EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 25.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2094 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (E C) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) 
No 552/2004 in order to improve the performa nce and sustainability of the European 
aviation system 
   
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
{COM(2008) 388 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2093} 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Executive summary of the impact assessment on  the proposal for a revision of the Single 
European Sky legislation 
The impact assessment on the revision of the Single European Sky (SES) legislation1 
(2008/TREN/030) follows the recommendations of  two major preparator y reports: the High 
Level Group report on the future regulatory framework for aviation (July 2007) and the 
Performance Review Commission report on the ‘Evaluation of the impact of the Single 
European Sky initiative on ATM2 performance’ (December 2006). The SES proposals will 
form an integral part of a wider package, with  two other elements: (1) the extension of EASA 
competences to air traffic management (ATM ) and air navigation services (ANS) (2) the 
endorsement of the SESAR3 master plan. Because of thei r specific nature, the SESAR and 
EASA proposals will be the s ubject of separate appraisals. 
The proposals considered for SES II do not intr oduce new legislation as such, but rather 
consolidate  the previous SES package (SES I) and add an overall performance-driving 
framework. This framework will strengt hen the network approach and introduce 
environmental performance as a new area. 
What is the problem? 
Our current air traffic manageme nt (ATM) system is operating close to its limits  and there is 
scope for improvement. There are inefficienci es in cost and capac ity and ATM does not 
restrict the environmental impact of aviation. The system is still fragmented along national 
borders, lacks good network coordination and effi cient use of airspace. These problems lead 
to total additional costs of over €3bn per year. 
Sub-optimal routing ( flight inefficiency ) not only translates into  loss of time and money, but 
also to unnecessary fuel burn and emissions. At the same time, traffic is expected to double 
or, in some regions, even triple by 2020, to a vol ume that current technology and organisation 
will struggle to handle safely. Increased conges tion in turn leads to unmet demand, reduced 
competitiveness and unrealised economic potential both for aircraft operators and the 
economy at large. 
What are the main causes of the problem? 
1. Lack of a network approach:  air routes were historically designed as a function of 
national air carrier needs or to reflect the ne twork of traditional radio-navigation aids. While 
                                                 
1 Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the 
framework for the creation of the Single European Sky,  
Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air 
navigation services in the Single European Sky,  Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and 
use of airspace in the Single European Sky, 
Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council on the interoperability of 
the European Air Traffic Management Network. 
2 For a list of all abbreviations used in the text, see Annex 1 . 
3 SESAR is the Single European Sky ATM Research project, which aims to modernise the ATM system 
both technologically and operationally. For more information see 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_p ortal/sesame/index_en.htm and http://www.sesar-consortium.aero/. 
EN 3   EN navigation technology and the needs of airspace users have changed significantly, the route 
network does not reflect these changes. As  routes channel fee-paying traffic through 
predetermined territories, hence determining th e income of service providers, the national 
approach has led to cross-country flight e fficiency being a secondary concern in route 
network design. The situation is further complicated by sub-optimal civil-military 
cooperation.  
2. Insufficient oversight of natural monopolies:  air traffic management is mostly a natural 
monopoly (one service provider in each block of  airspace due to technical constraints and 
sunk investment costs), which prevents efficien cies through competition. This system and the 
corresponding full-cost recovery mechanism do not  incentivise service providers to improve 
their services to customers (i.e. airspace users) . Instead, it contributes to a ‘live and let live’ 
attitude.  
3. Governance : while the Single Sky legislation brought air traffic management under the 
Community umbrella, essential obligations were le ft to national discretion. Some elements of 
the system also remain the re sponsibility of intergovernme ntal structures with limited 
enforcement powers. The current institutional arrangements for ATM are not in line with 
industry developments (corporatisation, privatis ation, etc.) and require a clear separation of 
policy- and law-making from oversight  functions and service provision. 
What are the main  policy objectives? 
The over-arching objective of the revision of the Single Sky legislation is to ensure that the 
ATM system effectively provides the infrastructu re for the aviation industry and other users 
so that the Lisbon objectives can be fulfilled. Performance must focus on four key areas — 
cost-efficiency, flight efficiency, capacity/delays and safety. Environmenta l protection will be 
added in the revised package as an explicit obj ective, as a key area fo r service provision and a 
criterion for route network design. 
What are the main tools for achieving the policy objectives? 
The proposals aim to drive the performance of the ATM system. A regulatory framework 
with target setting will gradually ensure this. The network approach  will be enhanced to 
solve local problems with system-wide effects. Wherever possible, the unbundling of 
services should be considered with a view  to introducing competition. This performance 
framework should ensure more efficient integr ation of service provision within functional 
airspace blocks (FABs).