Fact Sheet: Single European Sky (SES)

• In 1999 the European Commission (EC) proposed the creation of a Single European Sky (SES) for air traffic management (ATM)
• The SES project was formally launched in 2004 to rationalize the fragmented European airspace into nine Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs)
• The first package of proposals in 2004 provided limited progress and benefits
• Following strong lobbying by IATA and other associations, the EC adopted a second package of measures in July 2008
• SES Package II was adopted by the Council in March 2009 and came into effect in November 2009
• Ten years of debate has established a so-called framework of regulation and performance, but little actual benefit in much needed efficiency improvement and defragmentation of the European ATM system 
• EU airspace is currently managed by 38 national air navigation service providers
• Urgent action is required to unlock inefficiencies and consolidate providers
• 20% of flights will be delayed by 2020 if the system is not modernized
• 1.5 million flights will go un-accommodated if extra capacity is not providedCost of ATM Inefficiency in EU

(Source: Eurocontrol)

Cost of ATM Inefficiency in EU

• In 2011, the failure to implement SES resulted in: 
• 17.9 million minutes of ATFM  delays 
• €1.45 billion in costs (EUR 0.9bn for the en-route phase)
•  8.1 million tonnes of wasted CO2
• € 3.73 billion in costs from flight inefficiencies (horizontal flight efficiency, ASMA , taxi out) 
• A total economic cost of €13.49 billion 
• The cost of fragmentation is estimated at €1 billion per year

(Source: Eurocontrol)

Comparison with US ATM

• European air navigation is 70% less efficient than in North America
• US controls 10.4 million km2 of airspace with one air navigation service provider (ANSP) and 20 en-route centers
• Europe controls 11.5 million km2 of airspace with 38 ANSPs and 65 en-route centers
• In 2009, US ATM costs were 49% less than in the EU
• European control costs €573 per flight hour
• US control costs €294 per flight hour

(Source: Eurocontrol)

Status

• A more efficient European air traffic system will prepare for future demand and reduce delays while maintaining safety levels, improving environmental performance and boosting European economies
• The SES II Performance Scheme must deliver the expected performance improvements. 
• Currently, states have failed to meet the already watered-down cost efficiency target they set for themselves for the period 2012-14. This is costing airlines some €189 million
• States are also deviating from their capacity targets for the same period
• Targets for 2015-2019 need to be more challenging to ensure FABs deliver real efficiencies and that states catch up with the already unmet 2012-14 EU-wide targets
• However, we are concerned that the EC is giving in to states’ demands and failing to adapt the current legislation in order to ensure that such targets are delivered
• Progress on Functional Airspace Blocks is very slow and looks set to yield minimal benefits for rationalization of ATM in Europe
• SES, including the technical component of SESAR, when fully implemented by 2020 must: 
• Cut user costs by 50% (per flight compared to 2004)
• Reduce the environmental impact per flight 10% by 2020 (per flight compared to 2005)
• Improve safety levels, despite traffic growth
• Increase capacity by 73% (from 2004)
• The EC proposal to delay the completion of the SES targets by more than 10 years (c. 2033 instead of 2020) is completely unacceptable
  
• The cost and benefit of SESAR, together with harmonization with US NextGen, are now key topics for resolution

Future Considerations

• While the European Parliament recognizes the need for change and the European Commission has the mandate to facilitate change, resistance from states, ANSPs and stakeholders will remain obstacles to real progress in the next few years
• IATA will continue to work at the structural and operational level for delivery of real improvements
• If SES II fails to deliver early benefits, a SES III package should be pursued with a top-down target efficiency setting mandate at FAB and control center level

Updated: December 2012