Cost-efficiency - Finland

PRB monitoring

The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Finland was 69.25€2022, +14.9% higher than the determined unit cost (60.29€2022). The terminal 2025 actual unit cost was 168.61€2022, -6.0% lower than the determined unit cost (179.35€2022).
The en route 2025 actual service units (0.7M) were -16.9% lower than the determined service units (0.8M).
The en route 2025 actual total costs were -2.2M€2022 (-4.5%) lower than determined with all cost categories registering lower-than-planned costs, except cost of capital. This is mainly due to lower staff costs for Fintraffic ANS (-1.4M€2022, or -6.4%). According to the NSA, this was due to lower than planned personnel fund contributions and performance bonuses, as well as lower staff numbers and smaller salary increases than expected.
Fintraffic ANS spent 6.7M€2022 in 2025 related to costs of investments for both en route and terminal charging zones, -14.9% less than determined (7.9M€2022). According to the NSA, this reduction is mainly attributable to delays in investments, due to limited internal resources and system suppliers constraints.
The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 69.75€ (+9.2% above the 2025 DUC), while the terminal actual unit cost incurred by users was 182.98€ (-5.0% below the 2025 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC for the en route charging zone is driven by the traffic adjustments, while for the terminal charging zone it is mainly driven by pension costs in cost exempt from cost sharing.

En route charging zone

Unit cost (KPI#1)

Total costs - nominal (M€)	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Actual and determined data
Determined costs	51.8	55.9	59.2	61.3	65.1
Actual costs	49.4	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference costs	-2.5	NA	NA	NA	NA

Inflation assumptions	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Determined inflation rate	1.9%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%
Determined inflation index*	107.6	109.8	112	114.2	116.5
Actual inflation rate	1.8%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Actual inflation index*	107.2	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference inflation index (p.p.)	-0.4	NA	NA	NA	NA
*100 = 2022

Focus on unit cost

AUC vs. DUC

In 2025, the en route AUC was +14.9% (or +8.97 €2022) higher than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of significantly lower than planned TSUs (-16.9%) and lower than planned en route costs in real terms (-4.5%, or -2.2 M€2022).

En route service units

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (-16.9%) falls outside the ±10% threshold foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The resulting loss of 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 -4.5% (-2.2 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, Fintraffic ANS (-5.4%, or -2.2 M€2022) and the NSA/EUROCONTROL (-0.9%) and higher costs for the MET service provider (+1.6%, or +0.1 M€2022).

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

Based on the additional information to the en route reporting tables, the significantly lower than planned en route costs in real terms for Fintraffic ANS in 2025 (-5.4%, or -2.2 M€2022) result from:

Significantly lower than planned staff costs (-6.4%), due to multiple factors, including: lower than planned personnel fund contributions; reduced performance bonuses; the postponement of the FINEST project (an ANS cooperation initiative with EANS) meaning that the planned expansion of the Airspace management service (AMC) was not implemented; lower than planned external recruitment into the development function. Overall, FTEs and salary increases were below plan.
Lower than planned other operating costs (-3.4%), mainly due to lower than planned leasing costs paid to the airport operator Finavia. The airport operator Finavia owns some ANS assets and Fintraffic ANS pays for their use via leasing costs (included in Fintraffic ANS other operating costs). These leasing costs are considered as investment costs with the difference between planned and actual leasing costs returned to the airspace users through the cost risk sharing mechanism.
Significantly lower than planned depreciation (-9.3%), due to delays in several investments because of limited internal resources and constraints related to system suppliers.
Higher than planned cost of capital (+4.4%), mainly due to higher fixed assets under construction driven by ATM systems renewal.
Slightly higher than planned deduction for VFR exempted flights (+0.3%).

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

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

“IFR movements did not decrease in the same proportion as SUs (-16,9 % vs. -6,8 %), meaning that the ANSP's cost reduction is more closely aligned with the level of traffic. The traffic situation was very challenging, as major Asian airlines that previously flew through Finnish airspace rerouted their flights south of Finland. At the same time, traffic from Russia to Kaliningrad, using the narrow international corridor between Finland and Estonia, remained relatively busy.”

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:

“Two major reasons for lower actual ANSP costs were lower investment costs (delayed investments, smaller leasing costs) and lower costs for technical department. In addition, staff costs were generally lower than planned.”

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

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

The “NSA is monitoring the cost evolution and its impact on service level.”

Fintraffic ANS reports the implementation of the following actions:

“The lower actual costs haven't impacted issues with capacity.”

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

	€/SU
AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
DUC	63.90
Inflation adjustment	-0.21
Cost exempt from cost sharing	-1.04
Traffic risk sharing adjustment	8.09
Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS)	2.02
Financial incentives	0.00
Modulation of charges	0.00
Cross-financing	0.00
Other revenues	-0.16
Application of lower unit rate	-2.86
Total adjustments	5.85
AUCU	69.75
AUCU vs. DUC	+ 9.2%

Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025	€'000	€/SU
New and existing investments	-661.1	-0.98
Competent authorities and qualified entities costs	0.3	0.00
Eurocontrol costs	-39.1	-0.06
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	-699.9	-1.04

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 (69.75 €) is +9.2% higher than the nominal DUC (63.90 €). The difference between these two figures (+5.85 €/SU) is due to:

the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.21 €/SU);
the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-1.04 €/SU);
the addition of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (+8.09 €/SU);
the addition of the traffic adjustment (+2.02 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;
the deduction of other revenues (-0.16 €/SU); and,
the application of a lower unit rate as foreseen in Art. 29(6) in year 2025 (-2.86 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 2.5%.

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

No information on such initiatives was provided in the NSA 2025 Monitoring Report. Instead, it was noted that “the evaluation of revising the RP4 performance plan on en-route cost-efficiency is pending.”

Regulatory result (RR)

Focus on regulatory result

Fintraffic ANS net gain/loss on activity in the Finland en route charging zone in 2025

Fintraffic ANS reported a net loss of -0.2 M€, as a combination of a gain of +1.7 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -1.9 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism.

Fintraffic ANS overall regulatory result (RR) for the en route activity

Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net loss from the en route activity mentioned above (-0.2 M€) and the actual RoE (+1.4 M€), amounts to +1.2 M€ (3.0% of the en route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 4.1%, which is lower than the 4.8% planned in the PP (see also Note 1 below).

Note 1

The ex-post RR does not take into account the application of a lower unit rate in 2025 as per Art. 29.6 (the loss in revenues corresponds to -1.9 M€ for 2025).