most capacity related delay with 92 minutes per day, followed by London/City (54 minutes per day) and Amsterdam/Schiphol (35 minutes per day).

10%

8% 453 6% 387

4% 210 112 111 93 89 77 75 72 68 2% 63 55 52 50 47 46 45 42 33

Proportion of total ATFM delay ATFM totalof Proportion

PORTO

LISBOA

ZURICH

GENEVA

PARIS ORLYPARIS

LONDON/CITY

GRAN CANARIA GRAN

BARAJAS

FRANKFURTMAIN

LONDON/GATWICK

WIEN SCHWECHATWIEN

PARIS BOURGET LE PARIS

CANNES MANDELIEU CANNES

LONDON/HEATHROW

BRUSSELS BRUSSELS NATIONAL GAULLE DE CH PARIS

IGA ISTANBUL AIRPORT ISTANBUL IGA

AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL

ADOLFO SUAREZ SUAREZ MADRID ADOLFO

ISTANBUL/SABIHA ISTANBUL/SABIHA GOKCEN TENERIFE SUR/REINA SOFIASUR/REINA TENERIFE AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC) AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC) AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC) AIRPORT CAPACITY AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS AIRPORT EVENTS AIRPORT WEATHER

Figure 18: Top 20 airport delay locations during 20204

All delay categories considered, the airport that experienced the highest average daily ATFM delay was Amsterdam/Schiphol (with 453 minutes per day) followed by London/Heathrow (387 minutes per day) and Lisbon airport (210 minutes per day).

4 Only airports with more than 11,000 movements/year are included

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 27

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

4,0

2,0 1,48 1,41 1,00 0,86 0,70 0,69 0,46 0,59 0,50 0,48 0,43 0,39 0,38 0,29 0,29 0,25 0,25 0,24 0,24 0,22

0,0

PORTO

LISBOA

GENEVA

PARISORLY

EINDHOVEN

LONDON/CITY

GRANCANARIA

Avg movementdelay perAirport ATFM Avg

BALE-MULHOUSE

BARAJAS

RODOS/DIAGORAS

PARISLE BOURGET

WIENSCHWECHAT

LONDON/GATWICK

TOUSSUSLE NOBLE

CANNES MANDELIEU

LONDON/HEATHROW

BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC

AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL

ADOLFOSUAREZ MADRID- TENERIFESUR/REINA SOFIA

AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC) AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC) AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC) AIRPORT CAPACITY IRAKLION/NIKOSKAZANTZAKIS AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS AIRPORT EVENTS AIRPORT WEATHER PREV YEAR

Figure 19: Top 20 airport delay per flight locations during 20201

Cannes/Mandelieu airport delay per flight was the highest in 2020 with an average of 1.48 minutes. As in 2019, the main delay cause for 2020 was airport capacity related delay.

New entrant last year in this Top 20, London/City ranks second as the airport with the highest airport delay per flight (1.41 minutes) followed by Tenerife/Reina Sofia airport (1 minute).

7.1.2 AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS

A number of unplanned disruptions5 imposed capacity reductions at certain airports (see Table 5). Events that also had an impact at en-route level are listed in section 6.2.2 En-route Disruptions.

Traffic Impact Date Location Event ATFM Delay Impact (Cancellations) Compliance to a night 01-30 January London/Luton airport - 2,501 minutes movement quota 01-30 January London/City airport Stand availability issues - 5,322 minutes Approximately 100 16-19 January Alicante airport Fire in terminal building flights were diverted or - cancelled. 08-10 January France ATC industrial action 530 flights French airports – 3,382 minutes 1970 flights to/from/via 13-17 January France ATC industrial action French airports - 7,679 minutes French airspaces 14 January Italy ATC industrial action - Italian airports – 1,420 minutes 540 flights to/from/via 23-25 January France ATC industrial action French airports – 9,909 minutes French airspaces 240 flights to/from/via 28-30 January France ATC industrial action French airports – 2,086 minutes French airspaces Military activity in the 01-29 February Lisbon airport - 2,724 minutes vicinity of the airport 01-29 February London/City airport Stand availability issues - 10,435 minutes 03 February Madrid/Barajas airport Drone sighting - 1,026 minutes 03 February Madrid/Barajas airport Emergency landing - 1,397 minutes 05-08 February France ATC industrial action - French airports - 22,917 minutes 19-21 February France ATC industrial action - French airports – 3,854 minutes Compliance to a night 01-31 March London/Luton airport - 1,053 minutes movement quota

5 The main source for the event description is the remark field on the NM ATFM Regulation (ANM). Only events with an impact of more than 1.000 minutes of ATFM delay and/or more than 100 impacted flights were considered.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 28

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Traffic Impact Date Location Event ATFM Delay Impact (Cancellations) 02 March Frankfurt/Main airport Drone sighting - 1,290 minutes 02-05 March London/City airport Stand availability issues - 1,004 minutes 04-09 March France ATC industrial action - French airports - 16,204 minutes Preventive COVID-19 13-17 March Tenerife/Norte airport - 2,393 minutes measures Preventive COVID-19 13-23 March Tenerife/Sur airport 22,421 minutes measures Preventive COVID-19 14-16 March Gran Canaria airport - 13,826 minutes measures Preventive COVID-19 24-31 March Kiyv/Boryspil airport - 1,559 minutes measures 30 August Paris/Le Bourget ILS Failure - 1,067 minutes 01-30 October Iraklion airport Radar failure - 2,694 minutes 01-30 October Rodos airport Radar failure - 3,508 minutes

Table 5 Airport Disruptions 2020

7.2 COVID-19: MAIN SUPPORT ACTIONS

7.2.1 COVID-19 IMPACT STUDY

To support airports in their management and recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, EUROCONTROL delivered a study on “Impact assessment of COVID-19 measures on airport operations & capacity” to help them assessing in detail the impact of those COVID-19 measures, showing how to mitigate and anticipate the challenges that these new measures impose on passenger terminal throughput and airport capacity. A dissemination webinar was held on 6th August 2020, attracting 270 attendees. This was complemented by a final report, joint EUROCONTROL and ACI-Europe press releases and several publications (e.g. Airport Business magazine).

7.2.2 CONTRIBUTION TO NOP RECOVERY PLAN

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis (April 2020), Airport performance, constraints and predictions of airport demand and capacity have been monitored and presented every Monday in the Ad Hoc Enlarged NDOP Recovery Cell. This was recorded in the weekly European Network Operations Plan (NOP) – 2020 Recovery Plan as well as in the European Rolling Seasonal NOP.

The Airport Corner (see also 7.5) was utilised as an enabler for all airports to report their available capacity. In addition, local sanitary measures, resulting operational airside and landside constraints plus the effect of these constraints on the turn-around time were also reported and disseminated.

7.2.2.1 DEMAND AND CAPACITY BALANCING

By cross checking airport reported capacities with the NM predicted demand every week, NM identified potentially imbalanced situations where the predicted demand exceeded the reported airport capacity. All concerned airports were systematically contacted by NM’s Airport Function to confirm that measures were planned to avoid the airports becoming bottlenecks in the network. During this time, all airports consistently reported their ability to increase capacity to accommodate the demand.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 29

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Airport traffic predictions were also compared every week with the EUACA slot database to present, as reliably as possible, a picture of anticipated demand. Figure 20 below shows that the airport movement prediction based on EUACA slot information and the one based on the NM traffic outlook continuously improved and aligned.

Figure 20: Comparison of the predicted number of ECAC Level 2 and 3 coordinated airport movements based on EUACA data and EUROCONROL traffic outlook

7.2.2.2 TURN-ROUND TIMES

The application of sanitary measures was expected to have an adverse impact on airport turn-round time. Accordingly, NM monitored, on a weekly basis, the turn-round time at all European airports since they resumed operations after the first lockdown. Using available data, NM carried out a calculation on stand occupancy times per airport.

To identify turn-rounds with a certain level of pressure, only those corresponding to an arrival with late in- block time and a subsequent late off-block time departure were considered. Results were included in the European Network Operations Plan (NOP) – 2020 Recovery Plan on a weekly basis as well as in the European Rolling Seasonal NOP. Figure 21 below shows turn-round time evolution per aircraft size since the first recovery of traffic in mid-June 2020. During the last weeks of 2020 a major increase of turn-round time was observed in airports with high traffic, especially for aircraft above 280 seats, even if the evolution of the average ECAC turn-round time remained relatively stable. Note that aircraft with typically 225-280 passengers were rare and are not shown due to the lack of statistical representativeness.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 30

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Figure 21: Evolution of the average turn-around time per aircraft size along 2020 compared to 2019

7.3 CONNECTING AIRPORTS AND THE NETWORK

During 2020, NM continued the close and effective collaboration with airports for their integration into the Network (see details in sub-sections below).

Furthermore, exchanges between operational experts have been conducted through visits of APOC staff to the NMOC to deepen the mutual understanding and improve collaboration.

7.3.1 AIRPORT CDM AND ADVANCED ATC TOWER IMPLEMENTATIONS

Despite the difficult circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Nice, Warsaw, and Bergamo airports became fully implemented CDM airports, whilst Berlin-Brandenburg replaced Berlin-Schönefeld. As a consequence, the number of A-CDM airports connected to, and exchanging data with, the NMOC has grown to 30 – enabling the NMOC to receive more accurate take-off time information for 38.5% of NM area departures via Departure Planning Information (DPI) messages.

In 2020 the number of Advanced ATC Tower airports was 24 (Nice having moved from an Advanced ATC Tower to an A-CDM airport), accounting for approximately 9.5% of departures in the NM area. Together with the A-CDM airports this means that NM now receives Departure Planning Information (DPI) messages for 48% of departures in the NM area.

19 airlines are presently using the EOBT Update Service for A-CDM departures which is available from all A- CDM.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 31

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Information on individual airports which implemented A-CDM and Advanced ATC Tower in 2020 can be found in Annex III.

7.3.2 AOP/NOP INTEGRATION

The iAOP/NOP integration follows the EC CP1 Implementing Regulation where 18 airports are mandated to deploy iAOP/NOP integration by 31/12/2023 and 28 Airports have to reach a full AOP/NOP integration by 31/12/2027. At the beginning of 2020, NM restarted the 3 Central European Facilities (CEF) calls 2015, 2016 and 2017 on initial AOP/NOP integration with 17 Airports as project Partners. Unluckily, one month later, the COVID-19 crisis hit the sector and airports have since been forced to put the integration activities on hold. Amsterdam Schiphol and Rome Fiumicino were the first Partners that re-started the activities from September 2020, targeting a completed integration for second half of 2021.

7.3.3 INTEGRATION OF REGIONAL AIRPORTS

Building on research from the SESAR TAM project, NM is developing a Network concept of Regional Airport Connectivity with the goal of increasing network coverage of departing flights to over 90%. As part of developing this approach to Regional Connectivity, a coordination started at the end of 2019 between the EUROCONTROL Network Manager and Fraport Greece for the integration of its 14 Greek airports into the network and has continued during 2020 ending the year with 7 out of the 14 airports with ADS-B infrastructure providing ground surveillance data.

The overall approach uses a set of reduced A-CDM milestones to provide airports and NM with accurate flight information (supporting situational awareness and tactical planning by updating decision support tools) with an ultimate focus on low cost and a cloud-based solution. To support this approach, a web-based tool was developed during the year and will be operationally tested in the Greek Islands as of Q1 2021.

7.4 AIRPORT FUNCTION SERVICES

The Airport Function was implemented through a dedicated position in NMOC during summer 2020 to facilitate airport coordination, smooth operations and adaptation to changing Network situations during the COVID-19 recovery phase. This is an initial step towards a permanent H24 airport position in NMOC, in line with the concept of Airport integration in the Network.

Despite summer 2020 being marked by the effect of COVID-19 in the traffic figures, the Airport Function provided both pre-tactical and tactical support on hot-spot airports and expanded the coverage to airports like Cannes as well as Greek island airports. As an example, traffic levels at all airports has been under the available capacity and in the case of the Greek Island airports, ATFM delay was down 99.3% compared to 2019 with the contribution to total ATFM delay generated by those airports during the summer period reduced from 31.8% in 2019 to 19.8% in 2020. In addition the Airport Function conducted airport slot monitoring on behalf of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority (HCAA) and the Hellenic Slot Coordination Authority (HSCA).

The Function also operated a dedicated Airport Hotline and supported crisis management and NM teleconferences.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 32

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

7.5 AIRPORT CORNER – ENHANCED INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND NM

As part of the NM’s Recovery Plan response to the COVID-19, the NM Airport team re-focused core activities to support airports, ANSPs and airlines. To facilitate this task, NM established a reporting process to capture relevant airport information and monitor airport operations and planning. This process is supported by a secured web-based tool, the Airport Corner, which enables quick and easy information provision from airport stakeholders. In 2020, 30 additional airports joined this process with a total of 130 airports participating.

In April 2020, a new Airport Corner interface dedicated to COVID-19 related information was made available to airports. Via this new interface, airports were invited to share with NM, on a weekly basis, any relevant information about the impact of COVID-19 to their airside and landside operations. There was very good collaboration from airports on the provision of the COVID-19 information. This information was an essential input to the European Network Operations Plan (NOP) – 2020 Recovery Plan as well as the European Seasonal Rolling NOP.

With very low traffic demand, there have been fewer situations of capacity-demand imbalances, despite capacity reductions. Consequently, there was a reduction in the amount of information reported to NM. Another consequence of the COVID-19 impact is a significant decrease in the level of airport collaboration in strategic and pre-tactical reporting processes. Since September 2020, the NM Airport Unit has been re- establishing regular collaboration with the airports by communicating and coordinating with local contacts. This effort will continue in 2021.

In addition, most of the information has proven to be very relevant to airlines, complementing information that is not available or timely in other sources such as NOTAMs. During 2020, about 40 additional airlines subscribed to the Airlines dedicated Airport Corner interface where airlines can find all airports available information and can subscribe to be informed in real-time about any updates provided by their airports of interest.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 33

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

7.6 AIRPORT CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE

During 2020, EUROCONTROL delivered the final reports of the Airport Capacity Assessment for both Casablanca and Riga airports, as well as a second report for Brussels airport. Also, to support the National Civil Aviation Authority of Portugal “Autoridade Nacional da Aviação Civil” (ANAC), EUROCONTROL undertook a performance assessment (study) to assess the impact of new RET implementation for the existing Lisbon airport.

The Automated Data Collection (ADC) Application (delivered end of 2019) has been transformed into the ACAP Platform, which will incorporate the CCPM, Continuous Capacity and Performance Monitoring, (phase I concluded end 2020 and phase II under development) and the future ACAT, Airport Capacity Assessment Tool, (formerly known as PIATA Neo).

7.7 DEPLOYING SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS / HARMONISATION

In 2020, two new airports started operating RECAT-EU optimised wake separation scheme: Cologne-Bonn and Vienna Schwechat, while deployment is underway at Amsterdam Schiphol for entry in operations in 2021. Initial Time-Based Separation (TBS) deployment projects included partnering with AustroControl for Vienna, and DSNA for Paris CDG, under CEF/INEA SESAR deployment framework. This included developing a quick win version as an interim step to full time-based separation.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 34

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY

This chapter provides a summary of the progress made on the implementation of the actions agreed in the joint IATA/CANSO/EUROCONTROL Flight Efficiency Planiv, drawn up in 2008, and responds to the requirements of the SES performance scheme.

The NM flight efficiency targets and objectives for 2020 included in the draft Network Performance Plan (NPP) 2020-2024 and in the draft Network Operations Plan (NOP) 2020-2024 are listed below:

Route extension – airspace design (DES) Target: . The NM objective is to reach a further reduction of 0.34pp from the 2018 reference value (an average of 0.05-0.06pp per year in RP3

Route extension – last filed flight plan (KEP) Target: . achieve a KEP target of 4.37% for the NM area

Route extension – actual trajectory (KEA) Target: . achieve a KEA target of 2.53% for both SES and NM areas

Flight efficiency indicators are monitored for pure airspace design and for flight planning. The downward trend evolution of those indicators since the beginning of 2011 is shown on Figure 22.

The evolution recorded on the route extension based on the airspace design indicator during 2020 was positively impacted by the continuation of implementation of Free Route Airspace, despite the COVID-19 crisis. The same applies for the last filed flight plan and the actual trajectory as a result of the airspace design changes, of the suspension of a high number of RAD restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and a closer cooperation between NM, the airspace users and the computer flight plan service providers. This evolution continues to demonstrate the necessity to continue the cooperative approach towards airspace design and enhanced flight planning.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 35

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Figure 22: Route efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle

A number of events in 2020 affected the network and had direct consequences on the flight efficiency evolution:

 Overall crisis situation in Ukraine that led a significant number of flights to avoid the entire Ukrainian airspace moving to neighbouring countries (Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, etc.); as a result of the Ukrainian crisis adjacent ACCs/ UACs were on-loaded by Far Eastern traffic avoiding the Ukraine airspace leading to increased route extensions.  Closure of Libyan airspace for over flights due to the security situation required procedures with impact on flight efficiency for traffic between Europe and Africa re-routed via Egypt and Tunisia.  Avoidance of Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian airspace due to the security situation with impact on flight efficiency for traffic between Europe, Middle East and Asia re-routed via Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and/or Saudi Arabia, Egypt with additional impacts on the flows from the Ukrainian crisis situation.  Arrival trajectories in the terminal area of the new Istanbul airport that sit outside of the 40 nautical mile circle.  The overall traffic patterns and traffic mix resulting from the COVID-19 crisis

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 36

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN

As part of the Flight Efficiency Plan, intensive work was undertaken by States and ANSPs in close cooperation with NM to develop and implement enhanced airspace design solutions, with more than 100 airspace improvement packages being co-ordinated at network level and implemented during 2020. As a result, the route extension due to airspace design (RTE-DES) continued its downward trend throughout the year, reaching its lowest level AIRAC average ever, during AIRAC cycle 2004, at 2.12%.

3,50% 3,04% 2,96% 3,00% 2,80% 2,63% 2,55% 2,47% 2,36% 2,50% 2,29% 2,24% 2,22%

2,00% The average route extension due to airspace design decreased from 2.24% in 1,50% 2019 to 2.22% in 2020 (Figure 23) and 1,00% allowed potential average savings of approximately 12,300 nautical miles per 0,50% day. During 2020 the indicator reached a

0,00% historically low level during the AIRAC cycle 2004 with a reduction to 2.12. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Figure 23: yearly evolution of the airspace design indicator (RTE- DES)

Over the reporting year, this represents a potential saving of 4500000 nautical miles (Figure 24), approximately 26,500 tons of fuel, reduced emissions of 90,000 tons of CO2, or 22 million Euros when compared to 2019.

Figure 24: Potential yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles due to airspace design

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 37

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.2 AIRSPACE CHANGES VS. FLIGHT PLANNING

The flight planning indicator (KEP) measures the length of the flight planned trajectory compared to the great circle (route extension). It reflects inefficiencies in the use of the airspace (due to RAD restrictions, CDR availability, inefficient flight-planning etc.), but also user preferences for cheaper rather than shorter routes.

4,91% 4,87% 4,86% 4,90% 4,82% 4,70% 4,74% 4,62% 4,63% 4,70% 4,59% 4,57% The average route extension 4,50% based on the latest filed flight 4,30% plan (KEP) decreased from 4.63% in 2019, to 4.57% in 4,10% 2020 (Figure 25) for NM area. 3,90% This is above the KEP 2020 3,70% target of 4.37% for NM area.

3,50% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Figure 25: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator (KEP)

Figure 26 shows the corresponding yearly savings / losses and the relationship with the mileage flown over the Second Reference Period (RP2) of the SES Performance scheme and the start of RP3 in 2020.

8 6

5,61

6 Billions Millions 5,14 4 The average flight-planned distance decreased

4 when compared to 2019, resulting in savings of

2 5.6 million nautical miles flown over the whole 2 year. This result is mainly due to the

0 0 improvements in airspace design, significant

Mileage Flown (Nautical (Nautical Miles) Savings Savings 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 reduction of the RAD restrictions as a result of

(Nautical (Nautical Miles) -2 -2 the COVID-19 crisis and closer work between -2,40 -4 NM, airspace users and computer flight plan -3,68 -4,42 -4 service providers. Over the year, this represents -6 -5,88 savings of 33.6 kilotons of fuel, decreased Savings Year-on-Year Mileage Flown -8 -6 emissions of 112 kilotons of CO2, or savings of fuel costs of approximately 28 million Euros when compared to 2019. Figure 26 Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to improved flight planning efficiency

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 38

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.3 ACTUAL TRAJECTORY

3,40% 3,31% 3,20% The actual trajectory indicator 3,14% 3,20% (KEA) decreased to 2.56% for 2,93% 3,00% 2,87% the NM area (Figure 27), 2,77% 2,77% 2,79% slightly above the KEA 2020 2,80% 2,72% 2,56% target of 2.53% set for both 2,60% the NM and SES areas. 2,40%

2,20%

2,00% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 27: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory indicator (KEA)

20 6 Figure 28 shows the corresponding yearly savings / losses and the relationship with the

15 Billions Millions 4 mileage flown over the Second Reference 8,4 10 Period (RP2) of the SES Performance scheme 2

5 3,7 and the start of RP3 in 2020. Mileage Flown

0 0 (Nautical Miles)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 The average flown distance decreased when RTEincrease

(Nautical (Nautical Miles) -5 -2 compared to 2019, resulting in savings of 8.4 -6,4 -5,7 -10 million nautical miles over the whole year. -8,6 -4 -15 -15,4 -20 -6 Savings Year-on-Year Mileage Flown

Figure 28 Yearly savings in nautical miles (NM) due to improved flight efficiency

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 39

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.4 CONDITIONAL ROUTES (CDR)

CDR availability is an important element when considering ASM in the Network Operations context. Figure 29 shows little changes in absolute figures for the evolution of CDR development as elements of the network in 2020 compared to past five years. This is due mainly to changes in CDR categories with many CDR1/2 in order to permit night routes open and to the continuous network improvement process (covered by ERNIP part 2). A major change which started in 2018 was the implementation of the Single CDR Category which happened in the majority of ECAC states. With an already dramatic reduction of CDR2 and CDR1/2 the process will be finalised in 2021.

Figure 29 Evolution of CDR availability 2016 - 2020 Figure 30 Rate of CDR availability (RoCA) in 2020

Figure 30 shows RoCA for CDR1 and CDR2 categories. RoCA for CDR1 has a stable high value (97%) over the entire year while RoCA for CDR2 oscillates between 49% and 61% with an average of 57%.

Figure 31 RAI (%) 2020 per AIRAC cycle. Figure 32 RAU (%) 2020 per AIRAC cycle

The Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) that planned the available CDR is relatively constant at a value of approx. 94% for the entire year 2020 (Figure 31).

The Rate of Aircraft actually Using (RAU) CDR is lower (58%), as shown in Figure 342. This is the result of ATC intervention for various reasons (expedite traffic, weather, late release of military areas, etc).

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 40

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

Figure 33 Five year RAI evlution Figure 34 Five year RAU evolution

The charts of RAI and RAU evolution over the past 5 years (Figure 33 and Figure 34) indicate the tendency to use less and less the CDR, since there are today more and more better options either in FRA or the significant number of available DCTs. However in 2020 due to the favorable environment for air operations with less RAD restrictions the actual utilisation of CDRs almost doubled. Figure 35 is showing the number of CDRs available for flight planning (blue line), the number of those used in flight plans (green line) and the number of those that were actually flown (red line). The values indicate that 63% of available CDRs are used, while in 2019 the utilisation were less than 10%.

The numbers indicating the CDRs used and planned versus the CDR available show in 2020 an almost constant difference with a gap between availability and utilisation of 37%. The explanation is that in 2020, while there were no new FRA extension, the new situation created that led to low traffic values in combination with suspension of a large number of RAD restrictions facilitated a much easier access to CDRs both for the planning process and actual usage. Figure 35 CDR availability vs. usage in 2020

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 41

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.5 FREE ROUTE OPERATIONS

By the end of 2020 the ACCs listed below in Table 6 have either fully or partially implemented Free Route Airspace operations.

Free Route Airspace Lisbon ACC implementation Oslo, Stavanger, Bodo, Tampere, Tallinn, Riga, Kobenhavn , Malmo and Stockholm ACCs as part of NEFRA Shannon ACC Vilnius ACC Budapest ACC Beograd, Zagreb, Wien and Ljubljana ACCs as part of the- South East Common Sky Initiative (SECSI) FRA Rome, Padua, Brindisi and Milano ACCs as part of FRA IT Malta ACC Skopje ACC Tirana ACC Tibilisi ACC Chisinau ACC Yerevan ACC Minsk ACC North East Karlsruhe UAC Warszawa ACC Bratislava ACC Kyiv ACC and Dnipro ACC (KIDRO) FRA Lviv ACC Maastricht UAC Night Free Route Airspace Sofia and Bucuresti ACCs as part of Danube FAB implementation night and weekends Odesa ACC Karlsruhe UAC Bremen ACC Munich ACC Athinai ACC Makedonia ACC Agadir ACC Table 6 Free Route Airspace Operations Implementations

NM is closely associated to the FRA implementation through airspace design, airspace validations, definition of network airspace utilisation rules, overall network interconnectivity and interoperability, simulations and NM systems upgrades.

During 2020 the following implementations were completed:

 Athinai and Makedonia ACC implementation of Night (21:00 - 04:00) Free Route Airspace within Hellas UIR FL335 - FL460

 Agadir ACC implementation of Night Free Route Airspace FL195 - FL460 within the AoR of Agadir

 Extension of SEEN FRA operations by 4 hours 20:00 - 06:00 (19:00 - 05:00)

 Minsk ACC extension of Night FRA to H24

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 42

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

The map in Figure 36 shows the European Free Route Airspace deployment status at the end 2020.

Figure 36: Map - Free Route Airspace Deployment by end 2020

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 43

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.6 ROUTE AVAILABILITY DOCUMENT (RAD)

The Route Availability Document (RAD) is a tool that addresses how the European network airspace may be used. According to the Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010v the scope of the RAD is to be a common reference document containing the policies, procedures and description for route and traffic orientation.

The Network Manager Implementing Rule (Commission Regulation (EU) No 123/2019)vi makes a clear reference that the European Route Network Improvement Plan shall include route network and free route airspace utilisation rules and availability.

The airspace design and airspace utilisation aspects were brought closer by the established multi-disciplinary EUROCONTROL NM RAD Team guided by the Operational Stakeholders RAD Management Group.

The actions performed by the NM RAD Team have facilitated a pragmatic refinement of the RAD during 2020, with full cooperation of Operational Stakeholders, aiming to overcome weaknesses in airspace design and ATM system functionality and to ensure application of the remaining restrictions only where and when required.

The major RAD evolutions and developments in 2020 focusing particularly at network level and covering the entire NM area of responsibility were as follows:

o Further adaptation of the time expression and harmonisation in entire RAD; o Further adaptation of RAD to meet the FRA requirements and refinement of restrictions based on airspace volumes; o Further adaptation and change of restrictions identification rules in RAD; o Removal of Appendix 6 from the RAD; o Incorporation of NPZ restrictions in Appendix 7; o Improvements in “Last minutes” RAD changes and “Daily” use of Increment File; o Improvements in RAD Annex for Special Events; o Further development of the RAD DCT Chart; o Further harmonisation of terminology and definitions of restrictions; o Further improvements in RAD availability (publication) to users; o Further rationalisation of restrictions expression; o Continuation of the pdf RAD publication; o Improvements in coordination of RAD airspace data reference versus airspace changes; o Improvements in data structure and format, and change management based on “RAD Application” grammar; o Implementation in real operations of RAD via “RAD Application”; o NM Release development related to Airspace Utilisation Rules and Availability (AURA) interactive process via the NOP and use of the NOP Portal as a collaborative platform to build the “RAD Application”; o Proposal for new RAD structure; o Adaptation of RAD Documentation.

Further RAD structure, process, and supporting improvement measures have been proposed for implementation in 2021 such as:

o New RAD structure gradual implementation; o Developments of new “RAD Application” requirements for accommodation of the new RAD structure;

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 44

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

o Implementation of changes in “RAD Application”; o Continuation of improvements in data structure and format, and change management based on RAD - “RAD Application” grammar; o Re-definition of the CDM process on the acceptance of proposed RAD restrictions in accordance with the justification, assessment results and objective goal of the proposed RAD restrictions; o Definition of a new process for the “Last minute” changes; o Establishment of a post-ops process to continuously re-evaluate the existing RAD restrictions and if additional justification not provided to ask for those RAD restrictions to be suppressed; o Proposal for simplification of the RAD restrictions; Collapse multiple RAD restrictions in one network RAD restrictions with the same effect; Evaluate and propose suppression of RAD restrictions constantly not respected on ATC; o Definition of network oriented RAD restrictions together with concerned States / FABs / ANSPs, after the provision of clear objective goal and justification for RAD restriction implementation; o Proposal for structural airspace changes to eliminate the need for RAD restrictions; o Definition of requirements and gradually implement an enhanced pre-validation process supported by automation to allow better validation and flight planning; o Definition of enhanced promulgation processes for the RAD relaxations; o Further developments of the NM DCT / CDR mapping tool; o Gradual improvement in RAD utilization definition, adaptation of the expressions in the RAD and harmonisation in entire RAD; o Further improvement and fine-tuning of a Network impact assessment of the RAD restrictions implemented in the States; o Continuation of harmonisation of terminology and definitions of restrictions; o Continuation of improvements in RAD availability (publication) to users; o Continuation of rationalisation of restrictions expression; o Continuation of the pdf RAD publication; o Continuation of improvements in coordination of RAD airspace data reference versus airspace changes; o Adaptation of RAD Documentation.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 45

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

8.7 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN

As part of Flight Efficiency Plan, intensive work has been undertaken by States and ANSPs in close cooperation with NM to develop and implement enhanced airspace design solutions, approximately 100 airspace improvement packages being co-ordinated at network level and implemented during the 12 months of 2020. These improvement measures reduced significantly the actual losses recorded as a result of number of events which had direct consequences on the flight efficiency evolution. The list below provides an overview of the major enhancements implemented in 2020 (up to and incl. AIRAC 2012).

 Belgium / Maastricht UAC - DFL355 MUAC BruSG East.

 Bosnia and Herzegovina - SECSI FRA - NPZ Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 Croatia - Central sector Zagreb, Phase 2b.

 Cyprus / Israel / Egypt - Nicosia ACC -Tel Aviv ACC - Cairo ACC re-organisation.

 France - Brest ACC re-organisation - Step 4.

 Georgia - Tbilisi TMA reorganisation.

 Germany - Thüringen sector re-design - Munich ACC. - Berlin Brandenburg International (BER) airport.

 Greece - Hellas FRA - Free Route Airspace Greece - Phase 4a.  Hungary - New Budapest TMA. - Budapest TMAO and ACC re-organisation.

 Latvia - Raise of Riga FIR upper limit.  Morocco - Free Route Airspace Morocco (MORFRA), Phase 1.

 Norway - Norway FIR renaming (Polaris FIR).

 Norway / Estonia / Finland - ATS routes deletion within NEFAB States.

 Poland - TMA re-organisation Warsaw FIR - Step 1.

 Portugal

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 46

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

- Extend Cascais (LPCS) CTR.

 Portugal / Spain / Morocco - Lisboa / Casablanca / Canarias Axis, Phase 1a. - Lisboa / Casablanca / Canarias Axis Phase 1b.

 Slovakia - SEEN FRA, Phase 3 (expansion of time availability in Bratislava FIR). - Bratislava ACC re-sectorisation - Step 1.  Spain - New Barcelona/ LEBL SIDs.

 Turkey - KABAN re-opening. - Istanbul New Airport/ LTFM - Phase 1b.  UK - Tango Routes in Shannon UIR. - Prestwick Lower Airspace (PLAS) Project 3c. - Farnborough Airspace Re-design Project. - LAM DVOR Removal Project. - WCO and WOD DVOR Removal Project. - MAY DVOR Removal Project. - DTY DVOR Removal Project.

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 47

EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate

9 REFERENCES

i EUROCONTROL Air Navigation Inter-site Acronym List (AIRIAL) http://www.eurocontrol.int/airial/definitionListInit.do?skipLogon=true&glossaryUid=AIRIAL

ii Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions Document https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/reporting-assumptions-and-descriptions

iii Transition Plan for major Projects in Europe 2018-2019 and Transition Plan for major Projects in Europe 2019-2022 https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-10/network-operations-transition-plan-2018-2019.pdf

iv Flight Efficiency Plan https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/flight-efficiency-plan

v Common Rules on Air Traffic Flow Management (255/2010) http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Regulation_255/2010_-_Common_Rules_on_Air_Traffic_Flow_Management

vi Detailed rules for the implementation of ATM network functions http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Regulation_677/2011_laying_down_detailed_rules_for_the_implementation_of_ATM_network_functio ns

Edition Date: 15/04/2021 Edition: 1.0 Status: Released Issue 48

SUPPORTING EUROPEAN AVIATION

© EUROCONTROL - March 2021 This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and it is not used for commercial purposes (i.e. for financial gain). The information in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL. www.eurocontrol.int