Cost-efficiency - Italy

PRB monitoring

The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Italy was 55.03€2022, -2.6% lower than the determined unit cost (56.51€2022). The terminal zone 1 2025 actual unit cost was 130.11€2022, -1.9% lower than the determined unit cost (132.66€2022), while the terminal zone 2 2025 actual unit cost was 276.75€2022, -1.0% lower than the determined unit cost (279.46€2022).
The en route 2025 actual service units (12.4M) were in line with the determined service units (12.5M).
The en route 2025 actual total costs were -20.2M€2022 (-2.9%) lower than determined. This is mainly due to lower other operating costs (-11.2M€2022, or -10.3%), followed by staff costs (-10.2M€2022, or -2.7%) for ENAV. The NSA explained that it is mainly due to a decrease in operational support from external companies, lower travel, utility and telecommunications costs, and lower inflation and cost for overtime.
ENAV spent 160.2M€2022 in 2025 related to costs of investments for both en route and terminal charging zones, -1.4% less than determined (162.4M€2022). According to the NSA, this reduction is due to delays in some investment programs caused by difficulties in the supply of materials, unstable market conditions, and bureaucratic delays.
The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 60.89€ (+0.5% above the 2025 DUC). The terminal actual unit cost incurred by users was 142.28€ (in line with the 2025 DUC) for the terminal zone 1, and 304.06€ (+1.1% above the 2025 DUC) for the terminal zone 2. The difference between the AUCU and the DUC for the terminal charging zone 2 is mainly driven by the traffic adjustments.
The en route regulatory result for ENAV amounted to +70.7M€, or 10.8% of the 2025 revenue. This may indicate that the airspace users are charged for costs which have not materialised in 2025.

En route charging zone

Unit cost (KPI#1)

Total costs - nominal (M€)	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Actual and determined data
Determined costs	754.3	784.0	813.6	835.7	852.2
Actual costs	728.3	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference costs	-26.1	NA	NA	NA	NA

Inflation assumptions	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Determined inflation rate	2.1%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%
Determined inflation index*	109.5	111.7	114	116.2	118.6
Actual inflation rate	1.6%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Actual inflation index*	108.8	NA	NA	NA	NA
Difference inflation index (p.p.)	-0.8	NA	NA	NA	NA
*100 = 2022

Focus on unit cost

AUC vs. DUC

In 2025, the en route AUC was -2.6% (or -1.48 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of lower than planned en route costs in real terms (-2.9%, or -20.2 M€2022) and slightly lower than planned TSUs (-0.2%).

En route service units

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (-0.2%) falls inside the ±2% dead-band. Hence, the loss of en route revenues is borne by the ANSPs.

En route costs by entity

Actual real en route costs are -2.9% (-20.2 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, ENAV (-3.1%, or -18.8 M€2022), the NSA/EUROCONTROL (-1.9%, or -0.9 M€2022) and the other ANSP (ITAF, -0.9%, or -0.5 M€2022) and slightly higher costs for the MET service provider (+0.7%).

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

Based on the additional information to the en route reporting tables, the lower than planned en route costs in real terms for ENAV in 2025 (-3.1%, or -18.8 M€2022) result from:

Lower than planned staff costs (-2.7%), mainly due to: lower than planned inflation recorded during the year; an agreement to postpone (predominantly) ATCO bonuses, as part of labour contract renewal; reductions in the fixed portion of staff costs due to different hiring dynamics; a lower cost for operational overtime; and higher rate of capitalisation of internal effort.
Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-10.3%), mainly due to: lower external support costs from cost-containment measures and greater use of internal expertise; reduced travel expenses following the postponement of some ATCO training sessions; lower utility and telecommunications costs driven by reduced electricity tariffs and partial deployment of the remote towers network; delayed data network infrastructure upgrades for security reasons; and lower infrastructure costs related to the Palermo offshore platforms and Pantelleria control tower.
Lower than planned depreciation (-2.0%).
Significantly higher than planned cost of capital (+9.7%), mainly due to higher average cost of debt and significantly higher net current assets.

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

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

“En-route 2025 Italy AUC has been € 55.03, -2.6% compared to the 2025 DUC of € 56.51.

Cost reductions have been registered for all Entities. All detailed information are provided in the Additional Information to Reporting Tables uploaded on ETNA.”

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:

“Main ANSP reductions refer to: i) Staff costs at company level (lower inflation, 4 M€ postponement to 2026 in application of an agreement part of the renewal of Labour contract, lower operational overtime, higher reductions for internal works capitalized), ii) Operational costs at company level (lower external support, training postponement to 2026, lower utilities costs for lower tariffs), iii) Depreciation for investment postponement (-2 M€ that will be reimbursed to users).

Main ANSP increases refer to CoC at company level, as the actual average cost of debt in 2025 was 3.59% as in financial statement (vs 3.10% determined).”

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

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

“NSA recommended the ANSP a more precise cost planning for: specific investments and internal works capitalized.

NSA recommends as well more transparency in cost planning (specifically for what concerns revenue deductions).”

ENAV reports the implementation of the following actions:

“ENAV provided more detailed information regarding investments compared to the previous years. This allowed NSA to provide additional information to reconcile data.”

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

	€/SU
AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
DUC	60.56
Inflation adjustment	-0.32
Cost exempt from cost sharing	-0.24
Traffic risk sharing adjustment	0.00
Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS)	0.02
Financial incentives	1.04
Modulation of charges	0.00
Cross-financing	0.00
Other revenues	-0.17
Application of lower unit rate	0.00
Total adjustments	0.33
AUCU	60.89
AUCU vs. DUC	+ 0.5%

Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025	€'000	€/SU
New and existing investments	-2,097.9	-0.17
Competent authorities and qualified entities costs	-491.5	-0.04
Eurocontrol costs	-437.6	-0.04
Pension costs	0.0	0.00
Interest on loans	40.9	0.00
Changes in law	0.0	0.00
Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing	-2,986.1	-0.24

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 (60.89 €) is +0.5% higher than the nominal DUC (60.56 €). The difference between these two figures (+0.33 €/SU) is due to:

the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.32 €/SU);
the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-0.24 €/SU);
the addition of the traffic adjustment (+0.02 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing;
the impact of financial incentives (+1.04 €/SU); and,
the deduction of other revenues (-0.17 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 9.3%.

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

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

“The Actual Unit cost incurred by users is + 0.5% compared to the DUC. The difference is minimal, also considered that it includes the financial incentive.

There are no applicable initiatives for the moment since operational changes described in section 2.4.1 question 4 will provide with operational benefits, but no CEF benefits are expected in RP4.”

Regulatory result (RR)

Focus on regulatory result

ENAV net gain/loss on activity in the Italy en route charging zone in 2025

ENAV reported a net gain of +30.5 M€, as a combination of a gain of +19.1 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -1.6 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism and a gain of +13.0 M€ relating to financial incentives.

ENAV 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 (+30.5 M€) and the actual RoE (+40.1 M€), amounts to +70.7 M€ (10.8% of the en route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 13.3%, which is higher than the 7.6% planned in the PP.