{"id":477,"date":"2015-12-09T13:01:54","date_gmt":"2015-12-09T11:01:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=477"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:47:31","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T09:47:31","slug":"the-airlines-hold-the-destiny-of-the-ansps-in-their-hands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=477","title":{"rendered":"The airlines hold the destiny of the ANSPs in their hands"},"content":{"rendered":"It\u2019s no secret that airlines will often fly longer distances to avoid high ATM fees. As we discussed in this month\u2019s Aviation Intelligence Reporter<\/em>, en-route charges vary significantly across European ANSPs, and there can be large differences in the fees charged by ANSPs that are controlling neighbouring airspace. In 2014, flight trajectories were, on average, 2.5%<\/a> longer than the shortest possible routes. All this results in congested airspace, increased fuel burn and more emissions.\r\n\r\nOne of the motivating factors for starting on the Single European Sky (SES) project was to reduce trajectories, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing emissions. From a political perspective, it\u2019s all about emissions.\r\n\r\nHowever, from an airline perspective, emissions are nothing more than a proxy for fuel burn and fuel is all about cost. When the cost of fuel was high, en-route charges were comparatively insignificant and we could all form a ring around the camp fire and talk about emissions. But when the fuel price falls, all that nice green talk turns into greenbacks.\r\n\r\nAccording to the latest data from Eurocontrol<\/a>, the basic en-route unit charge in mainland Europe varies from just over \u20ac21 for Georgian airspace to almost \u20ac110 for Swiss airspace. Although it is unlikely that an airline would choose to divert through Georgia to avoid Swiss airspace, for example in the neighbouring countries that make up the BLUE MED FAB (Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta) the unit rate varies from \u20ac22 to \u20ac79.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"Screen<\/a>\r\n\r\nAs a result of airlines\u2019 financially driven behaviour, ANSPs are at risk of failing to meet flight efficiency targets set as part of the SES performance plans. The latest report<\/a> from the SES\u2019s Performance Review Body finds that the 2014 target of 4.67% for flight efficiency was missed. There will now be penalties for missing these targets.\r\n\r\nAll this suggests that, if the SES is going to be successful and ANSPs are going to meet flight efficiency targets, en-route charges need to be harmonised, particularly amongst neighbouring ANSPs. Well, this is something that has been explored by Eurocontrol, as well as by many FABs. However, so far all have found insurmountable difficulties when it comes to establishing a common charging zone.\r\n\r\nWhat about harmonising costs instead? This would suggest mergers between neighbouring ANSPs. That is an unlikely prospect. After all, it would mean some CEOs would be out of a job. As we discussed in this month\u2019s Aviation Intelligence Reporter<\/em>, we think that alliances may provide the answer. For more on this topic, subscribe here<\/a>.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, until the ANSPs find a way to minimise their differences in costs, and therefore charges, the destiny of the SES is in the hands of the airlines.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s no secret that airlines will often fly longer distances to avoid high ATM fees. As we discussed in this month\u2019s Aviation Intelligence Reporter, en-route charges vary significantly across European ANSPs, and there can be large differences in the fees charged by ANSPs that are controlling neighbouring airspace. In 2014, flight trajectories were, on average, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,15,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-air-traffic-management","category-airlines","category-climate-change"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=477"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":480,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions\/480"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}