• 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

    • Norway
    • 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
        • Unit cost
        • AUCU
        • Regulatory Result

    Cost-efficiency - Norway

    Download Report

    Terminal charging zone

    Unit cost

    Actual and determined data
    Total costs - nominal (M€) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined costs 57.7 63.3 67.7 73.3 74.9
    Actual costs 55.2 NA NA NA NA
    Difference costs -2.6 NA NA NA NA
    Inflation assumptions 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
    Determined inflation rate 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
    Determined inflation index* 111.6 113.8 116.1 118.4 120.8
    Actual inflation rate 2.8% NA NA NA NA
    Actual inflation index* 111.8 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 -4.1% (or -94.75 NOK2022, -9.38 €2022) lower than the planned DUC. This results from the combination of lower than planned terminal costs in real terms (-4.5%, or -23.7 MNOK2022, -2.3 M€2022) and slightly lower than planned TNSUs (-0.3%).

    Terminal service units

    The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (-0.3%) falls inside the ±2% dead-band. Hence, the loss of terminal revenues is borne by the ANSPs.

    Terminal costs by entity

    Actual real terminal costs are -4.5% (-2.3 M€2022) lower than planned. This is the result of lower costs for the main ANSP, Avinor (-4.6%, or -2.4 M€2022) and higher costs for the MET service provider (+0.2%), the NSA (+11.9%, or +0.01 M€2022).

    Terminal costs for the main ANSP (Avinor Flysikring AS (Avinor ANS)) at charging zone level

    Based on the additional information to the terminal reporting tables, the lower than planned terminal costs in real terms for Avinor in 2025 (-4.6%, or -2.4 M€2022) result from:

    • Significantly lower than planned staff costs (-6.2%), mainly due to lower pension costs. Actual pension costs were below determined costs, primarily driven by changes to the defined benefit pension scheme (SPK) and the related pension assumptions, including the discount rate, expected return, pension increase and social security increase. Lower than planned overtime costs for Towers also contributed to the decrease.

    • Significantly lower than planned other operating costs (-5.2%), mainly due to lower than planned insurance premiums.

    • Slightly higher than planned depreciation (+1.6%), reflecting minor adjustments across the project portfolio.

    • Higher than planned cost of capital (+3.5%), mainly due to a higher WACC, resulting from an increase in the average interest on debts.

    • Significantly lower than planned deduction for VFR exempted flights (-14.1%).

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

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

    “The real en route unit costs are -4.1% lower than the DUC mainly driven by the lower costs as the actual service units are only -0.3% lower than the determined.”

    [It should be noted that the extract from the NSA 2025 monitoring report cited above refers to “en-route unit costs” whereas figures presented reflect terminal costs and service unit differences and it is reported under “terminal ANS” section of the report.]

    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:

    “Actual staff costs are 6.4 % lower than determined costs in 2025, equivalent of an underspend of 25.3 MNOK. The variance is mainly attributable to pension costs, with actual pension costs coming in NOK 14.8 million below determined costs, mainly driven by plan changes in the defined benefit pension scheme (SPK), as well as changes in the underlying pension assumptions (including discount rate and expected return, pension increase and social security increase). Another contributing factor is that overtime costs for Towers were lower than determined.”

    Recommendations formulated by the NSA to the ANSP (Avinor Flysikring AS (Avinor ANS)) to rectify the situation and actions taken by the ANSP

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

    Avinor reports the implementation of the following actions:

    “An amount of -9.9 MNOK of the reduced pension costs are treated as an unforeseen change and carried forward to airspace users in n+2.”

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

    AUCU components (€/SU) – 2025
    €/SU
    DUC 215.13
    Inflation adjustment 0.36
    Cost exempt from cost sharing -4.98
    Traffic risk sharing adjustment 0.00
    Traffic adjustment (costs not TRS) 0.02
    Financial incentives 0.00
    Modulation of charges 0.00
    Cross-financing 0.00
    Other revenues 0.00
    Application of lower unit rate 0.00
    Total adjustments -4.60
    AUCU 210.53
    AUCU vs. DUC -2.1%
    Cost exempt from cost sharing by item - 2025 €'000 €/SU
    New and existing investments 187.9 0.81
    Competent authorities and qualified entities costs 8.9 0.04
    Eurocontrol costs 0.0 0.00
    Pension costs -1,379.2 -5.98
    Interest on loans 0.0 0.00
    Changes in law 33.6 0.15
    Total cost exempt from cost risk sharing -1,148.8 -4.98
    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 (2 463.42 NOK or 210.53 €) is -2.1% lower than the nominal DUC (2 517.27 NOK or 215.13 €), which includes DUC initially charged: 2 609.95 NOK (or 223.05 € ), and DUC to be charged retroactively: -92.68 NOK (or -7.92 € ). The difference between the AUCU and the nominal DUC (-28.64 NOK/SU or -2.45 €/SU) is due to:

    • the positive inflation adjustment resulting from higher than planned inflation (+4.19 NOK/SU or +0.36 €/SU);

    • the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost sharing mechanism (-58.27 NOK/SU or -4.98 €/SU); and,

    • the addition of the traffic adjustment (+0.22 NOK/SU or +0.02 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing.

    The share of the regulatory result (see next sub-section) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 6.7%.

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

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

    “The reduced unit cost (adjustments per actual service unit) is mainly driven by unforeseen changes in pension costs mainly driven by plan changes in the defined benefit pension scheme (SPK), as well as changes in the underlying pension assumptions (including discount rate and expected return, pension increase and social security increase), which are carried forward to the airspace users in n+2.”

    Regulatory result (RR)

    NoteFocus on regulatory result

    Avinor Flysikring AS (Avinor ANS) net gain/loss on activity in the Norway terminal charging zone in 2025

    Avinor reported a net gain of +1.0 M€, as a combination of a gain of +1.1 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -0.2 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing mechanism.

    Avinor Flysikring AS (Avinor ANS) overall regulatory result (RR) for the terminal activity

    Ex-post, the overall RR, taking into account the net gain from the terminal activity mentioned above (+1.0 M€) and the actual RoE (+2.3 M€), amounts to +3.3 M€ (6.9% of the terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 16.9%, which is higher than the 11.8% planned in the PP.

    Note 1

    Ex-ante and ex-post RoE are computed based on the notional gearing of 60% debt used in the RP4 PP. The actual gearing of Avinor for 2025 should be reported as it impacts the overall regulatory result for that year.

     
    • © European Union, 2026