Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:52:09.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Framework to Assess an Area Control Centre's Operating Cost-efficiency: a Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Gonzalo Tobaruela ,
Wolfgang Schuster ,
Arnab Majumdar  and
Washington Y. Ochieng
Gonzalo Tobaruela*
Affiliation:
(Imperial College London, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Wolfgang Schuster
Affiliation:
(Imperial College London, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Arnab Majumdar
Affiliation:
(Imperial College London, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Washington Y. Ochieng
Affiliation:
(Imperial College London, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cost-efficiency is a crucial Key Performance Area (KPA) in today's Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. Traditionally, research has mainly focused on the airport domain, with little attention being paid to the operating cost-efficiency of Area Control Centres (ACCs). This paper addresses this shortcoming and develops a framework to assess the cost-efficiency of an ACC from an operational perspective. It investigates how the resources of an ACC are managed, from the start of the planning process to the day of operation. The framework develops new metrics to assess an ACC's performance. A case study is carried out on the Maastricht Upper Area Control (MUAC) centre. Results show that, despite being one of the most advanced ACCs in Europe, the human workforce is operating at only approximately 50% of their full capabilities.

Keywords

Air Traffic ControlCost-efficiencyAirspace ManagementMaastricht Upper Area Control Centre
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 68 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1088 - 1104
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bloem, M. and Kopardekar, P. (2008). Combining Airspace Sectors for the Efficient Use of Air Traffic Control Resources. In: AIAA, ed. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference and Exhibit, 18–27 August 2008 Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Button, K. and Neiva, R. (2013). Single European Sky and the functional airspace blocks: Will they improve economic efficiency? Journal of Air Transport Management, 33, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission, E. (2010). Laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions. In: COMMISSION, E. (ed.) 2010R0691 ed.Google Scholar
Commission, E. (2011). Setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014. In: UNION, O. J. O. T. E. (ed.).Google Scholar
EUROCONTROL. (2006). Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis. Brussels, Belgium: EUROCONTROL.Google Scholar
EUROCONTROL. (2007). Capacity Assessment & Planning Guidance. Capacity Enhancement Function. Brussels, Belgium: EUROCONTROL.Google Scholar
Gianazza, D., Allignol, C. and Saporito, N. (2009). An Efficient Airspace Configuration Forecast. 8th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, NAPA, US.Google Scholar
Grebenšek, A. and Magister, T. (2012). Effect of seasonal traffic variability on the performance of air navigation service providers. Journal of Air Transport Management, 25, 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grebenšek, A. and Magister, T. (2013). Is European benchmarking methodology favouring a narrow segment of air navigation service providers? Journal of Air Transport Management, 27, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAO. (2001). Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Air Traffic Services. In: ICAO (ed.) 13th ed.Google Scholar
ICAO. (2011). Civil Military Cooperation in Air Traffic Management.Google Scholar
Kallus, K.W., Hoffmann, P., Winkler, H. and Vormayr, E.M. (2010). The Taskload-Efficiency-Safety-Buffer Triangle – Development and validation with air traffic management. Ergonomics, 53, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nero, G. and Portet, S. B. (2007). Five Years Experience in ATM Cost Benchmarking. 7th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Oum, T.H. and Yu, C. (2004). Measuring airports’ operating efficiency: a summary of the 2003 ATRS global airport benchmarking report. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40, 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRC. (2012). ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011–2015 outlook. Final Report ed.: EUROCONTROL.Google Scholar
Pyrialakou, V.D., Karlaftis, M.G. and Michaelides, P.G. (2012). Assessing operational efficiency of airports with high levels of low-cost carrier traffic. Journal of Air Transport Management, 25, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SESAR. (2008). The ATM Deployment Sequence. SESAR Definition Phase.Google Scholar
SESAR. (2012). European ATM Master Plan. 2 ed.: SESAR.Google Scholar
Tobaruela, G., Majumdar, A., Ochieng, W.Y., Schuster, W. and Hendrickx, P. (2013). Enhancing Cost-Efficiency and Reducing Capacity Shortages: Strategic Planning and Dynamic Shift Management. Tenth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2013). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Veronese, B., Conti, M. and Pesendorfer, M. (2011). Econometric Cost-Efficiency Benchmarking of Air Navigation Service Providers. Competition Economists LLP (CEG).Google Scholar
Welch, J.D., Cho, J.Y.N., Underhill, N.K. and Delaura, R.A. (2013). Sector Workload Model for Benefits Analysis and Convective Weather Capacity Prediction. Tenth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2013), Chicago, IL.Google Scholar