SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY versus NEXTGEN (US) FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

1. SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY versus NEXTGEN (US) FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE Ian Middleton, Deputy Director EUROCONTROL - Directorate Single Sky Amsterdam, 27 April 2012

2. Agenda • The challenges driving R&D • Airports and the Network • Meeting the challenges - R&D within a Regulatory Framework • NEXTGEN versus SESAR • Conclusion

3. EUROCONTROL but not EU EUROCONTROL & EU EUROCONTROL 39 Member States UAC Maastricht Central Flow Management Unit Central Route Charges Office Institute of Air Navigation Services Experimental Centre Headquarters – SES Support Network Manager General Presentation 3

4. Challenges Driving R&D

5. 25 20 Flights in Europe (Million) 15 10 5 Long-Term Average Growth 5% 0 0% Annual Growth -5% -5 -10% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Traffic in Europe IFR traffic in Europe 1960-2010 historical figures 2011-2030 forecast Long-Term Trend Actual Traffic Annual Growth Forecast Trafic

6. USA Traffic Growth • US air traffic will increase by the equivalent of two major hub airports each year through 2020.

7. How Robust is the Growth? Global Recession 2008 Traffic SARS 2002 9/11 2001 Kosovo Crisis 1999 Gulf War 1991 Oil Price Rises 2005+ Oil Crisis 1980 IRAQ War 2003 IT Boom 1997-98 Economic Boom 1987-88 Time 2012 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

8. Capacity . . 2000 2033 . • 1.5 million flights will go • un-accommodated • if extra capacity is • not provided 8.0 Million Flights 16.0 Million Flights Traffic tripled over last 25 years Traffic will double over next 20 years

9. Delays • 27.7 million minutes of delays (2010) costing €2.0 Bn. • 20% of flights will be delayed by 2020 if system is not modernised Primary Delay Distribution for 2011 Airlines Weather Airports Security Misc En-Route

10. Environment • Top of political agenda • Aviation must continue to make significant effort to reduce its impact on environment

11. Airports and the Network

12. Airports and the Network • Runway and Airport capacity limitations can block growth • Need to make more efficient use of existing capacity • Efficient surface management • Connectivity with ATM Network • Airports are a key component of ATM Network • Must integrate airports into the Network

13. Airport constraints • Flights in Europe - 2030 • In most-likely scenario (C), 2 million flights not accommodated

14. Airports are a small but persistent source of primary delay Source: www.eurocontrol.int/coda

15. R&D within a Framework Meeting the Challenges

16. SESAR

17. Framework Airspace Service Provision Interoperability Single European Sky (SES) Framework • To address defragmentation • Legislation adopted by EU Council and Parliament • 20 April 2004, amended November 2009. • 4 SES Regulations Performance-driven

18. SESAR Technical/operational change, supported by Single European Sky legislation Public Private Partnership Direct involvement of aviation industry in all phases Address European needs and Global interoperability Needs: Turn offfragmented approach Accelerate evolution in response to challenges Synchronise plans and actions from research to operations Single European Sky ATM Research(SESAR) A new ATM System is required

19. Public-private partnership to manage the SESAR Development Phase Execute the European ATM Master Plan One single ATM R&D programme in Europe Innovation from private sector Public financial stability & enforcement power 2 founding members: 15 industry members: SJU Budget: ~2.1 B€, till 31 Dec 2016 SESAR Joint Undertaking 19

20. NEXTGEN

21. NEXTGEN ARRANGEMENTS • Strong regulatory basis – FAA is Regulator and manages NextGen programme • Funding • Lacks a permanent spending bill • FAA Reauthorisation and Reform Act of 2011 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 1, 2011 included a critical amendment authorising a public-private partnership (PPP) • FAA governance supported by the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) • FAA can solicit a consensus-based set of recommendations • Forum to obtain a commitment of resources and/or synchronised planning between government and industry • Identify opportunities for industry participation in NextGen implementation.

22. SESAR/NEXTGEN COOPERATION • European and US authorities agreement on the cooperation of SESAR and NextGen. • Agreement is technical annex to European Commission and US Federal Aviation Administration memorandum of co-operation for civil aviation research and development. • Contributes to essential standardisation of ATM systems, to be pursued through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. • Interoperability essential for airspace users operating in US and EU airspaces.

23. Regulatory Impact of SESAR and NextGen on Airports • Through SESAR and Next Gen, EC and FAA will define areas in which Airports need to focus their investments • The SESAR and NextGen Standardisation and Regulatory Roadmaps will provide the basis for a more global approach • EC and FAA will work with ICAO in attempt to establish a global Regulatory Roadmap – On ANC12 Agenda • Airports will be consulted through normal EASA/EC Rulemaking processes • Total estimated cost for SESAR deployment in Europe is 30 Billion Euro • Covers aircraft, ATM Airport and military equipage costs

24. SESAR versus NEXTGEN (1) • Both benefit from established regulatory frameworks • Europe more fragmented but USA and FAA face same issues of buy-in and governance complications • Programmes share similar aims • SESAR • stable funding • EUROCONTROL’s expertise at its core • NEXTGEN • unstable funding to date • PPP?

25. SESAR versus NEXTGEN (2) • SESAR • stable funding • time limited – what happens post-2016? • EUROCONTROL’s expertise at its core • NEXTGEN • unstable funding to date • greater longevity

26. Conclusions • Capacity requires ATM network-wide actions • Airports can impede traffic growth • SESAR and NEXTGEN will facilitate the definition of global and regional regulatory requirements for airports • regulatory roadmaps • Airports to be integrated in the overall network • Europe and FAA both pro-active in achieving a common set of equipment and procedures