Working Group on Air Transport Statistics

1.  Opening address

Eurostat welcomed the participants of the Member States, EFTA, candidate and potential candidate countries, DG MOVE and other international organisations participating to the meeting (EASA and EUROCONTROL ).

Ruxandra Roman Enescu, the new head of unit E6, Transport Statistics, opened the meeting and introduced herself as new chairman of the Working Group. Hubertus Cloodt was introduced as new Domain Manager for aviation transport statistics.

Eurostat summarised the main items of this Working Group meeting: new White paper on transport, work done by the Task Force, licence agreement with ICAO, new project on GHG emissions of air transport and standardisation of the message format for data and metadata exchanges. .

2.  Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was approved without changes.

3.  Minutes of the last Working Group meeting

The minutes of the last Working Group meeting that took place on 5-6 November 2009 were adopted without changes.

4.  Developments in Community aviation policy

DG MOVE presented the main points of interest of the new Transport White Paper "A vision for the transport system of 2050", the emission reduction target (-60% of GHG emissions, compared with 1990 levels), indicative goals/benchmarks to guide policy action and possibilities for achieving the targets. DG MOVE reported about developments for aviation policy, such as work being done related to incidents reporting, the emissions trading scheme, developments in international markets and the usage of the Eurocontrol portal.

Eurostat commented that the future targets imply the collection of accurate figures for their assessment and thus highlight the need for statistics to monitor these targets.

IE suggested that one of the objectives should also be to decrease emissions for air transport as a whole, and not only emissions per flight.

IE wondered how a triple increase of capacity of the fleet could lead to a reduction of emissions.

DG MOVE explained that technical developments of the aircraft and increasing usage of bio-fuels could allow a reduction of the emissions, despite the growth of air transport activity

The UK asked for clarifying the emission reduction percentages (-60% for the transport sector).

DG MOVE replied that air traffic is expected to increase in the future. Although in terms of emissions, there is a 60% reduction target for the whole transport sector (base situation 1990), the target for air transport is that the increase rate of emissions should be lower than the air transport sector growth rate.

Conclusions:

Member States took note of the developments in Community aviation policy.

5.  Developments in aviation safety

EASA presented the current status of aviation safety strategy in Europe and information on air transport safety for commercial flights in different layouts, on the basis of the data currently available at EASA. EASA explained that relative indicators are more reliable and could be interpreted in a better way compared to indicators based on absolute values. EASA pointed out the lack of data for general aviation, which constitutes the main contributor to accidents. Reference was made to the EASA annual safety report that should be published by the end of June 2011.

CH asked to clarify the geographical scope of the figures displayed on certain slides. EASA replied that the presented figures aggregated at European level cover EASA Member States (slides 12, 13 and 14).

DK wondered what the difference is between the figures presented for fatal accidents and accidents occurrences. EASA recognised that the accident figures can be considered as underestimated because they rely on the declarations of the countries, with most probably many injury accidents not recorded here.

Conclusion:

Member States took note of the developments in aviation safety.

6.  Evolution of air transport statistics

6.1  The UK approach to the identification of Transfer Passenger Volumes and True O/D

The UK gave an insight into how they have met the challenge of better understanding market dynamics, competition and overall demand for particular services. An overview of the passenger survey operated in the UK was presented, including its methodology and coverage and the potential use of such data for modelling statistics on the true Origin/Destination of passengers. The level of confidence of the statistics produced was shown in relation with the size of the sample used. Examples of results of the survey were presented for multi-stage flights.

Eurostat asked the UK for more information about the cost of implementation of the survey.

The UK replied that the cost of implementation depends on the size of the sample, and can be cheap for small samples already giving good results using intervals that give enough confidence. The UK indicated that large samples are used in order to capture additional information. The survey needs a lot of manual intervention, meaning that the costs are essentially employment costs rather than technological costs.

DK stressed the importance to recognise the purpose and benefits of such data collection, aiming at developing new market areas and indicated that although costs may be considerable, a lot of additional information can be obtained from such data collection system.

The UK replied to DG MOVE, asking on the sample size and the level of exhaustiveness of this data collection, that it is not possible to interview 65 million passengers passing through Heathrow airport annually to have true Origin/Destination figures for this airport. This is the reason why the UK has implemented a survey, which has proven to be the most accurate method. Different periods of the day are covered, and the survey is conducted all days of the week in order to have a representative sample. A drawback of this survey is that it is not possible, for technical reasons, to cover two flights taking place simultaneously. The UK reminded that the level of the sample size should be defined depending on the level of information to be collected, and may significantly allow saving money.

DG MOVE asked the UK how the assessment of the accuracy of this method has been performed and how possible double counting is avoided it.

The UK clarified that data are accurate, given the small confidence intervals calculated on the basis of statistical methods. The method has proven to be the best alternative in the UK between accuracy and cost. Other more expensive methods are not likely to provide better results. As concerns the double counting issue, this remains possible but the weighting techniques applied allow solving this kind of problem.

The UK also confirmed to CH that the survey was conducted all along the year to take into consideration the seasonal aspects.

Conclusion:

Member States took note of the UK situation.

6.2  Report on the work of the Task Force

Eurostat proposed to first look at the presentations for items 6.2 and 6.3 and afterwards open the floor for discussion.

DK, being one of the participants of the Task Force, presented the results of the Task Force. The work focussed on the development of the collection of True Origin/Destination data, data on transfer passenger and safety related data. The presentation included a summary of the discussion for the items handled by the Task Force and the proposals for the Working Group.

Conclusion:

The Member States took note of the results of the Task.

6.3  Conclusions on the work of the TF

Eurostat presented to the participants its proposals, including an updated road map, for decision by the Working Group based on the work done by the Task Force. The proposal concerns:

-  True O/D data: of an alternative to B2 dataset, and collaboration with a group of experts using e-mails and Circa for information exchange and maybe a Task Force to be set up. This data collection should be discussed during the 2013 Working Group. Further work on True O/D data will be coordinated by Eurostat.

-  Transfer passenger data: countries should start reporting transfer passenger data via dataset C1 as proposed by the Task Force

-  Air safety related data:

o  First step: definitions for the new datasets S1 and S2 should be clarified by the end of 2011. The work will be carried out in collaboration with a group of experts (using e-mails and Circa for information exchange) under Eurostat coordination.

o  Second step: after first step ids solved, Eurostat proposed to start a voluntary data collection until 2015, with 2011 as first reference year.

Possible legislative changes will be discussed during the 2015 Working Group.

Discussion on new dataset C1

DK welcomed the fact that Eurostat is taking the lead in this matter. DK also insisted on the importance to conclude that the format of dataset C1 will be changed to include transfer passengers, with a transition period until 2015.

Eurostat indicated that countries willing to participate to the group of experts should contact Eurostat.

LT pointed out that it would not be possible to agree with the proposal until the thresholds applicable to reporting airports were defined.

Eurostat indicated that the Task Force has been discussing thresholds and proposals have been made. Eurostat proposed to present the thresholds on a separate slide on day 2 in the morning .

DK added that thresholds have been the subject of long discussions during the Task Force meetings. Concerning the new structure of dataset C1, a long derogation period should be foreseen, during which smaller airport coverage can be acceptable. This will give time for the countries to develop adequate systems at national level.

CZ indicated that there would be no problem for this country to provide the new dataset C1. CZ also stated that the road map for the other datasets is more for the future and wondered on the airport coverage for data linked to general aviation. CZ mentioned that the country is reluctant to any burden increase.

CH expressed the need for definitions and structure of the new dataset C1.

Eurostat replied to CH that this information will be made available to the countries.

CZ asked whether the modification of dataset C1 implied that airports over 5 million passenger units annually should report the new dataset C1, while airports under 5 million passenger units annually should still report the current dataset C1.

Eurostat replied to CZ that the new format should be reported for all airports, applying the thresholds currently defined. If data are not available for some airports, derogations will be foreseen according to certain thresholds. In any case, the updated dataset C1 should be used for all airports, with the information on transfer passengers only filled for airports above the threshold.

HU informed on the possibility for providing the new C1 dataset both at monthly and annual levels. HU wondered which periodicity should be applied for sending the new dataset, and indicated that taking out the airline information will imply that only one record will be provided by airport and period.

Eurostat replied to HU that new C1 data should be sent as currently performed (according to the same definitions, as currently defined in the Regulation), including transfer passengers and taking out the airline information.

NL stated that this country can also provide dataset C1 according to the new structure.

DK stated that the revision of dataset C1 will result in a simplification for data reporting (except the addition of the transfer passengers).

Eurostat concluded that the countries agreed:

-  with the new structure proposed for dataset C1

-  to start the data collection from the reference year 2011 onward according to the new structure proposed

-  that Eurostat should provide the countries with the structure of the new datasets

Air safety related data

Eurostat pointed out the remaining need to clarify definitions and informed on its intention to coordinate this work with experts from the Working Group. The aim is to start providing S1 and S2 datasets on a voluntary basis starting with 2011.

NL informed that, as concerns the safety datasets, the country faces difficulties for reporting dataset S1, with different types of information requested in this dataset not being collected anymore to lower the burden for the respondents. Consequently, NL cannot provide dataset S1 as requested. However, dataset S2 can be compiled.

CZ stated that S2 data can be made available for Prague airport, with the exception of aerial work operations. On the opposite, S1 data are not available.

DK informed that a very large part of the data is available for dataset S1 and will be provided to Eurostat once the definitions are clarified. As concerns dataset S2, the possibility to provide the data depends on the thresholds applicable, as only some data can be provided for some airports. DK indicated that the country aims at developing this concept in the future.

AT indicated that it is possible to provide dataset S1 except for large aircraft, but the country has no definitions comparable to those for dataset S2 and cannot consequently provide this dataset. However, AT will investigate the various possibilities to fill-in this dataset in the future.

AT also replied to DK, asking why the coverage could only be limited to light aircraft, that data are collected for light aircraft since 1972 according to a legal requirement. Moreover, AT is only able to split the flights between general aviation operations and commercial operations.

LT informed that the information requested in dataset S1 is not collected in this country.

DK pointed out that that the delay of T+5 months period for transmitting the data may be too short to provide the data, especially for the new dataset S1.

UK indicated that dataset S1 is refreshed every three years, and that data cannot be provided on an annual basis. This will generate some delays in the data provision for this country.

HU stated that information related to dataset S1 are not collected in the country. As concerns S2, some data were collected last year for 6 airports only (a number of airports are not providing data without Regulation).

DK remarked that countries should be careful when stating that the data are not collected, as other entities in the reporting country (such as Civil Aviation Authorities, …) might be collecting such data.