Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Building the Single European Sky through functional airspace blocks: A mid-term status Report
Date: 2007-03-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air traffic, air transport, common transport policy, organisation of transport, trans-European network

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.3.2007 
COM(2007) 101 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Building the Single European Sky through functional airspace blocks: 
A mid-term status report 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Building the Single European Sky through functional airspace blocks: 
A mid-term status report 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

Air  traffic  control  is  the  backbone  of  civil  aviation.  It  provides  the  infrastructure  for  the 
25,000 daily  flights,  flown  by  some  5,000 commercial  planes  between  100 major  airports  in 
the Community. Air traffic controllers are in permanent contact with pilots flying at a speed 
of  800 km/h  ensuring  a  safe  and  efficient  flow  of  air  traffic.  The  cost  of  air  traffic  control 
amounts to about €7bn 1, constituting some 6% of total costs of an average flight. 

Liberalisation of the aviation industry forced air carriers to reorganise in a global market. It 
left air traffic control as the only link in the aviation value chain organised and operated at a 
national  scale.  In  view  of  the  expected  growth  of  aviation  in  the  coming  twenty  years,  the 
traditional  strategy  of  piecemeal  reactions  offering  technical  solutions  in  a  consensus  based 
environment is no longer deemed sufficient to deal with this challenge satisfactorily. 

Aviation is a quintessential cross-border activity. Yet air traffic management is organised in a 
fragmented way. Every time a plane enters the airspace of a Member State, it is serviced by a 
different  service  provider  on  basis  of  different  rules  and  operational  requirements.  The 
fragmentation  impacts  on  safety,  limits  capacity  and  adds  to  cost.  Moreover,  it  slows  down 
the decision making process necessary to introduce new technology and to tailor services to 
customers’ needs. 

Like any other industry, air traffic control therefore needs to be more functionally devised on 
a regional basis. Airspace is to be organised following operational requirements regardless of 
national boundaries in ‘functional airspace blocks’. Under the single European sky legislation, 
Member States are under the legal obligation to enter into such regional forms of integrated 
management. 2 

1 
2 

Figures for 2004, taken from Performance Review Report 8, Brussels, 2006. 
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 551/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 
on  the  organisation  of  the  airspace  in  the  single  European  sky  (the  "Airspace  regulation"),  OJ  L  96, 
31.03.2004, p. 10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Two  and  a  half  years  after  the  agreement  on  the  adoption  of  the  single  European  sky 
legislation3,  the  European  Commission  would  like  to  assess  progress  made  towards  the 
establishment of functional airspace blocks. As functional airspace blocks are a key element 
to  the  success  of  the  Single  European  Sky,  it  is  important  to  explain  the  objectives  of  this 
approach, to give indications on results expected by 2008 and beyond, and to clarify the roles 
of  the  different  stakeholders,  also  in  view  of  assessing  the  need  for  the  amendment  of  the 
current legislative framework. 

1. 

FRAGMENTATION  HAMPERS  A  MODERN  AND  CUSTOMER  ORIENTED  AIR  TRAFFIC 
CONTROL SYSTEM 

Fragmentation of the European airspace into 27 national air traffic control systems hampers a 
safe and cost efficient service provision. 

(1) 

(2) 

Each service provider functions in its legal and institutional environment with national 
airspace  rules  and  operating  procedures.  This  leads  to  diverging  performances  in 
terms of safety, capacity and cost-efficiency. 

Even  the  big  EU  Member  States  turn  out  to  be  global  dwarfs  in  terms  of  size  of 
controlled airspace. In addition, the size of air traffic centres which they are operating 
appears  to  be  suboptimal,  with  a  multiplicity  of  technical  systems  and  high 
maintenance  costs.  The  cost  of  fragmentation  amounts  to  as  much  as  one  billion 
euros4.  The  relative  lack  of  fragmentation  is  one  major  element  helping  to  make  the 
US air traffic management system twice as efficient as that of the EU. 

3 

4 

In addition to the Airspace regulation, the Single Sky legislation includes the following basic acts:  
-Regulation (EC) No 449/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 laying 
down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the "Framework regulation"), OJ L 96, 
31.03.2004, p.1;   
-Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 on the 
provision of air navigation services in the creation of the single European sky (the "Service provision 
regulation"), OJ L 96, 31.03.2004, p.10; 
-Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 on the 
interoperability of the European air traffic management network (Interoperability regulation), OJ L 96, 
31.03.2004, p.26. 
Solar Alliance, 2005, the impact of fragmentation in European ATM/CNS, Bagshot, 80 p. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Graph 1 : Basic operational statistics of air navigation service providers 
(relative data 2004 ) 

Operations per
Controller

Size of airspace

Operations per
Controller

i
l

a
a
r
t
s
u
A

a
d
a
n
a
C

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z
w 
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

m
o
d
g
n
Ki
d
e

t
i

n
U

t

s
e
a
St
d
e

t
i

n
U

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

5 
6 

7 

Source : GAO-05-769, ATO Annual Performance Report and PRR 2005 for France. 
Size of controlled airspace in 000 km², excluding oceanic airspace, except for France. 

Air traffic control is provided from some 50 en route units or air traffic control centres, 
and hundreds of approach centres and towers. Airspace is divided into more than 650 
sectors5.  Each  change  of  sector  obliges  the  pilot  to  change  frequency  and  to  contact 
the  next  air  traffic  controller6.  Functionality  of  sector  design  is  limited  to  national 
borders.  Transfers  of  flights  between  centres  are  regulated  through  an  extensive 
exchange of letters of agreement. 

Flexibility in sector management is, in the best case, limited to the centre level. Each 
sector  needs  to  be  permanently  manned  by  a  team  of  air  traffic  controllers,  who 
require some two to four years to become fully operational on a reasonable number of 
sectors.  This  results  in  relatively  low  productivity  rates  with  air  traffic  control 
productivity ranging between 0.1 and 1.6 flight hours per air traffic control hour7. 

Safety levels between service providers vary significantly. Only one third of Member 
States is currently in a position to provide satisfactory incident reports, which form the 
basis of any safety management policy. 

The  small  scale  of  operation  is  also  an  obstacle  to  the  swift  introduction  of  new 
technologies. As air traffic management is a niche market in global terms, equipment 
manufacturers  have  few  incentives  to  develop  new  technologies.  Service  providers 
historically showed little interest in interoperability and preferred tailor made systems 

Community providers only; data taken from Performance Review Report 8, Brussels, 2006. 
Transit times per service providers (servicing several sectors) vary from 7.2 minutes for Belgocontrol to 
39.5 minutes for AENA, the Spanish service provider. 
Benchmarking reports of the Performance Review Unit (ACE 2003, p. 69) indicate that only 15 out of 
68  ACCs  participating  succeed  in  controlling  more  than  one  flight  hour  per  hour  air  traffic  control. 
However, as official working hours are used, productivity during effective working time is presumed to 
be considerably higher. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
instead  of  increasing  commonality  by  adapting  off  the  shelf  solutions  to  air  traffic 
management needs. 

Airline companies suffer from low profit margins and require opportunities to develop their 
businesses. This increases cost pressure and the need for flexibility in every link in the value 
chain.  A  substantial  increase  of  performance  and  flexibility  is  required  from  air  traffic 
management. The goal is to strengthen the competitiveness of the European aviation industry 
by ensuring that costs are contained as the system is developed to accommodate continuously 
growing traffic. 

Regular  reports  from  the  Performance  Review  Commission,  international  comparisons  and 
independent  studies demonstrate  the high costs associated with  fragmentation. Output  of air 
traffic  management  in  the  Community  could  improve  significantly  if  it  could  increase  its 
scale of operations, like any other industry. 

2. 

THE COMMUNITY APPROACH: REDUCE FRAGMENTATION AND LIMIT ITS EFFECT 

Greater portions of airspace need to be operated as one single operational entity. Functional 
airspace blocks are the tool to reduce airspace fragmentation so as to enhance current safety 
standards and overall efficiency, to optimize the steadily growing capacity requirements of all 
airspace  users  and  to  minimise  delays  by  managing  the  traffic  more  dynamically.  These 
objectives can only be achieved through an increase of the scale of operations, regardless of 
national borders.  

2.1 

Transformation of a patchwork into functional airspace blocks… 

The  establishment  of  functional  airspace  blocks  constitutes  in  the  very  first  place  a  legal 
requirement  laid  down  in  Article 5  of  the  Airspace  regulation.  This  requirement  should  be 
read  in  the  light  of  other  provisions  of  the  single  sky  legislation8.  In  addition,  other  air 
transport  legislation,  such  as  the  Community  air  traffic  controller  licence9,  is  also  to  be 
considered in light of the functional airspace block requirement. 

This demonstrates the importance of the concept of functional airspace blocks. They are the 
toolbox  with  institutional,  operational,  technical,  economic  and  social  instruments  to  tackle 
fragmentation of airspace at its roots to meet users’ expectations. So will implementing rules 
increase the interoperability of equipment. The Community air traffic controller licence will 
facilitate  cross  border  personnel  management  by  harmonizing  competences.  Focusing  on 
airspace problems leaving aside underlying realities and limitations on the ground risks being 
counterproductive. 

8 

9 

In particular, Article 5 of the Airspace regulation must be read together with Articles 1 and 2.25 of the 
Framework regulation on the single sky objectives and on the definition of functional airspace blocks, 
respectively;  with  Articles  2,  8,  9  and  10  of  the  Service  provision  regulation  on,  respectively,  the 
conclusion  of  agreements  between  national  supervisory  authorities,  certification  and  the  mutual 
recognition of certificates, designation procedures and on the relation between service providers. 
Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on a Community 
air traffic controller licence, OJ L 114 of 27.04.2006. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  implies  that  the  definition  of  functional  airspace  blocks  involves  a  collaborative 
decision making exercise where all  stakeholders  have a role to play. While Member States 
have to provide the continuous political backing, the bulk of the technical work will need to 
be  performed  by  the  service  providers.  Staff  will  be  involved  to  make  best  use  of  their 
expertise and to manage change. Finally, airspace users will influence the process so that the 
outcome will be best tailored to the needs of the aviation community. 

Functional  airspace  blocks  may  also  be  conceived  as  a  continuous  defragmentation process 
whereby  service  providers  gradually  tend  to  a  more  optimal  scale  for  their  operations.  This 
opens  possibilities  for  tackling  different  aspects  of  fragmentation  in  differing  timeframes, 
even within differing cooperation constellations. The optimal scale of operations in its turn is 
relative to technological possibilities and transition costs, whereby smaller blocks may, in a 
later stage, merge into bigger ones. 

2.2 

… through a ‘bottom up’ process  

Under the current wording of Article 5 of the Airspace regulation it is for the Member States 
to establish functional air space blocks. Nonetheless, they have to ensure that these functional 
blocks shall, inter alia: (a) be supported by a safety case; (b) enable optimum use of airspace, 
taking into account air traffic flows; (c) be justified by their value added, including optimal 
use of technical and human resources, on the basis of cost benefit analysis; (d) ensure a fluent 
and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic units, (e) ensure 
compatibility between configuration of upper and lower airspace; (….). 

As  a  consequence,  Member  States  bear  responsibility  to  bring  about  defragmentation  in 
calling upon their continuous political support and the economic levers at their disposal. This 
is called the ‘bottom-up approach’. 

The  bottom  up  approach  results  from  a  delicate  compromise  between  the  European 
Parliament  and  Council.  Whereas  Parliament  sought  initially  to  introduce  a  ‘top-down’ 
approach, Council was of the view that the necessary restructuring for establishing functional 
air blocks was best left to Member States  

In  order  to  broker  a  compromise,  the  Commission  issued  a  specific  declaration  in  the 
conciliation  committee  in  December 2003  where  the  single  European  sky  package  was 
adopted.  After  five  years,  the  Commission  would  review  the  ‘bottom  up’  procedure.  This 
review may be accompanied by appropriate proposals if results achieved from the bottom-up 
approach are deemed insufficient. 

2.3 

Member States must deliver... 

In this context, Member States bear direct responsibility for the establishment of the necessary 
institutional arrangements. A strong independent regulator in particular is a precondition for 
the  smooth  functioning  of  the  block  as  one  ‘regulatory’  continuum.  Member  States  can 
contribute  to  regulatory  convergence  in  the  blocks,  e.g.  in  applying  ICAO  standards  or 
Community legislation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Collaboration  between  national  supervisory  authorities  in  view  of  regional  arrangements  is 
well established in some projects, but is only in an embryonic stage in others. Ideally, these 
regional  arrangements  should  mirror  the  structures  of  the  blocks  as  proposed  by  the 
Member States involved, especially as evidence points out that smaller Member States may 
have difficulties to establish strong (economic) regulators10. 

Within  this  institutional  set-up,  Member  States  should  ensure  that  airspace  users,  both  civil 
and military, are  appropriately  involved and consulted in a continuous process, so that their 
needs are at the core of initiatives. 

Member States are to ensure that service providers conceive functional airspace blocks that 
fulfil the legal requirements on safety, functionality and added value. Especially with regard 
to the added value leading to the optimal use of human resources, it is important that staff is 
actively involved in the integration process. This best practice is the only way to make best 
use of the available expertise, fairly distribute the burden and gain acceptance. 

While  it  must  be  recognised  that  integrated  airspace  and  technological  management  are 
genuine  challenges,  finding  adequate  solutions  with  tangible  results  within  the  five  years 
window of opportunity is the acid test for the bottom-up approach. If discussions on technical 
issues linger on, it is an indication that the political and economic pressure by Member States 
is not sufficient and that the bottom-up approach needs to be adjusted. 

3. 

MID TERM ON FUNCTIONAL AIRSPACE BLOCKS: WHERE DO WE STAND? 

3.1 

Discussions have lifted off…. 

In all Member States work is underway. As these are grassroots initiatives in the framework 
of the bottom-up approach, they differ in form and ambition11.  

Graph 2: Overview of ongoing discussions on functional airspace blocks12 

10 
11 
12 

Eurocontrol, Performance Review Commission, 2006, p.70. 
In annex a more comprehensive overview of current initiatives is given. 
Graph  established  on  the  basis  of  information  by  states  received  mainly  through  the  Single  Sky 
committee. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
With regard to territorial coverage, air navigation service providers have started exploratory 
discussions  on  the  feasibility  of  functional  airspace  blocks  in  most  of  the  Member  States. 
Sweden and Denmark are involved in the Northern Upper Area Control project (NUAC), to 
which Norway, Finland and Estonia may become associated; Central FAB includes Belgium, 
the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  Germany  and  the  Maastricht  Upper  Area  Control  centre, 
managed  by  Eurocontrol.  There  are  three  blocks  with  a  larger  and  a  smaller  partner:  the 
Iberians, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and Poland and Lithuania. The SEE FABA project 
is re-establishing links in the Balkan region. Finally, four Member States of the original eight 
remain from the Central European Air Traffic Service project (CEATS)13. 

Initiatives spread beyond EU borders. This demonstrates the open character of the functional 
airspace block approach. Every player is looking for the model which fits best his particular 
situation. He may tackle different aspects of fragmentation with a different set of partners. 

The exceptional case of SEE FABA14 

The South East European Functional Airspace Block approach (SEE FABA) is of a particular 
nature. It promotes regional cooperation in the Balkan and offers the opportunity to reopen the 
Kosovo airspace. The Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe and the Commission took the 
lead and offered the political framework in which collaboration between the states could get 
firm grip15. 

After  a  preliminary  study  phase,  the  directors-general  of  the  states  decided  to  launch  a 
feasibility  phase  to  seek  solutions  in  the  form  of  integrated  management  to  the  forecasted 
traffic  growth  of  up  to  30%  a  year.  The  European  Common  Aviation  Area  Agreement 
extends  the  Community  aviation  market  to  all  partner  countries,  which  will  apply  the 
Community  acquis,  including  single  European  sky  regulation.  The  definition  phase  should 
deliver  concrete  results  by  2009,  so  as  to  put  the  countries  in  a  position  to  decide  on  the 
preferred options and start implementing them. 

The preparation of blocks runs through different phases. Most projects have passed through a 
‘scoping phase’ to give a rough identification of the options. Most of the initiatives currently 
are  in  the  feasibility  phase  analysing  added  value  of  the  integrated  management,  the 
appropriate model and the ways to achieve it. Some initiatives discern a separate validation 
phase.  Cost  benefits  are  necessary  ingredients  and  may  be  integrated  in  the  feasibility  or 
validation studies. 

Intensity  of  these  studies  varies  significantly  in  terms  of  efforts  and  involvement  of 
stakeholders.  Some  service  providers  invest  tens  of  full  time  equivalents  to  validate 
preliminary  findings  of  feasibility  studies  to  make  sure  that  in-house  expertise  is  put  at  the 
disposal to achieve the best results in all issues covered. Moreover, as the whole exercise is 
about increasing performance levels of air navigation service provisions, some projects devote 
specific work packages on ‘stakeholder care’, while others only foresee ‘information’. 

13 

14 
15 

These  four  states  signed  on  8.06.2006  a  statement  intended  to  give  a  fresh  impetus  to  the  CEATS 
agreement of 1997, originally signed by eight states. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_sky/framework/see_faba_en.htm 
Albania, Bosnia–Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, the Former Yugoslav 
Republic  of  Macedonia  along  with  the  United  Nations  Interim  Administration  Mission  in  Kosovo 
(UNMIK) are involved with the support of Greece, Italy, Eurocontrol, ICAO and NATO. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Intensity  of  the  preparatory  efforts  and  appropriate  involvement  of  staff  and  users  are 
indicators of the political commitment of both Member States and service providers towards 
functional airspace blocks. This commitment has, in some Member States, taken the shape of 
a  formal  agreement  between  Member  States  or  an  official  request  to  air  navigation  service 
providers to ensure compliance with single sky provisions; in other Member States, political 
support  is  expressed  by  an  explicit  role  of  national  supervisory  authorities  in  feasibility 
studies. 

3.2 

… but are only the starting point for integrated management 

Projects  are  in  an  early  phase  and  may  still  change  membership,  approach,  coverage,  etc. 
They involve a varying number of service providers, ranging from two to eight. Norway and 
Finland are observers to NUAC. Together the initiatives nearly cover the whole EU territory. 

Early indications are that tangible results of these functional airspace blocks in terms of cost 
reduction and capacity increase are modest at this stage. While the integration of airspace is a 
gradual process that must take its time, more ambition is required to generate higher benefits. 

As the current projects all envisage an integration of upper and lower airspace and hence 
cover  the  full  scope  of  air  navigation  services,  there  is  considerable  room  for  improvement 
and integration of resources management, possibly also through consolidation of centres16. 

Furthermore, on the basis of the notified initiatives, the scale of operations would increase by 
a  factor  four  for  the  main  operational  indicators.  By  comparison,  the  average  US  centre17 
controls more than 70% of the average number of flight hours controlled by an entire block in 
the  EU.  Each  block  currently  contains  more  than  seven  area  control  centres.  This  gives  an 
indication of the limited flexibility in the internal organisation of individual centres in terms 
of personnel management and functional sector design.  

16 
17 

Detailed information on centres is given in Annex I. 
Data concern the average of the area control centres of Albuquerque, Cleveland and Indianapolis, which 
were deemed most comparable to European centres. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Graph 3: Increase in scale through ongoing functional airspace blocks initiatives18 

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Provider

Block

US Centre

US Centre

Provider

s
r
u
o
h
t
h
g
Fl

i

l

s
r
e
ol
r
t
n
o
C

e
c
a
p
s
r
Ai

s
r
o
t
c
e
S

(1) For calculation purposes, Norway and Finland have been included. 
(2) “US centre” acts as a benchmark and refers to data taken from the Performance Review Commission Report 
(2003),  ‘A  comparison  of  performance  in  selected  US  and  European  En-Route  centres’,  Brussels,  98  p.  + 
annexes. 

This information indicates that the drive towards functional airspace blocks can not merely be 
the  sum  of  all  existing  technical  and  human  resources.  The  establishment  of  functional 
airspace blocks means a strategic rethinking of the organisation of air navigation services at 
a regional level to bring about added value, as required by the single European sky legislation 
and requested by users. The process of strategic rethinking is not yet at the required speed in 
all Member States to deliver concrete results by 2008. 

4. 

How will the Commission assess the initiatives in 2008? 

By the end of 2008, the Commission will assess how much progress has been made on basis 
of the legal requirements in the context of the broader single sky objectives. In this respect, 
users expect that defragmentation will lead to a significant increase in performance in terms 
of safety, capacity and cost-efficiency. 

Building  functional  airspace  is  not  a  window  dressing  exercise.  Blocks  should  not  merely 
constitute the mere sum of the components. Member states should be able to demonstrate how 
the quantitative changes have translated into a qualitative leap in service provision, not only 
in terms of flight efficiency, but also in terms of cost-effectiveness with at least the same level 
of safety as today. 

Member  States  are  to  deliver  roadmaps  towards  integrated  management  with  concrete 
measures  and  firm  timetables.  In  addition,  there  appears  to  be  considerable  scope  for 
immediate action. Indeed, some service providers already are progressing in some fields as 
harmonization of operational concepts, regionally tuned investment plans, joint procurement 
or  common  training.  A  swift  defragmentation  also  can  be  achieved  in  the  fields  where 

18 

This graph is representing the sums of the individual service providers. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
services are liberalised. This currently is the case for CNS, AIS19 and training for air traffic 
controllers. 

However, the scope for immediate cost reductions could be limited by transition costs and the 
long investment cycles in the air traffic management industry. In this context, it appears to be 
important to stress how performance indicators will be put in perspective: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

the  order  of  magnitude  of  cost  reductions  will  be  assessed  in  view  of  increase  of 
service quality or functionality, e.g. avoidance of number of choking points; 

reductions are expected to grow in time in view of decreasing transition costs; 

economies  of  scale  depend  on  the  relative  sizes  of  the  partners  or  the  size  of  the 
airspace under integrated management; 

service providers which already have consolidated in a national context may have less 
scope for cost saving solutions than other providers. 

In order to avoid delay in generating cost-savings and increasing quality and capacity of the 
system, the Commission will take due account of the combined effect of short and long term 
measures adopted in the framework of the bottom-up approach to assess its efficiency and the 
need to review it.  

On  the  basis  of  intensity  and  approach  of  current  initiatives,  it  is  clear  that  Member  States 
need to speed up efforts to obtain robust and meaningful results by end 2008. 

5. 

COMMUNITY SUPPORT 

The  Commission  supports  the  effective  establishment  of  functional  airspace  blocks  with 
different policy tools. 

5.1 

Legal tools 

The  Community  has  put  in  place  the  appropriate  regulatory  framework  to  promote  cross-
border  service  provision.  Integration  of  service  provision  will  further  be  facilitated  by 
complementing  legislation.  Recently  legislation  was  adopted  in  the  field  of  certification, 
flexible use of airspace, air traffic controller licences and airspace classification [references]. 
Legislation  on  air  navigation  charges  and  interoperability  is  in  the  final  phases  of  adoption. 
Also  legislation  outside  the  direct  single  sky  remit  is  of  particular  relevance,  like 
Directive 2003/42/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  13  June  2003  on 
occurrence reporting in civil aviation20.  

19 
20 

CNS: communication, navigation and surveillance; AIS: aeronautical information services. 
OJ L 167 of 4 July 2003 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the course of 2007, the Commission will prepare a package of amendments to the Single 
Sky  legislation,  also  with  the  view  to  extending  functional  airspace  blocks,  the  European 
Upper  Information  Region  and  route  and  sector  design  to  lower  airspace.  Common  general 
principles  for  the  establishment  and  modification  of  functional  airspace  blocks  will  be 
developed in a later phase in view of growing experience. 

5.2 

Guidance tools 

In  order  to  raise  awareness  and  facilitate  implementation,  a  series  of  guidance  tools  were 
developed. A mandate was issued to Eurocontrol with the aim to identify the main issues to 
be addressed in establishing functional airspace blocks21. Another concrete contribution is the 
model agreement between Member States on a functional airspace block by the cross border 
provision of air traffic services focus group. In addition, Eurocontrol could further develop a 
methodology  for  airspace  design  adapted  to  the  regional  situation  in  order  to  increase 
functionality, regardless of national borders. 

Outside the Eurocontrol remit, the UK presidency organised a specific seminar on the topic22; 
social  partner  organisations  adopted  a  report  on  the  implications  of  functional  airspace 
blocks23. 

5.3 

Financial support 

Through the Community programmes on Trans-European Networks, priority will be given 
to  projects  related  to  the  creation  of  functional  airspace  blocks,  in  particular  through 
feasibility  studies  and  civil-military  cooperation.  Beyond  the  financial  incentives  which  are 
given,  Community  funding  also  constitutes  an  added  value  in  forcing  the  stakeholder 
community to streamline the activities and work towards commonly agreed goals in function 
of a competitive aviation industry. 

The  establishment  of  functional  airspace  blocks  and  SESAR  become  interrelated,  as  bigger 
blocks provide for a bigger critical mass to speed up the pace of effective implementation of 
technological innovation induced by the industrial programme. Finally, the Commission will 
continue  to  pursue  ways  to  finance  common  projects  designed  to  benefit  the  Community 
ATM network. 

5.4 

Dialogue  

The  Industry  Consultation  Body  and  Air  Traffic  Management  group  of  the  social  dialogue 
committee on civil aviation are the discussion forums where all technical and social aspects 
related to the establishment of blocks can be discussed. These forums not only raise the issues 
which are important in the integration process; they also could flag up problems which may 
need to be solved through Community intervention.  

21 

22 
23 

Eurocontrol, 2005, Final report on European Commission’s mandate to support the establishment of 
functional airspace blocks, 120p with annexes 
http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses/gallery/content/public/docs/pdf/ses/FABMandateFinalReport310505.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_sky/framework/functional_airspace_fr.htm 
http://www.jatmwg.org/Detail.asp?ID=344 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Industry  and  social  partners  use  these  places  to  monitor  ongoing  initiatives  and  exchange 
information between different types of stakeholders, also in view of ensuring consistency of 
network effects and effective interfaces between different blocks. Social partners are in the 
unique position to take their fate in their own hands: they set the social agenda and may come 
to contractual relations on the management of change.  

Exchanges of views with Member States are organised within the Single Sky committee, the 
committee which assists the Commission with regard to the adoption of implementing rules in 
the  single  sky  context.  The  committee  may  be  called  to  give  an  opinion  in  the  case  that 
difficulties arise between two or more Members States concerned by a block.24 

5.5 

External policy  

As from the adoption of Single Sky, the extension of its principles to other European states 
has  been  a  constant  policy  to  make  best  use  of  the  airspace  as  a  continuum.  Initiatives  to 
establish  blocks  are  not  only  taken  in  countries  which  have  concluded  agreements  with  the 
Community, most of these in the framework of the European Common Aviation Area, like the 
Balkan  countries,  Switzerland  and  Norway.  Also  in  regions  covered  by  other  programmes, 
the  European 
like 
neighbourhood  area,  countries  have  expressed  their  interest  in  cooperation  in  the  form  of 
functional airspace blocks. 

the  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership 

Instrument 

for 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Under  the  "bottom-up"  approach  embodied  in  the  Airspace  regulation  Member  States  bear 
responsibility to tackle fragmentation at its roots. 

Functional airspace blocks are the means to transform the patchwork of fragmented systems 
into  regional  blocks.  An  increase  in  the  scale  of  operations  is  the  only  way  to  boost 
performance. By 2008, Member States are to demonstrate real progress in defragmentation. 

Nearly all Member States have started initiatives to establish such functional airspace blocks. 
However,  big  discrepancies  in  intensity  of  the  efforts  of  Member  States  and  their  air 
navigation  service  providers  are  observed.  In  addition,  all  preliminary  feasibility  studies 
highlight  the  benefits  for  users  in  terms  of  an  improved  quality  of  service,  but  the  first 
estimates of effective cost reductions appear to be marginal. 

This could indicate that ambitions of current projects are quite limited. Member States will 
have to increase efforts, as independent studies and international comparisons have revealed 
possibilities to bring about considerable cost efficiency gains. 

The Commission will evaluate in 2008 the efficiency of the bottom-up approach. It will assess 
the  need  for  the  amendment  of  the  current  legislative  framework  in  view  of  concrete 
results. 

24 

Article 5(6) of the Airspace Regulation 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex I: Basic indicators of current projects of functional airspace blocks (2004 data) 

FAB
CEATS
Central FAB 
FR - CH 
ES - PT
NUAC 

SEE-FABA 
BUL-ROM
UK-IRL 
Sum
Average FABs ***
Average ANSP ****
Factor (2)
US Centre (3)

Member States 
involved (1)
AT-BH-HU-SK
BE-DE-LU-NL
FR-CH-(IT)
ES-PT
DK-SE-(NO-FI)
AL-BH-BG-CR-
FYROM-UNMIK-RO-
SE-MO
BG-RO
UK-IE

Size of 
controlled 
airspace (km²)

Total flight-
hours 
controlled

Total 
ATCOs in 
OPS *

241.400
740.995
1.232.447
2.873.683
1.917.000

505.952
1.970.480
2.360.007
1.420.959
1.003.812

1.371.520
399.120
1.637.120
10.014.165
1.301.661
372.240
3,50
366.300,00

1.546.980
353.998
1.830.486
10.638.675
1.374.084
347.505
3,95
1.049.333

624
2.138
2.798
2.029
1.294

2.516
775
2.315
13.715
1.811
466
3,89
1.079

Number 
of sectors
4
5
88
52
5

15
22
11
180
25
18
35
39

Number of 
ACC Units 
**

4
8
7
6
9

11
3
6
51
7
2
3,38
1  

* ATCO in OPS = air traffic controllers in operations, providing air traffic control services 
** ACC = Area Control Centre 
*** FAB = functional airspace block 
**** ANSP = air navigation service provider 

(1) Insufficient information was available from Poland and Lithuania (Baltic Air Navigation Council); CY and 
EL did not indicate with which partners they intend to enter into discussions on a functional airspace block. 

(2) Factor indicates the increase of scale and has been calculated as the proportion between the average at service 
provider level and the average at functional airspace block level. 

(3) “US centre” refers to the average of three US area control centres (Albuquerque, Cleveland and Indianapolis) 
which  were  deemed  most  comparable  to  European  centres.  Figures  were  taken  from  Performance  Review 
Commission  Report  (2003),  ‘A  comparison  of  performance  in  selected  US  and  European  En-Route  centres’, 
Brussels, 98 p. + annexes. 

Annex II: Basic indicators at area control centre level - 2004 data 

FAB

CEATS
Central FAB 
FR-CH 
ES-PT
NUAC 
SEE-FABA 
BUL-ROM
UK-IE
Average
US Centres

Size per 
ACC

As % of US 
centre

ATCOs per 
ACC

As % of US 
centre

Sectors per 
ACC

As % of US 
centre

60.350
92.624
176.064
478.947
213.000
124.684
133.040
206.333
191.346
366.600

16%
25%
48%
131%
58%
34%
36%
56%
52%
100%

85,6
146,6
219,3
185,5
78,9
125,5
142,0
140,8
148,9
359,7

24%
41%
61%
52%
22%
35%
39%
39%
41%
100%

5,8
15,9
14,9
9,8
5,9
7,9
7,3
13,5
11,0
39,0

15%
41%
38%
25%
15%
20%
19%
35%
28%
100%  

EN 

14 

   EN