• 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

    • France
    • 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 - France Zone 1
        • Unit cost
        • AUCU
        • Regulatory Result
      • Terminal CZ - France Zone 2
        • Unit cost
        • AUCU
        • Regulatory Result

    Cost-efficiency - France

    Download Report

    Terminal charging zone - France Zone 1

    Unit cost

    Actual and determined data
    Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined costs 66.4 71.5 73.3 72.3 72.9
    Actual costs 65.7 NA NA NA NA
    Difference costs -0.6 NA NA NA NA
    Inflation assumptions 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined inflation rate 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%
    Determined inflation index* 110.2 112.2 114.2 116.3 118.2
    Actual inflation rate 0.9% NA NA NA NA
    Actual inflation index* 109.1 NA NA NA NA
    Difference inflation index (p.p.) -1.1 NA NA NA NA
    *100 = 2022
    NoteFocus on unit cost

    AUC vs. DUC

    In 2025, the terminal AUC was +3.8% (or +3.78 €2022) higher than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of lower than planned TNSUs (-3.9%) and slightly lower than planned terminal costs in real terms (-0.2%, or -0.1 M€2022).

    Terminal service units

    The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (-3.9%) falls outside the ±2% dead-band, but does not exceed the ±10% threshold foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The resulting loss of terminal revenues is therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace users (see the main ANSP regulatory result).

    Terminal costs by entity

    Actual real terminal costs are -0.2% (-0.1 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the MET service provider (-5.5%, or -0.2 M€2022) and the NSA (-19.3%, or -0.1 M€2022) and slightly higher costs for the main ANSP, DSNA (+0.2%, or +0.1 M€2022).

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

    Based on the additional information to the terminal reporting tables, the slightly higher than planned terminal costs in real terms for DSNA in 2025 (+0.2%, or +0.1 M€2022) result from:

    • Significantly higher than planned staff costs (+5.3%), mainly due to an increase in staff wages in line with the new social agreement as well as higher pension costs due to an increase in the national index of CAS Pension (state-managed pension scheme applicable to DSNA) as decided by the French government in 2025.

    • Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-7.4%), due to delays in the recognition of some operational expenses related to the implementation of projects in CDG and Orly (new ATC systems).

    • Significantly higher than planned depreciation (+5.8%), due to higher cost of investments and catching up with delayed RP3 amortization.

    • Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-20.6%), due to lower NBV of fixed assets (-25.4%) combined with a lower than planned weighted average cost of capital rate, mainly resulting from lower average interest on debt.

    • The deduction of costs for VFR exempted flights which were not included in the determined costs.

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

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

    “Actual costs are in line with determined costs (only -0.2% at 2022 prices). Actual unit cost is slightly higher than the target (+3.8% at 2022 prices).”

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

    The NSA provides the following explanation:

    “Regarding the actual unit costs, 2025 achievement is slightly higher than the target, but this is due to the difference between the actual traffic compared to the STATFOR forecast (-3,9%). The domestic traffic is recovering at a slower pace than expected, compared to international and overflights.”

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

    The NSA indicates that:

    “No specific recommendation is made by the French NSA at this stage regarding costs, as actual costs are perfectly in line with determined costs for 2025.

    Regarding the actual unit costs, 2025 achievement is slightly higher than the target, but this is due to the difference between the actual traffic compared to the STATFOR forecast (-3,9%). The domestic traffic is recovering at a slower pace than expected, compared to international and overflights.”

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

    AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
    €/SU
    DUC 106.27
    Inflation adjustment -0.89
    Cost exempt from cost sharing 0.68
    Traffic risk sharing adjustment 1.37
    Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) 0.24
    Financial incentives -0.52
    Modulation of charges 0.00
    Cross-financing 83.30
    Other revenues -2.75
    Application of lower unit rate 0.00
    Total adjustments 81.43
    AUCU 187.70
    AUCU vs. DUC + 76.6%
    Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
    New and existing investments -148.8 -0.25
    Competent authorities and qualified entities costs -51.8 -0.09
    Eurocontrol costs 0.0 0.00
    Pension costs 664.0 1.11
    Interest on loans -56.9 -0.09
    Changes in law 0.0 0.00
    Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing 406.5 0.68
    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 (187.70 €) is +76.6% higher than the nominal DUC (106.27 €). The difference between these two figures (+81.43 €/SU) is due to:

    • the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.89 €/SU);

    • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (+0.68 €/SU);

    • the addition of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (+1.37 €/SU);

    • the addition of the traffic adjustment (+0.24 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;

    • the impact of financial incentives (-0.52 €/SU);

    • cross-financing between terminal charging zones 1 and 2 (+83.30 €/SU); and,

    • the deduction of other revenues (-2.75 €/SU).

    The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is -0.1%.

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

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

    “Please note that the cost exempt from cost-risk sharing […], it is recalled that the French NSA has opted for a carry-over to RP4 based on an assessment over the whole RP4 iaw Art 28(4) & (6).

    The terminal unit costs of both CZ1 and CZ2 have to be analyzed together due to the cross-financing (CZ2 unit cost incurred by the users is much lower than planned, while CZ1 is much higher). The evolution over RP4 will be closely monitored by the French NSA, taking into account the impact of a traffic lower than the performance plan traffic forecast (-1.9% for CZ2 and -3.9% for CZ1)."

    Regulatory result (RR)

    NoteFocus on regulatory result

    DSNA net gain/loss on activity in the France Zone 1 terminal charging zone in 2025

    DSNA reported a net loss of -1.5 M€, as a combination of a gain of +0.4 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -1.6 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism and a loss of -0.3 M€ relating to financial incentives.

    DSNA overall regulatory result (RR) for the terminal activity

    Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net loss from the terminal activity mentioned above (-1.5 M€) and the actual RoE (+1.3 M€), amounts to -0.2 M€ (-0.4% of the terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is negative (-2.1%), compared to the 10.5% planned in the PP.

     
    • © European Union, 2026