And from the same report.It would appear that even the Europeans would like to have the US system for better cost effectiveness.
49
8.11 Final Considerations
8.11.1 The above analysis has identified major performance differences, both in terms of costeffectiveness and efficiency-productivity. Clearly, more detailed analysis is needed to
understand the causes for these differences in performance.
Potential causes for differences in performance include:
1. Operational differences, such as traffic complexity. However, this factor can explain only a portion of the economic performance difference.
2. From the organisational/institutional side, the fragmentation of the European ATM systemcertainly contributes to reducing overall cost-effectiveness by the multiplication of fixedcosts and assets, and higher co-ordination and transaction costs. In addition, the
European fragmentation does not allow potential economies of scale to be exploited.Organisational inefficiencies might also result from non-optimal airspace design and civil/military arrangements in Europe. The relatively better performance in the US has so far been achieved by a State-run organisation.
3. From the ANS management side, the observed difference in average productivity of keytaff is compelling and raises some questions about staff shortage in the European ATM system. There appears to be at the same time a waste of capacity, with excess human resources being employed in low traffic periods, and chronic capacity (and staff) shortage in busy periods, resulting in very high ATFM delays in Europe. Employment conditions and labour law affecting manpower are a management, not an individual controller’s productivity issue. There are important differences in productivity within the European ANSPs as documented in Chapter 5, and the relatively "poor" European average also masks some noticeably good performers. As most European ANSPs free themselves from
direct governmental control but remain statutory monopolies, there is a need to more effectively challenge their cost-effectiveness.
4. From the capacity-demand management side, ANS costs are mainly driven by the ATC capacity provided, not so the capacity used by airspace users. All else being equal, greater
cost-effectiveness is achieved when the match between capacity provided and capacity used is optimised at any given time in order to minimise capacity waste or capacity shortage. This optimisation will greatly depend on the operational/managerial flexibility of each ANSP, the performance of flow management at European level by the CFMU, and policies for the management of airport and en-route capacity. Whether the integrated US
ATM system has a comparative advantage in this respect is unclear, and further comparative research is needed to identify best practices.
INITIAL COMPARISONS OF US/EUROPE
8.12 Conclusions
8.12.1 This chapter has characterised some of the key features of both the US and European ATM systems from the traffic demand, structural, safety, delays, and economic points of view.
" There appear to be no significant differences in air transport safety and ATM safety performance across both sides of the Atlantic;
" Structurally, both systems are rather similar, with similar airspace volume, traffic concentration around major airports, and average route length;" Traffic volumes are very different. IFR and VFR traffic in the US are respectively 2 times and 3.5 times higher than in Europe;
" There are 47 civil and military en-route ANSPs in Europe as compared with one integrated provider in the US;
" Organisationally, there are 58 ACCs in Europe and 21 ACCs in the US;
" From a punctuality/delay point of view, both the US and the European ATM systems are struggling to cope with demand and, as a result, passengers suffer high levels of delays, although of a very different nature; " The total number of ATCOs and total staff are fairly similar across both sides of the Atlantic;
" The European ATM system is about half as cost-effective as its US counterpart;
" The productivity of US ATCOs is about twice as large as its European counterpart;
8.12.2 The PRC considers that this initial comparison of US and European ATM systems raises questions about the productivity of the European ATM system which warrant further study.
Understanding the root causes for the wide performance gaps requires further intensive cooperative work with all concerned parties. European ANSPs should participate actively in the
benchmarking exercise being undertaken by the PRC, in co-operation with interested parties.
8.12.3 More and better information than is currently available in Europe will be needed to conduct this benchmarking exercise.
Report can be found at this website.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/galle.../Docs/prr4.pdf
Entire report can be found here
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/publi...PRR_6_Ref.html
Aint google grand.