Capacity - Belgium

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ The average number of IFR movements was 13% below 2019 levels in Belgium-Luxembourg in 2023.

▪ Belgium-Luxembourg registered 0.18 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2023, thus not achieving the local target value of 0.17. Delays in Belgium-Luxembourg decreased by 0.09 minutes per flight year-on-year.

▪ Delays were highest in May and between July and October, mostly driven by ATC staffing and adverse weather.

▪  The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Belgium-Luxembourg decreased by 3 p.p. compared to 2022 and was lower than 2019 values.

▪ The number of ATCOs in OPS is expected to increase by 12% by 2024, with the actual value being below the 2023 plan in Brussels by 6 FTEs.

▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Brussels ACC was 28,519, showing a 0.4% increase compared to 2022. Sector opening hours are 2.1% below 2019 levels.

▪ Brussels ACC registered 19.46 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2023, being 10.7% below 2019 levels.

▪ Belgium registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.43 minutes per flight in 2023, achieving the local target of 1.08 minutes.

▪ Compared to 2022, average arrival ATFM delays in Belgium were 290% higher in 2023, while the number of IFR arrivals increased by 8%.

▪ The main reasons for delays were other, non-ATC related causes, responsible for 49% and weather, accounting for 44% of delays.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

Summary of capacity performance

Belgium & Luxembourg did not achieve the required en route capacity performance for 2023. There were 1,174k flights handled in the airspace of Belgium & Luxembourg (both Brussels ACC and the Brussels sectors in MUAC) with 206k minutes of en route ATFM delay. In 2022 there were 1,038k flights with 131k minutes of en route ATFM delay.

NSA’s assessment of capacity performance

En route capacity target was not achieved. All causes targets was not met due to two severe weather events in August 2023 and two big military exercises in the vicinity of MUAC in summer 2023 (air defender ’23 and task force ’23).

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 FAO/PMG (FABEC ANSP Office / 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 FAO/PMG /FABEC ANSP OFFICE/ 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, FAO/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 FAO/PMG, to the FABEC Council for such appropriate measures, after consultation with the FAO/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

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)

None. As the weather situation was considered to be exceptional, at this moment no specific measures were needed to be considered.

En route Capacity Incentive Scheme

Skeyes: No incentive scheme was applicable for Belgium in 2023 since the performance plan was only adopted in the same year.
MUAC: No incentive scheme was applicable for Belgium in 2023 since the performance plan was only adopted in the same year.

Other indicators

skeyes: the difference in 2021 and 2022 was partially offset in 2023 by the arrival of new ATCOs who had completed their training and by the change in working arrangements for existing ATCOs.

MUAC: fewer ATCOs passed the course + more ATCOs extended their career.

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

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 2020 and 2021, improved allowing the calculation of this indicator in 2022 and 2023.
Traffic levels in 2023 were still 18% less than in 2019 at Brussels airport, despite the 8% increase with respect to 2022.

Average arrival ATFM delays in 2023 was 0.43 min/arr, compared to 0.11 min/arr in 2022. The national target was met.
ATFM slot adherence is very stable (2023: 95.6%; 2022: 95.5%)

ATFM arrival delays at Brussels have increased in 2023 (EBBR; 2019: 0.90 min/arr; 2020: 0.38 min/arr; 2021: 0.04 min/arr; 2022: 0.11 min/arr; 2023: 0.43 min/arr). Most of these delays were attributed to Aerodrome Capacity (47%) followed by weather (44%).

The Belgian performance plan sets a national target on arrival ATFM delay for 2023 of 1.08 min/arr. This target was met with an actual performance of 0.43 min/arr.

The incentive scheme uses modulated pivot values limited CRSTMP delay causes. This pivot value for CRSTMP is 0.12 min/arr in 2023. According to the attribution of the regulation reason, the actual CRSTMP value for 2023 is 0.036 min/arr. The NSA however mentions in the monitoring report that As the Belgium PP was only adopted in 2023 this incentive scheme is not applicable.

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 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 2021 2022 2023
Brussels 0.38 0.04 0.11 0.43 97.4% 96.6% 95.5% 95.6% 0.35 0.45 0.57 0.64 13.9 15.3 20.6 19.3

ATFM slot adherence

Brussels ATFM slot compliance in 2023 was 95.6%
With regard to the 4.4% of flights that did not adhere, 2.6% was early and 1.7% 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 increased in 2023 (EBBR: 2022: 0.57 min/dep; 2023: 0.63 min/dep) but it 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 decreased in 2023 (EBBR: 2020: 13.88 min/dep.; 2021: 15.29 min/dep.; 2022: 20.59 min/dep.; 2023: 19.3 min/dep.) and sits just above the SES average of 19.15 min/dep.

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.