• Home
  • SES view
  • State view
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • FABEC
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • NM View
  • Investments
    • SES RP4

    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • About
  • Download
  • Data Portal
  • Publications
    • Year report
      • 2025 ✓

      • RP3
        • 2024
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020

    • Belgium
    • Overview
      • Contextual information
      • Traffic
      • Safety
      • Environment
      • Capacity
      • Cost-efficiency

    • Safety
      • PRB monitoring
      • EoSM
      • Safety occurrences
        • Runway incursions
        • Separation minima infringements

    • Environment
      • PRB monitoring
      • En route performance
        • Flight efficiency
      • Terminal performance
        • AXOT, AXIT & ASMA
        • CDO/CCO
      • CIV-MIL

    • Capacity
      • PRB monitoring
      • En route performance
        • En route ATFM delay
        • En route performance indicators at ACC level
        • Other information
      • Terminal performance
        • Arrival ATFM delay
        • Other performance indicators

    • Cost-efficiency
      • PRB monitoring
      • En route CZ
        • Unit cost
        • AUCU
        • Regulatory Result
      • Terminal CZ
        • Unit cost
        • AUCU
        • Regulatory Result

    Cost-efficiency - Belgium

    Download Report

    Terminal charging zone

    Unit cost

    Actual and determined data
    Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined costs 44.7 46.8 51.5 53.1 54.1
    Actual costs 43.9 NA NA NA NA
    Difference costs -0.9 NA NA NA NA
    Inflation assumptions 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined inflation rate 3.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9%
    Determined inflation index* 110.1 112.5 114.8 117.1 119.4
    Actual inflation rate 3.0% NA NA NA NA
    Actual inflation index* 109.9 NA NA NA NA
    Difference inflation index (p.p.) -0.2 NA NA NA NA
    *100 = 2022
    NoteFocus on unit cost

    AUC vs. DUC

    In 2025, the terminal AUC was -2.2% (or -5.77 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of lower than planned terminal costs in real terms (-1.7%, or -0.7 M€2022) and slightly higher than planned TNSUs (+0.4%).

    Terminal service units

    The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (+0.4%) falls inside the ±2% dead-band. Hence, the gain of additional terminal revenues is kept by the ANSPs.

    Terminal costs by entity

    Actual real terminal costs are -1.7% (-0.7 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, skeyes (-1.8%, or -0.7 M€2022) and slightly higher costs for the NSA (+1.7%, or +0.01 M€2022).

    Terminal costs for the main ANSP (skeyes) at charging zone level

    Based on the additional information to the terminal reporting tables, the slightly lower than planned terminal costs in real terms for skeyes in 2025 (-1.8%, or -0.7 M€2022) result from:

    • Slightly higher than planned staff costs (+1.7%).

    • Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-13.7%), mainly due to lower than planned maintenance and external support costs (including lower costs for IT strategy, HR business partner support, as well as risk and internal control external support).

    • Slightly lower than planned depreciation (-0.9%).

    • Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-6.8%), mainly due to a lower than planned asset base.

    Assessment of the actual performance in the charging zone reported by the NSA

    The NSA of Belgium provides the following overall assessment of the actual performance in 2025 at charging zone level:

    “Overall, performance is slightly above budget on staff costs but largely offset by significant underspending in other operating expenses, resulting in an overall favourable cost position. Depreciation is broadly on track, while lower capital costs further contribute to a positive variance versus budget.”

    Explanation of the differences between actual and determined costs at charging zone level reported by the NSA

    The NSA provides the following explanation for the differences between actual and determined costs in the charging zone:

    The staff costs are 1% above the budget of 2025.

    Other operating costs represent 86% of the budget foreseen for 2025. The underspent is driven by lower maintenance and lower external support costs versus budget (lower costs for IT strategy, HR business partner and risk & internal control external support costs).

    The depreciation costs remain slightly below the budget: 99% of planned costs have materialized.

    The cost of capital is lower than foreseen in the budget, mainly due to a lower fixed asset base.”

    Recommendations formulated by the NSA to the ANSP (skeyes) to rectify the situation and actions taken by the ANSP

    The NSA 2025 monitoring report indicates the following recommendations formulated by the NSA:

    “Lack of time between the delivery of the data from the ANSPs and the deadline for submission did not allow an analysis of the situation.”

    No information was provided by skeyes in the NSA 2025 Monitoring Report.

    Actual unit cost incurred by the users (AUCU) (PI#1)

    AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
    €/SU
    DUC 287.89
    Inflation adjustment -0.50
    Cost exempt from cost sharing -0.94
    Traffic risk sharing adjustment 0.00
    Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) -0.09
    Financial incentives 0.35
    Modulation of charges -2.30
    Cross-financing 0.00
    Other revenues -68.78
    Application of lower unit rate 0.00
    Total adjustments -72.26
    AUCU 215.63
    AUCU vs. DUC -25.1%
    Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
    New and existing investments -159.6 -1.02
    Competent authorities and qualified entities costs 12.7 0.08
    Eurocontrol costs 0.0 0.00
    Pension costs 0.0 0.00
    Interest on loans 0.0 0.00
    Changes in law 0.0 0.00
    Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing -146.9 -0.94
    NoteFocus on AUCU

    Terminal AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

    The actual terminal unit cost incurred by airspace users (AUCU) in respect of activities performed in 2025 (215.63 €) is -25.1% lower than the nominal DUC (287.89 €), which includes DUC initially charged: 298.82 €, and DUC to be charged retroactively: -10.93 €. The difference between the AUCU and the DUC (-72.26 €/SU) is due to:

    • the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.50 €/SU);

    • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-0.94 €/SU);

    • the deduction of the traffic adjustment (-0.09 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;

    • the impact of financial incentives (+0.35 €/SU);

    • the impact of the modulation of charges (-2.30 €/SU); and

    • the deduction of other revenues (-68.78 €/SU), corresponding to financing provided by the Belgian State in accordance with the fourth management contract.

    The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 4.9%.

    Initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI reported by the NSA

    The NSA of Belgium provides the following information regarding the initiatives:

    “Lack of time between the delivery of the data from the ANSPs and the deadline for submission did not allow an analysis of the situation”

    Regulatory result (RR)

    NoteFocus on regulatory result

    skeyes net gain/loss on activity in the Belgium terminal charging zone in 2025

    Skeyes reported a net gain of +0.9 M€, as a combination of a gain of +0.6 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a gain of +0.2 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism and a gain of +0.1 M€ relating to financial incentives.

    skeyes overall regulatory result (RR) for the terminal activity

    Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net gain from the terminal activity mentioned above (+0.9 M€) and the actual RoE (+1.3 M€), amounts to +2.2 M€ (4.9% of the terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 13.5%, which is higher than the 8.1% planned in the PP.

     
    • © European Union, 2026