Capacity - Netherlands

PRB monitoring

▪ The Netherlands registered 0.06 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2023, thus achieving the local target value of 0.14. Delays in the Netherlands increased by 0.03 minutes per flight year-on-year.

▪ Most of the delays accumulated between May and October, mostly due to Frisian air exercise, adverse weather conditions and ATC capacity.

▪ The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in the Netherlands increased by 1 percentage point compared to 2022 and was lower than 2019 values.

▪ The average number of IFR movements was 12% below 2019 levels in the Netherlands in 2023.

▪ The number of ATCOs in OPS is expected to decrease by 9% by 2024, with the actual value being below the 2023 plan in Amsterdam by 7 FTEs.

▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Amsterdam ACC was 40,028, showing a 0% change compared to 2022. Sector opening hours are 0% above 2019 levels.

▪ Amsterdam ACC registered 13.1 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2023, being 12.3% below 2019 levels.

▪ The Netherlands registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 2.42 minutes per flight in 2023, thus not achieving the local target of 1.60 minutes.

▪ Compared to 2022, average arrival ATFM delays in the Netherlands were 36% higher in 2023, while the number of IFR arrivals increased by 8%.

▪ The main reasons for delays were weather, accounting for 76% 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 Netherlands achieved the required en route capacity performance for 2023. There were 1 128k flights handled in the Dutch airspace (both Amsterdam ACC and the DECO sectors in MUAC). There were 67k minutes of en route ATFM delay attributed to ANSPs in Dutch airspace.

NSA’s assessment of capacity performance

Weather and temporary airspace closures impacted the performance across the board. The war in Ukraine has caused an increase in military exercises in Dutch airspace. This is expected to continue into the coming years

Monitoring process for capacity performance

LVNL reports its en-route capacity performance to the state through their Quarterly performance report. This report is based on LVNL data and available PRU data, which is consolidated and analysed and the results compared to the reference and indicative values. 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.

MUAC reports its en-route capacity performance to the states through the MUAC Finance and Performance committee. Similarly to the LVNL data the performance data is also monitored on a monthly basis through the AFG/PMG capacity report.

Capacity planning

The ANSPs in the Netherlands, LVNL and MUAC, contribute to the new NOP planning process, both the long term NOP and the weekly Rolling NOP. They contribute information and data to the provision for a consolidated European network view of the evolution of the air traffic, enabling the planning of the service delivered to match the expected air traffic demand in a safe, efficient and coordinated manner. However, the 10% capacity buffer requested by the NM, the recommendation for zero delay and the continuous optimistic traffic forecast selected have naturally an adverse impact on ANSPs finance.

Application of Corrective Measures for Capacity (if applicable)

Not applicable.

Additional Information Related to Russia’s War of Aggression Against Ukraine

The Netherlands has experienced changes in traffic flows due to the Russia/Ukraine situation. It is mainly noticed that UK Asia traffic flows fly through the Belgian instead of the Dutch airspace, additionally the France Asia traffic flows now fly down south instead of to the North through Dutch airspace and towards Russia.

En route Capacity Incentive Scheme

LVNL: Netherlands use an incentive scheme based only on delays attributed to C,R,S,T,M & P delay codes. The new target for LVNL was set at 0.07 minutes per flight and the actual performance is reported as 0.06 minutes per flight (CRSTMP only), which falls within the deadband. Neither bonus nor malus is due
MUAC: Netherlands use an incentive scheme based only on delays attributed to C,R,S,T,M & P delay codes. The new target for MUAC was set at 0.09 minutes per flight and the actual performance is reported as 0.06 minutes per flight (CRSTMP only), which falls within the deadband. Neither bonus nor malus is due

Other indicators

N/A

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

For the Netherlands, the scope of the performance monitoring of terminal services under RP3 comprises a total of 4 airports. In accordance with IR (EU) 2019/317 and the traffic figures at these 4 airports, only Amsterdam must be monitored for pre-departure delays.
The Airport Operator Data Flow is fully established at Amsterdam and the monitoring of pre-departure delays can be performed. Nevertheless, the quality of the reporting does not allow for the calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay, with more than 40% of the reported delay not allocated to any cause.

Traffic at these 4 airports decreased in 2023 was still 10% lower than in 2019, with an increase of 8% with respect to 2022.

Average arrival ATFM delays in 2023 was 2.42 min/arr, compared to 1.78 min/arr in 2022.
ATFM slot adherence has improved (2023: 98.5%; 2022: 97.7%).

Amsterdam (EHAM: 2019: 4.23 min/arr.; 2020: 1.41 min/arr.; 2021: 0.60 min/arr.; 2022: 1.98 min/arr.; 2023: 2.65 min/arr.) significantly increased the arrival ATFM delays, resulting in one of the highest values amongst the SES monitored airports.
76% of the delays were attributed to Weather, followed by 23% attributed to Aerodrome Capacity issues.
The rest of Dutch airports registered zero or nearly zero arrival ATFM delays in 2023.
According to the Dutch monitoring report:
Long term corrective measures are considered feasible and LVNL is working with AAS, the main airline operators at Schiphol and the slot coordinator to better spread traffic demand, possibly by improving the slot allocation. This with the aim of reducing bunch forming for inbound for inbound aircraft since this is one of the major causes of airport delay at Schiphol. With the envisaged growth in traffic volume at Schiphol this delay cause will gain importance in the coming years. Additionally, LVNL has started activities to increase the runway capacity of Schiphol. In January of 2023 RECAT-EU wake turbulence categories and Time-Based Separation (TBS) were realised. A part of this increase could be used to reduce airport ATFM delays.

In the coming years each year one runway will undergo heavy maintenance, lasting 2-3 months. This reduced runway availability increases the probability that only one landing runway can be used while demand is for two runways.

Due to the war in Ukraine there has been a Europe-wide trend for more and longer military exercises. These exercises impact the available airspace around the major Aerodrome in the Netherlands. There is significant risk of these exercises further influencing capacity performance.

The Dutch performance plan sets a national target on arrival ATFM delay for 2023 of 1.60 min/arr. This target was not met, with an actual performance of 2.42 min/arr.
The incentive scheme uses modulated pivot values limited to CRSTMP delay causes. According to the Dutch monitoring report, this pivot value for CRSTMP is 0.37 min/arr in 2023 and based on the attribution of the regulation reason, the actual CRSTMP value for 2023 was 0.020 min/arr.
The NSA calculates a bonus of € 376.64180.
According to the Dutch monitoring report:
The terminal and airport delay target was not met, with a performance of 0.82 min/fl. above target. However, it should be noted that the CRSPTM target was met.
The Airport ATFM delay per flight was not met in 2023, primarily due to aerodrome capacity and weather related incidents. Additionally, the Frysian Flag military exercise, and runway maintenance also caused additional delays.
The main causes for the target not being met were out of the control of the ANSP (weather, aerodrome capacity, military exercises). Long term corrective measures are considered feasible.

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
Beek NA 0.01 0.10 0.04 96.0% 97.4% 97.2% 98.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Eelde 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 88.0% 91.9% 98.1% 99.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rotterdam NA 0.00 0.00 0.01 100.0% 98.8% 98.9% 98.9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Schiphol 1.41 0.60 1.98 2.65 97.6% 98.1% 97.7% 98.4% NA NA NA NA 15.5 20.4 27.3 24.0

ATFM slot adherence

All four airports showed adherence above 98% and the national average was 98.5%. With regard to the 1.5% of flights that did not adhere, 0.5% was early and 1% was late.

ATC pre-departure delay

The share of unidentified delay reported by Amsterdam (the only Dutch airport subject to monitoring of this indicator) in 2023 was well above 40% every month of the year, preventing the calculation of this indicator.
The insufficient data quality provided by Amsterdam is a long standing issue.
The Dutch monitoring report does not mention any special measure to improve the data reporting, but reports:
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).
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 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.

All causes pre-departure delay

Amsterdam is the only Dutch airport subject to the monitoring of this indicator.
The total (all causes) delay in the actual off block time at Amsterdam in 2023 was 24.01 min/dep, an improvement with respect to the 27.35 min/dep observed in 2022, but nevertheless the third highest among the RP3 monitored airports.

According to the Dutch monitoring report: The departure delays in 2020 and 2021 were on the low end due to the lower amount of flights because of COVID-19. The beginning of the COVID-recovery in 2022 caused delays to move back towards 2019 levels. While 2022 had additional issues relating to the recovery and increased flight numbers (which is why 2023 subsequently saw a small reduction in delay duration), we expect this rising trend to hold until the values from 2019 are matched.