Annual Monitoring Report 2024 - Latvia
Contextual information
National performance plan adopted following Commission Decision (EU) 2022/2426 of 5 December 2022
List of ACCs 1
Riga ACC
No of airports in the scope of the performance plan
≥80’K 0
<80’K 3
Exchange rate (1 EUR=)
2017: 1 EUR
2024: 1 EUR
Share of Union-wide traffic (TSUs) 2024 0.4%
Share of Union-wide en route costs 2024 0.3%
Share en route / terminal costs 2024 77% / 23%
En route charging zone(s)
Latvia
Terminal charging zone(s)
Latvia
Main ANSP
• LGS
Other ANSPs
–
MET Providers
• LVĢMC
Traffic (En route traffic zone)
▪ Latvia recorded 229K actual IFR movements in 2024, +14.5% compared to 2023 (200K).
▪ Actual 2024 IFR movements were +3.6% above the plan (221K).
▪ Actual 2024 IFR movements represent 77% of the actual 2019 level (298K).
▪ Latvia recorded 577 actual service units in 2024, +23.8% compared to 2023 (958).
▪ Actual 2024 service units were +2.9% above the plan (561).
▪ Actual 2024 service units are -39.8% above the actual 2019 level (958).
Safety (Main ANSP)
▪ LGS achieved the RP3 targets in 2023 and maintained its performance in 2024, ending the reference period with maturity level D for two Management Objectives (Safety Risk Management and Safety Culture).
▪ Latvia recorded stable performance with respect to runway incursion (RIs) and an increase in the rate of separation minima infringement (SMIs) in 2024.
Environment (Member State)
▪ Latvia achieved a KEA performance of 7.36% compared to its target of 1.25% and did not contribute positively to the Union-wide target.
▪ The NSA states that the KEA deterioration was due to ongoing sanctions against Russian and Belorussian aircraft operators as a result of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
▪ Both KEP and SCR improved in comparison with 2023. Despite the target being missed, KEA improved in 2024. Additionally, the improvement in SCR shows that Latvia has enhanced the environmental efficiency of its airspace when accounting for impacts outside of its control.
▪ The share of CDO flights increased from 58.92% to 63.23% in 2024.
▪ Additional taxi out time decreased from 2.66 to 2.06 min/flight, while additional time in terminal airspace remained stable in 2024 compared to 2023.
Capacity (Member State)
▪ Latvia registered zero minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2024, which remained zero after the post-ops adjustment process, thus achieving the local target value of 0.03. Delays in Latvia remained unchanged year-on-year.
▪ The average number of IFR movements was 23% below 2019 levels in Latvia in 2024.
▪ The number of ATCOs in OPS is 46, being below the 2024 plan in Riga by 15 FTEs.
▪ The yearly total of sector opening hours in Riga ACC was 24,398, showing a 1.5% increase compared to 2023. Sector opening hours are 15.4% below 2019 levels.
▪ Riga ACC registered 9.31 IFR movements per one sector opening hour in 2024, being 9.4% below 2019 levels.
▪ Latvia registered zero minutes of average airport arrival ATFM delay per flight in 2024, thus achieving the local target of 0.02 minutes.
▪ Compared to 2023, the number of IFR arrivals in Latvia increased by 3%, while the average airport arrival ATFM delay remained zero minutes.
Cost-efficiency (En route/Terminal charging zone(s))
▪ The en route 2024 actual unit cost of Latvia was 33.82€2017, +0.7% higher than the determined unit cost (33.59€2017). The terminal 2024 actual unit cost was 159.18€2017, +22.4% higher than the determined unit cost (130.10€2017).
▪ The en route 2024 actual service units (0.58M) were +1.2% higher than the determined service units (0.57M).
▪ The en route 2024 actual total costs were +0.4M€2017 (+1.9%) higher than determined. The difference is mainly the result of higher actual depreciation costs than determined for LGS (+1.1M €2017, or +43%), partially offset by lower than determined staff costs (-0.9M €2017, or -9.1%).
▪ LGS costs of investments were 6.8M€2017 in 2024 for both en route and terminal charging zones, +11% more than determined (6.1M€2017), mainly due to higher than planned depreciation . According to the NSA , this is due to the commissioning of investments that had been delayed since 2020.
▪ The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2024 was 44.46€ (+11% above the 2024 DUC), while the terminal actual unit cost incurred by users was 148.85€ (-1.0% below the 2024 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC for the en route charging zone is mainly driven by the positive inflation adjustment.
▪ Latvia should ensure that any excessive regulatory result, including excess funds received by the ANSP due to the inflation mechanism, is either reinvested to improve the quality of services delivered to airspace users or reimbursed to them.