2 Air Navigation System Characterisation
This section presents key characteristics of the air navigation systems of Brazil and Europe. In broad strokes, the provision of air navigation services in both regions relies on similar operational concepts, procedures, and supporting technology. Nonetheless, there are several distinctions between the two systems, which help to account for the similarities and differences in key performance indicators documented in this report.
2.2 High Level System Comparison
Table 2.1 summarises the key characteristics of the Brazilian and European air navigation system for 2024. Comparing the high-level numbers, Brazil observed a steady increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs) compared to 2019 (e.g. 2023 vs 2019: 17.6%, 2024 vs 2019: 24.4%). In contrast, the European system showed only a mild increase in total ATCOs in service following the strong reduction during the pandemic in terms of work force. The different behaviour suggests a difference in work force flexibility between the systems. Brazil reacted swiftly to the increase of air traffic ranging at 21.4% higher than in 2019. Europe has seen a mild modulation of ATCO numbers with the annual traffic in 2024 ranging about 4% below the 2019 level.
This may be partly explained by the fact that DECEA shares part of the structure used in basic training with other Air Force training processes. This leads to a more centralised and rigid process, in which abrupt reactions in hiring planning are unwanted due to the lengthy process of calling for candidates according to Brazilian laws related to public service jobs. In Europe, there exists a mix of organisational models and labour contracts ranging from public service to fully commercial organisation. Thus, European providers tend to react more conservative to anticipated changes in air traffic demand.
Another key difference affecting performance in both regions for this report is the development of air traffic demand. Unlike in Europe, it is interesting to note that Brazil ended 2022 already servicing air traffic movements above the pre-pandemic level. There is a continual increase in air traffic in Brazil accounting now for 21,4% of more traffic than in 2019. Overall, the volume of air traffic also rebounded in Europe. At the end of 2023, the level reached about 90% of the pre-pandemic air traffic, and with 2024 the gap is closing to about 96%. These recovery numbers are impacted by the geo-political developments. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a certain share of flights is currently banned to operate to/from Europe.
Both regions operate with similar operational concepts, procedures and supporting technology. Considering the non-oceanic dimension of the airspace, Brazil services an area about 22% smaller than Europe. Brazil, with lower traffic density related to airspace, finds probably a more challenging cost-benefit ratio to maintain communication coverage and surveillance for regions with low-traffic. The higher traffic density in Europe may cross all aspects of flight management. In particular, the European region faces more considerable challenges in coordinating efforts to address operational constraints and service the current demand.
2.3 Network Characterisation
To address the changes in air traffic and develop a better understanding of the nature of the air transportation network, this report expands the characterisation of the network. Figure 2.1 depicts the cumulative share of departures from airports in both regions.
Table 2.1 lists the overall serviced traffic in both regions. In 2024 Brazil observed just under a fifth (18.2%) of the traffic handled in Europe. With overflights representing a small share of the traffic in both regions, Figure 2.1 focusses on the aerodrome movements considering all observed departures. The distribution of air traffic in Brazil confirms that most flights are concentrated in a small number of airports. Traffic in Europe operates from a larger number of aerodromes. For example, in 2024, the 10 busiest airports in Brazil handled 61% of all departing flights whereas in Europe, the top 10 airports account for 19% of all departures. The spread in shares remains broadly constant up to the 50th rank of all departures and narrows to 30% with the top 100 airports in both regions. The latter marking 97% of all departures in Brazil and 67% in Europe.
The latest edition of Brazil’s Annual Performance Report (it can be found on http://performance.decea.mil.br) reflects this reality. It now includes 100 airport locations instead of only the top 34, ensuring that almost all flights are included in the analysis. This distribution shows that many aerodromes operate with low traffic volumes. Because of that, it is important to study alternative ways to provide air traffic services.
In Brazil, the Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) is an effective strategy to ensure safety at locations where the traffic does not justify the installation of a control tower (TWR). This service, usually provided via radio telephony only, gives essential information to pilots, helping to use resources efficiently and keeping operations safe. Since 2016, Brazil has been expanding the use of remote AFIS units (R-AFIS), especially in strategic areas like the Amazon region. These services are provided from ACCs (Area Control Centers), which means they don’t need dedicated local infrastructure. Also, in 2024, demand for air traffic services continued to grow. This shows the need to review and improve how services are organized in Brazil. Expanding the use of the AFIS model in strategic areas may be a cost-effective and safe way to meet future needs and make better use of SISCEAB’s resources.
The more spread-out distribution in Europe showcases the historical development of the European network. The traditional focus on national hubs and carriers resulted in the development of a higher number of major aerodromes (typically servicing the capital, major metropoles, or economic centers) interconnecting with other national hubs across the continent. There exists a mix of the organisation of smaller operations in Europe. Dependent on the national or local setup, the resources of the national service provider are often complemented by local service providers. Thus, the provision of services varies between smaller manned towers and remotely provided FIS functions provided by nearby ACCs. This includes instrument procedures to approach (and depart) from an uncontrolled aerodrome. Given this mix of organisation and funding in Europe, no consolidated pan-European data was available to specifically account for local AFIS services. Across Europe, there is an interest in consolidating aerodrome control services at important low frequency sites through the deployment of digital remote tower operations. This ranges from site specific remote tower operations (e.g. Cork/Ireland) to a multi-remote tower center (e.g. Stockholm/Sweden, Bodo/Norway) servicing multiple airports simultaneously.
While the view on the concentration of air traffic provides first insights, the level of connectivity is not immediately identifiable.
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of regional/domestic and international departures. For both regions we observe a share of less than 12% of serviced traffic are flights operating to and from the regions. The majority of flights operate within the region, i.e., within the domestic Brazilian network and conversely the European network spanning across EUROCONTROL Member States.
From an international perspective both regions are interconnected differently. Figure 2.3 sees a spread of the international traffic to other regions. Traffic from Brazil to Europe (i.e., Eurocontrol Member States) accounts for just under 2% of the total traffic volume in Brazil. Connections to other Southern America states represent the major international destinations accounting for about 5%. Europe has a shallow share of flights going to Southern America, including Brazil. The Middle East, Northern America, and Africa represent the biggest international markets ranging between 2.3-3.3% of all departures in Europe.
With Figure 2.4 we observe just under 46.000 flights in 2024 operated to adjacent countries in South America. A strong segment of the market represents flights to/from Argentina and Chile accounting for about half of the flights departing from the airports in this study. Accordingly, flights to Colombia and Uruguay from the study airports account for a smaller fraction, and there is a multitude of other connections to South America and the Caribbean. Flights operating from airports not included in this study account for smaller shares. This confirms the selection of the study airports for Brazil, as the major airports handle most of the pan-regional traffic with a strong connection to Argentina and Chile.
Figure 2.5 shows the connections between Europe and Brazil in 2024. Individual connections of less than 90 flights per year are aggregated into an “other” group. These largely reflect specific individual flights (e.g. State flights, special cargo operations), and only contribute to a small extent to the overall traffic between both regions.
Guarulhos (SBGR) and Lisbon (LPPT) are the main airports for connectivity between both regions. Due to its prominent role, this edition considers operations at LPPT in a more prominent manner.
Future work may highlight to what extent resources within both regions are bound to establishing basic connectivity and what type of services are provided to accommodate the demand. Further research can explore how both regions can maximise installed capacity, benefit from novel operational or technical concepts, and suggest improvements for ANS provision.
2.4 Regional Approach to Operational Performance Monitoring
The previous report detailed the historic setup of the performance monitoring systems in Brazil and Europe.
The implementation of the performance-based approach is not a fundamental new activity in Europe. The Performance Review Commission (PRC) was established within EUROCONTROL in 1998 aiming to establish and implement an independent European air traffic management (ATM) performance review capability in response to the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Institutional Strategy. The main goal of the PRC is to offer impartial advice on pan-European ATM performance to EUROCONTROL’s governing bodies. Supported by the Performance Review Unit (PRU), the PRC conducts extensive research, data analysis, and consultations to provide objective insights and recommendations. EUROCONTROL’s performance review system, a pioneering initiative in the late 1990s, has influenced broader forums like ICAO’s global performance approach and the Single European Sky (SES) performance scheme. Collaborating internationally, particularly with ICAO, the PRC aims to harmonise air navigation practices. The PRC produces annual reports (ACE and PRR) and provides operational performance monitoring through various data products and online tools. Continuous efforts are made to expand the online reporting for stakeholders and ensure access to independent performance data for informed decision-making.
It is noteworthy to recall that DECEA, influenced by ICAO publications, embraced a performance-based approach, notably advancing the national state-of-the-art in collaboration with EUROCONTROL. Beginning with the SIRIUS Brazil Program in 2012, DECEA faced challenges defining metrics, but made significant progress after signing a Cooperation Agreement with EUROCONTROL in 2015. DECEA published crucial documents for ICAO’s Global Air Navigation Plan, prompting an organisational transformation and adaptation of practices. Establishing the ATM Performance Section in 2019, akin to EUROCONTROL’s PRU, DECEA accelerated the build-up of expertise in operational performance monitoring. This culminated in the publication of the first Brazilian ATM Performance Plan for 2022-2023. Actively fostering an open culture of knowledge-sharing within South America, DECEA engaged in workshops and seminars, and inviting EUROCONTROL for collaboration.
Finally, it should be noted that the recurrent use of indicators by EUROCONTROL and DECEA and the close technical collaboration taking place during the analysis periods for joint conclusions enrich not only the two regions but also have a global impact. Embracing transparency, both agencies made indicators and databases publicly accessible, perpetuating a culture of reciprocity and transparency for mutual advancement. Looking for broader validation and harmonisation, the lessons learned from this scheme are systematically shared with the multi-national Performance Benchmarking Working Group (PBWG) and the Performance Expert Group of the ICAO GANP Study Group, which deals with the development of GANP Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). In this respect, this collaboration between both parties serves as a role model for ANS performance management on a global level.
Updated dashboards, previous work, and supporting historical data are available at https://ansperformance.eu/global/brazil/ or https://performance.decea.mil.br/.
2.5 Summary
While both regions operate on similar operational concepts and technologies, there exists key characteristics and distinctions in both regions. One of the key differences is the overall organisation of air navigation services. Brazil’s air navigation services are centralised under DECEA, overseeing all airspace control and contributing to national defence. In contrast, Europe’s air navigation services are provided by multiple entities and ANSPs operating predominantly within their national state boundaries and FIR borders.
Also remarkable is the comparison of the number of air traffic controllers between Brazil and Europe during the pandemic. This revealed contrasting trends. Brazil experienced an increase in ATCOs in line with the overall traffic growth. ATCO numbers in Europe marginally increased in comparison to 2019 in 2023. This disparity underscores a significant difference in the systems’ responsiveness, partly attributed to Brazil’s centralised and rigid hiring process. At the same time, European providers operate with greater independence with varying organisational setups (public vs private organisation, unions). Adjustments of the ATCO workforce tend to be more conservative.
The distribution of commercial flights in 2022 indicated that only a subset of airports handled 80% of commercial take-offs. In 2024 - with the stabilising air traffic levels - the top-10 airports in Europe handled 19% of the network departures, while in Brazil the top-10 accounted for 61%; considering the top-100 airports in both regions, this group handled 67% of all departures in Europe, and 97% in Brazil. The concentration effect is higher in Brazil than in Europe. On the other hand, the distribution also showed that a significant number of airports operating commercial flights handle only a marginal share of the movements in both systems. This duality may inform decision-makers about potential performance benefit pools with a view to allocate scarce ANS resources and capabilities and ensure the proper balancing of demand and capacity.
This report documents the close collaboration between DECEA and EUROCONTROL. The effort benefits the two regions and contributes globally by sharing insights and lessons learned with international aviation communities, aiding the development of ATM performance management worldwide.