• 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 2

    Unit cost

    Actual and determined data
    Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined costs 212.0 217.8 225.8 228.5 227.8
    Actual costs 212.3 NA NA NA NA
    Difference costs 0.3 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 +2.9% (or +11.12 €2022) higher than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of lower than planned TNSUs (-1.9%) and higher than planned terminal costs in real terms (+1.0%, or +1.9 M€2022).

    Terminal service units

    The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (-1.9%) falls inside the ±2% dead-band. Hence, the loss of terminal revenues is borne by the ANSPs.

    Terminal costs by entity

    Actual real terminal costs are +1.0% (+1.9 M€2022) higher than planned. This is the result of higher costs for the MET service provider (+15.1%, or +2.2 M€2022) and lower costs for the main ANSP, DSNA (-0.03%, or -0.1 M€2022) and the NSA (-19.1%, or -0.2 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 lower than planned terminal costs in real terms for DSNA in 2025 (-0.03%, or -0.1 M€2022) result from:

    • Lower than planned staff costs (-2.3%), mainly due to the late implementation of some of the measures stipulated in the new social agreement (related for example to new working arrangements and new flexible rostering schemes).

    • Significantly higher than planned other operating costs (+16.3%), mainly due to acceleration of some operational expenses relating to ATC projects in the main regional airports.

    • Lower than planned depreciation (-5.0%), mainly due to catching up with delayed RP3 amortization.

    • Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-21.8%), due to lower NBV of fixed assets (-23.9%) combined with a lower than planned weighted average cost of capital rate, mainly resulting from lower average interest on debt.

    • Significantly higher than planned deduction for VFR exempted flights (+6.9%).

    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 +1% at 2022 prices).

    Actual unit cost is slightly higher than the target (+2.9% 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 (-1,9%). 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 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 (-1,9%). 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 412.22
    Inflation adjustment -3.66
    Cost exempt from cost sharing -4.27
    Traffic risk sharing adjustment 0.00
    Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) 0.63
    Financial incentives -1.94
    Modulation of charges 0.00
    Cross-financing -99.12
    Other revenues -82.73
    Application of lower unit rate 0.00
    Total adjustments -191.08
    AUCU 221.13
    AUCU vs. DUC -46.4%
    Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
    New and existing investments -1,841.3 -3.65
    Competent authorities and qualified entities costs -227.1 -0.45
    Eurocontrol costs 0.0 0.00
    Pension costs 0.0 0.00
    Interest on loans -85.8 -0.17
    Changes in law 0.0 0.00
    Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing -2,154.2 -4.27
    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 (221.13 €) is -46.4% lower than the nominal DUC (412.22 €). The difference between these two figures (-191.08 €/SU) is due to:

    • the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-3.66 €/SU);

    • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-4.27 €/SU);

    • the addition of the traffic adjustment (+0.63 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;

    • the impact of financial incentives (-1.94 €/SU);

    • cross-financing between terminal charging zones 1 and 2 (-99.12 €/SU); and,

    • the deduction of other revenues (-82.73 €/SU).

    The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is -4.0%.

    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 2 terminal charging zone in 2025

    DSNA reported a net loss of -7.0 M€, as a combination of a loss of -2.2 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -3.7 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism and a loss of -1.0 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 (-7.0 M€) and the actual RoE (+2.9 M€), amounts to -4.1 M€ (-2.2% of the terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is negative (-18.9%), compared to the 10.5% planned in the PP.

     
    • © European Union, 2026