Cost-efficiency - Hungary

PRB monitoring

The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Hungary was 28.24€2022, -8.4% lower than the determined unit cost (30.81€2022). The terminal 2025 actual unit cost was 256.88€2022, -9.4% lower than the determined unit cost (283.49€2022).
The en route 2025 actual service units (4.4M) were +9.5% higher than the determined service units (4.0M).
The en route 2025 actual total costs were slightly higher than determined (+0.4M€2022, or+0.3%). This is entirely driven by higher staff costs, as all other cost categories registered lower costs than planned. Staff costs for HungaroControl were +4.9M€2022 higher than planned (+9.2%). The NSA explained this increase by higher-than-planned personnel expenditure related to measures for increasing capacity and pay rises reflecting inflation.
A deviation from the criteria to achieve capacity targets was considered justified for Hungary. Actual costs for the measures necessary to achieve those targets were lower than determined (-0.8M€2022, or -11.7%), mainly due to lower other operating costs (-0.7M€2022, or -18.9%) than planned.
HungaroControl spent 33.1M€2022 in 2025 related to costs of investments for both en route and terminal charging zones, -11.9% less than determined (37.5M€2022). The NSA explained that this reduction is mainly due to postponed investments and delayed developments.
The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 32.66€ (-8.4% below the 2025 DUC), while the terminal actual unit cost incurred by users was 277.22€ (-13.7% below the 2025 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC for both terminal and en route charging zones is mainly driven by the traffic risk sharing adjustment.

En route charging zone

Unit cost (KPI#1)

Total costs - nominal (M€)	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Actual and determined data
Determined costs	144.8	155.5	165.2	173.0	189.1
Actual costs	147.1	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference costs	2.3	NA	NA	NA	NA

Inflation assumptions	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Determined inflation rate	3.5%	2.9%	3.0%	3.0%	3.0%
Determined inflation index*	125.7	129.3	133.2	137.2	141.3
Actual inflation rate	4.4%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Actual inflation index*	126.7	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference inflation index (p.p.)	+1	NA	NA	NA	NA
*100 = 2022

Focus on unit cost

AUC vs. DUC

In 2025, the en route AUC was -8.4% (or -1 005.43 HUF2022, -2.58 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of significantly higher than planned TSUs (+9.5%) and slightly higher than planned en route costs in real terms (+0.3%, or +149.4 MHUF2022, +0.4 M€2022).

En route service units

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (+9.5%) 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 +0.3% (+0.4 M€2022) higher than planned. This is the result of higher costs for the NSA/EUROCONTROL (+4.5%, or +0.5 M€2022) and the MET service provider (+0.4%) and slightly lower costs for the main ANSP, HungaroControl (-0.1%, or -0.1 M€2022).

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

The slightly lower than planned en route costs in real terms for HungaroControl in 2025 (-0.1%, or -0.1 M€2022) are mainly due to higher than planned actual inflation index (+1.0 p.p), since, in nominal terms, the costs were above the plan (+1.3%). Based on the additional information to the en route reporting tables this results from:

Significantly higher than planned staff costs (+9.2%), mainly due to the implementation of operational measures aimed at capacity restoration, expansion and airspace flexibility, which required personnel-related expenditures that exceeded the plan. In addition, pay rises exceeded the plan in nominal terms for both ATCO and non-ATCO positions as a result of inflation that was slightly higher than expected.
Lower than planned other operating costs (-3.7%), due to: more favourable air traffic control liability insurance; favourable changes in the energy market; lower than planned manufacturer support costs, shifts in planned investments impacting IT services expenditure; lower than expected use of ATCO mobility.
Significantly lower than planned depreciation (-13.2%), mainly due to later than planned implementation of some investments and some assets being put into operation later than planned.
Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-16.8%), due to a lower than planned average regulatory asset base that primarily reflects some fixed assets under construction being behind schedule.

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

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

“Based on actual costs, there was an 8% decrease in the real unit cost value in ENR compared to DUC (which represents better-than-planned performance). This is because the nominal cost level increased by 2%, but traffic was 9% higher, resulting in a unit cost lower than planned.”

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:

“Staff costs: Staff costs were driven primarily by significant efforts to restore and increase capacity. Thanks to numerous measures outlined in the PRC capacity performance analysis as well, capacity performance improved dramatically in 2025. The implementation of operational measures aimed at capacity restoration, expansion, and airspace flexibility required personnel-related expenditures that exceeded the plan.

In addition, pay rises exceeded the plan in nominal terms for both ATCO and non-ATCO positions as a result of inflation that was slightly higher than expected in PP.

OPEX: More favourable air traffic control liability insurance; further favourable changes in the energy market since the performance plan was drawn up; lower-than-planned manufacturer support costs, IT services partly related to some shifts in investments within the PP; we planned for the ATCO mobility measure in this category, while its actual costs consist largely of staff costs. As declared in PP, unspent ATCO mobility costs will be reimbursed to airspace users.

Cost savings were offset to a small extent by extra payment to the government based on a government decree applicable to all state-owned companies.

Depreciation: Some investment items are being implemented slightly later than planned within the PP, and certain assets have been put into operation later than planned in the PP. These effects result in depreciation that is below plan.

Cost of capital: Lower than planned average regulatory asset base that is primarily due to the fact that fixed assets under construction are behind schedule within the reference period, as noted earlier.”

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

No information was provided in the NSA 2025 Monitoring Report.

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

	€/SU
AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
DUC	35.64
Inflation adjustment	0.19
Cost exempt from cost sharing	-0.71
Traffic risk sharing adjustment	-1.53
Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS)	-0.31
Financial incentives	0.00
Modulation of charges	0.00
Cross-financing	0.00
Other revenues	-0.62
Application of lower unit rate	0.00
Total adjustments	-2.98
AUCU	32.66
AUCU vs. DUC	-8.4%

Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025	€'000	€/SU
New and existing investments	-3,580.6	-0.82
Competent authorities and qualified entities costs	-263.2	-0.06
Eurocontrol costs	732.4	0.17
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	-3,111.4	-0.71

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 (12 977.81 HUF or 32.66 €) is -8.4% lower than the nominal DUC (14 161.07 HUF or 35.64 €) which includes DUC initially charged: 14 359.67 HUF (or 36.14 € ), and DUC to be charged retroactively: -198.61 HUF (or -0.50 € ). The difference between the AUCU and the nominal DUC (-1 183.25 HUF/SU or -2.98 €/SU) is due to:

the positive inflation adjustment resulting from higher than planned inflation (+76.27 HUF/SU or +0.19 €/SU);
the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-282.88 HUF/SU or -0.71 €/SU);
the deduction of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (-606.95 HUF/SU or -1.53 €/SU);
the deduction of the traffic adjustment (-124.40 HUF/SU or -0.31 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing; and,
the deduction of other revenues (-245.29 HUF/SU or -0.62 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 7.1%.

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.

Regulatory result (RR)

Focus on regulatory result

HungaroControl net gain/loss on activity in the Hungary en route charging zone in 2025

HungaroControl reported a net gain of +1.0 M€, as a combination of a loss of -4.5 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a gain of +5.4 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism.

HungaroControl 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 (+1.0 M€) and the actual RoE (+9.3 M€), amounts to +10.3 M€ (7.9% of the en route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 10.2%, which is slightly higher than the 10.0% planned in the PP.