曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
with associated financial rewards and penalties;
effectively balance risks between airspace users and ANSPs, by limiting the exposure
of:
- ANSPs to traffic risks (traffic shortfall leading to lower revenues) given that
traffic is largely exogenous;
- airspace users to cost risks (higher costs arising from bad management
performance or external factors such as new legal obligations).
- be part of the regulatory environment, known in advance by all stakeholders and
applicable during the entire reference period.
8.3.8 CANSO/ANSPs asked for “a common and consistent framework to be used across
Europe for incentives and corrective measures with sufficient flexibility for the first
36 Consultation within the Performance Scheme Focus Group (PSFG) during winter 2009/spring 2010.
PRR 2009 94 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
Reference Period to ensure acceptance by all States” [Ref. 34]. The PRC also considers
that commonality of the incentive scheme is important so that it can be applied to all EU
Member States, independently of their governance arrangements, while ensuring greater
transparency and manageability of the scheme at European level.
8.4 En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI at State level
8.4.1 The changes in en-route unit costs at European system level (see Figure 104) results from
contrasted levels and trends across EUROCONTROL Member States37, hence the
importance of considering the State level view.
8.4.2 When looking across States, the levels of unit costs should be seen in the light of traffic
volumes and exogenous factors such as local economic and operational conditions, which
considerably vary across States. This requires some caution when comparing results and
drawing conclusions in terms of economic efficiency.
8.4.3 Because of their relative importance in
relation to the whole European system (65%
of total costs) and for conciseness purposes,
this section focuses on the five largest States.
More detailed analysis on the changes in unit
costs for smaller States is displayed in Annex
VII. Figure 109 displays the changes in real
en-route unit costs for the five largest States38
between 2004 and 2013 according to the
information provided during the November
2009 session of the Enlarged Committee for
Route Charges (see blue line). Figure 109 also
shows the changes in en-route unit costs
planned in November 2008 (see red line).
Exchange rates
Following the economic downturn, exchange
rates have been extremely volatile in many
European countries in 2008 and in 2009. As a
result, time-series comparisons of unit costs can
be affected by variations in exchange rates. To
cancel this impact, in this Report changes in
real unit costs are assessed in national currency
using national inflation rates. Then, all national
currencies are converted into Euro using the
2008 exchange rate. Therefore, the unit costs
disclosed for any State in this Report differ
from the figures provided in previous PRRs.
For example, the level of the UK 2008 en-route
unit costs in Figure 109 is affected by the 14%
depreciation of the UK£ compared to the €.
8.4.4 First, Figure 109 indicates that there are significant differences in the 2008 level of actual
unit costs across the five largest States, although the operational and economic
environments are relatively similar39. In 2008, the en-route unit costs range from €0.98
per km for Spain Canaries to €0.66 per km in France: a factor of 1.4 at face value. The
level of en-route unit costs for Spain Canarias raises questions given its operational (i.e.
airspace complexity) and economic (i.e. cost of living) environments.
8.4.5 Second, Figure 109 shows the changes in en-route unit costs for the five largest States.
Between 2004 and 2008, en-route real unit costs decreased for Germany (-20%), the
United Kingdom (-16%), Spain Canarias (-11%), Italy (-13%) and France (-5%). On the
other hand, en-route real unit costs increased in Spain Continental between 2004 and
2008 (+4%, see Figure 109). The main drivers for the changes in ANSPs unit costs
37 These unit costs reflect en-route charges passed on to the airspace users by the various States. These charges
include costs relating to ATS and MET provision, regulators, and to the EUROCONTROL. See also footnote 40
for the specific case of the UK.
38 Note that for the purpose of Route Charges, Spain has two different unit rates and unit costs (Continental &
Canarias).
39 However, it should be noted that in the UK the en-route ANSP (NATS) does not operate under the full costrecovery
regime but under a regime of independent economic regulation. Therefore, the costs reported by UK to
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Performance Review Report 2009(69)
