• 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

    • Malta
    • 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
        • 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

    Cost-efficiency - Malta

    Download Report

    Terminal charging zone

    Unit cost

    Actual and determined data
    Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined costs 6.9 8.2 9.5 10.0 10.8
    Actual costs 6.5 NA NA NA NA
    Difference costs -0.4 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* 110.9 113.2 115.4 117.7 120.1
    Actual inflation rate 2.4% NA NA NA NA
    Actual inflation index* 110.7 NA NA NA NA
    Difference inflation index (p.p.) -0.2 NA NA NA NA
    *100 = 2022
    NoteFocus on unit cost

    AUC vs. DUC

    In 2025, the terminal AUC was -10.8% (or -15.37 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of significantly higher than planned TNSUs (+5.9%) and significantly lower than planned terminal costs in real terms (-5.6%, or -0.4 M€2022).

    Terminal service units

    The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (+5.9%) 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 terminal revenues is therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace users (see the main ANSP regulatory result).

    Terminal costs by entity

    Actual real terminal costs are -5.6% (-0.4 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, MATS (-6.3%, or -0.3 M€2022), the NSA (-9.2%, or -0.04 M€2022) and the MET service provider (-3.9%, or -0.01 M€2022) and slightly higher costs for the other ANSP (Malta International Airport (MIA), +0.9%, or +0.01 M€2022).

    Terminal costs for the main ANSP (MATS) at charging zone level

    Based on the additional information to the terminal reporting tables, the significantly lower than planned terminal costs in real terms for MATS in 2025 (-6.3%, or -0.3 M€2022) result from:

    • Lower than planned staff costs (-2.6%), mainly due to actual retirements higher than planned and delays in the implementation of the 2025 recruitment plan.

    • Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-39.7%), mainly due to lower than planned utilities and other essential service costs.

    • Significantly higher than planned depreciation (+29.0%), mainly due to higher than planned asset investments generating higher depreciation costs than forecasted.

    • Significantly lower than planned cost of capital (-40.3%), mainly due to lower than expected asset base in 2025.

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

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

    “The 2025 terminal cost-efficiency outturn is favourable overall. Total actual costs for the Malta terminal charging zone were below the determined cost base. Actual terminal service units also exceeded forecast, which is relevant for the actual unit cost incurred by users and for the traffic-related adjustments under the charging scheme.”

    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:

    “For 2025, total actual terminal costs amounted to EUR 6.113 million compared with determined costs of EUR 6.905 million, i.e. EUR 0.792 million below plan. MATS actual terminal costs were EUR 0.348 million below determined costs, with lower staff and other operating costs offsetting higher depreciation and lower cost of capital. MIA costs were broadly in line with plan with a small net increase, while MET costs were slightly below determined costs. Actual terminal service units were 47.553 thousand compared with 44.901 thousand forecast (+5.9%).”

    [It should be noted that some of the amounts indicated by the NSA in the analysis cited above differ from the amounts reported in the respective data tables in the same NSA Monitoring Report and in the submission of terminal reporting tables (both of which are aligned).]

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

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

    “The NSA recommends that MATS continues to monitor staff planning, cost allocation discipline and the timing of investments. In this respect the NSA recommends that MATS brings its investment pipeline back on schedule as per PP, ensures that recruitment of new ATCO meets the plans in the PP such that the planned expenditure is effected as proposed in the PP and does not show excessive ambition in the PP such that Airspace Users are overcharged.”

    No information was provided by MATS in the NSA 2025 Monitoring Report.

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

    AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
    €/SU
    DUC 153.77
    Inflation adjustment -0.19
    Cost exempt from cost sharing -55.40
    Traffic risk sharing adjustment -3.60
    Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) -0.80
    Financial incentives 0.00
    Modulation of charges 0.00
    Cross-financing 0.00
    Other revenues -5.49
    Application of lower unit rate 0.00
    Total adjustments -65.48
    AUCU 88.29
    AUCU vs. DUC -42.6%
    Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
    New and existing investments -2,589.7 -54.46
    Competent authorities and qualified entities costs -44.7 -0.94
    Eurocontrol costs 0.0 0.00
    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 -2,634.4 -55.40
    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 (88.29 €) is -42.6% lower than the nominal DUC (153.77 €). The difference between these two figures (-65.48 €/SU) is due to:

    • the negative inflation adjustment resulting from lower than planned inflation (-0.19 €/SU);

    • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-55.40 €/SU);

    • the deduction of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (-3.60 €/SU);

    • the deduction of the traffic adjustment (-0.80 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing; and,

    • the deduction of other revenues (-5.49 €/SU).

    The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is -40.2%.

    Costs exempt from cost sharing for 2025 presented here are based on preliminary figures and remain subject to revision pending the receipt of the NSA Reports on the verification of cost sharing. Any changes may affect the analysis of Actual Costs for Users and the Regulatory Results.

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

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

    “The favourable 2025 terminal actual unit cost incurred by users is primarily explained by actual costs below the determined cost base combined with terminal service units above forecast. For the remaining RP4 years, the focus should remain on cost discipline, accurate cost allocation, investment delivery and operational resilience as traffic develops. The NSA will monitor the effectiveness of these measures through the annual review of actual costs, service units, traffic-related adjustments and any emerging terminal capacity pressures.”

    Regulatory result (RR)

    NoteFocus on regulatory result

    MATS net gain/loss on activity in the Malta terminal charging zone in 2025

    MATS reported a net loss of -2.1 M€, as a combination of a loss of -2.3 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a gain of +0.2 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism.

    MATS 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 (-2.1 M€) and the actual RoE (+0.2 M€), amounts to -1.8 M€ (-61.6% of the terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is negative (-41.1%) compared to the 5.1% planned in the PP.

     
    • © European Union, 2026