• 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. Environment
  • Year report
    • 2025 ✓

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

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

Environment - Italy

Download Report

PRB monitoring

  • Italy registered a KEA performance of 3.03%. Their target of 2.75% was not achieved and Italy did not contribute positively to Union-wide performance. The NSA states the main reason for not meeting the target is due to the mismatch between the target’s expectation and the measured output by the PRU. The mismatch has already been demonstrated to the NM and the PRU.

  • KEP and KES remained stable in comparison with 2024.

  • VFE of the actual trajectory was at 73.53%, which was below the union-wide performance.

  • The average time in level flight during descent remained stable and during climb marginally improved.

  • Additional taxi-out time was 5.26 min/flight which improved compared to 2024, and additional taxi-in time was 2.45 min/flight which deteriorated compared to 2.32 min/flight in 2024.

  • Additional time in the arrival sequencing and metering area remained stable in 2025.

En route performance

Horizontal flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) (KPI#1), of the last filed flight plan (KEP) (PI#1), shortest constrained route (KES) (PI#2) and vertical flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (VFE) (PI#3)

NoteFocus on en route performance

KEA

The absolute value of the indicator is table with respect to the previous year, and a slight improvement over 2023, both for KEA and the KEA corrected for the influence of the war in Ukraine. The values are 3.09% in 2023, 3.03% in 2024 and 2025 for KEA; 3.04% in 2023, 2.97% in 2024 and 2025 for the corrected KEA.

Italy is third worse (26th) in terms of additional km added per flight (4.02 in 2025).

Italy is also the third highest in terms of contribution to the total additional distance in the SES area, with a value of 10.01%.

Regarding the assessment of the achieved level of actual performance in the environment KPA, the NSA reports: “The Italian Airspace is, as well as others in ECAC, one of the most attractive for AUs' planning activity and one of the most performing from the point of view of the management of the trajectory chosen for the Flight Plan routes, conditio sine qua non in view of the lower fuel consumption and, accordingly, the lower CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

Keeping as a milestone the above considerations, confirmed by the benefits (in terms of flight efficiency) also computed by the AUs whose flight trajectories crossed the Italian airspace.

Looking at the proposed results anticipated in the Report for the year 2024 relating to the KPI KEA, it continues to be highlighted that the errors already underlined (for the proposed performance results related to the previous years from 2020 of the RP3 and correlated to the calculation of the additional distance with respect to the Reference) have not been corrected or amended even for the year 2025.

Although both the Italian ANSP and NSA have already demonstrated and reported within the Performance Report of the previous years of RP3, both to the NM and to the PRU, the inconsistency of the KEA algorithm to detect some groups of "additional distances" not ascribable neither to the ANSPs nor to the stakeholders but associated to the scopes of some flight trajectories for particular City_Pairs or to ATC reasons or specific necessities of military flights (the single correction made to the computation of the KEA was the exclusion from the calculation of the "Diverted" flights and nothing else for the other evidences), the permanence of the other incorrect calculations determine a large discrepancy between the expectations of the performance results for the KPI KEA and the proposed performance outputs assessed by the PRU.”

Regarding the implementation of major operational or structural changes during the calendar year impacting performance in this key performance area, the NSA reports: “Also in 2025, in line with the ongoing national ATM implementation programme, ENAV S.p.A. continued with the planned applications and optimizations of the National Airspace structure and the ATS Lower NTW, most of which are also included in the ERNIP and outlined in the boxes below.

Notwithstanding the negative aspects identified (and several time reported and demonstrated in the past years of RP3) in the determination of the algorithmic and database errors used for the calculation of the KEA, for the year 2025 an increase has been detected in the gap between actual routings and the Great Circle Distance (GCD), amounting to 0.28% compared to 2024”

Regarding progress on the implementation of the measures committed to in the ERNIP, the NSA reports: “The Italian performance results on flight efficiency, annually reported in the ENAV's Flight Efficiency Plan, are quantified with the aim to highlight the annual environmental benefits and also to compare with the assigned SES performance targets.

The quantification of the outputs come from the deployed effective implementations introduced within the Italian airspace in the past years, in line and according to the National ATM implementation programme, such as:

- the FRA Airspace and the lowere of the lower limit at FLK 195 starting from 21 of March 2024

- the SECSI Airspace (Cross Border between FRAIT and the Austrian/Balcans ANSPs) also implemented from 21 of March 2024

- the armonization of the EnRoute and Terminal NTW with the FRA

- the National PBN Implementation Plan

- the National Programme of APP in ACC

- the Airspace availability implementations (RAD) assessed to optimize the flight planning activity of the AUs

- the implementation of the eighth layer in the ATC sectorization of all four Italian ACCs

- all the other measures that are inserted and published in ERNIP.”

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: “Looking at the 2025’s consolidated results above presented in the Table, and similar as they have been calculated and reported also for the previous years of the RP3, there is a large mismatch between the target's expectation and the measured output by PRU, determined by the permanence of some inconsistencies, part of which below reported.

For this reason, ENAV SpA has continued requesting the recalculation (and the action is currently still in progress since the 2020) of the output's KPI attributed by PRU/NM, having found and shared evidence of some errors in the attribution of part of the actual flight trajectories in comparison to the appropriate GCD.

The main ones highlighted, among others, are:

1. the failure to manage correctly the DVT flights, that has been represented as one of the most negative impact

(the single error removed from the calculation);

2. the failure to manage those City-Pairs that have been involved some military flights, as so called "round-robin flighs"

trajectories or routings that did not have been compliant with the shortest trajectories for their own institutional

needs;

3. the failure to manage (remove or do not consider as additional distances for the KPI KEA) some negative impacts

measured in case of RWY changed/opposite RWY due to weather conditions or other ATC reasons, so not caused

by inefficiencies to manage the flight trajectories by the ATCOs;

4. other negative impact measured when considered holdings/AFTCM delay due to ATM Capacity issues or other

unavailability on the arrival airport.”

Regarding recommendations to the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “The Italian NSA/NCA encourage ENAV SpA to continue implementing the planned flight efficiency measures, as in the shared programme, while parallely NSA is still supporting the recalculation of the presented values for the 2025 (as it was requested for the entire RP3) in light of the evidenced errors and the failure to manage correctly the "anomalus" trajectories.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “The Italian NSA/NCA incentives the Italian ANSP (ENAV SpA) to continue implementing the planned flight efficiency measures, as in the shared programme, with the aim to be compliant with the scheduled flight efficiency actions.”

Regarding the follow up of the remedial measures indicated in the previous monitoring report(s), the NSA reports: “No remedial measures were indicated in the previous monitoring report.”

KEP

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “Italian ANSPs are not involved in the process of storing and subsequently processing the flight trajectory information/data and therefore in defining the output of this PI.

As with the KES (PI_#2), this PI is in charge of the NM of Eurocontrol, which handles its complete processing and, considering the methodology in force, provides the output using its own algorithm.”

KES

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “Italian ANSPs not involved in the process of storing and subsequently processing the flight trajectory information/data and therefore in defining the output of this PI.

As with the KEP (PI_#1), this PI is in charge of the NM of Eurocontrol, which handles its complete processing and, considering the methodology in force, provides the output using its own algorithm.”

Vertical flight efficiency

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “With the primary objective of monitoring compliance with the vertical demand of Airspace Users (AUs) operating in Italian airspace, and also of enabling the definition of mitigation actions aimed at improving ATC sectorisation, both in terms of flight efficiency and AU requirements, ENAV S.p.A. developed, in recent months, a dedicated database and ad‑hoc tool.

This was designed to monitor the relevant data and to quantify an output suitable to verify the results presented in the table.

At the conclusion of this monitoring activity, the results produced were found to be very close to, and therefore broadly in line with, the values reported in the table above, although the figure calculated by ENAV S.p.A. is objectively slightly higher in percentage terms than the value presented.”

Terminal performance

Additional taxi-out time (AXOT) (PI#4), Additional taxi-in time (AXIT) (PI#5) & Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area (ASMA) time (PI#6)

Airport level
Airport
Additional taxi-out time (PI#4)
Additional ASMA time (PI#6)
Additional taxi-in time (PI#5)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Bergamo 3.37 NA NA NA NA 2.59 NA NA NA NA 2.06 NA NA NA NA
Milan Linate 4.60 NA NA NA NA 2.60 NA NA NA NA 1.75 NA NA NA NA
Milan Malpensa 4.35 NA NA NA NA 3.70 NA NA NA NA 1.94 NA NA NA NA
Rome Fiumicino 6.74 NA NA NA NA 3.24 NA NA NA NA 3.20 NA NA NA NA
NoteFocus on AXOT, AXIT & ASMA

AXOT

Rome Fiumicino, Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Bergamo are the only Italian airports subject to the monitoring of this indicator. Despite reductions in three of them, the average additional taxi out time across these four airports was 5.26 min/dep, the highest across all RP4 states.

Additional time in Rome – Fiumicino in 2025 decreased to 6.74 min/dep, 12% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 7.67 min/dep. Still, Rome – Fiumicino had the highest additional taxi out time of all airports subject to monitoring of this indicator in RP4.

Additional time in Milan – Malpensa in 2025 increased to 4.35 min/dep, 3% higher than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 4.24 min/dep. Milan – Malpensa had the fourth highest additional taxi out time of all airports subject to monitoring of this indicator in RP4.

Additional time in Milan – Linate in 2025 decreased to 4.60 min/dep, 6% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 4.89 min/dep. Still, Milan – Linate had the second highest additional taxi out time of all airports subject to monitoring of this indicator in RP4.

Additional time in Bergamo in 2025 decreased to 3.37 min/dep, 6% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 3.58 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of this indicator across Member States in 2025 was 3.61 min/dep.

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “As in previous years of RP3, a rationale that can be considered valid for Performance Indicators from PI#4 to PI#9—related to performance in both the taxi phases and the terminal area (ASMA and CCO/CDO)—is that ENAV SpA, as well as other ANSPs within the ECAC area, does not have full access to the complete set of data used by Eurocontrol/PRU to generate its outputs.

With the aim of reducing inefficiencies and improving operational performance, ENAV SpA has developed several ad hoc tools primarily intended to identify areas of inefficiency and to support the planning of targeted mitigation actions aimed at enhancing flight efficiency.

Starting from the first year of RP4 (2025), the outputs produced using the new methodology are presented in this report for the whole RP4 period, while acknowledging that the existing limitations related to data availability for ANSPs remain unchanged.”

AXIT

Rome Fiumicino, Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Bergamo are the only Italian airports subject to the monitoring of this indicator.

The additional time in 2025 was equal to 3.20 min/arr in Rome Fiumicino, 1.94 min/arr in Milan Malpensa, 1.75 min/arr in Milan Linate and 2.06 min/arr in Bergamo.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of this indicator across Member States in 2025 was 1.71 min/arr.

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “As in previous years of RP3 and throughout the entire RP2, a rationale that can be considered valid for Performance Indicators from PI#4 to PI#9—related to performance in both the taxi phases and the terminal area (ASMA and CCO/CDO)—is that ENAV SpA, as well as other ANSPs within the ECAC area, does not have full access to the complete set of data used by Eurocontrol/PRU to generate its outputs.

Consequently, it is not possible to replicate the data processing in detail or to fully verify the correctness of the assessed information.”

ASMA

Rome Fiumicino, Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Bergamo are the only Italian airports subject to the monitoring of this indicator.

Additional time in Rome – Fiumicino in 2025 decreased to 3.24 min/dep, 8% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 3.54 min/ arr.

Additional time in Milan – Malpensa in 2025 was equal to 3.70 min/dep, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 3.68 min/ arr.

Additional time in Milan – Linate in 2025 increased to 2.60 min/dep, 7% higher than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 2.44 min/arr.

Additional time in Bergamo in 2025 was equal to 2.59 min/dep, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 2.61 min/ arr.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of this indicator across Member States in 2025 was 2.98 min/arr.

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “As in previous years of RP3 and throughout the entire RP2, a rationale that can be considered valid for Performance Indicators from PI#4 to PI#9—related to performance in both the taxi phases and the terminal area (ASMA and CCO/CDO)—is that ENAV SpA, as well as other ANSPs within the ECAC area, does not have full access to the complete set of data used by Eurocontrol/PRU to generate its outputs.

Consequently, it is not possible to replicate the data processing in detail or to fully verify the correctness of the assessed information.”

Vertical flight efficiency of the descent (PI#7) and of the climb (PI#8)

NoteFocus on vertical flight efficiency of the descent and of the climb

Vertical flight efficiency of the descent

Compared to the overall RP4 average value (149.2 seconds per flight), average times flown level during descent are on average 13.3 seconds per flight lower in Italy. The highest average time flown level during descent happens at Albenga (LIMG) (309.9 seconds per flight), while the lowest happens at ITAF Trapani (LICT) (41.3 seconds per flight).

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “See Annex 1”

Vertical flight efficiency of the climb

Compared to the overall RP4 average value (34.8 seconds per flight), average times flown level during climb are on average 0.3 seconds per flight higher in Italy. The highest average time flown level during climb happens at Roma Urbe (LIRU) (164 seconds per flight), while the lowest happens at Pantelleria (LICG) (12.2 seconds per flight).

Airport level
Airport
Avg. duration in climb (PI#8)
Avg. duration in descent (PI#7)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Crotone 36.6 NA NA NA NA 46.0 NA NA NA NA
Bari Palese Macchie 28.7 NA NA NA NA 86.5 NA NA NA NA
Foggia Gino Lisa 27.2 NA NA NA NA 74.1 NA NA NA NA
Grottaglie 43.2 NA NA NA NA 192.2 NA NA NA NA
Pescara 29.4 NA NA NA NA 76.1 NA NA NA NA
Brindisi Casale 26.5 NA NA NA NA 67.6 NA NA NA NA
Lamezia Terme 22.3 NA NA NA NA 67.6 NA NA NA NA
Comiso Pio La Torre 30.1 NA NA NA NA 94.5 NA NA NA NA
Catania Fontanarossa (ENAV+ITAF) 15.1 NA NA NA NA 59.8 NA NA NA NA
Lampedusa 20.0 NA NA NA NA 87.4 NA NA NA NA
Pantelleria 12.2 NA NA NA NA 52.6 NA NA NA NA
Palermo Punta Raisi 16.3 NA NA NA NA 48.8 NA NA NA NA
Reggio Calabria 28.3 NA NA NA NA 81.9 NA NA NA NA
ITAF Trapani 19.1 NA NA NA NA 41.3 NA NA NA NA
Alghero 19.5 NA NA NA NA 72.2 NA NA NA NA
Cagliari Elmas (ENAV+ITAF) 35.3 NA NA NA NA 58.1 NA NA NA NA
Olbia Costa Smeralda 27.8 NA NA NA NA 136.6 NA NA NA NA
Torino Aeritalia 107.8 NA NA NA NA 212.8 NA NA NA NA
Milan Malpensa 39.9 NA NA NA NA 220.7 NA NA NA NA
Bergamo 57.5 NA NA NA NA 186.2 NA NA NA NA
Torino Caselle 37.9 NA NA NA NA 169.3 NA NA NA NA
Albenga 127.8 NA NA NA NA 309.9 NA NA NA NA
Genova Sestri 47.8 NA NA NA NA 179.0 NA NA NA NA
Milan Linate 34.8 NA NA NA NA 140.5 NA NA NA NA
Parma 46.3 NA NA NA NA 141.7 NA NA NA NA
Aosta 145.7 NA NA NA NA 189.1 NA NA NA NA
Cuneo Levaldigi 115.9 NA NA NA NA 271.4 NA NA NA NA
Bolzano 37.0 NA NA NA NA 174.5 NA NA NA NA
Bologna Borgo Panigale 44.8 NA NA NA NA 159.2 NA NA NA NA
Treviso San Angelo (ENAV+ITAF) 54.6 NA NA NA NA 134.8 NA NA NA NA
Forli 55.2 NA NA NA NA 188.4 NA NA NA NA
Montichiari 43.1 NA NA NA NA 145.8 NA NA NA NA
Ronchi dei Legionari 37.1 NA NA NA NA 131.5 NA NA NA NA
Rimini Miramare 73.3 NA NA NA NA 149.0 NA NA NA NA
Padova 136.0 NA NA NA NA 238.6 NA NA NA NA
Venezia San Nicolo 90.0 NA NA NA NA 183.1 NA NA NA NA
Verona Villafranca 45.8 NA NA NA NA 146.9 NA NA NA NA
Ancona Falconara 35.0 NA NA NA NA 130.6 NA NA NA NA
Venice Tessera 48.4 NA NA NA NA 146.5 NA NA NA NA
Roma Ciampino 34.7 NA NA NA NA 116.0 NA NA NA NA
Rome Fiumicino 25.5 NA NA NA NA 117.8 NA NA NA NA
Salerno Pontecagnano 43.3 NA NA NA NA 160.4 NA NA NA NA
Napoli Capodichino 30.1 NA NA NA NA 138.2 NA NA NA NA
ITAF Pisa 47.0 NA NA NA NA 113.4 NA NA NA NA
Firenze 40.1 NA NA NA NA 129.3 NA NA NA NA
ITAF Grosseto 67.7 NA NA NA NA 228.2 NA NA NA NA
Roma Urbe 164.0 NA NA NA NA 291.9 NA NA NA NA
Perugia San Egidio 56.7 NA NA NA NA 174.8 NA NA NA NA
Rieti NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Civil-Military dimension

NoteFocus on Civil-Military dimension

Effective use of reserved or segregated local airspace

ITALY report a ratio of 42% - BRINDISI ACC reports a ratio of 47% - MILANO ACC reports a ratio of 14% - PADOVA ACC reports a ratio of 48% - ROME ACC reports a ratio of 25%

Regarding initiatives implemented or planned that will improve this PI and how does the NSA intend on monitoring their effectiveness on performance, the NSA reports: “The daily activity related to the reservation of military areas, as well as the ongoing coordination between the ENAV S.p.A. FUA Unit and the representatives of the Italian Air Force (IAF), is consistently managed with accuracy and with full consideration of all stakeholders. This ensures effective support to both institutional operational requirements and the needs of the ANSP and AUs in terms of planning and air traffic flow management. This is clearly reflected in the quantitative results at both national and ACC level. Although these indicators represent only the difference (in absolute and percentage terms) between “Reservation” and “Real Activation” time for Italian AMC areas, they nonetheless demonstrate excellent performance. In fact, the “actual utilization” is approximately 50% of the “reserved time”, thus maximizing the optimization of airspace restrictions while fully preserving the Air Force’s institutional activities. In relation to the data presented in the tables and acknowledging their indicative nature for the purposes of the Performance Indicator (PI), it should be noted that the reported values reflect only part of the coordination effort and preparatory activities supporting the FUA process. These actions are specifically aimed to “negotiate” the reservation of military areas as much as possible in alignment with actual military operational needs, thereby reducing constraints on the availability of national airspace for Airspace Users’ planning and effective utilization. Such results have been achieved through continuous and daily coordination among all stakeholders, including Italian Air Force representatives and ENAV S.p.A.’s FUA Unit personnel, both inside AMC Italy. Without this optimization of initial allocation requests, it is estimated that the outcome would have resulted in an increase of approximately 20% compared to the original timeframes requested by the Air Force, consequently leading to inefficient use of airspace. Within this framework of ongoing coordination, the NSA encourages both Air Force representatives and the ENAV S.p.A. FUA Unit to continue strengthening their cooperation. The objective is to further optimize airspace reservation periods in line with actual military needs, thereby reducing airspace unavailability for Airspace Users. This approach is expected to increase airspace availability, improve flight efficiency, and positively impact the relevant performance indicator by enhancing both percentages and overall results.”

Rate of planning via available airspace structures

ITALY, has no data available

Rate of using available airspace structures

ITALY has no data available

 
  • © European Union, 2026