Capacity - Spain

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ ENAIRE registered 0.4 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight, thus not achieving the local breakdown value of 0.36 (the provisional national capacity target of 0.47 was achieved). IFR movements in 2020 were 60% below the 2019 levels in Spain.

▪ 79% of the total en route ATFM delays generated in Spain was during March due to the pandemic related restrictions imposed by the government (delay group ‘Other non-ATC’). Barcelona, Madrid and Palma ACCs recorded significantly less delays in 2020 than in 2019, but Canarias and Sevilla ACCs generated 0.29 and 0.16 minutes per flight more in 2020 respectively, mainly driven by special events (COVID-19 restrictions).

▪ Based on the analysis of previous capacity profiles, the PRB estimates Spain will face a capacity gap once IFR movements rise above 94% of 2019 levels. The PRB recommends that capacity improvement measures should be implemented.

▪ Delays were mostly driven by preventive COVID-19 measures and ATC capacity issues.

▪ The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Spain increased by 14.03 p.p. compared to 2019.

▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Canarias ACC was 22,123, showing a 20.8% decrease compared to 2019. The yearly total of sector opening hours in Barcelona ACC was 28,553, showing a 52.7% decrease compared to 2019. The yearly total of sector opening hours in Madrid ACC was 53,299, showing a 48.3% decrease compared to 2019. The yearly total of sector opening hours in Palma ACC was 21,035, showing a 45.7% decrease compared to 2019. The yearly total of sector opening hours in Sevilla ACC was 23,753, showing a 41.9% decrease compared to 2019.

▪ Canarias ACC registered 7.8 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 39.0% below 2019 levels. Barcelona ACC registered 11.74 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 24.6% below 2019 levels. Madrid ACC registered 8.82 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 22.8% below 2019 levels. Palma ACC registered 5.65 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 32.4% below 2019 levels. Sevilla ACC registered 7.79 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2020, being 25.5% below 2019 levels.

▪ Spain registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.3 minutes per flight in 2020, achieving the local target of 0.91 minutes.

▪ Compared to 2019, average arrival ATFM delays in Spain were 70.81% lower in 2020, while the number of IFR arrivals decreased by 55.67%.

▪ The main reasons for delays were weather, accounting for 63% of delays, and other, non-ATC related causes, responsible for 24%

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

Summary of capacity performance

The PRB notes the reference by Spain to the activation of the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell (EACCC) and ‘exceptional events’. The PRB also notes that neither the EACCC, nor the Network Manager, have published any information about ATFM delays to be considered as ‘exceptional events’. The figure provided here is consistent with all national reports and is the PRB monitored result following all NM post-operations adjustment.

Spain (continental) experienced a traffic reduction of 61% from 2019 levels, to 780k flights. The Canarias FIR experienced a traffic reduction of 52% from 2019 levels, to 173k flights.

The traffic level was accommodated with 338k minutes of en route ATFM delays to airspace users. 77% of delays (260k minutes) were attributed to ‘ATC other’ in March 2020 , 20% of delays (67k minutes) were attributed to ATC capacity between January and March 2020.

NSA’s assessment of capacity performance

The performance in the capacity KPA was below reference values in 2020 for Spain. It should be taken into account that those figures were achieved with a substantial reduction of traffic, but also with the goal of safety, ensuring business continuity and generating the minimum delay, in exceptional circumstances. To achieve that, several measures had to be implemented and adapted to the changing evolution of the pandemic:
• protect the essential operational staff from COVID19 in all places of work to reduce the active cases and spread of the disease among the staff
• keep the level of training and expertise for operational staff, and
• design mitigation measures for the recovery of the traffic.

The effect of the Covid-19 pandemic has had repercussions all over the world, but within Europe, Spain was one of the most affected countries . The Covid-19 explosion started at the beginning of March and, among the countries that usually present delays, Spain was one of the first to implement very restrictive measures. The objectives of these measures were, on the one hand, trying to control the increase in infections and, at the same time, being able to guarantee the control service. This caused great minutes of delay in our ACCs due to O-Other Covid cause. The EACCC was activated by the NM due to the evolution of the pandemic in Europe at least in pre-alert phase since 31 January and in crisis phase since 19 March. Spain declared the state of alarm the 14 March. An in-depth analysis has been carried out [by Spain] of what happened in those weeks of March in relation to the causes of delays and the factors that influenced them. A total of 259.585 en-route delay minutes were generated due to the exceptional situation of Covid-19 between 12 and 21 March.

After the analysis made, it was concluded that the minutes of delay due to the cause O-Other Covid-19 should be considered as generated in an exceptional event and therefore not to be counted for the ERD indicator as the Annex I - Section 2 - Point 3.1.a.ii of Regulation 2019/317 defines. Taking this circumstance into account, ERD in 2020 has a value of 0.09, instead of the 0.40 pre-filled. This conclusion was consulted in the framework of the post-ops procedure for consideration before the final 2020 data were finalised and published in April 2021, but we were referred to the annual monitoring framework for consideration.

Monitoring process for capacity performance

The AESA Monitoring Process has evolved to monitor this indicator on a monthly basis taking into account the different causes of delay, since the incentive system implemented for RP3 considers a mechanism modulated by causes of delay. The evolution of the attributable and non-attributable delay causes is monitored in order to apply the incentive mechanism and to identify the reasons in the event of non-compliance. The alert mechanism continues to be active to warn, months before the end of the year, of possible non-compliance.

Capacity planning

The NOP 2020 Recovery Plan was the NOP structured plan adapted to the COVID-19 crisis, updated every week, initially covering an outlook of four weeks and later reconverted into the NOP Rolling Seasonal Plan covering an outlook of six weeks.

Every week ENAIRE updates data to the plan (planned sector openings, maximum possible sector openings, sector capacity reductions if any, availability of support to operations staff, additional information -e.g. other constraints to be highlighted- and special events and major projects). The plan is a living document regularly updated and published by NM in order to be adapted to the changed conditions of the Air Navigation Service.

Due to the exceptional situation that the whole world began experiencing in 2020 with the COVID pandemic, the projects planned for 2020 in the NOP for Spain were reviewed and adapted to the new scenario. The main projects:
• ALL ACCs: improved ATFCM, in line with AF4 of PCP; optimized sector configurations and sector capacities, net increase of ATCOs -at a lower rate than planned due to COVID19-.
• PALMA ACC: Palma Final Approach Improvements (2021).
• CANARIAS ACC: Improvements of NW (2021) and Split NE Sector, 11th sector (sector cluster) (2021).

The new scenario is focused on service recovery and to facilitate users the return to normality, always prioritizing safety and the minimum delay.

Application of Corrective Measures for Capacity (if applicable)

No data available.

Other indicators

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

Spain includes seven airports under RP3 monitoring. However in accordance with IR (EU) 2019/317 and the traffic figures, Ibiza is not monitored for pre-departure delays. The Airport Operator Data Flow, necessary for the monitoring of these pre-departure delays, is correctly implemented where required. Nevertheless, the quality of the reporting from all the Spanish airports does not allow for the calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay, with more than 60% of the reported delay not allocated to any cause. Traffic at the ensemble of Spanish airports under monitoring decreased by 61% in 2020 with respect to 2019, with the biggest reduction observed at Palma (-65%) and the lowest at Gran Canaria (-48%). National arrival ATFM delay decreased by 71% with respect to 2019 following the drop in traffic, although Gran Canaria observed an increase with respect to the previous year. The national slot adherence was 95.3%.

The national average arrival ATFM delay at Spanish airports in 2020 was 0.30 min/arr, significantly lower than the 1.02 min/arr in 2019 (-71%). All delays took place in the first trimester of the year, except for minor aerodrome capacity related delays in Gran Canaria in December. The highest average ATFM delay per arrival was recorded at Gran Canaria (GCLP; 2019: 0.14 min/arr; 2020: 0.97 min/arr), mainly due to weather delays in February and delays attributed to “Other” in March. At Madrid (LEMD; 2019: 1.29 min/arr; 2020: 0.49 min/arr) delays were attributed to weather (69%), ATC capacity (23%) and Other (8%). At Barcelona (LEBL; 2019: 1.33 min/arr; 2020: 0.12 min/arr) delays in the first trimester were attributed mainly to weather (83%) and environmental issues (12%). Palma (LEPA; 2019: 1.08 min/arr; 2020: 0.05 min/arr) recorded delays only in February (weather) and March (Other)

According to the Spanish monitoring report: Although the TAD target has been largely met at national level, the crisis of Covid-19 had also an impact at certain airports, causing arrival delays. GCLP was the most significantly affected since in March, it was in the middle of the high season with many tourists in the Canary Islands. LEMD and LEPA also recorded delays due to O-Other Covid-19 but this did not have a major impact on the indicator. As explained in tab 2.3.1.A. KPI#2 the effects of COVID-19 crisis has been also analysed for TAD KPI.

A detailed analysis of what happened in those weeks of March in relation to the causes of delay and the factors that influenced them was carried out. A total of 15.383 minutes of arrival delays were generated due to the exceptional Covid-19 situation between 14 and 16 March, the weekend when the state of alarm was declared in Spain.

After the analysis made, it was concluded that the delay minutes due to cause O-Other Covid-19 should be considered as generated in an exceptional event as the Annex I - Section 2 - Point 3.1.a.ii of Regulation 2019/317 defines and therefore not counted for TAD indicator. In that case, TAD in 2020 has a value of 0.24 instead of the 0.30 pre-filled.

The PRB notes the reference by Spain to the activation of the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell (EACCC) and ‘exceptional events’. The PRB also notes that neither the EACCC, nor the Network Manager, have published any information about ATFM delays to be considered as ‘exceptional events’. The figure provided here is consistent with all national reports and is the PRB monitored result following all NM post-operations adjustment.

The provisional national target on arrival ATFM delay in 2020 was met. In accordance with Article 3 (3) (a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1627: The incentive scheme shall cover only the calendar years 2022 to 2024.

Other terminal performance indicators (PI#1-3)

Airport level
Airport name
Avg arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)
Slot adherence (PI#1)
ATC pre departure delay (PI#2)
All causes pre departure delay (PI#3)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Alicante 0.02 NA NA NA NA 98.8% NA% NA% NA% NA% 0.23 NA NA NA NA 9.0 NA NA NA NA
Barcelona 0.12 NA NA NA NA 94.9% NA% NA% NA% NA% 0.00 NA NA NA NA 8.7 NA NA NA NA
Ibiza NA NA NA NA NA 99.0% NA% NA% NA% NA% NA NA NA NA NA 6.3 NA NA NA NA
Las Palmas 0.97 NA NA NA NA 96.4% NA% NA% NA% NA% 0.08 NA NA NA NA 11.3 NA NA NA NA
Madrid/Barajas 0.49 NA NA NA NA 94.2% NA% NA% NA% NA% NA NA NA NA NA 9.5 NA NA NA NA
Malaga 0.01 NA NA NA NA 93.4% NA% NA% NA% NA% 0.18 NA NA NA NA 11.3 NA NA NA NA
Palma De Mallorca 0.05 NA NA NA NA 97.3% NA% NA% NA% NA% NA NA NA NA NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA

ATFM slot adherence

With the drastic drop in traffic, the share of regulated departures from Spanish airports virtually disappeared as of April. The annual figures are therefore driven by the performance in the first trimester. All Spanish airports showed adherence above 90% and the national average was 95.3%. With regard to the 4.7% of flights that did not adhere, 3.2% was early and 1.5% was late.

The Spanish monitoring reports adds: As 2020 is the first year of the third reference period, and the result at a national level includes for the first time a total of 7 airports, it is not directly comparable with the value reported to the European Commission the previous year, in which the result at the national level included the adherence to slots only of the 5 main airports. However, the calculated result for 2019 (PRU data) based on 7 airports would reach a 96.2% of adherence to slot, in line with that obtained in 2020 (95.3%). Both results are well above the value of 80% set in Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010, so ENAIRE does not think that it’s necessary to establish specific improvement measures. This PI is being analysed to develop a monitoring (where it is possible) not only annually but, at least, twice a year to evaluate the evolution of the indicators. If significant deviations are found, the possible causes will be analysed by contacting the relevant stakeholder.

ATC pre-departure delay

The calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay is based on the data provided by the airport operators through the Airport Operator Data Flow (APDF) which is properly implemented at all 6 Spanish airports subject to monitoring of this indicator. However, there are several quality checks before EUROCONTROL can produce the final value which is established as the average minutes of pre-departure delay (delay in the actual off block time) associated to the IATA delay code 89 (through the APDF, for each delayed flight, the reasons for that delay have to be transmitted and coded according to IATA delay codes.

However, sometimes the airport operator has no information concerning the reasons for the delay in the off block, or they cannot convert the reasons to the IATA delay codes. In those cases, the airport operator might:
- Not report any information about the reasons for the delay for that flight (unreported delay)
- Report a special code to indicate they do not have the information (code ZZZ)
- Report a special code to indicate they do not have the means to collect and/or translate the information (code 999)

To be able to calculate with a minimum of accuracy the PI for a given month, the minutes of delay that are not attributed to any IATA code reason should not exceed 40% of the total minutes of pre-departure delay observed at the airport. Finally, to be able to produce the annual figure, at least 10 months of valid data is requested by EUROCONTROL.

The high share of unidentified delay reported by 4 of these airports is a long standing issue, only worsened by the special traffic composition since April 2020. Gran Canaria and Alicante had a proper reporting prior to the pandemic.

The Spanish monitoring report includes some analysis on the monthly values that could be calculated:
-GCLP only has monthly data for 2 months, with a resulting value of 0.32, similar but somewhat lower than in previous years. In other years, all monthly data were available.
-LEAL has data for 7 months, with a resultant value of 0.26, lower than in previous years, which was around 0.36-0.34.
-LEBL only has data for one month, its value is 0.03. This is much lower than in the previous two years, which was above 1.2. The availability of monthly data has been getting worse every year since 2017.
-LEMD and LEPA do not have any data in 2020, the latest monthly data is from Jan-2019.
-LEMG has 3-month data available, with a resulting value of 0.45, somewhat lower than the previous 3 years which was around 0.5. The lack of data started in 2019 and has increased in 2020.

At the moment, AESA is studying the particularities of this indicator in our airspace. Data are only available at SES portal, so AESA will investigate the lack of data at some airports during certain months. This PI is being analysed to develop a monitoring (where it is possible) not only annually but, at least, twice a year to evaluate the evolution of the indicators. If significant deviations are found, the possible causes will be analysed by contacting the relevant stakeholder.

All causes pre-departure delay

The total (all causes) delay in the actual off block time at Spanish airports in 2020 was between 5.44 min/dep for Palma (LEPA), which is the 3rd lowest among the RP3 monitored airports, and 11.33 min/dep. for Malaga (LEMG). The higher delays per flight were observed in the first trimester of the year, except for Madrid where the highest delays per flight took place in April and May, due to the lower traffic and extraordinary circumstances. Malaga also registered very high delay per flight in the second trimester.

According to the Spanish monitoring report: 2020 is the first year in which this PI has been monitored, so it is not possible to compare the results with previous years. In addition, these data are only available annually, so AESA has not been able to carry out a monitoring process. At the moment, AESA is studying the particularities of this indicator in our airspace. This PI is being analysed to develop a monitoring (where it is possible) not only annually but, at least, twice a year to evaluate the evolution of the indicators. If significant deviations are found, the possible causes will be analysed by contacting the relevant stakeholder.