Cost-efficiency - Estonia

PRB monitoring

The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Estonia was 42.51€2022, -8.2% lower than the determined unit cost (46.29€2022). Estonia does not have a terminal charging zone.
The en route 2025 actual service units (0.65M) were +5.7% higher than the determined service units (0.61M).
The en route 2025 actual total costs were -0.8M€2022 (-2.9%) lower than determined. This is mainly due to lower other operating costs for the NSA (-0.9M€2022, or -20.1%) and lower staff costs of EANS (-0.7M€2022, or -5.4%). According to the NSA the reduction in NSA other operating costs is mainly due to public sector cost containment measures and the optimisation of property-related costs, while the reduction in EANS staff costs results from a higher share of costs being allocated to terminal.
EANS costs of investments were 4.3M€2022 in 2025, +15.7% more than determined (3.7M€2022). According to the NSA, this increase is attributed to a revision of the phasing of investment costs and depreciation reflecting earlier cost recognition.
The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 49.47€ (-4.1% below the 2025 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC is mainly driven by traffic adjustments.
The en route regulatory result for EANS amounted to +2.7M€, or 10.9% of the 2025 revenue. This may indicate that the airspace users are charged for costs which have not materialised in 2025.

En route charging zone

Unit cost (KPI#1)

Total costs - nominal (M€)	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Actual and determined data
Determined costs	31.6	33.6	35.4	36.8	37.9
Actual costs	30.5	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference costs	-1.1	NA	NA	NA	NA

Inflation assumptions	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Determined inflation rate	5.8%	3.9%	3.2%	2.6%	2.4%
Determined inflation index*	119.7	124.4	128.3	131.7	134.8
Actual inflation rate	4.8%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Actual inflation index*	118.6	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference inflation index (p.p.)	-1.1	NA	NA	NA	NA
*100 = 2022

Focus on unit cost

AUC vs. DUC

In 2025, the en route AUC was -8.2% (or -3.78 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of significantly higher than planned TSUs (+5.7%) and lower than planned en route costs in real terms (-2.9%, or -0.8 M€2022).

En route service units

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (+5.7%) falls outside the ±2% dead-band, but does not exceed the ±10% threshold foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The resulting gain of additional en route revenues is therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace users (see the main ANSP regulatory result).

En route costs by entity

Actual real en route costs are -2.9% (-0.8 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower than planned costs for the main ANSP, EANS (-2.5%, or -0.5 M€2022) and the NSA/EUROCONTROL (-3.9%, or -0.3 M€2022).

En route costs for the main ANSP (EANS) at charging zone level

Based on the additional information to the en route reporting tables, the lower than planned en route costs in real terms for EANS in 2025 (-2.5%, or -0.5 M€2022) result from:

Significantly lower than planned staff costs (-5.4%), mainly due to a higher share of costs being allocated to the Terminal Navigation Charges cost base.
Slightly higher than planned other operating costs (+1.3%).
Significantly higher than planned depreciation (+14.1%), due to several major investment projects being brought forward compared to the original investment plan, meaning that investment costs and related depreciation have been recognised earlier than planned.
Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-15.4%) due to “lower actual asset base subject to return, as some planned investments were still in progress at year-end and not yet fully included in the regulatory asset base”.

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

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

“The actual unit cost in real terms (42.51) is significantly lower than the Determined Unit Cost (DUC, 46.29). This demonstrates strong cost efficiency and outperformance against the plan at the charging zone level (-14.2% vs. a planned -6.6%). This result is further supported by a higher volume of service units delivered (647.1 vs. 612.0) and lower-than-expected inflation, as well as cost containment measures influenced by broader public sector expenditure constraints.”

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:

“Actual total costs in nominal terms are lower than determined costs (30 460 vs. 31 580). The main savings come from other operating costs (8 483 vs. 9 386), cost of capital (1 466 vs. 1 734), and slightly lower staff costs (16 831 vs. 17 088), which offset higher than planned depreciation (3 679 vs. 3 373). The deviation is not expected to have a negative impact on the following years as it reflects timing effects rather than structural changes.”

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

The NSA 2025 monitoring report indicates that “No corrective measures are considered necessary.”

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

	€/SU
AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
DUC	51.60
Inflation adjustment	-0.29
Cost exempt from cost sharing	-0.17
Traffic risk sharing adjustment	-0.96
Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS)	-0.69
Financial incentives	0.00
Modulation of charges	0.00
Cross-financing	0.00
Other revenues	-0.02
Application of lower unit rate	0.00
Total adjustments	-2.13
AUCU	49.47
AUCU vs. DUC	-4.1%

Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025	€'000	€/SU
New and existing investments	184.4	0.28
Competent authorities and qualified entities costs	-280.6	-0.43
Eurocontrol costs	-14.0	-0.02
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	-110.2	-0.17

Focus on AUCU

En route AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

The actual en route unit cost incurred by airspace users (AUCU) in respect of activities performed in 2025 (49.47 €) is -4.1% lower than the nominal DUC (51.60 €) which includes DUC initially charged: 57.43 €, and DUC to be charged retroactively: -5.83 €. The difference between the AUCU and the nominal DUC (-2.13 €/SU) is due to:

the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.29 €/SU);
the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-0.17 €/SU);
the deduction of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (-0.96 €/SU);
the deduction of the traffic adjustment (-0.69 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing; and,
the deduction of other revenues (-0.02 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 8.4%.

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

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

“The performance is mainly driven by traffic developments and the application of the cost and risk sharing mechanisms defined in the regulatory framework. Lower than expected costs influenced by wider public sector cost containment measures have also contributed to the outcome.”

Regulatory result (RR)

Focus on regulatory result

EANS net gain/loss on activity in the Estonia en route charging zone in 2025

EANS reported a net gain of +1.6 M€, as a combination of a gain of +0.8 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a gain of +0.7 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism.

EANS overall regulatory result (RR) for the en route activity

Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net gain from the en route activity mentioned above (+1.6 M€) and the actual RoE (+1.1 M€), amounts to +2.7 M€ (10.9% of the en route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 17.4%, which is much higher than the 7.3% planned in the PP.