• 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. Environment
  • Year report
    • RP3
    • 2024 ✓
    • 2023
    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020

  • France
  • 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 - France Zone 1
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result
    • Terminal CZ - France Zone 2
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result

Environment - France

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ France achieved a KEA performance of 3.29% compared to its target of 2.83% and did not contribute positively towards achieving the Union-wide target.

▪ The NSA states that 2024 performance was affected by high peak traffic levels during the summer and traffic volatility, capacity and staff issues and adverse weather.

▪ Both KEP and SCR improved in 2024. The NSA states that 50% of French airspace is now covered by FRA. Despite the KEA target being missed, KEA improved in 2024. Additionally, the improvement in SCR shows that France has enhanced the environmental efficiency of its airspace when accounting for impacts outside of its control.

▪ The share of CDO flights remained stable in 2024.

▪ Both additional taxi out time and additional time in terminal airspace remained stable in 2024 compared to 2023.

▪ Additional taxi out time data for Marseille airport has not been reported for 2024 despite being subject to monitoring as per the Regulation.

En route performance

Horizontal flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) (KPI#1), of the last filed flight plan (KEP) (PI#1) & shortest constrained route (SCR) (PI#2)

Terminal performance

Additional taxi-out time (AXOT) (PI#3) & Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area (ASMA) time (PI#4)

Focus on ASMA & AXOT

AXOT

The additional taxi-out times in 2024 remained at 5 of the 6 French monitored airports below the SES average of 2.91 min/dep. Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG: 2019: 3.77 min/dep.; 2020: 2.17 min/dep.; 2021: 2.25 min/dep; 2022: 3.57 min/dep; 2023: 3.95 min/dep; 2024: 3.75 min/dep) improved its performance but remains with the 3rd highest value among SES monitored airports in 2024.

According to the French monitoring report: Performance evolution is linked with the traffic increase since 2020 (2020&2021 traffic levels where very low due to the traffic collapse related to covid-19 travel bans) and general 2022/2023/2024 ATC performance impacted by the progressive traffic recovery; however 2024 achievements remain in line with RP2 previous values with similar traffic volumes, showing a general stability on the taxi-out time phase at French airports (with some progress at Paris-Orly but increasing values at Nice) despite the increased volatility of traffic.

The Airport data flow (APDF) has been implemented at Marseille airport in 2019 with some technical issues regarding block data.
Beginning 2020, when within the framework of a project on implementing A-CDM concept at Marseille airport additional exchanges took place regarding lacking information (AOBT/AIBT) and how to provide it through the airport data flow but it could not be implemented during the covid 19 phase. Eurocontrol has contacted Marseille airport authorities to tackle the issue. The French NSA will support Eurocontrol and Marseille airport in order to identify remaining issues and implement the on block data provision as soon as possible.

ASMA

The additional ASMA in 2024 increased at Nice (LFMN), Toulouse (LFBO) and Lyon (LFLL) and decreased at Charles de Gaulle (LFPG). Except for Nice, the performance of these airports is better than the average 2024 SES performance of 1.28 min/arr.

According to the French monitoring report: Performance evolution is linked with the traffic increase till 2020 (2020&2021 traffic levels where very low due to the traffic collapse related to covid-19 travel bans) and general 2022/2023/2024 ATC performance impacted by the high traffic recovery and volatility; however 2024 achievements were equivalent or better than 2019 figures and generally equivalent or better than during the whole RP2 with equivalent traffics, showing general progress on the additional time in terminal airspace phase at some French airports except at CDG airport. This also is closely linked to working methods and the sequencing of approaches, some actions are undertaken by DSNA to achieve “quick wins” where possible.

Share of arrivals applying continuous descent operations (CDOs) (PI#5)

Focus CDOs

For 11 out of the 58 airports, the share of CDO flights was above the RP3 overall value in 2024 (29.3%). In 2024, 14.1% of the arrivals performed a CDO compared to 13.6% in 2023.
The Paris airports have a remarkably low share of CDO flights.

According to the French monitoring report: 2024 achievements are quite similar to 2023 values. DSNA has an objective to drastically increase the CDO rate (from FL75) to reduce noise on all major airports, and remove as much level-offs as possible. Launch of PBN to ILS projects in LFPO, LFLL, LFMN, with significant CDO rate improvement targeted. TF Green operations led to some vertical improvements with Green descent projects : improvements on certain legs from top of descent (CDO fuel).

DSNA is also currently implementing progressively a 25 % time reduction in level flight from top of descent TOD and a 20% reduction for CDO 75 on airports above 75000 IFR movements per year compared to 2019.

Airport level
Airport
Additional taxi-out time (PI#3)
Additional ASMA time (PI#4)
Share of arrivals applying CDO (PI#5)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Bale/Mulhouse 1.87 2.61 3.35 3.56 3.43 0.41 0.47 0.29 0.39 0.44 18% 13% 14% 14% 13%
Lyon 0.51 0.55 0.71 0.92 0.96 0.33 0.18 0.15 0.40 0.45 22% 17% 19% 25% 27%
Marseille/Provence NA NA NA NA NA 0.51 0.54 0.68 0.69 0.67 27% 23% 19% 22% 21%
Nice 0.77 1.10 1.30 1.98 2.08 0.86 1.38 1.54 1.35 1.46 20% 13% 13% 14% 15%
Paris/Charles-De-Gaulle 2.17 2.25 3.57 3.95 3.75 0.66 0.62 0.90 1.03 0.97 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%
Paris/Orly 1.22 1.27 1.89 1.96 1.91 0.82 0.64 1.16 0.92 0.96 3% 3% 3% 4% 5%
Toulouse/Blagnac 0.43 0.45 0.67 0.68 0.84 0.54 0.37 0.36 0.43 0.51 30% 27% 30% 33% 34%
Albert/Bray NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 29% 31% 20% 19% 12%
Agen/La-Garenne NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 21% 13% 12% 14% 16%
Bordeaux/Merignac NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32% 27% 26% 31% 37%
Bergerac/Roumanière NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15% 13% 19% 20% 18%
La-Rochelle/Ile de Ré NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26% 22% 20% 22% 19%
Poitiers/Biard NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16% 12% 18% 16% 9%
Limoges/Bellegarde NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30% 31% 32% 33% 33%
Pau/Pyrénées NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23% 17% 24% 21% 19%
Tarbes-Lourdes/Pyrénées NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 64% 53% 52% 49%
Biarritz/Bayonne-Anglet NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26% 21% 22% 23% 25%
Rodez/Marcillac NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 16% 19% 17% 18%
Dole/Tavaux NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 12% 9% 12% 12%
Metz-Nancy/Lorraine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 8% 14% 11% 10%
Bastia/Poretta NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40% 33% 33% 35% 33%
Calvi/Sainte-Catherine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 34% 32% 30% 31%
Figari/Sud-Corse NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 35% 32% 34% 38% 37%
Ajaccio/Napoléon-Bonaparte NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 39% 32% 34% 35% 36%
Chambéry/Aix-les-Bains NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9% 14% 8% 8% 8%
Clermont-Ferrand/Auvergne NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 22% 16% 21% 24% 23%
Annecy/Meythet NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15% 13% 11% 13% 11%
Grenoble/Isère NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19% 20% 20% 18% 15%
Châteauroux/Déols NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 10% 12% 11% 10%
Lyon/Bron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 10% 7% 8% 9% 9%
Cannes/Mandelieu NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 9% 10% 8% 8%
Saint-Etienne/Bouthéon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 12% 14% 14% 11%
Istres/Le-Tubé NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 31% 24% 22% 22% 21%
Carcassonne/Salvaza NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19% 19% 21% 24% 23%
Perpignan/Rivesaltes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 43% 39% 33% 35% 34%
Montpellier/Méditerranée NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33% 30% 29% 27% 27%
Béziers/Vias NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28% 25% 27% 24% 23%
Avignon/Caumont NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15% 13% 11% 15% 17%
Beauvais/Tillé NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8% 7% 5% 6% 7%
Châlons/Vatry NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27% 28% 26% 20% 20%
Rouen/Vallée-de-Seine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 29% 28% 30% 26% 14%
Tours/Val-de-Loire NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 48% 46% 32% 26% 24%
Paris/Le Bourget NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Toussus/Le-Noble NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Lille/Lesquin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 29% 24% 14% 20% 22%
Brest/Bretagne NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33% 33% 32% 34% 33%
Dinard/Pleurtuit-Saint-Malo NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19% 12% 16% 14% 15%
Deauville/Normandie NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 11% 12% 11% 8%
Lorient/Lann-Bihoué NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30% 28% 28% 33% 27%
Caen/Carpiquet NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 10% 10% 8% 9%
Rennes/St-Jacques NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 49% 45% 45% 44%
Quimper/Pluguffan NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28% 25% 37% 18% 24%
Nantes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27% 23% 24% 26% 28%
Saint-Nazaire/Montoir NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20% 22% 24% 26% 24%
Brive/Souillac NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15% 20% 21% 26% 29%
Strasbourg/Entzheim NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 14% 14% 13% 12%
Hyères/Le-Palyvestre NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 31% 22% 18% 19% 20%
Nîmes/Garons NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19% 20% 18% 21% 23%

Civil-Military dimension

Focus on Civil-Military dimension

Update on Military dimension of the plan

According to the FR NSA report: For obvious flight safety reasons, military activities must be segregated from civil flows which has an impact on both horizontal (HFE) and vertical flight efficiency (VFE). Because ASM manageable areas form an integral part of the nominal system, military airspace reservations shall be considered as part of the performance baseline rather than a key factor degrading environmental KPIs. As a result of implementation of the FUA concept the impact of military activities using Restricted Airspace -RSA on civil performance is highly minored when associated with an efficient ASM process:
- At strategic level (HLAPB) by designing areas in accordance with A-FUA concept (MVPA/VGA structures), especially for congested airspaces.
- At pre-tactical level (AMC), by managing these areas in a dynamic way, with an associated level 2 CDM process, validated by HLAPB.
- At tactical level (ACC/Regional Military Control Centre) by activating/deactivating areas as close as possible to actual use and allowing crossing or direct routes when possible (in accordance with TRA status), with an associated level 3 CDM process validated by HLAPB.
- At each level, HLAPB, AMC or ACC/Regional Military Control Centre, a key factor of efficiency is a trust-driven civil-military cooperation. As a counterpart, AOs and CFSPs must be reactive and take efficiently into account available or released airspaces. At last, ANSP have also to adapt the route network to create more DCTs within military areas.

Finally, local circumstances (e.g. constrained airspace, proximity of international hubs, etc….) as well as a large number of military missions that differ from one State to another must be taken into account. Therefore, airspace needs (e.g. airspace requirements for the 5th generation fighters) and related ASM procedures of the States differ and standardized objectives cannot be defined
.

Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity

FABEC States are working on mid-term improvements regarding implementation of ASM level 1, 2, and 3 procedures. Some local initiatives regarding ASM/ATFCM convergence, like the traffic Light Scheme concept in France are promoted at FABEC level, as well as at ECAC level in the EUROCONTROL OEP framework.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6

France provides 2 KPIs, NEGO and ENV. KPI NEGO, was roughly around 93% for years and in a 96 - 97% range since the COVID crisis period. KPI NEGO is mostly driven by 2 blocks of areas in the eastern part of France.
KPIs ENV, which were roughly for years around 65 % (ratio between the real use and AUP planning at D-1) and 75 % (ratio between the real use and AUP/UUP processes at H-3), reach now ca. 75%, thereby bringing about a significant improvement.

They reflect the robustness of the French national civil-military CDM process regarding ASM. Thus they are considered as very efficient, taking into account that they have to cope with several mission cancellation causes (Weather, Technical or Operational reasons). To further improve flight efficiency with this virtuous approach, civil and military AMC staff continue to work together and 15 indicators regarding 3 domains (NEGO, RELIABILITY and CURA) are under investigation, in coordination with PRISMIL Team. By the way, despite these efforts and improvements, a glass ceiling will still exist, as some military mission cancellation causes remain unpredictable.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7

No validated data available as from 2022. The data on previous cycles were kindly provided by Eurocontrol and processed by the FR NSA without further assessment by interested parties including MIL FR. In the course of the 2022 monitoring exercise, a similar request has been issued in parallel to Eurocontrol and involved parties within FR to compute data with the help of PRISMIL tool. An active coordination between FR experts, Eurocontrol PRISMIL Team and NMIR support highlighted some biaises in the information that could be retrieved.

A better understanding of the issue was expected to put FR in a position to compute and provide the data from 2023 onward making use of existing tools and involving additional experts from DSNA. Unfortunately, the additional expertise is in the new DATA Office unit still understaffed in order to perform required post Ops activities to compute PI #7 figures for 2024.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8

No validated data available as from 2022. The data on previous cycles were kindly provided by Eurocontrol and processed by the FR NSA without further assessment by interested parties including MIL FR. In the course of the 2022 monitoring exercise, a similar request has been issued in parallel to Eurocontrol and involved parties within FR to compute data with the help of PRISMIL tool. An active coordination between FR experts, Eurocontrol PRISMIL Team and NMIR support highlighted some biaises in the information that could be retrieved.

A better understanding of the issue was expected to put FR in a position to compute and provide the data from 2023 onward making use of existing tools and involving additional experts from DSNA. Unfortunately, the additional expertise is in the new DATA Office unit still understaffed in order to perform required post Ops activities to compute PI #7 figures for 2024.

 
  • © European Union, 2025

  • Disclaimer

  • Website published by EUROCONTROL for the European Commission