• Home
  • SES view
  • State view
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • NM View
  • Investments
    • SES RP3

    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • About
  • Download
  • Data Portal
  • Publications
  1. Capacity
  • Year report
    • RP3
    • 2024
    • 2023
    • 2022 ✓
    • 2021
    • 2020

  • Belgium
  • Overview
    • Contextual information
    • Traffic
    • Safety
    • Environment
    • Capacity
    • Cost-efficiency

  • Safety
    • PRB monitoring
    • EoSM
    • Safety occurrences
      • Runway incursions
      • Separation minima infringements
      • Occurrences reporting
    • ASDRS

  • Environment
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • Horizontal flight efficiency
    • Terminal performance
      • AXOT & ASMA
      • CDO
    • CIV-MIL

  • Capacity
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • En route ATFM delay
      • Other indicators
    • Terminal performance
      • Arrival ATFM delay
      • Other performance indicators

  • Cost-efficiency
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result
    • Terminal CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result

Capacity - Belgium

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ Belgium-Luxembourg registered 0.13 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2022, thus achieving the local target value of 0.17.

▪ The average number of IFR movements was 18% below 2019 levels in Belgium-Luxembourg in 2022.

▪ In Brussels ACC, the number of ATCOs in OPS is planned to increase by 14% by the end of RP3, with the actual values remaining below the plan in 2022. In Maastricht ACC, a 9% increase in the number of ATCOs in OPS was planned by the end of RP3, but more ATCOs than anticipated have stopped working in OPS, thus not actual values remained below the plan in 2022.

▪ Delays were highest between June and December, mostly driven by ATC staffing.

▪ The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Belgium increased by 14.18 p.p. compared to 2021 and was lower than 2019 values.

▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Brussels ACC was 28,405 in 2022, showing a slight decrease compared to 2021. Sector opening hours are 2.5% below 2019 levels.

▪ Brussels ACC registered 17.98 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2022, being 17.5% below 2019 levels.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

Focus on en route ATFM delay

Summary of capacity performance

Belgium & Luxembourg achieved the required en route capacity performance in 2022. There were 1 038k flights handled in the airspace of Belgium and Luxembourg (both Brussels ACC and the Brussels sectors in MUAC). There were 131k minutes of en route ATFM delay attributed to ANSPs in Belgium and Luxembourg airspace.

NSA’s assessment of capacity performance

Both en route and Terminal capacity targets were achieved.

Monitoring process for capacity performance

For skeyes, capacity monitoring is executed via the process as described in the manual of the NSA. Relevant data are collected from skyes, FABEC and other entities (Eurocontrol dashboard). If occuring delays a justification can be requested from skeyes, with potential corrective action request afterwards.

MUAC reports its en-route capacity performance to the states through the MUAC Finance and Performance committee. The performance data is also monitored on a monthly basis through the AFG/PMG (ANSP FABEC Group / Performance Management Group) capacity report. This report is based on MUAC data and available PRU data, which is consolidated and analysed and the results compared to the reference and indicative values.

Even though the FABEC states now have national performance plans, the monitoring for en-route capacity performance is carried out under the auspices of the FABEC Financial and Performance Committee (FPC), counterpart of the European Commission at the States side, consulting and reporting to FABEC Council as appropriate.

On a monthly basis and through the AFG/PMG (ANSP FABEC Group / Performance Management Group) the ANSPs collectively submit a report to the FPC, based on PRU available data, consolidated and analysed, on their joint progress in achieving the FABEC target set and reference or indicative values and on the results and analysis of the en- route capacity achievement.

In case the target set and/or the annual/reference values are threatened not to be met, AFG/PMG is asked to propose to FPC possible corrective measures which the ANSPs determine fit to react to the weaker performance at FAB, national and/or ACC level, in order to remedy the situation.

The FPC analyses the reports, assesses the actions considered by the ANSPs together with the necessity of appropriate measures to be taken by the States or the NSAs and makes an advice to the proposals, made by the AFG/PMG, to the FABEC Council for such appropriate measures, after consultation with the AFG/PMG. The potential corrective measures take into account the seriousness of the risk of not meeting the targets set and/or the annual/reference values.

This monitoring process is described in the FABEC FPC States Performance Process description, which is regularly updated.

Capacity planning

Initial Network Operation Plan 2020 launched in Winter 2019/2020 has been overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the massive drop of traffic.

A new NOP Recovery Plan process initiated and launched by the Network Manager and its first edition was published on 30 April 2020, as European traffic began a slow recovery from its lowest point of just 2,099 flights across the network on 12 April 2020.

Since then a weekly Rolling NOP, published every Friday has been introduced through which NM coordinates with all partners to ensure capacity is available at ACCs and in the airspace they manage, and on the ground at airports, to meet the expected traffic demand from the airlines on each day of the next six weeks enabling to coordinate all operational stakeholders throughout the pandemic to ensure that network actors can plan their recovery effectively based on predicted traffic levels.

Application of Corrective Measures for Capacity (if applicable)

skeyes: Brussels ACC has a capacity gap in 2023 and 2024. In the LSSIP 2022, skeyes developed various initiatives to fill the gap :
- recruitment of new ATCO at the maximum training capacity
- TCAST in 2023
- segregation of traffic flows between EBBR (Brussels) and EBCI (Charleroi)
- upgrade of ATM system

The NSA considers that the actions taken will be sufficient to remedy the situation.

Other indicators

Focus on ATCOs in operations

Comments regarding ATCO in OPS

MUAC: more ATCOs than anticipated have stopped working in OPS.

Regarding ATCO planning, the Belgian NSAs and ANSPs, together with their FABEC-colleagues, question if ATCO planning figures are legally required by the performance regulation to be included in the Performance Monitoring for RP3, as it is not a prescribed indicator. In addition, we question if this is the right level of detail to be monitored by the EC. Technically the plans are and will always be subject to change, creating the unnecessary burden of tracking, supervising and explaining the figures within the SES performance scheme domain.

However, ATCO hiring and assigment is one of the major driver for current capacity and staffing issues solving. ACE figures are provided and can be referred to. Nevertheless, we consider that they cannot be considered as a commitment where planning figures are requested, due to the high level of uncertainties related to such ATCO recruitement plans management. These figures, even when provided on annual basis, can only be regarded as snapshot information, i.e. a situation at one point in time which does not guarantee a realistic view throughout the entire duration of RP3.

There are many factors with a high level of uncertainty that have an impact on the ATCO planning: first of all, the Labour Law and the Collective Labour Agreement in place in an ANSP play a major role in the availability of ATCOs to fulfill the ops needs. Then, there are classical uncertainty factors of general staff planning like the actual rate of retirement, the absence rate of employees, as well as maternity and parent leave. Moreover, ATCOs mobility has become a severe issue recently, leading to high rate of unforeseen leaves.

Another factor which cannot be significantly mitigated further impacting the availability of ATCOs is the number of suitable applicants, the failure rate of the theoretical training at the academies and the success rate during the on-the-job training phases of trainees. The final retirement age is firmly set by law, but in many countries employees may go earlier. ANSPs can only assume a certain amount of people opting out/in. It is common culture now that companies offer varying working hours to enable employees to adjust their work to different phases of their life. Again, ANSPs can only assume a certain amount of people opting in/out. On top of all that, future social agreements will significantly determine the ATCO availability per person and by that the total available FTE per ANSP. Before the planned ATCO FTE can be reported in an harmonised and consistent way, a revised specification for information disclosure is required, clearly describing how to count ATCOs partially working in projects (another uncertainty factor) and (very important) standardising the assumptions for the uncertainties mentioned above.

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

Focus on arrival ATFM delay

Belgium identifies only Brussels airport as subject to RP3 monitoring. The Airport Operator Data Flow is fully established and the monitoring of pre-departure delays can be performed. The data quality of the pre-departure delay reporting, which did not allow the calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay in the previous years, has improved allowing the calculation of this indicator in 2022.

Traffic levels in 2022 were still 24% less than in 2019 at Brussels airport, despite the 53% increase with respect to 2021.

Average arrival ATFM delays in 2022 was 0.11 min/arr, compared to 0.04 min/arr in 2021. ATFM slot adherence has slightly deteriorated (2022: 95.5%; 2021: 96.6%).

ATFM arrival delays at Brussels have increased in 2022 but remain very low (EBBR; 2019: 0.90 min/arr; 2020: 0.38 min/arr; 2021: 0.04 min/arr; 2022: 0.11 min/arr). Most of these delays were attributed to weather (77%) followed by ATC staffing (11%) and special events (6%).

The national target on arrival ATFM delay in 2022 was met.

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
Brussels 0.38 0.04 0.11 NA NA 97.4% 96.6% 95.5% NA% NA% 0.35 0.45 0.57 NA NA 13.9 15.3 20.6 NA NA
Focus on performance indicators at airport level

ATFM slot adherence

Brussels ATFM slot compliance in 2022 was 95.5%. With regard to the 4.5% of flights that did not adhere, 3.1% was early, 1.4% was late.

The Belgian monitoring report highlights that national level and main national individual airports involved are above the 80% threshold of compliance.

ATC pre-departure delay

ATC pre-departure delay at Brussels (EBBR: 2022: 0.57 min/dep) is still below the pre-pandemic value (0.78 min/dep).

All causes pre-departure delay

The total (all causes) delay in the actual off block time at Brussels increased in 2022 (EBBR: 2020: 13.88 min/dep.; 2021: 15.29 min/dep.; 2022: 20.59 min/dep.). The highest delays per flight were observed in June-July.

According to the Belgian monitoring report: Skeyes focusses its effort on the reduction of ATFM delays which are directly under the control of ANSP. All cause departure delay is very generic and ATFM delay is only a small contributor. Departure delay can be generated by ATFM en-route delay (not only local airport, but the complete Network) but also reactionary and turnaround delay, technical issues with the aircraft, airport operations, problems with passengers and or luggage, etc. In other words, it is not always possible to address a specific reason as this delay is quite generic.

 
  • © European Union, 2025

  • Disclaimer

  • Website published by EUROCONTROL for the European Commission