• 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
  1. Capacity
  • Year report
    • 2025 ✓

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

  • Germany
  • 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

Capacity - Germany

Download Report

PRB monitoring

  • Germany registered 0.89 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2025, which has been adjusted to 0.95 during the post-ops adjustment process, thus not achieving the local target value of 0.39. Delays in Germany decreased by -0.61 minutes per flight year-on-year.

  • Delays were highest in June and July, mostly driven by weather and ATC capacity.

  • The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Germany decreased by -7 percentage points compared to 2024.

  • The 2025 actual number of ATCOs in OPS across the four German ACCs was 1,230, which was 1% above the planned level 1,217. Actual ATCOs in OPS were higher than the planned level for Langen ACC (+5%), while for Munich ACC this was -2% lower. For Karlsruhe UAC and Bremen ACC the actual number of ATCOs was in line with the planned level.

  • The yearly total of sector opening hours across all the German ACCs was 424,216, -4% lower than in 2024. Bremen, Langen and Munich ACCs all had a reduction in sector opening hours by over -5% compared to 2024, while for Karlsruhe UAC the reduction was less marked (-1%).

  • Bremen ACC registered 6.52 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, being 7% above 2024 levels. Karlsruhe UAC registered 13.85 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, 5% above 2024 levels. Langen ACC registered 10.24 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, 10% above 2024 levels. Munich ACC registered 10.97 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, 12% above the 2024 level.

  • Germany registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.37 minutes per flight in 2025, thus achieving the local target of 0.43 minutes. Compared to 2024, average arrival ATFM delays in Germany were -0.09 minutes per flight lower in 2025.

  • The main drivers of delays were weather, accounting for 0.30 of the total delays, and other non-ATC causes, responsible for 0.06.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

NoteFocus on en route ATFM delay

En route ATFM delay

  • Germany had 3,145k flights in 2025, up from 3,052k flights in 2024.

  • En route ANSPs in Germany, DFS and MUAC (Hannover sector group), applied en route ATFM regulations resulting in 2,651k minutes of delay in 2025, a significant decrease from the 4,057k minutes in 2024.

  • Following the NM post operations re-attributions process, the en route ANSPs in Germany were responsible for 2,817k minutes of en route ATFM delay, compared to 4,467k minutes in 2024.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the en route ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “For DFS, the performance shortfall was primarily driven by capacity reasons and adverse weather conditions (convective activity in summer, fog and winter precipitation) as well as isolated technical issues. Notwithstanding the missed target, DFS achieved a significant improvement compared to 2024, demonstrating fort the second year in a row the continued effectiveness of the measures implemented in previous years, even against a backdrop of rising traffic and increased military airspace activity.”

Regarding the description of the adjustments to the capacity plan included in adopted performance plan, the NSA reports: “For DFS, the NOP 2025-2029 did not identify capacity bottlenecks requiring plan adjustments.”

Regarding the identification and analysis by the NSA of the underlying reasons or circumstances having led to the performance target not being achieved, the NSA reports: “With "Capacity" and "Staffing", both most prominent delay reasons directly attributable to the performance of the ANSP could be reduced in minutes by more than 30% and over 35% in minutes per flight. Despite this, DFS' en route capacity performance was not in line with the guideline value in all months of the year 2025. An increase of traffic and overall complexity during the summer months, the capacity targets got further out of reach. This represents not only the complexity of the airspaces under DFS' control, which is also intensified with increased military operations, but also shows that there are still relevant capacity issues to be solved. Those are addressed by the planned capacity measures as described in the performance plan, in the NOP and possible further measures which DFS is strongly encouraged to develop in cooperation with NM during the course of RP4, where the chance arises.

The mechanism for the monitoring of the capacity development and the implementation of the capacity measures of the RP4 performance plan is described in a dedicated annex to this report (Annex DE - Capacity - Monitoring of Performance and Capacity Measures (DFS)).”

Regarding recommendations to the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “DFS is recommended to timely continue the implementation of the planned capacity measures and to provide maximum transparency on the progress, while also to identifying possible temporary capacity shortfalls, expected to derive from the implementation of some measures.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “Development of a web based weather-phenomena presentation aligned with the needs of operational services, integrating trends and forecasts, to create a shared situational awareness across the U/ACC and to enhance both internal communication and communication with stakeholders.”

En route capacity incentive scheme

The FABEC NSAs report that, because the overall FABEC capacity incentive target was missed, no FABEC ANSP could be eligible for a bonus. However, financial penalties could still be imposed.

Individual en route incentive targets were set for both DFS and MUAC (global).

For DFS, the local incentive target for en route ATFM delays, due to CRSTMP causes only, was set at 0.26 mins/flight, (with a deadband of +/- 0.05 mins).

The FABEC NSAs report an achieved CRSTMP performance, for DFS, of 0.57 mins/flight using data from the ansperformance.eu dashboard including post ops adjustments. [NB The attribution of original delay causes on the ansperformance.eu dashboard is unverified.]

Subsequently, DFS is liable for a financial penalty of € 4,809,209 for its 2025 en route capacity performance.

For MUAC, the local incentive target for en route AFTM delays, due to CRSTMP causes only, was set at 0.19 mins/flight, (with a deadband of +/- 0.04 mins).

The FABEC NSAs report an achieved CRSTMP performance, for MUAC, of 0.18 mins/flight using data from the ansperformance.eu dashboard including post ops adjustments. [NB The attribution of original delay causes on the ansperformance.eu dashboard is unverified.]

The en route incentive capacity performance for MUAC fell inside the deadband, where no malus is applicable.

En route performance indicators at ACC level (PI#4-5)

NoteFocus en route performance indicators at ACC level

Percentage of total en route ATFM delay that occurred on days when the daily throughput was above the expected daily traffic

No comment provided.

Annual weighted average of the daily peak throughput

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “With the specifics of traffic in the different airspaces under their responsibilites, the values are hardly comparable between different area control centres. This indicator will therefore become more interesting during the course of RP4. Yet, already the comparison of the values for EDWW, EDUU, EDGG, EDMM show, that not only did they handle more traffic with less delay, especially in the categories capacity and staffing, but also did the throughput increase by between 2,7% (EDWW) and 14,8% (EDUU). The German NSA concludes that the additional traffic did at least to a relevant degree occurr in peak hours, which makes the development of CAP KPI#1 even more noticable.”

Other en route information

NoteFocus on other en route information

ATCOs in operations

“The number of ATCOs who are planned to stop working in the OPS room consists of people finishing their operational career and of an approximation of unplanned leaves. Planned and actual number of ATCOs in OPS also contain planned or actual temporary absences (such as training for bigger system changes and others) which may increase or decrease over the years, and which are not depicted in the template. This may lead to differences in the numbers of actual ATCOs in ops, which are not directly explainable from the template. Yet, the numbers are considered the most accurate presentation of ATCOs in ops. A more detailed view on the development of the operationally available ATCOs in OPS is part of the the continuous monitoring approach of the NSA as described in the dedicated Annex DE.”

Regarding the training process, including details on the effective failure rate and the process used to allocate newly qualified ATCOs between ACC, APP and TWR positions, the NSA reports: ““Entering the training program” describes the number of ATCO-trainees starting at the academy. “ATCOs completing the training program” are those finishing their respective unit training at the ATC branches with different lengths in training dependent on sector group or center added to the institutional training. The average success-rate in DFS is appr. 90% at the academy (IT – initial training) and varies in between 60%-90% dependent on the respective sector-family or tower-branch (UT – unit training).”

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

NoteFocus on arrival ATFM delay

Arrival ATFM delay

Average ATFM arrival delay in Germany was 0.37 min/arr in 2025, the first year of RP4. The performance has improved compared to 2024, last year of RP3, when there were 0.46 min/arr.

The national average is primarily driven by Frankfurt airport, which suffered 0.87 min/arr compared to 1.15 min/arr in 2024. After this improvement, Frankfurt met its individual 2025 target of 0.90 min/arr. The other main airport, Munich, also met its target (0.43 min/arr) by presenting 0.36 min/arr.

Cologne/Bonn airport delay was only slightly above 2024 (0.56 vs 0.53 min/arr), while the rest of airports in RP4 all had between zero (e.g. Hannover, Nuremberg) and 0.16 min/arr (Leipzig).

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM Arrival delay across Member States in 2025 was 0.97 min/arr.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the arrival ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “The performance in 2025 regarding KPI#2 at German airports was within the target and showed a slight improvement compared to the previous year. 80% of the ATFM arrival delay were caused by adverse weather situations. Delays directly attributable to the performance of the ANSP occurred in isolated events.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “Any remaining staffing issues at DFS are tackeled with the intensified ATCO recruitment and training. Technical issues regarding voice-/radio communication and radio in tower EDDF derived from a faulty software update. The issue was solved with another update at the beginning of 2026.”

Regarding follow up of the remedial measures indicated in the previous monitoring report(s), the NSA reports: “The agreed collaborative wheather mitigation measures at EDDF developed in 2025 are being monitored and further developed. Together with the other remedial measures, it is subject to monitoring by the German NSA.”

Terminal capacity incentive scheme

In the first year of RP4, with an ATFM arrival delay of 0.37 min/arr, Germany achieved the national target of 0.43 min/arr. However, the pivot value for incentives (0.006 min/arr) is limited to CRSTMP delay causes. As CRSTMP delay of 0.018 min/arr falls beyond the malus sliding range for the incentive scheme, maximum penalty of 0.5% applies. As such, the NSA calculates a penalty of EUR 1,716,947.73.

Other terminal performance indicators (PI#1-3)

Airport level
Airport name
Avg arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)
Slot adherence (PI#1)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Berlin Brandenburg 0.10 NA NA NA NA 99.5% NA NA NA NA
Bremen 0.01 NA NA NA NA 95.6% NA NA NA NA
Cologne/Bonn 0.56 NA NA NA NA 98.5% NA NA NA NA
Dresden 0.00 NA NA NA NA 98.4% NA NA NA NA
Dusseldorf 0.05 NA NA NA NA 98.9% NA NA NA NA
Erfurt 0.00 NA NA NA NA 96.2% NA NA NA NA
Frankfurt 0.87 NA NA NA NA 97.8% NA NA NA NA
Hamburg 0.01 NA NA NA NA 97.9% NA NA NA NA
Hannover 0.00 NA NA NA NA 98.2% NA NA NA NA
Leipzig 0.16 NA NA NA NA 98.5% NA NA NA NA
Munich 0.36 NA NA NA NA 95.5% NA NA NA NA
Münster-Osnabrück 0.00 NA NA NA NA 98.2% NA NA NA NA
Nürnberg 0.00 NA NA NA NA 98.0% NA NA NA NA
Saarbrücken 0.00 NA NA NA NA 98.4% NA NA NA NA
Stuttgart 0.11 NA NA NA NA 98.5% NA NA NA NA
Airport name
ATC pre departure delay (PI#2)
All causes pre departure delay (PI#3)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Berlin Brandenburg 0.40 NA NA NA NA 16.04 NA NA NA NA
Cologne/Bonn NA NA NA NA NA 17.61 NA NA NA NA
Dusseldorf 0.11 NA NA NA NA 14.19 NA NA NA NA
Frankfurt 0.13 NA NA NA NA 18.88 NA NA NA NA
Hamburg 0.37 NA NA NA NA 14.42 NA NA NA NA
Munich 0.02 NA NA NA NA 12.83 NA NA NA NA
NoteFocus on other terminal performance indicators

ATFM slot adherence

ATFM slot adherence in 2025 was equal to 97.8%, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 97.6%. With regard to the 2.2% of flights that did not adhere, 1.7% were early and 0.5% were late.

All airports showed adherence above 95%; highest adherence was observed at Berlin Brandenburg (99.5%) and lowest at Munich (95.5%).

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM slot adherence across Member States in 2025 was 96.3%.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “The performance on national level as well as at the different airports has been stable with slight improvements. The consistently high proportion of well over 95% of regulated flights that departed within the Slot Tolerance Window demonstrates that the established procedures and processes at the airports are fit for purpose. Further measures are currently not intended.”

ATC pre-departure delay

Six German airports are subject to the monitoring of this indicator: Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Cologne/Bonn. However, the share of unidentified delay reported by Cologne/Bonn was above 40% for more than 2 months in the year 2025, preventing the calculation of this indicator for this airport.

Delay in Frankfurt in 2025 was equal to 0.13 min/dep, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 0.11 min/dep.

Delay in Munich in 2025 was equal to 0.02 min/dep, whereas in 2024 - last year of RP3 – there was no reported ATC pre-departure delay.

Delay in Berlin in 2025 was equal to 0.40 min/dep, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 0.39 min/dep.

Delay in Düsseldorf in 2025 was equal to 0.11 min/dep, the same as 2024 value– last year of RP3.

Delay in Hamburg in 2025 was equal to 0.37 min/dep, very close to 2024 value– last year of RP3 – of 0.42 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATC pre-departure delay across Member States and for which enough data is available in 2025 was 0.74 min/dep.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “This data is not collected by DFS.

No indicator specific initiatives are planed by DFS.”

Regarding the absence of data at airport level, the NSA reports: “Among the relevant airports of the German TNC charging zone, again in 2025, EDDK was the only one which could not produce sufficientyl reliable data. To the knowledge of the German NSA, in order to improve the situation EUROCONTROL regularly contacts the airports to check on the status of the reporting and provide support in the final correct implementation of the APDF. EUROCONTROL is also part of an ACI sub-group (APN) that includes several airports and informs them regularly on data provision issues. While the NSA is in favour of a solution of this issue, currently and due to prioritisation, no extra activities are planned by the NSA itself.”

All causes pre-departure delay

Six German airports are subject to the monitoring of this indicator: Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Cologne/Bonn. All of them have decreased their average pre-departure delay by at least 10% and in one case up to a 35% reduction.

Delay in Frankfurt in 2025 decreased to 18.88 min/dep, 19% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 23.17 min/dep.

Delay in Munich in 2025 decreased to 12.83 min/dep, 35% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 19.66 min/dep.

Delay in Berlin in 2025 decreased to 16.04 min/dep, 10% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 17.82 min/dep.

Delay in Düsseldorf in 2025 decreased to 14.19 min/dep, 15% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 16.74 min/dep.

Delay in Hamburg in 2025 decreased to 14.42 min/dep, 22% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 18.48 min/dep.

Delay in Cologne/Bonn in 2025 decreased to 17.61 min/dep, 20% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 21.97 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of all causes pre-departure delay across Member States in 2025 was 16.47 min/dep.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “This data is not collected by DFS.

No indicator specific initiatives were planned by DFS.”

Regarding the absence of data at airport level, the NSA reports: “All cause departure delay is very generic and ATFM delay is only a small contributor. Departure delay can be generated by ATFM en-route delay (not only local airport, but the complete Network) but also reactionary and turnaround delay, technical issues with the aircraft, airport operations, problems with passengers and or luggage, etc. In other words, it is not always possible to address a specific reason as this delay is quite generic. It would be more interesting to check the overall ANSP share against the share of the other network stakeholders (airports and AOs) and also show the weather induced subshare.”

 
  • © European Union, 2026