Annual Monitoring Report 2025 - Norway

Download Report

Contextual information

National performance plan adopted following Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1064 of 23 April 2026

List of ACCs   3

Bodo ACC
Oslo ACC
Stavanger ACC

No of airports in the scope of the performance plan

≥80’K     2
<80’K      2

Exchange rate (1 EUR=) 

2022: 10.0962 NOK
2025: 11.701 NOK

Share of Union-wide traffic (TSUs) 2025  1.8%

Share of Union-wide en route costs 2025  1.8%

Share en route / terminal costs 2025  72% / 28%

En route charging zone(s)

Norway

Terminal charging zone(s)

Norway

Main ANSP 

• Avinor Flysikring AS (Avinor ANS)

Other ANSPs 

• Avinor AS
• Saerco (Kjevik ANSP)

MET Providers 

• The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET)

Traffic (En route traffic zone)

  • Norway recorded 558K actual IFR movements in 2025, +1.7% compared to 2024 (549K).

  • Actual 2025 IFR movements were +0.6% above the plan (555K).

  • Actual 2025 IFR movements were -5.6% below the actual 2019 level (591K).


  • Norway recorded 2,470K actual service units in 2025, in line with 2024 (2,477K).

  • Actual 2025 service units were in line with the plan (2,474K).

  • Actual 2025 service units are +1.4% above the actual 2019 level (2,437K).

Safety (Main ANSP)

  • In 2025, Avinor ANS achieved the planned maturity levels set out in its performance plan for four out of five components of the EoSM. Avinor ANS missed the planned levels in the area of Safety Risk Management.

  • In 2025, Saerco achieved the planned maturity levels set out in its performance plan for all five components of the EoSM.

  • The rate of runway incursions (RI) was 4.13 at airport level, higher than the Union-wide average, and higher than the rate of RIs in 2024. The rate of RIs with ANS contribution was 0.92, slightly lower than the Union-wide average, and lower than the rate of RIs with ANS contribution when comparing to 2024.

  • The rate of separation minima infringements (SMIs) at State level was 16.27, and at ANSP level 4.99. The rate at State level was higher than the Union-wide average while the rate at ANSP level lower. When comparing to 2024, the rate of SMIs has increased at State level and decreased at ANSP level.

Environment (Member State)

  • Norway registered a KEA performance of 1.60%. Their target of 1.28% was not achieved and Norway did not contribute positively to Union-wide performance. The NSA states that cross border free route airspace has been implemented and the overall performance is influenced by constraints related to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the Middle East and Kashmir conflicts resulting in circumnavigating closed airspace.

  • Both KEP and KES deteriorated in comparison with 2024.

  • VFE of the actual en route trajectory was 79.35%, which was better than the average Union-wide performance.

  • The average time in level flight during descent and climb both improved compared to 2024.

  • Additional taxi-out time was 4.32 min/flight which improved marginally from 4.52 min/flight in 2024, and additional taxi-in time was 1.17 min/flight which improved compared to 1.49 min/flight in 2024.

  • Additional time in the arrival sequencing and metering area deteriorated to 2.96 min/flight from 2.64 min/flight in 2024.

  • Airport data for Bergen airport was not reported for 2025 despite being subject to monitoring as per the Regulation.

Capacity (Member State)


  • Norway registered 0.04 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2025, which remained 0.04 after the post-ops adjustment process, thus achieving the local target value of 0.16. Delays in Norway remained stable year-on-year.

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

  • The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Norway decreased by -8 percentage points compared to 2024 and was lower than 2019 values.

  • Overall, the actual number of ATCOs in OPS across the three ACCs in Norway was in line with the plan. Specifically, for Bodo ACC the number of ATCOs in OPS was 46 FTE, in line with the plan. For Oslo ACC this was 44 FTE, 2 below the plan, and for Stavanger 35 FTE, 3 FTE above the plan.

  • The yearly total of sector opening hours was 32,717 in Bodo ACC, 24,944 in Oslo ACC, and 18,828 in Stavanger ACC. For Stavanger ACC, this represented a significant increase of +15% compared to 2024. For Bodo, there was a small decrease (-1%), whereas for Oslo there was a significant decrease (-36%).

  • Norway registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.13 minutes per flight in 2025, thus achieving the local target of 0.5 minutes. Compared to 2024, average arrival ATFM delays in Norway were -0.13 minutes per flight lower in 2025.

  • The main drivers of delays were weather, accounting for 0.11 of the total delays, and ATC staffing, responsible for 0.01.

Cost-efficiency (En route/Terminal charging zone(s))



  • The en route 2025 actual unit cost of Norway was 52.83€2022, -1.9% lower than the determined unit cost (53.87€2022). The terminal 2025 actual unit cost was 217.89€2022, -4.1% lower than the determined unit cost (227.27€2022).

  • The en route 2025 actual service units (2.5M) were in line with the determined service units (2.5M).

  • The en route 2025 actual total costs were -2.7M€2022 (-2.1%) lower than determined. This is mainly due to lower staff costs for Avinor ANS (-2.7M€2022, or -3.3%). The NSA explained that it is attributable to unforeseen changes in pension costs due to changes in the defined benefits pension scheme and the assumptions underlying pension costs.

  • Avinor ANS spent 36.5M€2022 in 2025 related to costs of investments for both en route and terminal charging zones, +1.0% more than determined (36.1M€2022). According to the NSA, it is mainly due to a higher WACC than planned.

  • The en route actual unit cost incurred by users in 2025 was 49.64€ (-1.3% below the 2025 DUC), while the terminal actual unit cost incurred by users was 210.53€ (-2.1% below the 2025 DUC). The difference between the AUCU and the DUC for the en route and terminal charging zones is mainly driven by pension costs in cost cost exempt from cost sharing.