Annual Monitoring Report 2020 - Finland
Contextual information
National performance plan adopted following Commission Decision (EU) 2022/765 of 13 April 2022
List of ACCs 1
Tampere ACC
No of airports in the scope of the performance plan
≥80’K 1
<80’K 0
Exchange rate (1 EUR=)
2017: 1 EUR
2020: 1 EUR
Share of Union-wide traffic (TSUs) 2020 0.9%
Share of Union-wide en route costs 2020 0.6%
Share en route / terminal costs 2020 72% / 28%
En route charging zone(s)
Finland
Terminal charging zone(s)
Finland
Main ANSP
• Fintraffic ANS
Other ANSPs
–
MET Providers
• Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI)
Traffic (En route traffic zone)
▪ Finland recorded 119K actual IFR movements in 2020, -58% compared to 2019 (285K).
▪ Finland IFR movements reduced more than the average reduction at Union-wide level (-57%).
▪ Finland recorded 462K actual en route service units in 2020, -54% compared to 2019 (1,011K).
▪ Finland service units reduced less than the average reduction at Union-wide level (-57%).
Safety (Main ANSP)
▪ ANS Finland achieved the RP3 EoSM targets in four management objectives and must improve in only one area: safety risk management. According to its 2019 draft performance plan, ANS Finland should have achieved the RP3 targets in 2020.
▪ The reason for not achieving the target on safety risk management is under assessment by the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency. No circumstances have been identified as of yet that should prevent ANS Finland from reaching the target.
▪ Compared to the maturity achieved at the end of RP2, the EoSM performance has remained stable as ANS was only deficient in safety risk management in 2019. ANS Finland has two out of three EoSM questions to improve on safety risk management, which should be feasible during RP3.
▪ Finland recorded good performances with respect to safety occurrences. Lower rates of both SMIs and RIs were achieved in 2020 compared with 2019, although SMI performance was higher than the Union-wide average.
▪ ANS Finland should improve its SMS by implementing automated safety data recording systems.
Environment (Member State)
▪ Finland achieved a KEA performance of 0.88% compared to its reference value of 0.97% and therefore contributed- positively towards achieving the Union-wide target.
▪ Finland offers airspace users cross-border free route airspace with NEFAB and DK-SE FABs and stated that overflying traffic was as direct as possible.
▪ The share of flights operating CCO/CDO at Vantaa airport remained similar in 2020 compared to 2019. However, the performance is still class leading among Union-wide regulated airports with 60% of all arrivals completing a CDO landing.
▪ The additional time airspace users spent taxiing or holding in terminal airspace reduced by 30% although most of this was due to improvements to airfield queuing. Since time spent holding in terminal airspace is approximately three times more fuel inefficient than taxiing, Vantaa airport should seek to improve this further going forward.
Capacity (Member State)
▪ ANS Finland registered zero minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2020, thus meeting the local breakdown value of 0.09.
▪ Delays must be considered in the context of the traffic evolution: IFR movements in 2020 were 58% below the 2019 levels in Finland.
▪ Finland reported no capacity issues and a 32% drop in ATCO FTE numbers compared to 2019 and also compared to 2020 planned values. Finland did not report any specific drivers behind the ATCO FTE number reduction, however, only two ATCO FTEs are reported to have stopped working in OPS.
▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Tampere ACC was 10,168, showing a 24.6% decrease compared to 2019.
▪ Tampere ACC registered 8.44 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 42.9% below 2019 levels.
▪ Finland registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.2 minutes per flight in 2020, achieving the local target of 0.39 minutes.
▪ Compared to 2019, average arrival ATFM delays in Finland were 46.54% lower in 2020, while the number of IFR arrivals decreased by 62.59%.
▪ The main reason for delays was weather, accounting for 100% of delays.
Cost-efficiency (En route/Terminal charging zone(s))
▪ The 2020 actual service units (462K) were 54% lower than the actual service units in 2019 (1,012K).
▪ Finland reduced total costs in 2020 by 4.5 M€2017 (-11%) compared to 2019 actual costs. The main driver of this reduction has been staff costs, with a decrease of 3.4 M€2017 (-15%), due for instance to temporary layoffs and cancellation of bonuses.
▪ Cost of capital increased by 247 K€2017 (+45%), due to combination of a higher WACC and asset base (due to higher current assets).
▪ ANS Finland spent 5.9 M€2017 in 2020 related to cost of investments, 19% less than planned in the 2019 draft performance plan (7.3 M€2017). The decrease is induced by a lower asset base than planned in the 2019 draft performance plan.