Business Model Developments in European ANS Landscape

Explore the impact of ANSP business model developments on defragmentation in the European ANS landscape. Delve into challenges, strategic options, current business models, and fragmented aspects, backed by research findings and workshop insights.

• ANSP
• Business Models
• European ANS
• Defragmentation
• Workshop

alexsis Follow

Uploaded on Mar 13, 2025 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

Presentation Transcript

1. 15 May 2019

2. How ANSP business model developments can contribute to the defragmentation of the European ANS landscape S. Buyle*, W. Dewulf, F. Kupfer, E. Onghena, H. Meersman, E. Van de Voorde FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th 15thMay 2019 15 May 2019

3. Outline 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Business model variables 4. Results 5. Conclusions Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 3

4. Challenges IFR movements in Europe predicted to grow by 15% in next seven years in the base scenario (EUROCONTROL seven-year forecast, Feb. 2019) EUROCONTROL predicts that 190 thousand flights cannot be accommodated by 2022 due to capacity constraints (EUROCONTROL seven-year forecast, Feb. 2016) Sector reforms initiated by SES and SESAR initiatives Increased competition Increased pressure on cost structures Increased incentives for innovation Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 4

5. Questions What are the strategic options for ANSPs? Which are the current business models observed? How fragmented is the European ANS landscape in terms of business models? Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 5

6. Methodology Factors & factor scores Strategic choices Factor analysis for mixed data Asset choices Typology Governance choices Strategy outcomes Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 6

7. Business model variables (1/2) Operational scope Marketable service offer Military ANS integration International ANS service offer Collaboration forms Number of alliances by type Number of joint-ventures by type Innovation strategy Number of Horizon 2020 projects Remote tower operations Factor inputs Labour to capital ratio Make-or-buy choices Outsourcing MET services Ownership structure Percentage of government owned shares Percentage of private owned shares Corporate structure Government department / Airport operator / Independent entity Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 7

8. Business model variables (2/2) Cost structure Cost share of staff costs Cost share of non-staff operational costs Cost share of depreciation costs Cost share of capital costs Unit cost of terminal services ( /movement) Unit cost of en-route services ( /flight km) Revenue structure Revenue share of terminal services Revenue share of en-route services Revenue share of marketable services Unit revenue of terminal services ( /movement) Unit revenue of en-route services ( /flight km) Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 9

9. Factor interpretation Factor % of var explained High scoring ANSPs Low scoring ANSPs Innovativeness 26,25% NATS, DFS, Skyguide, ENAV, LFV HCAA, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, M-NAV, MATS Collab. & technology invest. 13,73% LFV, Avinor, Naviair, IAA Sakaeronavigatsia, Skyguide, ARMATS, MoldATSA, UkSATSE En-route efficiency 10,15% EANS, IAA, LGS Skeyes, LVNL Outsourcing 7,77% ENAV, NATS, Skyguide, DSNA SMATSA, LFV, AustroControl Mixed alliances vs. commercial focus 5,73% LVNL, Croatia Control, Oro Navigacija, IAA HCAA, SMATSA, EANS, ANS CR, LPS Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 10

10. Innovativeness Correlations sign. at 1% ANOVA contrasts sign. at 1% En-route share -0,908 Not marketable -2,353 Terminal share -0,906 Marketable 2,353 Marketable share 0,907 National -1,830 Labour ratio -0,419 International 1,830 Gov. shares -0,547 Independent 2,001 Priv. shares 0,547 No remote towers -1,184 H2020 projects 0,630 Remote towers 1,184 Depreciation cst sh. 0,431 NATS, DFS, Skyguide, ENAV, LFV HCAA, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, M-NAV, MATS ANSP JVs 0,685 Supplier JVs 0,549 Mixed JVs 0,610 % of variance explained: 26,25% Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 11

11. Collaboration and technology investment Correlations sign. at 1% ANOVA contrasts sign. at 1% Capital cost share -0,437 No remote towers -1,093 Staff cost share 0,496 Remote towers 1,093 Terminal unit cost -0,764 Terminal unit rev. -0,764 ANSP alliances 0,564 Mixed alliances 0,642 LFV, Avinor, Naviair, IAA Sakaeronavigatsia, Skyguide, ARMATS, MoldATSA, UkSATSE % of variance explained: 13,73% Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 12

12. En-route efficiency Correlations sign. at 1% ANOVA contrasts sign. at 5% Capital cost share 0,707 No remote towers -0,582 Staff cost share -0,631 Remote towers 0,582 En-route unit cost -0,724 En-route unit rev. -0,759 EANS, IAA, LGS Skeyes, LVNL % of variance explained: 10,15% Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 13

13. Outsourcing Correlations sign. at 1% ANOVA contrasts sign. at 5% Gov. shares -0,640 Civil only 0,590 Priv. shares 0,640 Military integrated -0,590 Mixed JVs 0,543 MET in-house -0,643 MET outsourced 0,643 Gov. department 1,393 Independent -0,722 ENAV, NATS, Skyguide, DSNA SMATSA, LFV, AustroControl % of variance explained: 7,77% Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 14

14. Mixed alliance participation vs. comm. focus Correlations sign. at 1% ANOVA contrasts sign. at 5% Labour ratio -0,557 Not marketable 0,443 Mixed alliance 0,494 Marketable -0,443 LVNL, Croatia Control, Oro Navigacija, IAA HCAA, SMATSA, EANS, ANS CR, LPS % of variance explained: 5,73% Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 15

15. Typology (1/2) Factor Developing ANSPs Basic ANSPs Basic+ ANSPs Innovativeness Low Low Average Collab. & technology invest. Very low Low Average to high En-route efficiency High High Average Outsourcing Average Average High to very high Mixed alliances vs. commercial focus Average Average High to very high ANSPs UkSATSE, Sakaeronavigatsia, ARMATS, MoldATSA, Albcontrol LGS, DHMI, BULATSA, DCAC Cyprus, MATS, ROMATSA, Slovenia Control ANS Finland, M- NAV, DSNA, PANSA, NAV Portugal, IAA, Oro Navigacija, Croatia Control, LVNL, Avinor Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 16

16. Typology (2/2) Factor Market driven ANSPs Innovators Professionals Innovativeness High Very high Very high Collab. & technology invest. Low Very high Average En-route efficiency Average Average to high Average Outsourcing Low to very low Low to very low Very high Mixed alliances vs. commercial focus Low Average Average ANSPs SMATSA, ANS CR, LPS, HungaroControl, Skeyes Austro Control, LFV, Naviair, EANS NATS, ENAIRE, ENAV, Skyguide, DFS Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 17

17. Conclusions No one European ANSP business model , multiple business models exist European ANSPs differ mainly based on Level of technical and business model innovation Level of collaboration and technology investment Introduction Methodology Variables Results Conclusions FABEC & FAB CE Research Workshop, Budapest, 14th-15th May 2019 18

18. Drs. Sven Buyle Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Transport and Regional Economics sven.buyle@uantwerpen.be