Planul National de Performanta

ROMANIA
NATIONAL
PERFORMANCE
Ministry of
Transports and
Infrastructure
PLAN
for Air Navigation Services
2012 2014
Approved by Order of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure

No. 559 of 22 July 2011
ROMANIA PERFORMANCE PLAN 2012 - 2014
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 2/100

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

The following table records the complete history of the document.
EDITION NUMBER EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE
Draft 0 Version 0.1 17.12.2011 Initial draft
Draft 0 Version 0.2 21.02.2011 Updated draft
Draft 0 Version 0.3 28.02.2011 Updated draft following ANSP working meeting
Draft 0 Version 0.4 25.03.2011 Additional updates
Draft 0 Version 0.5 31.03.2011 Updated draft after the first meeting of Danube FAB
Performance Focus Group
Draft 0 Version 0.6 13.04.2011 Updated draft after PRU-NSA Romania bilateral
meeting
Draft 0 Version 0.6 14.04.2011 Draft for stakeholder consultation
Edition 01 27.06.2011 Updated draft after stakeholder consultation
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 3/100

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
1.1. The situation
1.1.1. Scope of the plan
1.2. Overall assumption for RP1
1.2.1. General economic assumption
1.2.2. Trend of traffic forecast
1.2.3. Overall status of aviation safety
1.2.4 Institutional context of ANS provisions
1.3. Stakeholder Consultation
1.3.1. Outcome of stakeholder consultation
2. National performance targets and alert thresholds
2.1 Romania Performance targets and alert thresholds for RP1
2.2. Consistency with EU-wide targets (and thresholds)
2.2.1. Capacity
2.2.2. Cost-efficiency
2.3. Carry-overs from the years before RP1
2.4. Parameters for risk sharing and incentives
3. Contribution of each accountable entity
3.1. Entity share in the national targets and individual binding performance targets
3.2. Investments
3.3. Incentive mechanisms to be applied on entities to encourage targets to be met in
RP1
4. Civil-military dimension of the plan
4.1. Performance of FUA application
4.2. Additional KPIs
5. Analysis of sensitivity and comparison with the previous performance plan
6. Implementation of the Romanian National Performance Plan
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 4/100

LIST OF ANNEXES
A. Reference documents
B. Reporting tables & Additional information, Romania En-route
C. Reporting tables & Additional information, Romania TNC
D. Extract from ANSP Business Plans
E. DANUBE FAB, Flight hours and KPIs 2005-2009
F. Extracts from State Safety Programme Romania
G. Outcome of stakeholder consultation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Romania expected evolution of macroeconomic figures

Table 2: GDP product components use
Table 3: Consumer price index 2012-2014
Table 4 Medium term fiscal and budgetary framework
Table 5: IFR Flight movements forecast
Table 6: Service units forecast
Table 7: ROMANIA national capacity and cost-efficiency targets and thresholds for RP1
(according to EU 691/2010 Regulation)
Table 8: Safety KPIs currently used at national level (according to national provisions)
Table 9: ROMATSA Safety KPIs 2009
Table 10: En-route capacity target for RP1
Table 11: Romania En-route cost-efficiency KPI for RP1
Table 12: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1
Table 13: En-route capacity target details at national level
Table 14: Summer 2010 performance ( LSSIP 2011-2015)
Table 15: Capacity profiles/Plan, 2011-2015, LSSIP 2011-2015
Table 16: Chargeable SU 2006-2009
Table 17: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route
cost-efficiency target
Table 18: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per entity (in
nominal terms in national currency)
Table 19: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per nature (in
Table 20: National real determined en-route costs in RON 2009
Table 21: Romania real en route determined unit rate (in national currency at 2009 prices
and in EUR 2009)
Table 22: National costs for terminal ANS breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in
national currency)
Table 23: Carry-overs from the years before RP1 - Under (-) and over (+) recoveries (in
Table 24: NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 5/100

Table 25: SNAIA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms

Table 26: ROMATSA determined en-route costs in nominal terms
Table 27: EUROCONTROL determined en-route costs in nominal terms
Table 28: Annual investments (Capex) in nominal terms in national currency for en-route
and terminal ANS
Table 29: Description of the main investments impacting RP1 for ROMATSA (in nominal
terms in national currency)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2006-2015

Figure 2: Delay and performance, 2006-2014, LSSIP 2011-2015
Figure 3: Capacity profile and demand, LSSIP 2011-2015
Figure 4: Evolution of determined unit rates according to SUs variations
Figure 5: Evolution of the total costs according to unforeseen changes
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 6/100

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The situation
1.1.1 Scope of the plan
(1) The Romanian National Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services 2012-2014, Ed.
01/2011 (RNPP1) has been elaborated according to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No.
691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and
network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common
requirements for the provision of air navigation services and to the Guidance Material for
national/FAB performance plans produced by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) of
EUROCONTROL in support of the Performance Review Body (PRB) of the Single European
Sky, Released Issue 23 February 2011.
(2) The RNPP1 covers the first reference period (RP1), from 1 January 2012 to 31 December
2014.
(3) The RNPP1 is elaborated and adopted at national level for RP1. For the second reference
period 2015-2019 and beyond it is envisaged to elaborate a performance plan at DANUBE
FAB level.
(4) The National Supervisory Authority (NSA) responsible for drawing up the performance plan is
the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA), designated by Order of the Romanian
Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism no. 1185/2006 as NSA responsible for the
implementation of SES legislation, including Reg. no. 549/2004 and further Regulations
adopted by the Commission for its implementation, except the security matters.
(5) The accountable entities covered by the RNPP1 are:
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA

Designation act: Ministry of Transports Order no. 2489 of December 21, 2006 for the
designation of the Autonomous Enterprise "Romanian Administration of Air Traffic Services"
ROMATSA as a provider of air traffic services for general air traffic and aviation
meteorological services
Certification: CN 01/15.12.2006, Amdt. 02/30.12.2009, valid until 15.12.2012, for the following
ANS services:
- ATS (en-route and terminal ATS);
- CNS;
- MET services
- AIS (only PIB)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 7/100

AIS Department within Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority SNAIA/RCAA

Certification: CN 05/20.06.2011, valid until 20.06.2012, for all AIS package, except PIB.
National Supervisory Authority Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority NSA/RCAA

Designation act: Order of the Romanian Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism no.
1185 of July 3, 2006.
(6) The RNPP1 geographical scope is FIR Bucureti.

(7) NSA responsible for the aggregation of performance metrics for Danube FAB
The aggregation of performance metrics for Danube FAB will be performed by the Romanian
NSA/RCAA together with the Bulgarian NSA.
1.2 Overall assumption for RP1
1.2.1 General economic assumption
Expected evolution of GDP 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Nominal GDP, EURbn * 121,7 134,6 150,5 165,8 181,2
Exchange rate RON/EUR, eop *2 4,21 4,21 4,18 4,16 4,13
Consumer prices, % y-o-y, ave *3 6,10 6,60 4,50 3,10 2,80
*1
& *3 - EUROSTAT/BMI Calculation Romania Business Forecast Report Q2-2011 *2 - National Institute of Statistics
Table 1: Romania expected evolution of macroeconomic figures
Annual
Gross domestic product components use 2011 2012 2013 2014 average rate
2012-2014
Gross domestic product 1.5 3.9 4.5 4.7 4.3
Domestic demand, of which: 1.7 4.0 4.6 4.9 4.5
- Individual final consumption of population 1.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.9
- Final consumption of the adm group. collective 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.8
- Gross fixed capital formation 3.0 5.8 7.8 8.5 7.4
Exports of goods and services 7.7 7.9 8.3 9.4 8.5
Imports of goods and services 7.3 7.7 8.1 9.6 8.5
Source: National Budget Law project for 2011 and 2012-2014
Table 2: GDP product components use
Economic increase
Macroeconomic forecast assumed that active measures improving the business environment,
reducing macroeconomic imbalances and stabilizing the banking sector will foster sustainable
economic growth and create jobs. During 2012-2014, gross domestic product will grow by an
average annual rate of 4.3%. Domestic demand will remain on an upward trend, supported in
particular by the resumption of investment process, is expected to grow by an annual average rate
4.5%.
Gross fixed capital will increase by an average annual rate of 7,4%. Individual final consumption of
the population will register an average annual rate of growth 3,9%, which is a propensity for
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 8/100

smoothing of the population consumption compared to the situation before the crisis, expecting an
increase in the propensity to save, will support the financing of investment projects.
External Trade
In the period 2012-2014 exports of goods will rise by an average annual rate 10,0%, slightly higher
than imports of goods, whose average annual rate growth is estimated at 9,8%. From 2011 to
2014, FOBFOB trade deficit is expected to increase by 28,1%, its share in GDP decreasing slightly
to 3,7%. The current account deficit will remain at around 7 billion, its share in GDP decreasing to
4,0% as estimated for 2014. Intra-EU exports and imports of goods will register average growth
rates located by 0,5 percentage points below the total exports and by 0,2 points percentage for
imports. As a feature of the period 2012-2014, a faster development of the trade with non EU
countries is reported. Thus foreign trade conducted with countries outside the EU area will have an
average growth rate of 11,3% for exports and 10,5% for imports. For the period 2012-2014 is
expected to maintain coverage of imports through exports to the EU on average 82,3% and an
increase of the extra EU by 1,1 percentage points to 80,5%.
Inflation for the period 2012-2014
The inflation reduction trend will continue, even if the pace will be lower than that observed in 2011.
Exchange rate impact will be modest, manifested in the purpose of supporting the disinflation
process. Thus, a slight nominal appreciation of the leu versus the European currency was taken
into account. Estimates were considering normal agricultural years and reduced volatility of the
price of the international oil. Thus, the inflation rate will fall gradually to the level of 2,5% at the end
of 2014, with an average of 2,8%.
-%-
2012 2013 2014
Consumer price index
- dec./dec previous year 3,5 2,8 2,5
- yearly average 4,5 3,1 2,8
Table 3: Consumer price index 2012-2014
Medium-term fiscal and budgetary framework

Restructuring public expenditure within the meaning of the current adjustment to sustainable levels
in order reduce the budget deficit and discretionary spending by targeting investment projects are
the main pillars on which medium-term budgetary framework is build. Specific medium-term
objective is the general consolidated budget adjustment to a target deficit below 3% of GDP.
Income, expenditure and general consolidated government budget deficit (% GDP)

2012 2013 2014
estimated estimated estimated
revenue 33,3 32,8 32,1
costs 36,3 35,3 34,0
deficit 3,0 2,5 1,9
Table 4: Medium term fiscal and budgetary framework
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 9/100

1.2.2 Trend of traffic forecast
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Romania - IFR Flight
H 492 521 558 595
Movements (000)
B 470 486 508 532 559
L 481 500 518 538
Romania Annual growth 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
rates H 4,9 5,8 7,0 6,8
IFR Flight Movements B 8,2 3,5 4,6 4,7 5,0
(%) L 2,4 4,0 3,5 4,0
Source: EUROCONTROL STATFOR Edition v1.0 - 23 February 2011
Table 5: IFR Flight movements forecast
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Romania Total service units
H 3.501 3.695 3.964 4.241
(000)
B 3.414 3.465 3.612 3.802 4.008
L 3.431 3.536 3.685 3.852
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Romania Service Units H 2,6 5,5 7,3 7,0
(Annual growth B 9,0 1,5 4,2 5,3 5,4
in total service units - %) L 0,5 3,1 4,2 4,5
Source: EUROCONTROL STATFOR May 2011 Update
Table 6: Service units forecast
1.2.3 Overall status of aviation safety
The Romanian State Safety Programme (draft) has been developed according to ICAO Concept of
Safety. The State Safety Programme (SSP) document was drafted by RCAA and was submitted to
the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure for approval.
One of the main objectives envisaged in the SSP is to support the stakeholders in identifying,
eliminating/ reducing all types of risks to achieve an acceptable level of safety.
RCAA actively promotes a more predictive and proactive method approach to managing safety.
As part of its current activities the RCAA continuously monitors the ATM/ANS performance and
ensure that proper actions are taken in case of more important events or in case of repeatable
ones.
Since 2006, Romania is part in the European Safety Programme developed by EUROCONTROL
and is currently undertaking activities contained by its successor European Safety Programme
Plus.
1.2.4 Institutional context of ANS provisions
(1) The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority, established by Government Decree 405/1993 as
national safety oversight and licensing authority is an autonomous self-financed, state owned
organisation. Starting with July 2006, RCAA is designated by the Ministry of Transports,
Construction and Tourism Order no. 1185/2006, published in the Official Journal of Romania
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 10/100

Part I no.602/12.07.2006, to perform the roles and responsibilities of a National Supervisory

Authority (NSA) in compliance with SES legislation, except those related to aviation security.
Starting August 2005 several organisational changes have been implemented within the
RCAA, including the full separation (at functional level) of RCAAs AIS Department
(SNAIA/RCAA), providing aeronautical information services falling under the SARPs of ICAO
Annex 15 - the whole integrated package of aeronautical information except for the PIBs,
from the RCAA departments which fulfil the role and tasks of the NSA.
(2) Civil Air Navigation Services are provided by the Romanian Air Traffic Services
Administration (ROMATSA) to all GAT-IFR. ROMATSA is an autonomous, economically
independent organisation. The tasks of ROMATSA are based on Government Decrees No.
74, dated 1991, No. 731, dated 1993, No. 75, dated 2005, 1090, dated 2006, and 1251,
dated 2007.
Flight Information Services within Bucuresti FIR are provided by Bucuresti FIC located in the
Bucharest ACC facility. Flight information services are also provided by ACC and TWR units
in their respective areas of responsibility.
For the provision of air traffic services ROMATSA operates the en-route facilities of Bucuresti
ACC which presently has two physical locations (Bucuresti as main location and Arad as
secondary location) and all the civil Aerodrome Control Towers and the Approach Control
units within Bucuresti FIR. The reduction of the Bucuresti ACC sectors physical locations
from five to three, which are operational since November 2003 by means of a new integrated
and highly interoperable ATM system significantly increased the capacity of Bucuresti ACC.
The target concept provided by the Government Decree no. 536/2000, to further reduce the
en-route physical locations to a single one in Bucharest, is currently under implementation
and will be finalised by 2011.
ROMATSA also provides Aeronautical Information Services (partly) and Meteorological
Services for civil aviation. ROMATSA also provides the technical services for the Air Traffic
Services equipment at the airports and at the en-route facilities.
Alerting service is provided by all ROMATSA ATS units.
An Administrative Council performs the high level management roles and tasks of ROMATSA
and also approves strategic decisions. Current management decisions within the frame of
ROMATSA responsibilities remain at the Board of Directors of ROMATSA.
(3) Expected changes: The certified AIS Department within RCAA (SNAIA/RCAA) is expected to
be transferred to ROMATSA by the end of 2011.
1.3 Stakeholder consultation

Initial consultation has already taken place with ANSP ROMATSA during several consultation
meetings in 2010 and 2011.
Information for the consultation meeting, including the Draft of RNNP1 was sent to the
stakeholders on 14.04.2011, three weeks in advance of the consultation meeting.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 11/100

1.3.1 Outcome of stakeholder consultation
Romanian CAA and the Directorate General "Civil Aviation Administration" Ministry of Transport,
Information Technology and Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria, designated as National
Supervisory Authorities, conducted the consultation process as follows:
- on 05 May, 2011, a consultation meeting with representatives of airspace users, was held
in Bucharest, at Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration "ROMATSA" Headquarters ;
- the meeting agenda is presented in Appendix G1,
- invitations were sent on 14 April, 2011 by e-mail and fax (Appendix G2),
- the guest list is presented in Appendix G3,
- the matters discussed, comments and observations on the national plans of performance
(Romanian and Bulgarian) were transposed in a minute (Appendix G4).
On 18 May 2011, IATA representatives made in writing a series of observations and comments on
the Romanian Performance Plan (Appendix G5). Romanian CAA sent their response to these
observations and comments on 16 June, 2011 (Appendix G6).
Subsequent discussions held by e-mail are listed in Appendix G7.
2. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS
2.1 Romania Performance targets and alert thresholds for RP1
This section presents for each KPA, the KPIs and associated targets adopted at national level for
RP1. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 691/2010 national performance targets are set for two of
the four KPAs: capacity and cost efficiency for en-route. No specific national alert threshold for
capacity where set.
For RP1 Romania has not included additional KPIs in the RNPP1.
National Targets National
KPA KPI
2012 2013 2014 Thresholds
En-route ATFM delay No alert threshold is
Capacity 0 0 0
(minutes per flight) proposed for RP1
Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the
actual traffic versus
the traffic forecasts
Determined en-route
below
Cost-efficiency unit rate (2009 prices 151,44 146,06 140,81
Deviation over a
in national currency)
calendar year by at
least 10% of the
actual costs at EU-
wide level versus the
reference costs below
Table 7: ROMANIA national capacity and cost-efficiency targets and thresholds for RP1
(according to EU no. 691/2010 Regulation)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 12/100

(1) Safety performance targets currently used at national/ANSP level
The safety monitoring process is mainly based on the results raising from safety oversight visits
(audits/ inspections) performed by NSA/ RCAA at certified ANS/ ATM providers, occurrences
reports and safety assessments conclusions.
In the second period of January each year the results of safety monitoring activities carried out
according to Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) 1315/2007 are internally analyzed and the conclusions are
presented in a formal Monitoring Report.
The above mentioned Monitoring Report is the base for the Annual Safety Oversight Report,
produced according to Art. 14 of Regulation (EC) no. 1315/2007. This Annual Safety Oversight
Report is taken into consideration for drafting Annual SES Reports, required by Art. 12 of
Regulation (EC) no. 549/2004.
Minimum
Target level of Alert threshold
Risk category accepted level of
safety level of safety
safety
In progress
Table 8: Safety KPIs currently used at national level
(according to national provisions)
Minimum
Target level of Alert threshold
Risk category accepted level of
safety level of safety
safety
1. Aircraft incident risks
Accident number probability 10-8 (effective value 10-6 (effective value By event
(of ATM direct or indirect 0) 0)
contribution)
Serious incidents number 10-6 (effective value 10-4 (effective value By event
probability 0) 1 incident/year)
(of ATM direct or indirect
contribution)
Major incidents number 10-4 (effective value 10-3 (effective value By event
probability 1 incident/year) 9 incidents/year)
contribution)
Significant incidents number 10-3 (effective value 10-2 (effective value By 40 events
probability 9 incidents/year) 90 incidents/year)
contribution)
No immediate effect on safety 10-2 (effective value 10-1 (effective By 400 events
number probability 90 incidents/year) value
(of ATM direct or indirect 900 incidents/year)
contribution)
2. ATM specific risks
Specific ATM events number 0 events/year 0 events/year By event
probability that determined total
incapacity to provide safe ATM
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 13/100

services and total time.

Specific ATM events number 1 events/year 9 events/year By event
probability that determined
serious incapacity to provide
safe ATM services and total
time
Specific ATM events number 9 events/year 90 events/year By 30 events
major incapacity to provide
safe ATM services and total
time
Specific ATM events number 90 events/year 900 events/year By 300 events
significant incapacity to
provide safe ATM services and
total time (provide safe but
Inaccurate ATM services)
Specific ATM events number 900 events/year 9.000 events/year By 3.000 events
probability with no immediate
effect on safety
Table 9: ROMATSA safety KPIs 2009
Current target levels of safety were determined/ derived/ set taking into account the provisions of
existing requirements as contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No.2096/2005 of 20 December
2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services and ESARR 4,
as well as different ICAO, EC, EUROCONTROL, EUROCAE, etc documents in connection with:
- ANS risk classification schemes (EC Draft advisory material for Draft IR Establishing a Risk
Classification Scheme for the Design of the ATM Functional System Edition 0.7 from December
2008);
- safety minima (EUROCONTROL Safety minima study: Review of existing standards and
practices - SRC Doc 1, Edition 1.0 from 20.12.2000);
- Aircraft accidents/ incidents historical data (EUROCONTROL Aircraft accidents / incidents
and ATM contribution. Review and Analysis of Historical Data Edition 3.0 from 12.12.2002);
Deriving safety objectives (EUROCAE ED-125 Process for Specifying Risk Classification Scheme
and Deriving Safety Objectives in ATM draft from 05.01.2009).
As indicated at the beginning of this section, ROMANIA does not apply any optional targets for the
safety KPIs that have been defined for RP1, but will monitor and publish performance against these
indicators as required. The following is an overview of relevant activities in relation to the safety
KPIs.
(a) Effectiveness of safety management
The effectiveness of safety management is already assessed by NSA/RCAA using the Safety
Framework Maturity Survey methodology, defined by EUROCONTROL, in line with ICAO and EU
safety requirements and covering the following areas: general safety, safety achievement, safety
assurance and safety promotion. The Safety Maturity Survey evaluates the progress made by an
ANSP regarding the effectiveness of its safety management system. The results of these
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 14/100

processes are taken into account for continuous improvement of safety management at both NSA
and ANSP levels, respectively safety oversight and provision of Air Navigation Services.
The effectiveness of safety management will be assessed during RP1 according to the
methodology that will be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1.
During RP1 NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this key performance indicator.
(b) Application of the severity classification
One version of Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) is currently in use in ROMATSA for experimental
purposes i.e. to check the results obtained by applying internal procedures that are based on the
severity schemes of ESARR 2, versus the RAT results.
During RP1 the severity classification of RAT will be applied according to the methodology that will
be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1 and NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this
key performance indicator.
(c) Reporting of Just Culture
NSA/RCAA and ANSPs have developed a just culture environment for many years. A joint
declaration at NSA/RCAA and Ministry of Transports level regarding the enhancement of an open
reporting/ just culture environment is in place since 2006.
ROMATSA has participated already in two Just Culture Surveys carried out on behalf of
EUROCONTROL. The results were evaluated and improvement measures are established.
During RP1 NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this key performance indicator according to the
methodology that will be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1.
(2) Capacity targets and threshold
The capacity target adopted at national level, presented in Table 10 below is consistent with the
reference value provided for Romania by EUROCONTROL capacity planning process.
For RP1 Romania has considered that no national alert threshold needs to be set.
2012 2013 2014

Capacity KPI
Value Value Target
Minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight 0 0 0
Table 10: En-route capacity target for RP1
(3) Environment
For RP1, Romania has no national KPI for the environment. However, taking into account
international requirements on reducing environmental impact, at national level, several initiatives
and specific actions have been developed and are currently under deployment, namely:
(a) The Implementation, by ROMATSA, of an Environmental Management System according
with ISO 14001:2004 based on the following principles:
- environmental performance continuous improvement;
- reduced environmental impact procedures implementing;
- rationalized energy, materials, processes;
- promoting the environmental culture.
(b) Supporting flight efficiency and emission reductions through:
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 15/100

- Operational opportunities to minimize flight time and reduce fuel use and emissions
through shorter routes wherever possible.
ROMATSA successfully applies the following methods to reduce flight time, fuel use and
emissions:
- Direct to clearances given by ATC as shortcuts;
- Good civil/military coordination and Flexible Use of Airspace;
- Optimum flight level allocation;
- Continuous climb departures often given.
- Efficient TMA design and utilisation, through implementation and enforcement wherever
possible of procedures continuous descent approaches (CDAs) or continuous descent
operations (CDO) and improved terminal control area operations activity.
- ROMATSA improved procedure at Timisoara which led to noise and fuel reduction
through:
- holding patterns away from the city;
- separation obtained mainly by speed reduction;
- increased capacity, reduced flying time by 10 minutes;
- In order to determine an optimal landing trajectory (continuous descent approach)
that leads to fuel and noise reduction on the slope of the landing, ROMATSA has
participated in two projects:
2005 2006 (Working Group members: ROMATSA, TAROM: B737-300/500 /
ATR42 pilots, Henri Coanda Airport, Romanian CAA and EUROCONTROL)
- 50 non-B-CDA flights assessed for reference and - 19 B-CDA flights.
The role of this project was to develop procedures to identify problems and its
application. Opinions of ROMATSA air traffic controllers involved in this
project were assessed, analyzed and used by EUROCONTROL in the
development of the document with the international movement "CDA
Implementation Guidance Information, EUROCONTROL, August 2007.
2009 (WG members: ROMATSA, TAROM: A318 pilots, Henri Coanda Airport,
Romanian CAA and AIRBUS)
63 non-CDA flights assessment
50 CDA flights.
- Route redesign process by creating more direct flights routes in DANUBE FAB airspace.
A daily saving of 19,4 hours may be obtained in DANUBE FAB. This equals 7.081 hours
per year or 1,8% of the present controlled flight hours in the Bulgarian and Romanian
airspaces. In this case, the daily distance saving is 8.058,84 NM, the daily fuel saving is
54.442,54 kg and the CO2 reduction is 171.144,98 kg.
(4) Cost- efficiency
2012 2013 2014

Cost-efficiency KPI
Target Target Target
Real en-route determined unit rate
(in national currency at 2009 prices) 151,44 146,06 140,81
Table 11: Romania En-route cost-efficiency KPI for RP1
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 16/100

2.2. Consistency with EU-wide targets (and thresholds)
EU-wide targets
KPA KPI EU-wide thresholds
2012 2013 2014
According to Annex I, section 1.1 of the 691/ 2010 (EU) Regulation no target and
Safety
associated thresholds have been set
Deviation over a
calendar year by at
Minutes of en-route
Capacity 0,50 least 10% of the actual
ATFM delay per flight
traffic versus the traffic
forecasts below
Improvement of the Deviation over a
average horizontal en- calendar year by at
Environment route flight efficiency 0,75 least 10% of the actual
indicator compared to traffic versus the traffic
2009 (in % points) forecasts below
Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the actual
traffic versus the traffic
Average EU-wide
forecasts below
determined unit rate
Cost-efficiency 57,88 55,87 53,92 Deviation over a
for en-route ANS (in
calendar year by at
euros 2009)
least 10% of the actual
costs at EU-wide level
versus the reference
costs below
References for the activation of the thresholds
Reference en-route traffic at EU-wide
level (in thousands en-route service 108.776 111.605 114.610
units)
Reference determined en-route costs
at EU-wide level (in million Euros 6.296 6.234 6.179
2009)
Table 12: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1
2.2.1. Capacity
The assessment for consistency with the European-wide performance targets of the capacity
targets of National/FAB Performance Plans is based on reference values provided by
EUROCONTROLs capacity planning process:
- for 2012 0,7 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes;
- for 2014 0,5 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes, as
adopted by the European Commission.
For the RP1 the Romania reference values for capacity are:
- for 2014 0,00 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 17/100

For the RP1 the reference values for Danube FAB are:
- for 2014 0,08 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes.
Romania ATFM delays were zero for both en-route and terminal service provision recorded in the
previous timeframe and there are not foresee any delays caused by internal or external issues
(weather, environment issues, airport delays, aerodrome or ATC capacity problems) in the future.
Consequently, we envisage that ATFM delays per flight and per minute will remain at the same
level and setting any alert thresholds is not considered necessary at this stage for RP1.
2009A 2010A
2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
Actual en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight 0 0 0
Reference value from the capacity planning process of 0 0 0
EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight)
% n/n-1
National capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in 0 0 0
minutes per flight)
% n/n-1
Difference between the target and the reference value
Table 13: En-route capacity target details at national level
Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2006-2015
LRBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays
Enroute Delay (minutes per flight)

2500 1.0
IFR flights (Daily Average)
0.9
2000 0.8
0.7
1500 0.6
0.5
1000 0.4
0.3
500 0.2
0.1
0 0.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak Day Traffic 1622 1659 1679 1825 1874

Summer Traffic 1332 1385 1416 1385 1520
Yearly Traffic 1136 1182 1212 1186 1284
Summer Traffic Forecast 1617 1717 1805 1899 2012
High Traffic Forecast - Summer 1668 1792 1913 2058 2203
Low Traffic Forecast - Summer 1551 1614 1691 1763 1835
Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Figure 1: Traffic and en-route ATFM delays, 2006-2015
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 18/100

Summer 2010 performance

En-route Delay (min/flight)
Traffic 2010 Capacity Capacity
Evolution Baseline Optimum All Without gap
reasons weather
+ 9.7% 183 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 No
Average en-route ATFM delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2010, the same as in
Summer 2009
Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet
demand Comment
ATS route network and sectorisation improvements
Summer 2010 performance assessment
The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2010. It was
calculated with NEVAC, giving the potential capacity of the ACC. The delivered capacity,
calculated with ACCESS, was 123. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 16
sectors was opened, the peak 1 hour demand was 113 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was
104, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in
the system.
Table 14: Summer 2010 performance ( LSSIP 2011-2015)
Planning Period 2011-2015
En route delay actual performance and EU delay breakdown 2012-2014

The planning period 2011-2015 includes the first SES reference period (2012 to 2014) of the
performance regulation. As a result, the following EU en-route delay targets were considered:
For 2014:
0,5 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes, as
adopted by the European Commission
For 2012 and 2013
0,7 and 0,6 minutes, respectively, average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and
for all causes, as recommended by the PRB.
The EU en-route delay target was broken down at ANSP and ACC level by EUROCONTROL. The
en-route delay performance (2006-2010) and the EU delay breakdown for the period 2012 to 2014
are presented in the figure below.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 19/100

LRBBACC
0.50
Yearly delay per flight (all reasons)

EU delay breakdown
0.40
Delay (min) per flight
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 2: Delay performance 2006-2014, LSSIP 2011-2015
Summer Period 2011-2015

The planning is focusing on the summer season to reflect the most demanding period of the year
from a capacity perspective. This keeps consistency with the previous planning cycles.
Summer en-route ATFM delay breakdown
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
LRBBCTA
0.00* 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.03**
Capacity Profiles
2010 Profiles (hourly movements and % yearly increase)
ACC
Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
H 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0%
Ref. 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0%
LRBB 183
L 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0%
C/R 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0%
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Measures planned ATS route network and sectorisation improvements
Significant Events
Max sectors 20 20 20 20 20
Capacity increase Sufficient capacity to meet demand
Reference profile 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 15: Capacity profiles/Plan, 2011-2015, LSSIP 2011-2015
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 20/100

LRBBCTA - Capacity profile and demand
200
180
160
Capacity / Demand (movements per hour)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2011-2015 Reference Capacity Profile 183 183 183 183 183
Demand / Shortest Routes - Peak 3 106 113 120 126 133 141
Demand / Current Routes - Peak 3 108 115 121 127 135 142
Demand / Shortest Routes - Peak 1 119 126 133 141 149 156
Capacity Baseline 183
2011-2015 Planning Period Outlook

No problems are foreseen for Bucharest ACC in the current planning cycle
Figure 3: Capacity profile and demand (LSSIP 2011-2015)
2.2.2. Cost-efficiency
(1) En-route SU Forecast
For the calculation of the determined unit rate for the first reference period Romania has used the
latest STATFOR forecast, baseline scenario May 2011 update.
Analyzing the number of actual service units versus planned for the past timeframe 2006-2010
resulted the following:
for the period 2006-2009, as shown in table 16 below, differences between actual and
planned service units in accordance to the cost base are important showing a deviation of
minus 5% on average.
CHARGEABLE SU 2006 2007 2008 2009
PLANNED SU according to Romania cost-bases (000) 3.400 3.533 3.200 3.109
ACTUAL SU (000) 3.224 3.144 3.135 3.008
N/(N-1) ACTUAL SU -2,48% -0,29% -4,05%
ACTUAL/PLANNED SU -5,18% -11,01% -2,03% -3,25%
Table 16: Chargeable SU 2006-2009
as for the year 2010, the traffic actually grew and the variation of actual vs planned turned
into a positive figure, influenced artificially by an imposed decision to reduce the national
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 21/100

unit rate for the first two months of the year.

although, we are sceptical about the future optimistic increase in traffic, we have used for
the RP1 the baseline scenario recommended by the PRU guidelines for Performance Plans.
2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
En-route total service 3.133 3.321 3.538
units prior to RP1(000)
Forecast total service 3.612 3.802 4.008
units used for the
determined unit rate
(000)
Source: STATFOR (baseline scenario)
% n/n-1 +6,0% +6,5% +2,1% +5,3% +5,4%
STATFOR service units 3.133 3.414 3.465 3.612 3.802 4.008
forecast (Baseline (3.537)*
scenario in 000s)
Date of STATFOR SU MAY 2011
forecast:
% n/n-1 +8,9% +1,5% +4,2% +5,3% +5,4%
* According to final cost base submitted to EUROCONTROL CRCO in November 2010;
Table 17: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route
cost-efficiency target
(2) Determined en-route ANS costs in nominal terms

The following assumptions were used:
- for the year 2009 and 2010 figures are actual;
- for 2011, costs figures are in accordance with the final cost base submitted to
EUROCONTROL CRCO in November 2010 including traffic forecast;
- for RP1 costs are influenced by the following elements:
- the estimation of the compensation packages for the relocation of the ACC staff from
Arad and APP Cluj locations to Bucharest;
- the estimation on the influences of the legislation regarding the statute of technical non-
navigating staff;
- the level of wages foreseen for the new work agreement;
- increase in depreciation costs due to reevaluation requested by the national law.
As it is shown in the tables below Romania costs in nominal terms are expected to grow by an
average of 4,0% for RP1, increase generated by a higher inflation (+3,5% for RP1) and also by a
major increase in depreciation (+25,6% in RP1).
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 22/100

ANS en-route
Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
cost per entity
ANSP ROMATSA 000 RON 511.704 544.988 581.748 598.795 628.327 657.387
% n/n-1 6,50% 6,75% 2,93% 4,93% 4,62%
NSA RCAA 000 RON 10.878 10.235 8.309 8.586 8.937 9.279
% n/n-1 -5,92% -18,81% 3,33% 4,09% 3,83%
SNAIA RCAA
(aeronautical 000 RON 3.481 4.284 4.760 4.874 4.975 5.056
information costs)
% n/n-1 23,05% 11,12% 2,40% 2,07% 1,64%
EUROCONTROL costs* 000 RON 37.682 38.169 33.030 34.253 34.462 35.228
% n/n-1 1,29% -13,46% 3,70% 0,61% 2,22%
Total determined costs
000 RON 563.745 597.675 627.846 646.508 676.701 706.950
in nominal terms
% n/n-1 6,02% 5,05% 2,97% 4,67% 4,47%
* Exchange rate used for EUROCONTROL costs for RP1 is 1 euro = 4,09484lei (April 2011 exchange rate)
Table 18: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per entity
(in nominal terms in national currency)
ANS en-route cost per Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
nature
Staff 000 RON 361.235 383.659 409.183 404.374 422.354 440.127
% n/n-1 6,21% 6,65% -1,18% 4,45% 4,21%
Other operating costs 000 RON 84.426 94.542 106.417 93.973 100.486 108.299
% n/n-1 11,98% 12,56% -11,69% 6,93% 7,78%
EUROCONTROL costs 000 RON 37.682 38.169 33.030 34.253 34.462 35.228
% n/n-1 1,29% -13,46% 3,70% 0,61% 2,22%
Depreciation 000 RON 38.282 35.298 36.098 62.254 67.695 71.542
% n/n-1 -7,80% 2,27% 72,46% 8,74% 5,68%
Cost of capital 000 RON 42.120 46.007 43.119 51.654 51.705 51.754
% n/n-1 9,23% -6,28% 19,79% 0,10% 0,10%
Total determined costs
000 RON 563.745 597.675 627.846 646.508 676.701 706.950
in nominal terms
% n/n-1 6,02% 5,05% 2,97% 4,67% 4,47%
Table 19: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per nature
(3) Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms
National real determined costs expressed in RON 2009 will increase with an average rate of
+0,02% in 2014 versus 2009 and +0,55% in 2014 versus 2011.
Inflation forecast taken into account is in accordance with EUROSTAT estimations as analysed in
item 1.2, tables 1 and 3.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 23/100

Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Total determined costs in
000 RON 563.745 597.675 627.846 646.508 676.701 706.950
nominal terms
Inflation %* 6,10% 6,60% 4,50% 3.10% 2.80%
Inflation index (100 in 2009) 100 106,10 113,10 118,19 121,86 125,27
Total determined costs in real
563.745 563.313 555.112 546.997 555.328 564.349
terms (RON 2009)
% n/n-1 -0,08% -1,46% -1,46% 1,52% 1,62%
* EUROSTAT/BMI Calculation Romania Business Forecast Report Q2-2011
Table 20: National real determined en-route costs in RON 2009
(4) Real en-route determined unit rate

As for the real national determined en-route unit rate for RP1 in national currency in 2009 prices
the trend will have the expected evolution, as the annual average reduction is foreseen to be -
4,78% in 2014 versus 2009 or -3,55% in 2014 versus 2011.
The determined costs and the total en-route service units for 2011 are in accordance with the final
cost base submitted to EUROCONTROL CRCO in November 2010.
The actual costs for 2011 are detailed in Annex B and reveal an increase of the depreciation costs
and the cost of capital with 41,6% respectively 12,8% in comparison with 2010 actual costs and
38,5% and 20,3% in comparison with the final cost base (November 2010).
Romania is making significant efforts in 2011 to reduce other costs in order to compensate the
increase of the depreciation costs and the cost of capital.
The differences between the traffic forecast used in November 2010 and STATFOR baseline
scenario May 2011 update reveals an important reduction of the en-route service units by -2,04%.
Average per
annum
2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
2009- 2011-
2014 2014
Determined costs in real
563.745 563.313 555.112 546.997 555.328 564.349 0,02% 0,55%
terms (000 2009 RON)
Total en-route SUs (000) 3.133 3.414 3.537 3.612 3.802 4.008 5,0% 5,0%
Real en-route
determined unit rate in
179,94 165,00 156,94 151,44 146,06 140,81 - 4,79% - 3,55%
national currency
(at RON 2009)
% n/n-1 - 8,30% - 4,88% - 3,51% - 3,55% - 3,60%
2009 Exchange rate
4.23303
(1 EUR = )
Real en-route determined
unit rates (in EUR2009) 42,51 38,99 37,08 35,78 34,51 33,26 - 4,79% - 3,55%
EUR at 2009 exchange rate)
% n/n-1 -4,88% - 3,51% - 3,55% - 3,60%
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 24/100

EU-wide target: average

determined en-route unit 57,88 55,87 53,92 - 3.20% - 3.50%
rate (in 2009 EUR)
Table 21: Romania real en-route determined unit rate
(in national currency at 2009 prices and in EUR 2009)
(5) Terminal ANS costs

Romania has decided to apply Regulation (EU) 691/2010 and Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 only on
Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport, the only airport in Romania that is above the
threshold of 50.000 commercial movements per year. This decision was taken following the
analysis of different scenarios on the establishment of terminal charging zones and consultations
held with users in 2009. An important majority of the users participating at the consultation
supported the application of the Regulation and the establishment of charging zone only for
Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport and the continuation of the current charging system
at all the other airports.
Terminal services for Bucharest airports (airports Henri Coanda - LROP and Aurel Vlaicu - LRBS)
are provided by a single unit, some of the technical and administrative services being shared. In
order to provide a breakdown of costs between these airports a sharing key based on the relative
proportion of the wages of dedicated staff for each airport has been used. From January 2010
actual costs of Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport are accounted separately.
Service units are calculated with an exponent of 0,7 formula.
The following flights are exempted from the terminal charges:

- Romanian military aircraft;
- Foreign military aircraft for which bilateral agreements are in force, on request of the Romanian
Ministry of National Defense,
- Aircraft performing flights exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning
Monarch and his/her immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government
Ministers. In all cases, this must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark
on the flight plan;
- Aircraft performing flights for the benefit of the United Nations Organization, Red Cross or Red
Crescent Organization;
- Civil aircraft performing search and rescue flights or transporting personnel and materials for
such actions;
- Aircraft carrying out humanitarian flights and providing urgent assistance;
- Aircraft forced to land due to technical reasons, bad weather or other force majeure reasons;
- Aircraft forced to land by order of the Romanian competent authorities;
- Other aircraft according to the law provisions.
Other aircraft may be exempted from the payment of charges, totally or in part, with the approval of
the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 25/100

The costs of the exempted flights are deducted from the cost base according to the Regulation.
The current legislation for the reimbursement of the costs of exempted flights from the state budget
is limited to the en-route services. Until the legislation changes to include the exempted flights at
Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport in the reimbursement mechanism, the terminal
services costs for the exempted flights will be supported from the return on equity.
Entity Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
ANSP ROMATSA costs 000 RON 32.634 34.263 38.038 40.699 42.186
% n/n-1 5% 11% 7% 3,7%
NSA RCAA costs 000 RON 343 415 427 440 452
% n/n-1 20,99% 2,89% 3,04% 2,73
Total terminal costs in nominal
000 RON 32.977 34.678 38.465 41.139 42.638
terms
% n/n-1 5,16% 10,92% 6,95% 3,64%
Table 22: National costs for terminal ANS breakdown per entity
(6) Interdependencies between targets
For setting and achieving the performance targets Romania considers that safety should not be
influenced/compromised.
The RNPP1 has to ensure that the level of determined costs also enables investments to deliver
high quality services and to ensure a high level of safety and improve environmental efficiency.
It is important to note that, although no targets have been set in the areas of safety and
environment, these areas have been fully considered in the planning for performance in the period
covered by RP1. The cost-efficiency and capacity targets are considered achievable whilst
maintaining high safety standards and continuing efforts to improve horizontal flight efficiency
2.3 Carry-overs from the years before RP1
Carry-over To 2009 To 2010 To 2011 To 2012 To 2013 To 2014 To 2015 To RP2

from
2003
2004
2005
2006 -17.228 -17.121
2007 -9.708 - 9.133
2008 -19.374 -34.694 - 4.055
2009 -10.213 -10.213 -10.213
2010 11.814 10.213
2011
Total -26.936 -45.628 -44.907 -2.454 0
Table 23: Carry-overs from the years before RP1 - Under (-) and over (+) recoveries
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 26/100

2.4 Parameters for risk sharing and incentives
(1) Safety and environment

No targets at national level and consequently no incentives have been set for safety for RP1.
(2) Capacity
Taking into account that Romania has not encountered in the past any delay problems, the target
for the KPI Delays in ATFM per route and per flight is zero. Hence incentives are not necessary
for RP1.
(3) Cost-efficiency
The incentive used by Romania for cost-efficiency is the mandatory risk-sharing mechanism
defined in Article 11a of the Charging Regulation (i.e. Article 11a.1 for traffic risk and 11a. 2 for cost
risk).
Traffic Risk
The NSA, MET and AIS provided by RCAA (according to Article 1 of Regulation (EU) no.
691/2010) are not subject to traffic risk sharing under the Performance Scheme.
The following traffic risk mechanism is applied by RCAA:

where, over a given year the number of actual total service units is not lower or higher by
more than 2% of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the loss or
additional revenue of ROMATSA will not be carried over;
where, over a given year, the total actual number of service units is higher by more than 2%
than the forecast established at the beginning of the RP1, 70% of the additional revenues of
ROMATSA in excess of 2% shall be returned to airspace users.
where, over a given year, the total actual number of service units is lower by more than 2%
than the forecast established at the beginning of the RP1, 70% of the loss of revenues
incurred by ROMATSA in excess of 2% shall be borne by airspace users.
Cost risk
ROMATSA, the NSA/RCAA and SNAIA/RCAA will bear any shortfall or surplus in revenues
compared to determined costs during the course of RP1. Variations in EUROCONTROL costs will
be recoverable in full form the users as they fall within the category of international agreements
within the Charging Regulation.
In accordance with Regulation (EU) 1191/2010, article 11a, cost risk sharing mechanism will not
apply to the difference between actual and determined costs which may be deemed to be out of
control of ROMATSA or NSA/RCAA as a result of:
unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulation;
unforeseen changes in to national taxation law;
unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan but required by
national law;
unforeseen changes in costs and revenues stemming from international agreements;
major changes in interest rates on loans.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 27/100

3. CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ACCOUNTABLE ENTITY
3.1 Entity share in the national targets and individual binding performance targets
(1) NSA / RCAA Supervision costs

Although the national supervisory authority (NSA)/RCAA costs have only a small contribution to the
national determined unit rate, the Romanian NSA is accountable for the national cost-efficiency
target. The NSA/RCAA costs comprise: staff costs, other operating costs, depreciation costs and
capital costs. The cost base of RCAAs safety and economic regulation of en-route NSA is charged
directly to ROMATSA.
Tables 24 presents the NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms for RP1.
Costs by nature (000 Ron) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Staff costs 6.234,27 5.189,89 5.514,17 5.686,08 5.849,93
Other operating costs 2.966,32 2.311,76 2.456,73 2.574,82 2.692,20
Depreciation 401,91 238,52 271,70 282,30 293,87
Cost of capital 632,02 570,89 343,20 393,80 443,10
TOTAL Costs 10.234 8.309,16 8.585,80 8.937,00 9.279,10
Table 24: NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms
(2) SNAIA / RCAA Aeronautical information services costs
Air Navigation and Aeronautical Information Department (SNAIA) is part of the organizational
structure of RCAA and its mission is to ensure the flow of aeronautical information and data in
accordance with the requirements necessary for the quality, safety, efficiency and regularity of
national and international air traffic.
To meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) no. 549/2004 on the separation, at least at the
functional level, from the supervisory authority of the air navigation service provider, in 2005 SNAIA
structure was subordinated directly to the Director General. Since 2005 the accounting for SNAIA is
kept separately from the NSA/RCAA part.

Staff costs 3.087,86 3.155,53 3.222,07 3.320,92 3.409,27
Other operating costs 1.054,09 1.396,28 1.417,11 1.419,08 1.413,50
Depreciation 141,59 208,19 235,02 234,60 233,33

Cost of capital 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL Costs 4.283,54 4.760,00 4.874,20 4.974,60 5.056
Table 25: SNAIA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 28/100

(3) ROMATSA Air navigation service provider costs

Staff costs 374.337 400.839 395.638 413.347 430.868
Other operating costs 90.522 102.710 90.099 96.492 104.194
Depreciation 34.754 35.651 61.747 67.178 71.015

Cost of capital 45.375 42.548 51.311 51.311 51.311
TOTAL Costs 544.988 581.748 598.795 628.328 657.388
Table 26: ROMATSA determined en-route costs in nominal terms
(4) EUROCONTROL Costs

EUROCONTROL costs 38.169 33.030 34.253 34.462 35.228
Table 27: EUROCONTROL determined en-route costs in nominal terms
3.2 Investments
The SESAR programme is expected to develop an interoperable pan-European ATM system

capable of meeting future demand.
All RP1 investments are intended to provide benefits to ROMATSA customers, either directly
through improving the level of services provided or indirectly by decreasing user charges through
improving operational efficiency.
nr. CAPEX expenditure

Currency 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
crt (national currency)
1 Mode S radars installation MRON 0.00 0.90 5.50 11.00 0.00 0.00
2 A-SMGCS MRON 0.00 0.00 13.70 1.70 0.00 0.00
3 DATA LINK CPDLC MRON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50
ATM System ROMATSA

4 MRON 0.00 0.00 5.10 67.30 127.80 132.00
2015+
5 ADS-B MRON 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 4.60
Sub-total main Capex

MRON 0.00 0.90 24.70 80.00 128.30 137.10
above
Sub-total others Capex MRON 29.10 48.00 89.00 24.50 21.30 14.80
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 29/100

nr. CAPEX expenditure

Currency 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
crt (national currency)
Total Capex MRON 29.10 48.90 113.70 104.50 149.60 151.90

Table 28: Annual investments (Capex) in nominal terms in national currency
for en-route and terminal
ATM
Mode S DATA
System
CAPEX Project ID radars A-SMGCS LINK ADS-B
ROMATSA
installation CPDLC
2015+
Domain (ex. ATM Systems, C,
CNS CNS CNS ATM CNS
N, S,..)
Allocation en-route/terminal R- 85% R 85%
T- 100% R 100% R-100%
ANS T 15% T 15%
Assessed impact on
high avg avg high avg
Performance Targets
(Planned) Start date of
2011 2011 2013 2011 2011
investment project
(Planned) Commissioning date
2012 2012 2015 2014 2015
of investment
Lifecycle (Amortisation periods
12 12 12 4 12
in years)
Planned total Capex (in
17.40 15.40 1.00 332.20 5.00
national currency) mil lei
European ATM Master Plan
- L10 L06 L01-L10 -
(Ols reference)
Related SES IR/Community 2010/C330
262/2009 29/2009 Note
Specifications /02
Note: 29/2009; 1033/2006; 1032/2006; 633/2007; 1265/2007; 30/2009; 262/2009; 73/2010/255/2010; 2007/C290/06;
2008/C68/03; 2008/C149/06;2007/C188/032009/C 323/06; 2010/C18/16
Table 29: Description of the main investments impacting RP1 for ROMATSA
Mode S radars will provide increased traffic capacity and improved flight safety for En-Route and
Terminal traffic.
Taking into account that the CCAMS implementation programme initiated by EUROCONTROL
suffered significant delays of implementation terms both at EUROCONTROL and ANSPs level
and the CCAMS represents an intermediate phase (the target being the Mode S implementation
in the whole IFPS space until 2020) ROMATSA will implement the Mode S from the first stage.
EU Regulation entitled Aircraft Identification for surveillance for the SES (ACID), stipulates, in
Annex 1, areas in which Mode S identification will be implemented starting with February 2012.
In the SSC meeting, Romanian representative requested to include Romania in the list of states
which will implement the Mode S in the first stage. This request has been accepted by the EU and
FIR Bucharest has been included in Annex 1 of ACID EC Regulation. Mode S implementation is
on schedule.
Mode S sensors will replace MSSR sensors which due to maintenance high costs as well as their
age imposed the necessity of this investment.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 30/100
Mode S sensors installation will be made in order to anticipate the mandatory Mandate for Mode
S implementation and to prevent investments in alternative solutions as CCAMS or Enhanced
ORCAM. Thereby, we consider that implementing of one mandatory system (Mode S) and
avoiding short lifetime systems (CCAMS) will bring benefits in terms of investment costs and time.
A-SMGCS system will increase the operational capacity of the airport and the safety of aircrafts
operation on the airport movement area.
Data Link CPDLC will reduce the workload on the VHF-Voice spectrum and will facilitate the work
of pilots and controllers by reducing voice communications.
ATM System ROMATSA 2015+ will be implemented to maintain and to improve the ability to
control flights and to increase flight safety.
ADS-B System will provide increased traffic capacity and improved flight safety for En-Route traffic.
ROMATSAs terminal ANS costs
A cost-efficiency target for terminal costs does not form part the KPIs under the performance
scheme for RP1.
However, forecast terminal ANS costs are detailed in Annex C.
3.3. Incentive mechanisms to be applied on entities to encourage targets to be met in RP1
Incentive mechanisms are detailed in section 2.4.
4. CIVIL MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN
4.1 Performance of the FUA application
The application of the FUA concept in Romania is in line with Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and
Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005. The major objective of the FUA concept is the more efficient use of
airspace by civil and military users. The high-level Civil-Military policy body Council for Airspace
Management (CMSA) and Romanian Airspace Management Cell (Romanian AMC) ensures that
there is a more effective sharing of Romanian airspace through joint civil/military strategic planning
and pre-tactical airspace allocation. The military coordination units are collocated with the civil ATS
units (ACC and APPs) and are responsible for ASM at tactical level.
The FUA concept increased the flexibility of airspace use and provided ATM with the potential to
increase the air traffic system performance. It allows the maximum common use of airspace by
appropriate coordination between civil and/or military users.
The FUA concept is also applied to enhance airspace usage based on any temporary airspace
structures as a function of achieving increased airspace capacity and environmental performance.
An airspace structure reorganised to increase the accessibility of many airspace users is accepted
as essential to increasing the capacity of the ATS system and reducing GAT delays. Therefore,
Area Control Centre (ACC) sector capacity figures were improved in response to the different route
and airspace organisation resulting from the daily AMC allocation.
The CFMU Interface for Airspace Managers (CIAM) software is used by Romanian AMC for
processing and transmitting AUPs to CADF/CFMU.
No problems were identified in the application of FUA concept during 2010.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 31/100

Measures planned during RP1
Romania intends to implement the EUROCONTROLs LARA Programme as an automated ASM

support tool for the application of the flexible use of airspace (FUA), which will provide
automatically the necessary data to the PRISMIL Programme for the performance measurements.
Romania has decided to use PRISMIL as support of civil-military dimension of the performance
plan including military mission effectiveness performance requirements. This decision was
supported by the PRISMIL main functionalities:
To facilitate performance measurements, monitoring, analysis, reporting and review;
To support performance assessment at national and FAB level;
To assist in the implementation of the civil-military dimension of the performance plan.
4.2 Additional KPIs
Romania will define a set of civil-military KPIs to monitor the effectiveness of airspace use after the
full implementation of the EUROCONTROLs PRISMIL Programme.
5. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS

PERFORMANCE PLAN
Analysis of sensitivity is the quantitative technical evaluation of the impact generated by variations
of the input variables on the performance targets.
For the analysis of sensitivity have been identified a series of key variables which can have a
measurable impact to performance targets. The variables taken into account refer to cost-
efficiency targets and include:
- Variations of the en-route service units according to STATFOR forecast (low scenario and -
5% of base scenario);
- Variations of the total determined costs caused by unforeseen changes;
- Macroeconomic indicators evolution.
The first scenario proposes to describe the sensitivity of the total revenues if the total service units
decrease during the first reference period. Three assumptions have been used: first assumption
using STATFOR base scenario (May 2011 update) for total service units; second assumption
using STATFOR low scenario for total service units and third assumption using -5% of STATFOR
base scenario.
The recoveries have been calculated for each of these assumptions using the traffic risk sharing
mechanism defined in article 11 a) of the Charging Regulation as the following table describes.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 32/100

Figure 4: Evolution of total revenues according to SUs variations
The second scenario proposes to describe the evolution of the total costs determined by
unforeseen and out of the control of air navigation service provider, Member State and qualified
entities as article 8 point c) from the Common Charging Regulation stipulates and their recovery
through a carry-over to the following period.
The following figure describes each of the three assumptions: +5%, +7% and +10% increase of
the staff costs determined by unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension
accounting regulation or unforeseen changes in to national taxation law and calculates the impact
to the total costs which is considered significant.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 33/100

Figure 5: Evolution of the total costs according to unforeseen changes
Main macroeconomic indicators taken into account for the elaboration of the National Performance
Plan are: inflation and exchange rate.
The inflation rate in Romania during the last years is to be described as significant as long as in
October 2010 Romania registered the highest inflation rate within the EU, with an increase of
prices of 7,9%, compared to the same month in 2009 (according to EUROSTAT).
A volatile inflation over the reference period, as the previously years revealed, creates difficulties
for Air Navigation Providers to correctly predict the rate of inflation.
Actual inflation may end up significantly above the expectations causing losses in real incomes and
the related under-recovery will not be recovered until the next reference period.
Exchange rate during the first reference period is estimated to have a low impact and is mainly
caused by the payments related to EURO (ex. EUROCONTROL costs, imported
equipments/products and/or service contracts).
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROMANIAN NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN
Mechanisms put in place by the NSA/RCAA to ensure that the performance targets are
monitored and reached
Performance monitoring for safety, capacity and cost efficiency is performed by the NSA/RCAA
according to the specific provisions included in Regulation (EU) no.691/2010, Regulation (EC)
no.1315/2007 as modified, Regulation (EC) no.2096/2005 as modified, Regulation (EC)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 34/100

no.1794/2006 as modified and Regulation (EU) no.255/2010, implemented at national level.

Regarding the safety area, at national level, a report is published each year containing information
collected through the mandatory/voluntary occurrence reporting system, for the purpose of
informing the general public about the level of safety in civil aviation.
Twice per year, ROMATSA Safety Committee assesses safety performance of the air navigation
services provided by ROMATSA, based on the reports issued by the Safety and Quality
Directorate. The safety data are collated and reported to NSA/RCAA and EUROCONTROL in
terms of yearly high level safety indicators, as provided in the Annual Safety Template (AST).
The main strategic action to improve regular safety performance monitoring and analysis of
incidents trends are:
- Implementation of an Automated Safety Reporting System. The system facilitates the process
of reporting, investigation and dissemination by means of an intranet network using ECCAIRS
software. The project (SMART Project) started in 2005 and it is still under development.
ECCAIRS is also being used at the moment accordingly.
- Implementation of an Automated Safety Monitoring Tool as a complementary system to the
actual human reporting system.
Regarding safety, capacity and cost-efficiency, the NSA/RCAA monitors the performance of the
accountable entities in terms of the KPIs and targets defined in the RNPP1, as well as the
achievement of actions defined in the ANS part of the State Safety Program and ANSPs business
plans by its oversight function according to the national regulation RACR SSNA ed. 02/2008 and
to the national procedure PIAC SSNA, Part I, II and III, which establishes:
- the process to verify compliance with applicable regulatory requirements prior to the issue or
renewal of the ANSPs certificates (including compliance with related conditions attached to
the certificate), compliance with any obligations in the certification act and ongoing
compliance of the ANSPs trough:
- audit visits;
- inspections;
- documentation review;
- the follow up process to ensure the implementation of corrective actions and the mechanisms
to revoke, suspend or limit the certification of ANSPs.
Additionally to the ongoing monitoring process mentioned above, during RP1 the NSA/RCAA
analyze the implementation of RNPP1 based on the periodical specific reports of the ANSPs
regarding each of the key performance areas and evaluates the progress made to achieve the
corresponding targets.
If any deviations from RNPP1 are found, ANSPs are asked to provide detailed justifications. If any
problems are identified, they are discussed with the ANSPs and appropriate corrective actions are
implemented in order to rectify the situation.
In case the performance targets risk not being achieved, NSA/RCAA submits a Report to the
Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure, which further reports to the European Commission,
according to the provisions of Art. 17 (3) of Regulation (EU) No. 691/2010.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 35/100

An Annual Report on the monitoring of the performance plan and targets is prepared by
NSA/RCAA and submitted to the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure. The Ministry of
Transports and Infrastructure reviews the Annual Report and the NSA makes amendments, if
necessary. The Ministry of Transport approves the Annual Report and submits it to the European
Commission, according to the provisions of Art. 17 (3) of Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010.
Annex A - Reference documents
1. Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10

March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009;
2. Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance
scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation
(EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air
navigation services;
3. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common
charging scheme for air navigation services as amended by Regulation (EU) No
1191/2010;
4. Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide
performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services
for the years 2012 to 2014 (2011/121/EU);
5. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common
requirements for the provision of air navigation services as last amended by
Regulation (EU) 691/2010.
6. Guidance material for national/FAB performance plans, Released Issue 23 February
2011.
7. FAB progress report.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 36/100

Annex B Reporting Tables & Additional Information

(Data for 2009 and 2010 are actual, for 2011 -2014 are forecasts)
Charging zone name: Romania

Entity name: All entities
Table 1 Total costs
Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs
Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010** 2011** 2012 2013 2014
1. Detail by nature (in nominal

terms)
1.1 Staff 425,8 409,2 404,4 422,4 440,1 383,7 409,2
1.2 Other operating costs 118,6 139,4 128,2 134,9 143,5 132,7 139,4
1.3 Depreciation 36,0 36,1 62,3 67,7 71,5 35,3 50,0
1.4 Cost of capital 41,4 43,1 51,7 51,7 51,8 46,0 51,9
1.5 Exceptional items 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
1.6 Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,5 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5
Total % n/n-1 1,0% 3,0% 4,7% 4,5% 8,8%
Staff % n/n-1 -3,9% -1,2% 4,4% 4,2% 6,7%
Other op. % n/n-1 17,6% -8,0% 5,2% 6,4% 5,1%
2. Detail by service (in nominal

terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management 359,0 386,4 402,3 422,1 441,6 366,1 406,0
2.2 Communication 70,3 56,1 51,5 54,0 56,5 46,8 51,9
2.3 Navigation 32,9 33,7 35,0 36,7 38,4 31,8 35,3
2.4 Surveillance 36,8 37,7 39,1 41,1 43,0 35,6 39,5
2.5 Search and rescue 0,5 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
2.6 Aeronautical Information 39,6 38,2 40,3 42,1 43,9 36,5 40,5
2.7 Meteorological services 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 32,4 35,9
2.8 Supervision costs 10,5 8,3 8,6 8,9 9,3 10,2 8,3
2.9 Other State costs 39,1 33,03 34,3 34,5 35,2 38,2 33,03
2.10 Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,5 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5
Total % n/n-1 1,0% 3,0% 4,6% 4,5% 8,8%
ATM % n/n-1 7,6% 4,1% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%
CNS % n/n-1 -8,9% -1,6% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%
3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)
Average asset base
3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 450,8 442,1 541,7 542,1 542,6 491,8 541,7
3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0
3.3 Net current assets 71,2 96,9 104,6 104,8 105,0 84,3 107,5
3.4 Total asset base 522,0 539,0 646,3 646,9 647,6 576,1 649,2
Cost of capital %
3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 7,9% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0%
3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0%
3.7 Average interest on debts
Cost of common projects
3.8 Common Project 1
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 37/100

4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms

4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6%
4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 106,1 113,1 118,2 121,9 125,3 106,1 113,1
4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 586,0 555,1 547,0 555,3 564,3 563,3 575,1
Total % n/n-1 -5,3% -1,5% 1,5% 1,6% 2,1%
5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)

5.1 Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5
Costs and asset base items in '000 000 RON - Service units in '000 000
(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation
(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009
(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011
F)
**Forecast data used for the latest submission (November 2010 data for 2010 and 2011 F)

Entity name: ANSP (ROMATSA)
Table 1 Total costs
Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011** 2012 2013 2014

terms)
1.1 Staff 416,8 400,8 395,6 413,3 430,9 374,3 400,8
1.3 Depreciation 35,3 35,7 61,7 67,2 71,0 34,8 49,5
1.4 Cost of capital 40,8 42,5 51,3 51,3 51,3 45,4 51,3
1.5 Exceptional items
1.6 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4
Total % n/n-1 2,7% 2,9% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%
Staff % n/n-1 -3,8% -1,3% 4,5% 4,2% 7,1%
Other op. % n/n-1 40,2% -12,3% 7,1% 8,0% 13,5%

terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management 359,0 386,4 402,3 422,1 441,6 366,1 406,0
2.2 Communication 70,3 56,1 51,5 54,0 56,5 46,8 51,9
2.3 Navigation 32,9 33,7 35,0 36,7 38,4 31,8 35,3
2.4 Surveillance 36,8 37,7 39,1 41,1 43,0 35,6 39,5
2.5 Search and rescue 0,5 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
2.6 Aeronautical Information 33,6 33,5 35,4 37,1 38,8 32,2 35,7
2.7 Meteorological services 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 32,4 35,9
2.8 Supervision costs
2.9 Other State costs
2.10 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 38/100

Total % n/n-1 2,7% 2,9% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%

ATM % n/n-1 7,6% 4,1% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%
CNS % n/n-1 -8,9% -1,6% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9%
Average asset base

3.2 Adjustments total assets
3.3 Net current assets 67,6 94,2 104,8 104,8 104,8 80,7 104,8
3.4 Total asset base 514,1 531,8 642,0 642,0 642,0 568,2 642,0
Cost of capital %
3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0%

4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6%
Total % n/n-1 -3,6% -1,5% 1,8% 1,8% 4,0%

5.1 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
**Forecast June 2011
Charging zone: Romania

Entity name: NSA/RCAA + SNAIA/RCAA
Table 1 Total costs
Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010A 2011** 2012 2013 2014

terms)
1.1 Staff 9,0 8,3 8,7 9,0 9,3 9,3 8,3
1.3 Depreciation 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4
1.4 Cost of capital 0,6 0,6 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,6 0,6
1.5 Exceptional items
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 39/100

1.6 Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1
Total % n/n-1 -17,0% 3,5% 1,4% 2,5% -12,5%
Staff % n/n-1 -6,9% 4,7% 3,1% 2,8% -10,5%
Other op. % n/n-1 -18,9% 3,8% 0,9% 2,3% -12,9%

terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management
2.2 Communication
2.3 Navigation
2.4 Surveillance
2.5 Search and rescue
2.6 Aeronautical Information 6 5 4,9 5,0 5,1 4,3 5
2.7 Meteorological services
2.8 Supervision costs 10,5 8,3 8,6 8,9 9,3 10,2 8,3
2.9 Other State costs (inc.ECTL) 39,1 33,0 34,3 34,5 35,2 38,2 33,0
2.10 Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1
Total % n/n-1 -17,0% 3,5% 1,4% 2,5% -12,5%
ATM % n/n-1
CNS % n/n-1
Average asset base

3.2 Adjustments total assets
3.3 Net current assets 3,5 2,7 -0,1 0,1 0,2 3,5 2,7
3.4 Total asset base 7,9 7,1 4,3 4,9 5,5 7,9 7,1
Cost of capital %
3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0%
4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6%
Total % n/n-1 -22,1% -1,0% -1,7% -0,3% -17,9%

5.1 Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
**Forecast June 2011
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 40/100


Entity name: All entities
Table 2 Unit rate calculation
Unit rate calculation 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014
1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment
1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0
1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1
1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8%
1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over
2. Forecast and actual total service units
2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,8 4,0
2.2 Actual total service units 3,4 3,5
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 5,7% -0,4%
3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 533,2 548,0 563,2 591,0 618,3
3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n
3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n
3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2
3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 47,2 46,6 2,6 0,0 0,0
3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 580,4 594,6 565,8 591,0 618,3
3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over
3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over
Parameters for traffic risk sharing

3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)
4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 88,6 79,9 83,3 85,7 88,6
5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)
5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 33,1 6,5 2,2 1,3 1,3
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 636 668 647 675 706
5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 196,84 188,86 179,10 177,64 176,06
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 41/100

5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate 179,66 175,83 165,89 164,92 163,69
5.5 MET component of the unit rate 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 17,19 13,03 13,21 12,72 12,37
5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 207,10 190,69 179,71 177,99 176,38
Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 RON - Service units in '000 000
(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method
F)

Entity name: ANSP (ROMATSA)
2.2 Actual total service units
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 533,2 548,0 563,2 591,0 618,3

3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 42/100


4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 580,3 622 599 627 656
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate
5.5 MET component of the unit rate
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate
F)

Entity name: NSA/RCAA + SNAIA/RCAA
2.2 Actual total service units
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 43/100

3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n

3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate

3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate
5.5 MET component of the unit rate
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate
F)
Additional Information Table-1

Romania-Route
Year: 2012
1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air
navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air
Navigation Plan, (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between
different en route charging zones;
Costs are reported for the following entities:

- ROMATSA Romanian ANSP providing ATM- CNS services, aeronautical MET, part of AIS services and
part of search and rescue. Both for en-route and terminal. Costs of ROMATSA are established by cost
centres corresponding to the territorial structure of the company. Costs of facilities and services listed in
the ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan are accounted in the cost centre to which they belong;
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 44/100

- Romanian CAA Romanian NSA, also providing part of AIS services.

A single en-route charging zone is established.
2. Description of the costs incurred by the Contracting States (Other State costs);
This category includes only the contribution to EUROCONTROL, reported, as recommended by CRCO, in Table 1
State NSA, although the contribution is paid and accounted by ROMATSA. No other State costs are included in
the cost-base.
3. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic
costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost
data;
Historic costs are used for the calculation of depreciation. At the end of 2010, in accordance with the national
accounting practices aligned with the European directives the assets of ROMATSA have been restated at fair
value by an independent expert. After the restatement the net book value of the assets has been increased by
about 30%. The restatement has been also audited by independent auditor KPNG Romania, together with all
financial statements of ROMATSA for 2010.
4. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments
to total assets and the return on equity;
Cost of capital was calculated for 2010 at the average net book value of fixed assets and the average value of the
net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts.
The value of fixed assets at 31.12.2010 was restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a tender
procedure.
Cost of capital of 2011 was calculated at the net book value of the assets at 01.01.2011.
The return on equity applied was 8% which is in line with the 10 year rate of the government bonds.
5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services;
For 2009:
Cost allocation between en route and terminal services was done on a statistical basis. For each territorial unit
that serve both en route and terminal the costs were allocated based on the following criteria:
- In accordance with the organisational structure;
- in proportion to the average distance flown or time spent;
- in proportion to the personnel.
Separate accounts are kept at each territorial subunit of ROMATSA. For each subunit an allocation percentage is
calculated. The calculation is based on the share of each staff category in the total of the wages. Following
allocation percentages are used: ACC 100% en-route; APP 64% en-route (except APP Bucharest that starting 1
June 2009 is integrated in ACC Bucharest and its cost are allocated 100% to en-route); combined APP/TWR 32%
en-route; TWR 0% en-route; MET 75% en-route. CNS personnel wages are allocated according to the percentage
of the equipment served (e.g. MSSR 100% en-route; ILS 0% en-route, etc.). Administrative staff wages are
allocated according to the average allocation of the other categories of staff. Costs of headquarters are allocated
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 45/100

90% to en-route.
6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs
of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general.
These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and
upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and
supporting core research, training and administration;
ROMATSA is the designated service provider for aeronautical MET and runs its own meteorological services
internally. These services are provided only for aviation purposes.
ROMATSA acquires some raw data from the Romanian National Meteorological Administration. This data
consists of:
- national synoptic data;
- data transferred from the GTS network;
- national upper-air soundings data;
- Romanian radar network data;
- NWP from national and international models;
- Lightning data.
These products are acquired by ROMATSA from the NMA, on a contractual basis, at ECOMET fees and do not
exceed 6% from the total MET costs of ROMATSA.
7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation
and between en route charging zones;
All ROMATSA en-route MET costs are exclusively costs for civil aviation and are allocated to one en-route
charging zone.
8. Description and explanation of the differences between planned and actual figures for year n - 1;
8.1 Planned and result of 2010

a. Traffic
In 2010 the actual en-route traffic was 5.32% over the cost base forecast for chargeable service units (+5,71% for
total number of service units).
b. Costs.
An economy of 24,08 million RON (-3,87%) was recorded in total costs.
By nature the actual figures vs. planned were the following:
- Staff - 42,1 million lei
- Other Operating costs +14,2 million lei (include variation in contribution to EUROCONTROL)
- Depreciation 0,7 million lei
- Cost of capital +4,6 million lei.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 46/100

c. Result of 2010
Following the evolution of traffic and costs the end result of 2010 shows an over-recovery of 22,03 million lei (5,236
mil. at the 2010 average exchange rate).
8.2. Current estimation for 2011
At the end of 2010 the assets of ROMATSA were restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a
tender procedure. The asset base increased significantly (by about 30%) and this will affect the costs with
Depreciation and the Cost of capital.
Depreciation is estimated to increase with 13,9 million lei and cost of capital with 8,8 million lei. Together these
elements induce an increase in the total costs by 3,6%.
However the execution of the budget will focus on the reduction of other costs in order to limit the increase in the
cost base.
Latest traffic forecast (STATFOR May 2011) is 2,04% below the forecast for the cost base.
9. Description and explanation of the five-year planned costs based on the business plan;
Medium term forecast was constructed taking into account the following considerations:
- Service units were forecasted according with STATFOR baseline scenario, increasing with an annual rate of
4.9-5.0%;
- inflation rate is foreseen to record 4.5% in 2012, and 2.8% in 2014;
The costs evolution in their structure is the following:
- Total staff costs will slightly increase by -1.2% in 2012 vs. 2011 (i.e. less than the inflation rate of 4.5% for
2012), due to the reduction of the total number of staff;
- Depreciation costs will be double in 2014 vs. approved 2011 cost base, due to the implementation of the new
Operational Concept equipment from 2012 onwards and the re-evaluation of ROMATSAs assets at 31
December 2010 done be an independent authorised expert.
Consequently, the performance en-route unit rate (in real terms 2009) is foreseen to decrease in the 2012 -
2014 timeframe with an average of 3.55 per annum (2014 vs. 2011).

Romania-Route
Year: 2012
1. Description and rationale for the establishment of the different en route charging zones;
The en route charging zone covers the entire airspace of FIR Bucuresti and is consistent with the air traffic control
operations and services.
2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units;
Total service units have been established using the STATFOR forecasts of May 2011 (the latest available at the
time of establishing the cost-base). The baseline scenario has been used.
3. Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related
costs;
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 47/100

The following flights are exempted from the en route charges:

- flights performed by aircraft of which the maximum take-off weight authorised is less than two (2) metric tons;
- flights performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her
immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must
be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan;
- search and rescue flights authorised by the appropriate competent body;
- military flights performed by military aircraft of Romania and the USA;
- training flights performed exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a licence, or a rating in the case of cockpit
flight crew, and where this is substantiated by an appropriate remark on the flight plan. Flights must be
performed solely within this charging zone. Flights must not serve for the transport of passengers and/or
cargo, nor for positioning or ferrying of the aircraft;
- flights performed exclusively for the purpose of checking or testing equipment used or intended to be used as
ground aids to air navigation, excluding positioning flights by the aircraft concerned; flights terminating at the
aerodrome from which the aircraft has taken off and during which no intermediate landing has been made
(circular flights);
- flights performed exclusively under VFR within this charging zone;
The costs of the exempted flights are financed through direct payments to ROMATSA from the State budget.
4. Description of the income from other sources when they exist;
Revenues from other sources deducted from the cost base include:
- Revenues deducted directly from corresponding cost chapter: gains from exchange rate, cancellation of
provisions made in previous periods.
- Ancillary revenues (services to third parties, rent) and revenues from TenT subsidies were deducted in Unit
rate calculation table.
5. Description and explanation of incentives applied on air navigation service providers and, in particular,
the modalities to be applied in setting regulatory conditions on the level of unit rates. Description and
explanation of the objectives in terms of performance and on the modalities to take them into account in the
setting of maximum unit rates;
The incentive used by Romania for the cost-efficiency is the mandatory risk-sharing mechanism defined in Article
11a of the Charging Regulation (i.e. Article 11a.1 for traffic risk and 11a. 2 for cost risk).
6. Description of the plans of air navigation service providers in order to meet projected demand and
performance objectives;
The premises of the development of air navigation services in Romania for the next 15 -20 years are the current
external and internal environment conditions, and the strategic guidelines are the ones defined by the revised
package of the regulations on the Single European Sky implementation (SES II) in 2008. ROMATSA must invest
significantly in the air traffic management network and must implement important changes to design internal
operations and procedures, in order to fulfil the Single European Sky objectives.
ROMATSA Priorities for 2012-2015 are:
1. Putting ROMATSA Measures Plan into practice under the post crisis conditions:
- Flight Efficiency Plan adjustment initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA.
2. ATM SYSTEM ROMATSA 2015+ DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION in order to fulfil SES
requirements regarding interoperability of ATM System.
3. DANUBE FAB This project has been initiated jointly with the Bulgarian ANSP (BULATSA) since 2004,
subject to the strategic guidelines defined by Single European Sky, with the aim of improving the regional
efficiency of the air traffic management networks. The initiative of Romania and Bulgaria was sustained by
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 48/100

ROMATSA during 2006-2008 by expanding the contacts and cooperation actions with the Bulgarian ANSP
BULATSA and by gaining political support for this project that materialised in the signature of the
Memorandum of Understanding by the Ministers of Transports in February 2010. It is to be mentioned:
- The Feasibility Study on Establishment of a functional airspace block (FAB) in the Romanian and
Bulgarian airspace DANUBE FAB completed in 2008, was followed by the definition of the institutional,
technical-operational and economic parameters regarding the implementation of the project , including the
stages and the schedule. According to this schedule, the following actions will be taken during 2011-2015
:
Definition of the legal and regulation framework;
Clarification of human resources and social impact for the establishment of the DANUBE FAB;
Completion of operational analysis on routes, sectors and architecture of DANUBE FAB;
Definition of the aeronautic information services in DANUBE FAB;
Definition of the meteorological services in DANUBE FAB;
The completion of the technical analysis to determine the system requirements and modifications to
be implemented;
The formulation of standards and methodologies for personnel training in DANUBE FAB;
The establishment of safety, quality and environmental management systems as well as the
aeronautic and information security management system;
Definition of the economic and financial aspects concerning the operation of the DANUBE FAB .
- The Use of 1.25 million Euros granted by the EU TEN-T Agency for the partial financing of the pre-
implementation stages of the project, respectively until the ratification of the International Agreement by
the Parliaments of the two states, action scheduled in 2012. The project schedule has been designed
based on the requirements of the legislative package on Single European Sky in 2004, amended by the
EC Regulation 1070/2009;
Danube FAB is scheduled to start functioning in December 2012.
7. Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of en route services;
No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the airspace users.
8. Description and explanation of the methodology used with respect to the recovery of the balance
resulting from over or under recovery of previous years;
Calculation of the result of 2010:
2010
A
Balance to be carried
over
('000 RON)
Charges billed to users 644.302
26,6%
1
Total costs for the zone( ) 559.506
6,4%
EUROCONTROL Costs 38.170
1,3%
Income from other sources (1) 1.679
Cost of exempted VFR flights
Cost of exempted IFR flights 19.350
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 49/100

-13,6%
Costs of exempted flights 19.350
-13,6%
Amounts carried over to year (2) -45.628
Balance of year (i) 22.027
Charges billed include 6,379 million euro that were recorded as unearned revenues in 2009 (please see
explanations in 2011 November Additional information Table 1 point 2.1.c).
The following table describes the carry-over of amounts from previous years:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A A F F P P P
Carry-over of under / over recoveries (in '000 euro until 2007, in '000 RON from 2008)
Balance Year 2006
-14.520 -23.457 -17.228 -17.121
Balance Year 2007
-4.464 -9.708 -9.133
Balance Year 2008
-58.123 -19.374 -34.694 -4.055
Balance Year 2009
-30.638 -10.213 -10.213 -10.213
Balance Year 2010
21.027 11.814 10.213
Amounts carried over to
year (i) -23.457 -26.936 -45.628 -44.907 -2.454 0 0
Amounts carried over to
year (i) Adjusted -47.155 -46.638 -2.548 0 0
Amounts in italics in 000 euro
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 50/100

Annex C Reporting Tables & Additional Information, TNC
ROMANIA- TERMINAL CHARGING ZONE BUCHAREST HENRI COANDA
Organisation: ANSP - ROMATSA

Charging zone: Romania - 1 Aerodrome Bucharest Henri Coanda (LROP)
Table 1 Total costs
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A A A A F F P P
Detail by nature (in '000

RON)
Staff 19.672 27.767 27.307 24.019 25.220 26.859 27.961 29.023
5,9% 41,2% -1,7% -12,0% 5,0% 6,5% 4,1% 3,8%
Other operating costs 3.878 2.668 3.875 6.393 5.677 6.234 6.489 6.736
-31,6% -31,2% 45,3% 65,0% -11,2% 9,8% 4,1% 3,8%
Depreciation 2.143 2.137 1.342 964 1.942 2.649 3.549 3.727
-26,5% -0,3% -37,2% -28,2% 101,5% 36,4% 34,0% 5,0%
Cost of capital 2.712 2.432 2.519 1.258 1.423 2.296 2.700 2.700
-10,3% 3,6% -50,1% 13,1% 61,3% 17,6% 0,0%
Exceptional items
Total costs 28.405 35.004 35.044 32.634 34.263 38.038 40.699 42.186
4,6% 23,2% 0,1% -6,9% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Detail by services (in '000

RON)
Air traffic management 23.700 24.806 23.372 24.538 27.242 29.148 30.212
4,7% -5,8% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Communication 4.643 3.601 2.990 3.139 3.485 3.728 3.865
-22,4% -17,0% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Navigation 2.171 2.165 2.033 2.134 2.370 2.535 2.628
-0,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Surveillance 2.429 2.422 2.274 2.387 2.651 2.836 2.940
-0,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Search and rescue
Aeronautical information
Meteorological services 2.060 2.051 1.966 2.064 2.291 2.452 2.541

-0,4% -4,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Supervision costs
Other State costs
Total costs 28.405 35.004 35.044 32.634 34.263 38.038 40.699 42.186
4,6% 23,2% 0,1% -6,9% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 RON)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 51/100

Inflation rate 4,9% 7,9% 5,6% 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8%
Average operating capital 40.472 36.616 31.018 15.730 17.780 28.698 33.695 33.750
-9,5% -15,3% -49,3% 13,0% 61,4% 17,4% 0,2%
Of which, average long term assets 35.803 31.800 26.117 11.797 13.213 14.935 24.106 28.304
-11,2% -17,9% -54,8% 12,0% 13,0% 61,4% 17,4%
Cost of capital before tax (%) 6,64% 8,12% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,01% 8,00%
Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00%
Average interest on debts (%)

Entity name: NSA/RCAA TNC Bucharest-Otopeni Airport
Table 1 Total costs
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A A A F F P P
Detail by nature (in '000 RON)

Staff 238 245 241 282 292 301 309
1,6% 2,8% -1,6% 17,0% 3,5% 3,1% 2,8%
Other operating costs 95 99 80 115 119 123 126
1,8% 4,4% -18,8% 43,4% 3,6% 3,1% 2,8%
Depreciation 12 12 10 9 10 11 11
-0,9% 0,0% -14,0% -10,0% 14,4% 1,9% 1,9%
Cost of capital 10 10 12 9 6 6 6
-0,9% 0,0% 20,4% -25,0% -36,7% 1,8% 1,7%
Exceptional items
Total costs 355 365 343 415 427 440 452

1,5% 3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7%
Detail by services (in '000 RON)
Air traffic management
Communication
Navigation
Surveillance
Search and rescue
Meteorological services
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 52/100

Supervision costs 355 365 343 415 427 440 452

3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 0,9%
Other State costs
Total costs 355 365 343 415 427 440 452

3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7%
Complementary information on inflation and on the

cost of capital (in '000 RON)
Inflation rate 7,9% 5,6% 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8%
Average operating capital 125,0 112,5 71,3 72,5 73,8
Of which, average long term assets 42,0 37,5 53,5 54,5 55,4
Cost of capital before tax (%) 9,60% 8,00% 7,99% 8,00% 7,99%
Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00%
Charging zone: Consolidated

Entity name: Romania - 1 Aerodrome Bucharest Henri Coanda (LROP)
Table 1 Total costs
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A A A F F P P
Staff 28.005 27.552 24.260 25.502 27.151 28.262 29.333

40,7% -1,6% -11,9% 5,1% 6,5% 4,1% 3,8%
Other operating costs 2.763 3.974 6.473 5.792 6.353 6.612 6.862
-30,4% 43,9% 62,9% -10,5% 9,7% 4,1% 3,8%
Depreciation 2.148 1.354 974 1.951 2.660 3.560 3.738
-0,3% -37,0% -28,1% 100,4% 36,3% 33,8% 5,0%
Cost of capital 2.442 2.529 1.270 1.432 2.301 2.706 2.706
-10,3% 3,6% -49,8% 12,7% 60,7% 17,6% 0,0%
Exceptional items
Total costs 35.358 35.409 32.978 34.678 38.465 41.139 42.638

23,0% 0,1% -6,9% 5,2% 10,9% 7,0% 3,6%
Air traffic management 23.700 24.806 23.372 24.538 27.242 29.148 30.212
4,7% -5,8% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Communication 4.643 3.601 2.990 3.139 3.485 3.728 3.865
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 53/100

-22,4% -17,0% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%

Navigation 2.171 2.165 2.033 2.134 2.370 2.535 2.628
-0,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Surveillance 2.429 2.422 2.274 2.387 2.651 2.836 2.940
-0,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Search and rescue
Meteorological services 2.060 2.051 1.966 2.064 2.291 2.452 2.541

-0,4% -4,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7%
Supervision costs 355 365 343 415 427 440 452
3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7%
Other State cos
Total costs 35.358 35.409 32.978 34.678 38.465 41.139 42.638

23,0% 0,1% -6,9% 5,2% 10,9% 7,0% 3,6%
Inflation rate 7,90% 5,60% 6,10% 6,60% 4,50% 3,10% 2,80%
Average operating capital 36.616 31.018 15.855 17.893 28.769 33.768 33.824
-9,5% -15,3% -48,9% 12,9% 60,8% 17,4% 0,2%
Of which, average long term
assets 31.800 26.117 11.839 13.251 14.989 24.160 28.359
-11,2% -17,9% -54,7% 11,9% 13,1% 61,2% 17,4%
Cost of capital before tax (%) 6,67% 8,15% 8,01% 8,00% 8,00% 8,01% 8,00%
Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A A A F F P P
Unit rate (in '000 euro) and service units

('000)
Total costs for the zone(1) 7.839 8.356 9.394 9.795 10.152
6,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6%
Cost of exempted VFR flights
Costs of exempted IFR flights 309 329 370 386 400

6,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6%
Costs of exempted flights 309 329 370 386 400
6,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6%
Amounts carried over to year (i) 911 1.126 823
Income from other sources
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 54/100

Chargeable costs 7.530 8.027 8.113 8.283 8.929

6,6% 1,1% 2,1% 7,7%
Total service units 38.489 36.715 38.697 39.084 39.670 40.662 41.882
-4,6% 5,4% 1,0% 1,5% 2,5% 3,0%
Chargeable service units 35.732 37.173 37.544 38.108 39.060 40.232
1,0% 1,5% 2,5% 3,0%
Unit rate (2) 202,57 213,80 212,89 212,06 221,93
5,5% -0,4% -0,4% 4,6%

Romania-TNC Bucharest Henri Coanda International Airport
Year: 2012
Provided by ROMATSA
1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air
navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air
Navigation Plan, (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs
between different en route charging zones;
Cost allocation between en route and terminal services was done on a statistical basis. For each territorial unit
that serve both en route and terminal the costs were allocated based on the following criteria:
- In accordance with the organisational structure;
- In proportion to the average distance flown or time spent;
- In proportion to the personnel.
Separate accounts are kept at each territorial subunit of ROMATSA. For each subunit an allocation percentage is
calculated. The calculation is based on the share of each staff category in the total of the wages. Following
allocation percentages are used: ACC 100% en-route; APP 64% en-route (except APP Bucharest that starting 1
June 2009 is integrated in ACC Bucharest and its cost are allocated 100% to en-route); combined APP/TWR 32%
en-route; TWR 0% en-route; MET 95% (75% from November 2008) en-route. CNS personnel wages are allocated
according to the percentage of the equipment served (e.g. MSSR 100% en-route; ILS 0% en-route, etc.).
Administrative staff wages are allocated according to the average allocation of the other categories of staff. Costs
of headquarters are allocated 90% to en-route.
2. Description and explanation of the differences between planned and actual figures for year (n-1);
2. Result of 2010
a. Costs An overall economy of 7,78 million lei (-18,94%) was achieved in 2010.
b. Traffic Total number of service units were almost at the forecasted level (-0,04%). Chargeable service units
were -2,12% below forecast and exempted service units were more than double the forecasted figure.
Following the evolution of costs and traffic an over recovery of 7,457 million lei was recorded at the end of 2010.
This over recovery will be carried over to 2012-2013.
c. Current estimation for 2011
National costs will decrease by 10,59% over the approved cost base according to the latest budgetary estimates.
The traffic is expected to increase by 1,5% .
Following the evolution of costs and traffic, the current estimates for the end result of 2011 is an over-recovery of
4,4 million RON (about 1,07 million euro), that will be carried forward to 2013-2014.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 55/100

3.Description and explanation of the five-year planned costs based on the business plan;
Medium term forecast was constructed taking into account the following considerations:
- Service units were forecasted to increase with 2,3% per annum, i.e. with 1,5% in 2012 2,5% in 2013 and 3%
in 2014;
- inflation rate is foreseen to record 4.5% in 2012, and 2.8% in 2014;
The costs evolution in their structure is the following:
- Total staff costs will increase by 6,5% in 2012 , by 4,1% in 2013 and by 3,8% in 2014;
- Other operating costs increase in the period 2012-2014 by 5,8% p.a.
- Depreciation costs will be almost double in 2014 vs. 2011 cost base, due to the ambitious investment plan.
- Cost of capital will reflect the new asset base.
4. Description of the costs incurred by the Contracting States ( Other State costs);
No other State costs are included in the cost-base.
5. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic
costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost
data;
Historic costs are used for the calculation of depreciation. At the end of 2010, in accordance with the national
accounting practices aligned with the European directives the assets of ROMATSA have been restated at fair
value by an independent expert. After the restatement the net book value of the assets has been increased by
about 30%. The restatement has been also audited by independent auditor KPNG Romania, together with all
financial statements of ROMATSA for 2010.
6. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base;
Cost of capital was calculated for 2010 at the average net book value of fixed assets and the average value of the
net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts.
The value of fixed assets at 31.12.2010 was restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a tender
procedure.
Cost of capital of 2011 was calculated at the net book value of the assets at 01.01.2011.
The return on equity applied was 8% which is in line with the 10 year rate of the government bonds.
The return on equity has been distributed between en route and terminal using the depreciation key.
7. Description of the cost for each airport for each terminal charging zone: for aerodromes with less than 20
000 commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three
years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way per aerodrome;
As only the Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport Description is subject to the Regulation 1794/2006 only the
costs for this airport are presented in the tables.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 56/100

8. Breakdown of the MET costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs of
supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general.
These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observation, surface and
upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and
supporting core research, training and administration;
ROMATSA is the designated service provider for aeronautical MET and runs its own meteorological services
internally. These services are provided only for aviation purposes.
9. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation
and between en route charging zones;
All ROMATSA en-route MET costs are exclusively costs for civil aviation and are allocated to one en-route
charging zone.
1. Description and rationale for the establishment of the different terminal charging zones;
The terminal charging zone covers only the Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport the only airport in
Romania that is above the threshold of 50.000 commercial movements per year. Romania has decided not to
apply the Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 on the other airports according to the provisions of Art. 5(6). Romania has
analysed different scenarios on the establishment of terminal charging zones and consultations were held with
users on 10 September 2009. An important majority of the users participating at the consultation supported the
application of the Regulation and the establishment of charging zone only for Bucharest Henri Coand
International Airport and the continuation of the current charging system at all the other airports. IATA, that could
not attend the consultation meeting, informed Romania on 29 October 2009 on their support for the establishment
of a separate unit rate for the Bucharest Henri Coand International Airport.
2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units;
Service units are calculated with an exponent of 0,7. 2012-2014 service units taken into account in the cost base
were based on the statistical forecast made by ROMATSA. As the number of service units in the time series is
limited only to the actual 2008-2010, the accuracy of the forecast, especially on longer term, is limited, but will be
improved for future submissions.
3. Description and explanation of the methodology used with respect to the recovery of the balance
resulting from over/under recovery of previous years;
The treatment of carry-overs of over/under recoveries from previous years is presented below:
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
F F P P P
Carry over of
under/over
recoveries (in '000
RON)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 57/100

Balance Year 2010 7.457 3.729 3.729

Balance Year 2011 4.458 1.000 3.458
Amounts carried
over to year (i) 0 0 3.729 4.729 3.458
4. Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related
costs;
The following flights are exempted from the terminal charges:

- Romanian military aircraft;
- Foreign military aircraft for which bilateral agreements are in force, on request of the Romanian Ministry of
National Defence,
- Aircraft performing flights exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her
immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must
be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan;
- Aircraft performing flights for the benefit of the United Nations Organisation, Red Cross or Red Crescent
Organisation;
- Civil aircraft performing search and rescue flights or transporting personnel and materials for such actions;
- Aircraft carrying out humanitarian flights and providing urgent assistance;
- Aircraft forced to land due to technical reasons, bad weather or other force majeure reasons;
- Aircraft forced to land by order of the Romanian competent authorities;
- Other aircraft according to the law provisions.
Other aircraft may be exempted from the payment of charges, totally or in part, with the approval of the Ministry of
Transport and Infrastructure.
The costs of the exempted flights are deducted from the cost base according to the Regulation. The current
legislation for the reimbursement of the costs of exempted flights from the state budget is limited to the en-route
services. Until the legislation changes to include the exempted flights at Bucharest Henri Coand International
Airport in the reimbursement mechanism, the terminal services costs for the exempted flights will be supported
from the return on equity.
5. Description of the income from other sources when they exist;
The following revenues from other sources were used, their corresponding costs being deducted directly from the
cost base:
- Revenues from provisions for which costs were included in the cost base in previous periods;
- Gains from exchange rate
6. Description and explanation of incentives applied on air navigation service providers and, in particular,
the modalities to be applied in setting regulatory conditions on the level of unit rates. Description and
explanation of the objectives in terms of performance and on the modalities to take them into account in
the setting of maximum unit rates;
No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the air navigation service providers.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 58/100

7. Description of the plans of air navigation service providers in order to meet projected demand and
performance objectives;
The premises of the development of air navigation services in Romania for the next 15 -20 years are the current
external and internal environment conditions, and the strategic guidelines are the ones defined by the revised
package of the regulations on the Single European Sky implementation (SES II) in 2008. ROMATSA must invest
significantly in the air traffic management network and must implement important changes to design internal
operations and procedures, in order to fulfil the Single European Sky objectives.
ROMATSA Priorities for 2012-2015 are:
4. Putting ROMATSA Measures Plan into practice under the post crisis conditions:
- Flight Efficiency Plan adjustment initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA.
5. ATM SYSTEM ROMATSA 2015+ DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION in order to fulfil SES
requirements regarding interoperability of ATM System.
6. DANUBE FAB This project has been initiated jointly with the Bulgarian ANSP (BULATSA) since 2004,
subject to the strategic guidelines defined by Single European Sky, with the aim of improving the regional
efficiency of the air traffic management networks. The initiative of Romania and Bulgaria was sustained by
ROMATSA during 2006-2008 by expanding the contacts and cooperation actions with the Bulgarian ANSP
BULATSA and by gaining political support for this project that materialised in the signature of the
Memorandum of Understanding by the Ministers of Transports in February 2010. It is to be mentioned:
- The Feasibility Study on Establishment of a functional airspace block (FAB) in the Romanian and
Bulgarian airspace DANUBE FAB completed in 2008, was followed by the definition of the institutional,
technical-operational and economic parameters regarding the implementation of the project, including the
stages and the schedule. According to this schedule, the following actions will be taken during 2011-2015
:
Definition of the legal and regulation framework;
Clarification of human resources and social impact for the establishment of the DANUBE FAB;
Completion of operational analysis on routes, sectors and architecture of DANUBE FAB;
Definition of the aeronautic information services in DANUBE FAB;
Definition of the meteorological services in DANUBE FAB;
The completion of the technical analysis to determine the system requirements and modifications
to be implemented;
The formulation of standards and methodologies for personnel training in DANUBE FAB;
The establishment of safety, quality and environmental management systems as well as the
aeronautic and information security management system;
Definition of the economic and financial aspects concerning the operation of the DANUBE FAB .
- The Use of 1.25 million Euros granted by the EU TEN-T Agency for the partial financing of the pre-
implementation stages of the project, respectively until the ratification of the International Agreement by
the Parliaments of the two states, action scheduled in 2012. The project schedule has been designed
based on the requirements of the legislative package on Single European Sky in 2004, amended by the
EC Regulation 1070/2009;
Danube FAB is scheduled to start functioning in December 2012.
8. Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of en route services;
No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the airspace users.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 59/100

Annex D Extracts from ROMATSA Strategic Business Plan 2011-2015

i. In December 2010, ROMATSA issued edition 4.0 of its strategic business plan covering 2011-
2015 period. The document consolidates our conclusions on the scale of costs and
investments correlated with traffic forecasts. The information is subject of annual customer
consultation process and revisions and the document is up-dated accordingly.
ii. The document is consolidated in Romanian language.
iii. The text below represents the extracts from ROMATSA Strategic Business Plan 2011-2015,
ed. 4.0/dec. 2010. A revised document, in English language, will be prepared for the
stakeholders consultation (planned in May 2011).
Introduction
The Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration - RA ROMATSA was established on 1
December 1991 by HG no. 74/1991, as amended and supplemented by HG no. 731/1992,
HG no. 75/2005, HG 1090/2006, HG 1251/2007 and HG 741/2008.
RA ROMATSA is organized as a self-financing public company, being the certified and
designated as air navigation services provider, including air traffic services, aeronautical
communication services, navigation and surveillance services in the aeronautical field,
aeronautical meteorological services, aeronautical information services, as well as
coordination of the search and rescue missions in the FIR-Flight Information Region of
Bucharest.
In addition to its basic activities, ROMATSA also has the right to perform consulting activities
and to provide services in its field of activity, as well as research-development activities,
including the manufacturing and trading of products specific to the air traffic management
field, by its own forces or in partnership with the internal or external economic entities, as
well as to perform its own transport activities, as per the legislation in force.
The air navigation services provided by ROMATSA are:
a) en-route air traffic control and information in the FIR-Flight Information Region of
Bucharest. The services are provided by the Regional Control Centre ACC Bucharest
by 3 locations: ACC Bucharest Bucharest location, ACC Bucharest ARAD
location and ACC Bucharest Constana location.
b) terminal (approach and aerodrome) air traffic control and information in Bucharest
TMA Terminal Control Area of Otopeni and Bneasa airports, as well as in the CTR
Control Areas of the other 16 Romanian airports.
Vision and mission

By the approval of the European Union regulations for the SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
(SES) concept an irreversible process was initiated for the change of the conception and of
the framework for the provision of the air navigation services in Europe, such regulations
significantly influencing the way of providing the air navigation services in the entire
EUROCONTROL and ECAC space.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 60/100

Therefore, during the reconfiguration process for the European air traffic services network,
RA ROMATSA must keep its key role in the area, to maintain a stable position, with a well-
defined identity.
The strategic goal of RA ROMATSA in the implementation process of the SES concept is
the preservation, optimal capitalization and promotion to ROMANIA's interest of the
operational, technical and human potential as a national provider of air navigation services.
In the context of the Single European Sky, ROMATSA will provide air navigation services at
a high level of safety, quality and performance, while observing the applicable requirements
and contributing to the achievement of the goals of the Single European Sky together with
the consolidation of its position in the region in partnership with the air navigation services
providers.
For the full satisfaction of our clients we will achieve all of our proposed goals in full safety
and security conditions, in an efficient manner, while protecting the environment and using
highly qualified and motivated human resources.
2.1. Strategic guidelines

Safety: Improving the safety level in accordance with the national and international
requirements (SAF).
Quality: Continuously improving the certified Quality Management System of RA
ROMATSA, in all its fields of activity (QAL).
Efficiency: Improving the quality and performance level required for the provision of air
navigation services, achieving the strategic goals at the most efficient
cost/performance rate (FIN).
Capacity: Maintaining the zero delay and optimal capacity level (CAP).
Security: Fulfilling the requirements for the aeronautical and information security in
cooperation with the competent authorities (SEC).
Environment: Implementation, certification and maintenance of an Environment Management
System, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001:2004 standard
(ENV).
Human Resources: Maintaining a high level of professionalism and flexibility among all
employees by increasing the professional motivation and satisfaction,
maintaining a stimulating work environment and promoting a result-based
culture (HUM).
2.2. Medium-level goals
OM1 Increase of the safety level: Consolidation and improvement of the safety
management system in accordance with the requirements of ICAO and
EUROCONTROL in this field.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 61/100

OM2 Implementation of the safety culture: Promotion and maintenance among all
employees of a safety culture.
OM3 ROMATSA operational concept: Implementation of the operational concept
correlated with the European regulations (SES) and regional developments
(FAB).
OM4 Implementation within ROMATSA of the quality excellence model:
Optimization of the organization and functioning of RA ROMATSA by
maintaining the certification of the Quality Management System, oriented
towards meeting the clients requirements and continuously improving the
provided services.
OM5 Cost efficiency: Reaching some high levels of efficiency so that the
performances improvement may be achieved at some optimal costs.
Development of new levels of cost efficiency for each activity/location.
OM6 Implementation of FAB concept: Taking the necessary measures to create and
implement a FAB in the region in the context of ROMATSA and ATSA Bulgaria
initiative.
OM7 Regional harmonization of the ATM/CNS system: Identification and creation of
the necessary levels and procedures for the achievement and maintenance of
the interoperability of the ATM/CNS systems.
OM8 Improvement of the ATM/CNS system: Development of the ATM/CNS system
in accordance with the evolution of the operational requirements for
interoperability.
OM9 Improvement of the Air Space Management: Optimization of the air space
management in cooperation with the national authorities and regional partners.
OM10 Increase of the security level: Implementation of some plans and procedures
for the prevention of the aeronautical security events and of some plans and
procedures for the management of crisis situations in coordination with the
national competent bodies for assuring the aeronautical security at national
level.
OM11 Civil-military cooperation: Optimization of the air space management in
cooperation with the military authorities.
OM12 Optimization of processes: Optimization of the internal processes of
ROMATSA for the support functions (non-operational), improvement of their
organization structure and of the performance indicators.
OM13 Optimization of the institutional and legal framework: Permanent concern for
the improvement of the legal and institutional framework regulating the activity
of ROMATSA.
OM14 Implementation of an environment management system: Development of a
policy and of specific procedures in accordance with the applicable
environment standards.
OM15 Continuous improvement of the individual and team performances through the
implementation of a performance management mechanism in correlation with
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 62/100

the long-term career development, by the staff stimulation and social

protection.
Priorities for 2011-2014
i. Application of ROMATSA Plan of measures given the economic crisis by adaptation of the
Flight Efficient Plan initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA, with the following
necessary actions:
- Operational measures for maintaining the traditional traffic and attracting new traffic
(shorter routes, other operational improvements especially for the air space design),
- Optimization of using the air space especially in the civil-military cooperation,
- Enhancement of cooperation with the main airports (Bucharest, Timioara, Cluj) and
with the air operators for the efficient/optimal use of the facilities in a harmonized
decision making environment,
- Implementation of the continuous descend approach procedures for landing - CDA,
- Direct promotion of ROMATSA services especially to the main air operators served
by ROMATSA.
- Reschedule of capital expenses for the protection of the organization during the
period of the financial crisis, resulting in savings of 5.093 million Euro, as well as the
reduction of operational expenses, without affecting the safety of the provided
services
- Analysis and adaptation of the work program correlated with the activity of the
airports with reduced traffic.
- Increase of cooperation with the technical services providers for attracting/obtaining
additional income, other than from the basic activity.
- Increase of cooperation with the air navigation services providers for the timely
identification of the common solutions for the protection and promotion of the
common projects.
- Promotion and sustaining of a harmonized program at the level of MTI, County
Councils for the airport developments correlated with ROMATSA investments.
ii. DANUBE FAB in order to improve the regional efficiency of the air traffic management
networks, ever since 2004 this project has been initiated in partnership with the Bulgarian
corresponding entity (ATSA Bulgaria) in compliance with the strategic guidelines defined by
the regulations for the Single European Sky.
iii. Finalization of the implementation of the operational concept, defined as per HG 536/2000
and as per the stages of operational development of ROMATSA correlated with the
European and regional terms and objectives with respect to the implementation of the Single
European Sky concept.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 63/100

iv. ROMATSA project for 2010+ The project started in 2007 as a result of the need to make
the air traffic services in Romania efficient, considering the evolution of ROMATSA
performance indicators from the last years, has the following main goals:
- Internal reorganization and staged reduction of the total number of staff to the target
of 1515 by 31 December 2015.
- Implementation of an E-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM in ROMATSA consisting in the
procurement and installation of some software applications for the management of
resources and documents in electronic format on a software and communication
infrastructure properly dimensioned and secured as per the project needs.
v. Assuring full interoperability of the ROMANIAN ATM System with respect to the applicable
SES requirements including data-link services.
vi. Assuring the surveillance service by radar or radar equivalent in FIR Bucharest and FAB
DANUBE by improving the surveillance service with radar Mode S and multilateration.
vii. Implementation, in accordance with the Navigation Strategy for ECAC countries, SESAR
Master Plan and ICAO PBN Manual, of the following measures:
- Gradual introduction of PBN RNAV procedures in all flight phases.
- Gradual introduction of APV Baro-VNAV approaching procedures.
- Gradual introduction of APV I procedures depending on the deadline for the
operational putting into service of EGNOS system.
- Introduction by the end of 2016 of a PBN RNAV approaching procedure in all airports.
- Maintain ILS equipment as a support for the precision approaching and equipment of
each airport with a ILS/DME system for at least one of the landing directions.
- Maintain DME equipment as ground means for PBN RNAV assurance. Installation of
some additional DME equipment as a support for P-RNAV procedures in the newly
defined TMA areas.
- Gradual reduction of the number of NDB and VOR equipments, while introducing the
new ILS and APV procedures.
- Withdrawal from service of all PAR radar precision equipments after the introduction
of the new ILS and APV procedures.
Modernization context
The international background for the modernization of the ATM system in Romania is
defined by the harmonized regulation framework of the Single European Sky concept and by
FAB DANUBE initiative, for the creation by Romania and Bulgaria of a functional air space
block.
The development of the air navigation services in Romania for the next 15 - 20 years is
based on the current conditions of the external and internal environment, and has as
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 64/100

strategic guidelines those defined by the revised regulation package of 2008 for the
implementation of the Single European Sky (SES II). In order to achieve the objectives for
the Single European Sky, ROMATSA must significantly invest in the infrastructure of the air
traffic management network and implement some important changes in the concept of the
internal operations and procedures.
Requirements for the future ROMATSA ATM system for 2015+

In order to meet the requirements imposed by SES regulations, all factors involved must act
in a cooperative manner, using the benefits of a distributed integrated information network.
All participants involved in the air traffic management process will have access to the
information even from the initial flight planning phases, they will be able to use such
information according to their own interests, to identify the possible limitations and
constraints, and by using the cooperative decision making mechanisms available in the
network, they will be able to negotiate and accept the flights planned parameters.
The first requirement for the reconfiguration of the roles and responsibilities of the
participants in the ATM network is generated by the introduction of the management concept
by planning and corrections/interventions by exception, instead of the classical one of the
management by intervention.
By the dynamic planning within the network there will be a stable balance created between
the known level of the demand and the capacities offered to the air navigation services
users. This will be achieved by an active management of the demand and of the available
capacities and by ensuring an optimized response in the case of exceptions.
Thus, the modernized ATM system of ROMATSA will provide air traffic management
services by sequential, correlated and continuously coordinated operations, in all flight
phases within FIR BUCHAREST.
The services provided will be compliant with the requirements of the air space users, the
ATM system will be completely interoperable and, according to EC specifications, it will
contribute to reducing the impact of the aviation on the environment.
The systems and related operational procedures will enable the assurance of the dynamic
flexible routes as required by the users, will allow the introduction and update of the
information to all factors involved through the cooperative decision making mechanism in the
flights planning and operation.
In accordance with HG 536/2000, ROMATSA air traffic units will provide the air traffic
services and related ATM activities, as follows:
ACC BUCHAREST CDZ BUCHAREST

- regional control service in the air space of the entire Flight Information Region
(FIR) Bucharest;
- flight information service in the air space of the entire Flight Information Region
(FIR) Bucharest;
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 65/100

- alarming service, as well as air traffic capacities and flows management for the
entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Bucharest;
- responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the entire FIR
Bucharest.
APP Arad CDZ ARAD
- approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA ARAD;
- alarming service for the distributed responsibility area;
- responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed
responsibility area.
APP Bucharest CDZ BUCHAREST
- approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA
BUCHAREST;
APP Cluj CDZ BUCHAREST
- approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA Cluj;
APP Constana CDZ CONSTANA
- approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA
Constana;
TWR Otopeni, Bneasa, Craiova, Arad, Timioara, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Trgu Mure,
Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacu, Iai, Suceava, Constana and Tulcea:
- aerodrome control service, as well as flight information service for the aerodrome
control areas in question;
Contingency Room 1 operational in CDZ Bucharest
Contingency Room 2 operational in external location of CDZ Bucharest
SAR Coordination Centre operational in CDZ Bucharest
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 66/100

AIS and MET

The new operational concept proposed for the operation of ROMATSA aeronautical and
meteorological information services is defined as follows:
- centralization of the aeronautical and meteorological information activities
(MET+ARO+AIS) in a single operational entity, namely the ROMATSA Single
Aeronautical Information Centre, to subsequently become the AIM National
Centre;
- utilization within central unit of two forms of providing the aeronautical and
meteorological information services, namely:
i. Aided Briefing on Otopeni, Timioara and Constana airports, taking into
consideration the importance of these airports from the strategic point of view
(significant traffic, ICAO II or III operation category, reserve airports for
international flights being located in areas with different climate conditions,
their utilization by the military aviation, including NATO exercises).
ii. Self-Briefing, on the other airports;
- extensive use of some specialized applications, both for the remotely aided Briefing
and for the Self-Briefing, for the access to PIB, flight meteo documentation (MET)
and FPL presentation. The FPL presentation will be made directly or by Intranet to
the local (Self) Briefing office of the CU or by any other telecommunication means
available to the user, initially represented by phone and fax, and starting from 2010
by e-mail and Internet, as per the internal procedures and agreements concluded
with the users;
- utilization within the aided Briefing of some licensed multidisciplinary prepared staff
able to perform both the aeronautical and meteorological information;
- preparation of the necessary conditions for the implementation of FAB DANUBE in
the field of the meteorological and aeronautical information services, including the
take-over of AIS functions (NOTAM, AIP, MAP) from AACR and their inclusion
within the structure of the new Single Aeronautical Information Centre;
- Romania's alignment to ICAO and EUROCONTROL actions for AIS migration
towards AIM and preparation of the technical and operational conditions for
Romania's inclusion within SWIM at European level and application of SESAR
requirements.
6.1. AIS:
In the field of the aeronautical information services, AIS will be changed into AIM, in
accordance with the stages, terms and objectives set in ICAO document Roadmap for the
transition from AIS to AIM, edition 2009. ROMATSA activity with respect to AIS will be
extended upon the take-over from AACR of AIS activities related to NOTAM, AIP and Maps.
The traditional AIS activities, which will also include ARO/Briefing will be performed within
the Single Aeronautical Information Centre (CU), while upon the AIS transition to AIM, the
CU Single Aeronautical Information Centre will be changed into AIM National Centre.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 67/100

In the field of the aeronautical information ROMATSA will provide the following services:
- Single Aeronautical Information Centre, (AIM National Centre):
NOTAM, AIP and production of aeronautical maps,
provision of FPL, PIB, remote flight Meteo doc. upon request,
ARO/ Aided Briefing on Otopeni, Timioara and Constana airports, including
verification and sending of ATS and ATFCM messages,
- Self-Briefing offices in Bneasa, Craiova, Arad, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Trgu

Mure, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacu, Iai, Suceava and Tulcea:
provision of PIB and flight Meteo documents as Self-Briefing,
FPL presentation.
6.2. MET:
In the field of aeronautical meteorological services ROMATSA will further provide the
aeronautical meteorological services by its structure of dedicated units, represented by:
- National Centre for Aeronautical Meteorological:
meteorological watch, forecasts and warnings for FIR Bucharest,
meteorological forecasts and warnings for the aerodromes in Romania.
- BMA Otopeni, Bneasa, Craiova, Arad, Timioara, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Trgu

Mure, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacu, Iai, Suceava, Constana and
Tulcea:
aerodrome meteorological watch, observations and warnings,
meteorological information services as Self-Briefing or aided Briefing.
HUMAN RESOURCES
The provision of the air navigation services in a safe, efficient, continuous and sustained
manner determines the load of the CTA staff in correlation with the air traffic volume, in the
given conditions as to the:
- non-uniform distribution of the traffic volume at the traffic units and
- national regulations stipulating the obligation to operate in a pre-established timetable,
ROMATSA being forced to maintain the active staff even at the units where there is no
continuous activity.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 68/100

7.1. Staff planning
The determination of the labour demand takes into account the estimated traffic, the
implementation of the Operational Concept and of the stages of ROMATSA development
strategy, as well as the planning of the capacity and number of CTA that can retire in the
following years. The staff planning was made till now by using the calculation formula from
CAP 670 (UK), Part D, Appendix B.
The staff needs will be updated on a yearly basis, depending on the traffic estimates, the
possible modifications of the legislation regarding the condition and retirement of the CTA,
the productivity indicators or other factors.
Besides the above mentioned factors, the calculation of the necessary staff for each traffic
unit is also affected by the specific conditions that may occur, such as: possible construction
works at the airport runways, season fluctuations of the activity, performance of specific
trainings.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 69/100

Annex E - DANUBE FAB, Flight hours and KPIs 2005-2009
(Source: Fab Progress Report 2010, V.1.0, EUROCONTROL)
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 70/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 71/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 72/100

Annex F - Extracts from State Safety Programme Romania
Civil Aviation Safety Policy in Romania
Civil aviation safety management is one of Romanias major responsibilities. To this end, Romania
committs itself to develop, implement, maintain and constantly improve the safety management
system strategies and processes in order to ensure that all the activities being carried out under its
supervision will reach the highest safety performance level, complying at the same time with the
national and international standards.
All those certified/authorised civil aeronautical agents which fall under the aplicability area of this
policy have to prove that their management system is an appropriate reflection of the Safety
Management System approach. The expected results following the adoption of this approach are
reflected in the improvement of safety management, safety practices, as well as safety reporting in
the national civil aeronautical industry.
In Romania, all management levels are responsible for providing the best safety performances,
starting with the accountable manager.
Romania committs itself to:
1. develop general rules and specific operational policies based on the safety management
principles , as well as on a thorough analysis of the national civil aviation system;
2. consult all the interested parties within the national civil aeronautical industry on matters
related to the process of drawing up and promoting new regulations in the field;
3. support the civil aviation safety management in Romania through an efficient communication
and reporting system;
4. interact directly with service providers in order to identify solutions to safety problems;
5. make sure that the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority has sufficient resources at its
disposal and that the employees directly involved in activities which have an impact on safety
are competent, have relevant experience and possess the necessary safety training;
6. conduct supervision activities considering performance and certification requirements
maintenance, using safety analysis and prioritising resource allocation based on the identified
risks;
7. respect and whenever possible, surpass the minimum safety level imposed by regulations and
international standards requirements;
8. promote the principles and safety management beliefs and educate the civil aeronautical
industry in their spirit;
9. supervise the appropriate safety management system implementation process in the civil
aviation organisations;
10. make sure that all the activities under its supervision reach the highest safety standards;
11. establish measures that will enable the protection of safety data , of the Safety Information
Collection and Processing System, as well as of the identity of persons who denounce
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 73/100

deficiencies, encourage people to continuously provide essential information regarding safety

risks and facilitate safety management data exchange between civil aviation institutions and
civil aeronautical agents, while maintaining the confidentiality of the collected data;
12. set and measure safety performance in the case of the service providers, in accordance with
targets and performance indicators clearly defined and submitted;
13. promulgate an enforcement policy which would emphasize the fact that the Safety Information
Collection and Processing System which was implemented according to the Safety
Management System and the National Civil Aviation Safety Programme requirements will be
used as fundament for the enforcement activities only in those situations where flagrant errors
are identified or when there exists a deliberate infringement of the legal provisions.
The safety policy has to be understood, implemented and analyzed by all the persons who are
carrying out civil aviation activities.
National Enforcement Policy
1. Introduction
The present enforcement policy is issued under the authority of the Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure as state authority in civil aviation in Romania.
2. Principles
The process of drawing up and implementing this policy is a result of a thorough national
analysis of the activities which have an impact on safety and are carried out by
authorised/certified civil aeronautical agents.
The Safety Management Systems implementation process requires Romania to develop an
approach based on a flexible enforcement application, considering the constantly evolving
legal framework, while ensuring at the same time that the entry into force of the enforcement
functions is carried out in a coherent, practical and impartial manner. In the case of safety
management systems implementation and functioning, the flexible enforcement approach is
based on two general principles.
The first general principle is that of developing enforcement procedures that would allow
service providers to analyze and settle events which refer to safety requirements deviations,
in the internal context of the service providers safety management system, and would also
comply with the authority requirements. The deliberate infringement of the provisions
stipulated in Romanias civil air Code, as well as of other safety regulations is investigated
and furthermore, legally sanctioned, should the situation require it.
The second general principle provides that sanctioning actions should not be based on
information derived from safety data or from safety information collection and processing
systems set up under a safety management system.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 74/100

3. Scope
The principles which represent the fundament for the enforcement policy as well as its
associated procedures are applicable to the service providers who carry out their activities in
compliance with the provisions of the following ICAO annexes : Annex 1 Personnel
Licensing, Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft (Part 1 International commercial air transport /
Aircraft, Part 3 International operations / Helicopters), Annex 8 Airworthiness of aircraft,
Annex 11 Air traffic services and Annex 14 Aerodromes (Volume 1- Aerodromes design
and operations)
In this context, the term service provider can be defined as any civil aeronautical agent
providing services in the civil aviation field.
4. Generic facts
The service providers will implement, develop and maintain a safety management system
tailored for the number , nature and complexity of the authorised operations which can be
carried out in compliance with the provisions stipulated in its authorisation certificate ,
considering at the same time the risks that these operations might pose for safety.
The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors will maintain a permanent contact with
the service providers with a view to developing an enforcement policy which would enhance
the safety management system implementation.
The infringement of safety regulations provisions by a service provider, who has a safety
management system implemented, will lead to the use of specific monitoring procedures.
These procedures allow the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors responsible
for the supervision of the service providers activities to communicate with the person in
charge with the safety management system. The main objective of this interaction is for both
sides to agree on the proposed corrective actions as well as on the action plan through
which a new infringement of the provisions would be avoided, while giving the service
provider the necessary time for their implementation. This approach aims to support an
efficient safety reporting process, the service providers employees being able to denounce
the deficiencies and the threats to safety, without being afraid they will be submitted to
punitive actions. A service provider can, without having to identify responsibilities and
without fearing punitive actions, analyze the events and the individual or organisational
factors which led to their occurrence and implement corrective actions which will resolve the
problems which were identified and will prevent their reappearance.
5. Corrective actions
The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority, represented by its inspector, responsible with
the supervision of the service providers activities, will assess the proposed corrective
actions and/or the system which was implemented in order to prevent the occurrence of the
events which led to the infringement of the safety regulations provisions.
Should the proposed corrective actions be considered appropriate in such a way as to
prevent the reappearance of legal provisions infringement situations, enhancing their better
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 75/100

compliance, the deviations analysis will be concluded without taking administrative

measures.
Should the corrective actions or the systems which were implemented be considered
inappropriate, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will maintain the dialogue with the
services supplier in order to find a satisfactory solution to the problems, before taking
administrative measures.
Nevertheless, should the service provider refuse to identify the problems and apply
appropriate corrective actions, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will consider
imposing sanctions or administrative measures related to the certification documents.
6. Procedures application
Cases of civil aviation regulations infringement can show up due to different reasons,
starting from simple misunderstandings of the legal provisions to those situations of
indifference to aviation safety. The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority has at its disposal
different enforcement procedures, depending on the circumstances, with a view to
supporting an efficient safety obligations approach, these obligations deriving from
Romanias civil air Code provisions.
The outcome following the usage of these procedures can be highlighted in the actions
described below:
- counselling;
- recurrent training;
- administrative measures (authorisation modification, suspension or revocation);
- applying contraventional sanctions according to the law in vigour.
7. Enforcement actions impartiality

The enforcement actions decisions must not be influenced by:
- personal conflicts;
- aspects which refer to: sex, gender, religion, political beliefs;
- social, political or financial status of the persons involved in the event.
8. Answer proportionality
The enforcement actions decision have to be proportional to the type and nature of the
infringements which were identified as well as to the risks to safety, being based on two
principles:
- The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will take administrative measures against
those who will constantly and deliberatley operate outside the limits of civil aviation
regulations;
- The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will support the creation of a safety culture
among service providers personnel, especially among those who committ themselves to
fixing the deficiencies in the safety field.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 76/100

9. Logical justice and responsibility

The enforcement actions decisions have to:
- be correct and follow the normal track;
- be transparent for all the persons involved;
- consider the case circumstances as well as the services suppliers attitude/actions when
the enforcement action is proposed;
- be consistent with actions/decisions adopted in the case of similar past circumstances;
- be subject to internal or external reviews.
10. Exceptions
The enforcement policy is not applicable in those cases where there are no proofs leading to
the existence of a deliberate effort undertaken to hide the deviations.
This policy is not applicable in those situations where the service supplier does not succeed
in ensuring trust in the risk management and in the perils identification means.
The enforcement policy is not applicable to those service providers who constantly infringe
the legal safety provisions. The classification of an organisation in the above mentioned
terms takes place if similar deviations from the legal safety provisions were identified in the
past as well. In this case, contraventional sanctions (or other administrative measures) , set
through specific procedures, will be imposed.
National civil aviation safety promotion
A. Internal civil aviation safety information distribution, disclosure and dissemination.

i. The main national managing authorities in civil aviation are the following:
1. The state authority in civil aviation Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure;
2. Flight Safety National Supervisory Authority Romanian Civil
Aeronautical Authority;
3. Accidents/Serious incidents national investigation authority Civil
Aviation Safety Investigation and Analysis Centre.
ii. Internal training courses, as well as courses delivered by recognized
international organizations, are provided to all the employees from the main
national managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities which
have a direct impact on the civil aviation safety.
iii. The individual training programme for the employees within the main national
managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities which have a
direct impact on the civil aviation safety, is shaped around issues which are
related to the State Safety Programme and Safety Management System
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 77/100

implementation and is comprised of initial/recurrent training courses, on the job

training, as well as specific training provided by civil aeronautical agents which
already have or implement safety management systems.
iv. The training courses which have to be undertaken by the employees within the
main national managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities
which have a direct impact on the civil aviation safety, are assigned following
the provisions of the training procedures drawn up and approved in each
organization, these procedures being part of the national safety training
programme.
v. The assessment of the above-mentioned training courses efficiency is an
important part of the audit related to the National Civil Aviation Safety
Programme implementation and functioning.
vi. Information dissemination as well as internal communication on matters
regarding civil aviation safety are processes which are carried out either
through printed copies of the information bulletins and the safety reports drawn
up and published by the State Safety Action Group, or electronically, by editing
the information contained in these documents on the web page, etc;
B. External civil aviation safety information distribution, disclosure and dissemination
i. Meetings are frequently held with a view to analysing variuous issues related
to civil aviation safety, the main objective of these meetings being that of
ensuring an efficient communication in the national civil aeronautical industry.
ii. The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority organizes training courses for the
personnel from the civil aviation organizations, publishing at the same time
guidance materials regarding the Safety Management System implementation
and functioning requirements, in order to ensure a good understanding and
standardization of the Safety Management System implementation process in
the civil aviation organizations
iii. The training courses which have to be undertaken by the civil aviation agents
personnel are an important condition in the process of accepting the Safety
Management System which was implemented in the organisation.
iv. The assessment of the efficiency of the training courses provided to those
employees who carry out activities which have a direct impact on civil aviation
safety, is made through an analysis of the results following the safety audits
conducted by the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors , through
which the civil aeronautical agents are evaluated .
v. Considering the importance of national aeronautical industry safety information
disclosure and dissemination, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will
draw up and publish safety policies, information bulletins and procedures on its
own web page.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 78/100

Annex G - Outcome of stakeholder consultation
Appendix G1 - The meeting agenda
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLANS

STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MEETING
5 May 2011
(10h00-16h00)
ROMATSA headquarters
Item Subject Material

1.
Welcome remarks
2.
Approval of agenda
3. Presentation of the Draft Performance Plans Slides to be provided at the

Main topics: meeting
Approachfor the EU-wide targets for ANS
by the end of RP1
Contribution of each accountable entity
Analysis of sensitivity
4. Draft Performance Plan for
Discussions regarding the National Performance stakeholder consultation
Plans sent to participants on 14
April 2011
5.
Next steps
6.
Any other business
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 79/100

Appendix G2 - Invitation
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 80/100

Appendix G3 - The guest list
List of airspace users associations

were invited to stakeholder consultation meeting on
performance plans Bucharest, 5 May 2011
LIST OF CONTACT POINTS:
IACA International Air Carrier Association

228 Avenue Louise /Bte 7
B-1050 Brussels
Belgium
Contact: Guy Battistella, (guy.battistella@iaca.be)
Director Finance
Tel: +32-2-546.10.67, Fax:+32-2-546.10.70
Website: <http://www.iaca.be/>
IATA International Air Transport Association

33, Route de l'Aroport
1215 Geneva 15 Airport
Switzerland
Contact (1): Laurie O'TOOLE (otoolel@iata.org)
Assistant Director Airport & ATC Charges
Tel +41 22 770 2733, Fax +41 22 770 2689
Contact (2): Hemant Mistry (mistryh@iata.org)

Assistant Director
Airport & ATC Charges
Tel: +41 22 770 2823, Fax +41 22 770 2689, Mob +41 79 816 5615
Website: <www.iata.org>
AEA Association of European Airlines

Avenue Louise 350, Bte 4
1050 BRUSSELS
BELGIUM
Contact : Vincent De Vroey (vincent.de.vroey@aea.be)
Tel: +322 639 8986, Fax: +322 639 8999
Website: http://www.aea.be
ERAA The European Regions Airline Association

European Regions Airline Association
The Baker Suite
Fairoaks Airport
Chobham, Woking
Surrey
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 81/100

United Kingdom
GU24 8HX
Contact(1): Nick Mower (nick.mower@eraa.org)
Contact(2): Simon McNamara (Simon.McNamara@eraa.org)
Tel : +44 (0) 1276 856495, Fax: +44 (0) 1276 857038
Website : <http://www.eraa.org>
ELFAA European Low Fares Airline Association

Avenue des Arts, 46
P.O. box:
1000 BRUSSELS
BELGIUM
Contact: John Hanlon (john.hanlon@elfaa.com)
Tel: +32 (0)2 504 90 05, Fax: +32 (0)2 732 71 76
Website: <http://www.elfaa.com >
EBAA European Business Aviation Association

Avenue de Tervuren 13 a-b Box 5
1040 BRUSSELS
BELGIUM
Contact: Pedro VICENTE AZUA (pedrovazua@ebaa.org)
Chief Operating Officer
Tel: Phone: +32 2 766 0070, Fax: +322 768 1325
Website: <www.ebaa.org>
IAOPA International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Contact: Martin Robinson (martin@aopa.co.uk)
50a Cambridge Street
London, SW1V 4QQ
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7834 5631, Fax: +44 (0)20 7834 8623
http://www.aopa.co.uk/
COMPANIA NAIONAL AEROPORTURI BUCURETI ("Bucharest Airports" National

Company)
Contact: Tudor JIDAV
Calea Bucurestilor nr. 224 E
Otopeni, Ilfov County
Postal code 075150
Romania
Airport Information: + 4 021 2041000, +4 021 2014000
Fax: +4 021 2014990
e-mail: contact@bucharestairports.ro
web-site: www.bucharestairports.ro
MINISTY OF TRANSPORT, ROMANIAN CIVIL AVIATION

Contact: Ctlin RADU
Bd. Dinicu Golescu, nr. 38, Sector 1
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 82/100

Tel: +408021) 319.62.09

Fax: +40 (021) 319.61.62
e-mail: dgavc@mt.ro
TAROM, ROMANIAN AIR TRANSPORT

Contact: Gabriela BORDEA
224F Calea Bucuretilor , 2end floor
Henri Coand International Airport, departures Terminal
Tel: +40 (021) 201.4702
Fax: +40 (021) 201 4764
web-site: www.tarom.ro
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 83/100

Appendix G4 - Minutes of meeting
CONSULTATION DRAFT PERFORMANCE PLANS
05 May 2010
ROMATSA Headquarters
Bucharest, Romania
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
FROM Stakeholders:
Mr. Emil George DOBROVOLSCHI VP Flight Operations TAROM
Mr. Dragos MUNTEANU Safety & Quality Manager - TAROM
Mr. Martin CAMUS Manager Procurement &Logistics - EMIRATES
Mr. Wolfgang SCHEEL Senior Manager - LUFTHANSA
Mr. Cesar RAFFO Manager User Charges IATA Geneva
FROM Republic of Bulgaria:
Mr. Stoino Georgiev Deputy Director General - DGCAA

Mr. Kalin RAYCHEV Specialist Certification and ANS Dept. DGCAA
Mr. Angel RACHEV Deputy Director General on Operations - BULATSA
Mr. Vencislav MARKOV Director Finance - BULATSA
Ms. Nella SHISHKOVA Specialist Planning and Analysis Department BULATSA
Mr. Ivan ILIEV Expert Strategy and Planning - BULATSA
FROM Romania:
Ms. Claudia VRLAN Director General CAA
Mr. Ovidiu TRICHIOIU Air Transport Director CAA
Ms. Gabriela MOISA Commercial Dept. - CAA
Mr. Sorin CEPOI Head of Performance Analysis Dept. - CAA
Ms. Mihaela GEORGESCU Regulation Standardization and Safety Dept. - CAA
Mr. Adrian SERBAN Director General - ROMATSA
Mr. Bogdan DONCIU Counsellor of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure - Deputy
Director General on Operations ROMATSA
Ms. Silivia POPEANGA Director Finance and Planning- ROMATSA
Mr. Aleodor FRANCU Director Development, Profit Centers
Mr. Adrian PETRESCU Head of Charges Dept. - ROMATSA
Mr. Mihai DUMITRACHE Expert Charges Dept. -ROMATSA
Ms. Aura MARCULESCU Head of SES Dept. - ROMATSA
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 84/100

Mr. Miron TUDORAN ATM Expert - ROMATSA

Mr. Alexandru KRAMER Programme Coordination Unit ROMATSA
Mr. Razvan IONESCU Counsellor / General Directorate for Infrastructure and Air Transport /
Romanian Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
The following Agenda was agreed for discussions between parties:
Agenda Item 1: Welcome remarks

Agenda Item 2: Approval of agenda.
Agenda Item 3: Presentation of the Draft Performance Plans
Main topics:
Approach for the EU-wide targets for ANS by the end of RP1;
Contribution of each accountable entity
Analysis of sensitivity.
Agenda Item 4: Next steps
Agenda item 1 and 2
The meeting was opened by Mr. Bogdan DONCIU Deputy Director General on Operations (Counsellor of
the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure).
Mrs. Claudia VIRLAN, Director General Romanian CAA and Mr. Stoino GHEORGHIEV, Deputy Director
general DGCAA, Republic of Bulgaria welcome the participants from their States and the representatives
from IATA and AEA. Ms. Claudia VIRLAN made the presentation of the agenda and proposed to start with
the presentation of the Performance Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria followed by discussions and afterwards,
the presentation of the Performance Plan of Romania followed by discussions
Agenda item 3 - Presentation of the Performance Plans
3.1. Presentation of the Bulgarian Performance Plan
Bulgarian NSA and Bulatsa representatives presented the Bulgarian Performance Plan.
Questions regarding Bulgarian Performance Plan:

After the presentation of the Bulgarian Performance Plan the following questions have been raised:
Q1: Mr. Raffo asked which are the actions taken by the Bulgarian NSA in case the capacity targets are not
fulfilled.
Mr. Iliev answered that corrective action plans will be implemented in case capacity targets are not fulfilled,
but they dont consider that penalties are needed to be established. Only in case of deviations from the
targets, they will take into consideration penalties, as last possible measures.
Mr. Donciu mentioned that both Romania and Bulgaria made significant investments for the accommodation
of the demanding traffic, so we consider that, for the next period, no capacity problems are to be expected
that could pose problems to the fulfilment of capacity targets. Anyway, IATA point of view will be
acknowledged.
Q2: Determined unit rate is based on BULATSAs service units forecast and not on STATFOR forecast.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 85/100

Mr. Rachev confirmed that the forecast used for the determined unit rate is a national forecast and not
STATFOR and justified it by the last years experiences which revealed considerable differences between the
STATFOR forecast and real figures, STATFOR forecast being too optimistic.
Mr. Scheel considered the forecast used in the Bulgarian Performance Plan as a non realistic one, as there are
no reasons to believe the traffic will decrease in 2012. Without additional justifications the forecast could not
be acceptable.
Mr. Rachev gave some explanations about the considerations taken into account for the forecast used (e.g.
approximately 2% decrease in the average MTOW of overflying traffic, new airspace structure which led to a
2.5% reduction of the average distance overlflown, continuous decrease of the Far East traffic) which results
in a less than proportional service units growth in comparison with the traffic growth, and mentioned that
more details and additional explanations will be included in the Performance Plan.
Q3: Mr. Raffo considered the Plan is including too many information/data which are not final and subject
for further modifications. For example it is not clear which figures include the national changes of the VAT
legislation and which are not. What is the situation regarding Search and Rescue?
Mr. Rachev said that all the information/data included in the Performance Plan are the latest ones. The
investment part is including the VAT and the cost base does not include VAT. There will be some decrease
of the unit rate to reflect the VAT exclusion, but the full effect of the change is not yet assessed.
Mr. Scheel considered the text from page 6 of the Bulgarian Performance Plan is creating issues and the
interpretation can not be accomplished. The reduction generated by the VAT exclusion is not reflected by the
figures (operating costs and capital costs) and these should be recalculated.
Mr. Rachev mentioned that since middle of 2010 a special working group, who represents all the Ministries,
is preparing the general conditions for Search and Rescue and the needed steps. Consequently the
figures/expenses needed for the Search&Rescue will be communicated to the stakeholders.
Q4: Mr. Raffo considered that the Final Performance Plan shall include detailed explanations regarding
return on equity in order to provide a qualitative analysis.
Mr. Rachev agreed the proposal.
3.2. Presentation of the Romanian Performance Plan
The Romanian Performance Plan was presented by Mr. Sorin CEPOI, Romanian CAA.
Questions regarding the Romanian Performance Plan
Q1: Mr. Raffo asked why the cost efficiency is not in line with EU-wide targets.
Mr. Petrescu informed the participants that the figures are obtained using costs estimations for the reference
period according to the Business Plan.
Mr. Donciu offered explanations regarding the most important reasons for the differences between cost-
efficiency EU-wide percentage reduction target and Romanian cost-efficiency percentage reduction target
reflected by the determined unit rate during the Reference Period which include the reduction of the number
of ACCs costs and the costs of relocation. Also, Mr. Donciu emphasized that the 3.5% reduction target is an
EU-wide target and not a State-specific target and that Romanian determined unit rate for the Reference
Period 1 is in line and lower than the EU-wide target.
Mr. Raffo mentioned that Romatsa staff costs have increased in the last years and the increasing of the costs
is also noticed for RP1, although they expected a decrease of these costs and there should be at least a 3,5%
reduction of determined unit rate.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 86/100

Mr. Petrescu informed the participants that the relocation costs, costs for trainees and inflation are the main
reasons why the staff costs are increasing during 2013 and 2014.
Mr. Francu mentioned the history of the relocation process which started in 2007 and the necessity of
finalizing it in order to increase ROMATSAs productivity and to reduce the costs.
Mr. Camus confirmed the agreement for improving KPAs made in the past but considered the staff cost
reduction is still not appearing.
Mr. Rachev presented the Bulgarian experience regarding the relocation and mentioned that the benefits in
costs reduction will be seen later.
Mr. Donciu added the need to maintain an adequate level of salary for controllers in order to avoid their
migration and mentioned the costs of training new staff due to fact that the average age of controllers is 55
years.
Mr. Scheel and Mr. Camus appreciated that the cost-efficiency target is not acceptable and no clear
explanations regarding the basis of the figures have been included in the Performance Plan. The determined
unit rate should decrease with more than 3,5% per annum.
Mr. Raffo mentioned the necessity of establishing a relation between PPP indicator and the salary level.
Mr. Francu described the actual situation of economy and provided examples regarding EUROSTAT
estimation regarding the product prices in comparison to other EU countries. Mr Petrescu reminded that
EUROSTAT recommended the use of PPP only for comparison of GDP data between states and not for
specific industries. Mr. Petrescu also mentioned that, due to the fact that PPP are constructed over a basket of
goods and services, a Romanian citizen, after having satisfied his basic needs (housing, food, clothing) is
bound to purchase additional goods and services (e.g. a car or a holiday abroad) at prices usually higher than
those in Western Europe .
Q2: Mr. Raffo requested explanations regarding depreciation

Mr. Petrescu explained the figures and their increase as a result of the re-evaluation of the assets of
ROMATSA done be an independent authorised expert, selected through a tender procedure. Following this,
the value of the assets increased by about 30%. The process was done to reflect the fair value of the assets at
31.12.2010 and the results of the restatement was audited, together with all the financial statements of
ROMATSA for 2010, by the independent audit company KPMG.
Mr. Rafo considered that, due to the fact that ROMATSA has adjusted in the past the value of its assets with
the inflation, the costs of capital should reflect the euro interest rate and not the Romanian interest rate.
Mr. Petrescu explained that the annual adjustments of the value of the assets was done until 2007 in a period
when Romania was experiencing high inflation and when the cost base was expressed in Euro. In that period
the return on equity reflected the euro interest rates on the Romanian market and the rate used was
comparable with the rates used by some EMU states. From 2008 the cost base is expressed in national
currency and the special provisions for states experiencing high inflation no longer apply to Romania. The
cost of capital applied to equity therefore reflects the interest rate of the Romanian currency. Mr. Petrescu
mentioned that transparent balance sheets will be provided after their approval, and that the cost-base that
will be presented in June will reflect an exact calculation of the cost of capital according to the balance sheet.
Ms. VRLAN mentioned that the Romanian National Performance Plan will be updated to reflect the last
figures of the cost-base (the elaboration of the national cost-base is Romatsas responsibility) and that the
updated Romanian National Performance Plan will then be resent for consultation.
IATA representatives mentioned that they will send written comments following this consultation meeting
and there may be further questions.
Ms. VRLAN mentioned that the Minutes of the meeting will be circulated to the participants for agreement
in a few days, and thanked all participants, considering that the meeting was a good and useful exercise for
the improvement of the performance plans, following the discussions and comments received.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 87/100

Summary of decisions:
Done in Bucharest on 5 May 2011 in 4 identical originals - one for each undersigned party
For BULGARIA: For ROMANIA:
Mr. Stoino Georgiev Ms. Claudia VRLAN

Deputy Director General - DGCAA Director General CAA
Mr. Angel RACHEV Mr. Adrian SERBAN

Deputy Director General on Operations Director General
BULATSA ROMATSA
Mr. Razvan IONESCU

Counsellor / General Directorate for
Infrastructure and Air Transport / Romanian
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
For IATA For AEA
Mr. Emil George DOBROVOLSCHI Mr. Martin CAMUS

VP Flight Operations TAROM Manager Procurement &Logistics
EMIRATES
Mr. Dragos MUNTEANU Mr. Wolfgang SCHEEL

Safety & Quality Manager - TAROM Senior Manager LUFTHANSA
Mr. Cesar RAFFO

Manager User Charges IATA Geneva
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 88/100

Appendix G5 - Observations and comments IATA representatives
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 89/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 90/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 91/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 92/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 93/100

Appendix G6 - Response of Romanian CAA
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 94/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 95/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 96/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 97/100

Appendix G6 G7 - Further correspondence, by e-mail (NSA-airspace users)
1. Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:20 AM
Dear Sir (Mr. Cesar RAFFO Manager User Charges IATA Geneva),
I started the process of signing the minutes. Please find in attachment: Minutes of meeting 5 may
stakeholders consultation, observations of Mr. Mistry and response of Romanian CAA. If you agree
with the minutes, please sign (page of signatures) and return it to me (scaned).
2. Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2011 12:59 PM
Dear Sir (Mr. Martin CAMUS Manager Procurement &Logistics EMIRATES,

Mr. Wolfgang SCHEEL Senior Manager LUFTHANSA),
I started the process of signing the minutes.

Please find in attachment: Minutes of meeting 5 may stakeholders consultation, observations of Mr.
Mistry and response of Romanian CAA.
After signed Mr. Cesar RAFFO I transmit to you the signature page.
If you agree with the minutes, please sign (page of signatures) and return it to me (scaned).
3. Sent: June 21, 2011 11:18 AM
Response (Mr. Cesar RAFFO Manager User Charges IATA Geneva):
With regards to the minutes. I believe there has been a misunderstanding in the "cost of capital"
section.
Our point made at the consultation, as also highlighted in our letter to the NSA, is that if Romania
revalues its assets (I.e. which inherently implies increasing their values by inflation), it cannot then
charge a "nominal" cost of capital (I.e. a cost of capital which includes "inflation"). Instead, the
cost of capital should be on a "real" basis (I.e. without inflation expectations). I did not mention at
any moment that that the cost of capital should be similar to the "Euro" rate.
The obvious concern is that this approach implies an over compensation to the provider through
the double counting of inflation. This is, as well, against the EC Charging Regulation.
My apologies, but I cannot sign these minutes until the cost of capital section is replaced with our
concern.
As an aside, I have seen that this approach is still being maintained in the latest Romanian figures
(as presented to the EnCom). This is still a matter of principle that needs to be urgently addressed
please before the Plan is submitted to the EC.
Im happy to discuss this matter further if needed.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 98/100

4. Sent: June 21, 2011 12:32 PM
Dear Mr. Camus,
Following Mr Raffo's e-mail as well as all the previously agreed upon aspects, we would like to
know if you can sign the minutes of the stakeholders consultation meeting, namely the signatures
page that you will find attached.
Should it be possible, I kindly ask you to please send me your reply as soon as possible so that we
could thus know how to address the matter furthermore.
5. Sent: June 21, 2011 12:39 PM

Response (Mr. Martin CAMUS Manager Procurement &Logistics EMIRATES):
One point of clarification on my part is with the minute stating "Mr Camus confirmed agreement in
the past on improving KPAs". May I clarify what "KPA" stands for?
Apart from that I am OK with signing once the other amendment requested by Mr Raffo is made.
6. Sent: June 21, 2011 14:15 PM
Dear Mr. Scheel,
Following Mr Raffos e-mail as well as all the previously agreed upon aspects, we would like to
know if you can sign the minutes of the stakeholders consultation meeting, namely the signatures
page that you will find attached.
Should it be possible, I kindly ask you to please send your reply to me as soon as possible so that
we could thus know how to address the matter furthermore.
7. Sent: June 23, 2011 17:43 PM
Dear Mr. Camus,
Following your previous e-mail, I am now able to send to you the opinion expressed by the
ROMATSA representatives on the matters you addressed.
Thus, ROMATSA representatives informed us that KPA stands for Key Performance Area and
that during the consultation meeting which was held on May 5, 2011, there were highlighted the
steps taken, as well as the actions initiated by ROMATSA in the previous years in order to improve
the key performance indicators. ROMATSA representatives also told us that you confirmed the
users previously given consent to the methods used to improve the key performance indicators
(anticipated retirements/voluntary quits, etc). ROMATSA representatives would also like to
underline the fact that if the meaning of the question was understood correctly, the text would then
have to be changed as follows : Mr. Camus confirmed the agreement for improving cost-efficiency
KPA made in the past but considered the staff costs reduction is still not appearing."
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 99/100

8. Sent: June 23, 2011 17:01 PM
Dear Mr Raffo,
We would like to let you know that we took note of your opinion on the matter you addressed in the
previous e-mail.
Furthermore, we want to inform you that the National Performance Plan was revised with a view to
ensuring that EU targets are achieved, its current form being different from that presented on May
5, 2011, at the stakeholders consultation meeting.
Moreover, if you wish, we can send to you the new scanned version of the National Performance
Plan.
Consequently, should you agree with the above mentioned reply, I kindly ask you to please send to
me the signatures page with your signature as well.
Edition 01 June 27, 2011 100/100

Planul National de Performanta

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Planul National de Performanta

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ROMANIA

Approved by Order of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 2/100

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

EDITION NUMBER EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE

Draft 0 Version 0.1 17.12.2011 Initial draft

Draft 0 Version 0.2 21.02.2011 Updated draft

Draft 0 Version 0.4 25.03.2011 Additional updates

Draft 0 Version 0.6 14.04.2011 Draft for stakeholder consultation

Edition 01 27.06.2011 Updated draft after stakeholder consultation

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 3/100

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 4/100

Table 1: Romania expected evolution of macroeconomic figures

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 5/100

Table 25: SNAIA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms

Figure 1: Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2006-2015

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 6/100

1.1 The situation

1.1.1 Scope of the plan

(5) The accountable entities covered by the RNPP1 are:

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 7/100

AIS Department within Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority SNAIA/RCAA

National Supervisory Authority Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority NSA/RCAA

(6) The RNPP1 geographical scope is FIR Bucureti.

1.2 Overall assumption for RP1

1.2.1 General economic assumption

Expected evolution of GDP 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 8/100

Medium-term fiscal and budgetary framework

Income, expenditure and general consolidated government budget deficit (% GDP)

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 9/100

1.2.2 Trend of traffic forecast

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1.2.3 Overall status of aviation safety

1.2.4 Institutional context of ANS provisions

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 10/100

Part I no.602/12.07.2006, to perform the roles and responsibilities of a National Supervisory

1.3 Stakeholder consultation

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 11/100

1.3.1 Outcome of stakeholder consultation

Subsequent discussions held by e-mail are listed in Appendix G7.

2. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS

2.1 Romania Performance targets and alert thresholds for RP1

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 12/100

(1) Safety performance targets currently used at national/ANSP level

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 13/100

services and total time.

(a) Effectiveness of safety management

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 14/100

(b) Application of the severity classification

(c) Reporting of Just Culture

(2) Capacity targets and threshold

2012 2013 2014

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 15/100

(4) Cost- efficiency

2012 2013 2014

Table 11: Romania En-route cost-efficiency KPI for RP1

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 16/100

2.2. Consistency with EU-wide targets (and thresholds)

Edition 01 June 27, 2011 17/100

Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2006-2015