Capacity - SES RP4

Download Report

PRB monitoring

  • The average en route ATFM delay per flight in 2025 was 1.64 minutes, 0.74 minutes above the target. Average delays showed a significant reduction compared to the 2.19 minutes per flight in 2024. Delays were also below 2022 levels despite 19% more traffic.

  • For 19 ANSPs, average en route ATFM delays in 2025 were lower than or equal to 2024. For a further five ANSPs, average delays were still below 0.05 minutes per flight despite a minor increase.

  • Of the seven ANSPs that did not meet their local en route capacity target in 2025, five ANSPs managed to improve their performance compared to 2024.

  • Similar to the previous years, the main causes of delay in 2025 were ATC Capacity, weather and ATC Staffing.

  • A significant proportion of the 0.55 minutes decrease in average delays in 2025 compared to 2024 was due to reductions in delays related to weather (-0.30) and other non-ATC reasons (-0.10).

  • While noting that the scope of airports included in the RP4 performance plans is not fully aligned with the scope of RP3, Union-wide terminal capacity performance in 2025 was comparable to 2024, with an average delay of 0.97 minutes per flight in 2025 and 0.93 minutes per flight in 2024. The contribution of delays due to weather and non-ATC related airport capacity problems remained high at 75% of total arrival ATFM delays. ATC Capacity was responsible for a further 19% of delays.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

En route ATFM delay

En route capacity is monitored by the average en route air traffic flow management (ATFM) delay generated by en route area control centres (ACCs). In 2025, the Union-wide target for en route capacity was 0.90 minutes of delay per flight.

The target was not achieved in 2025: the actual average en route ATFM delay was 1.64 minutes per flight (after post-ops adjustments), 0.74 minutes per flight above the Union-wide target. One factor in this performance was the inability of some ACCs to accommodate the local increase in IFR movements – either the general increase or strong peaks in the traffic profile. Other contributing factors are remaining structural issues in a number of areas of the airspace, and delays due to weather, which were lower than in 2024 but still significant.

The traffic demand at network level in 2025 was +4.2% above 2024 traffic, and equalled 2019 traffic for the first time since the Covid pandemic. Despite the traffic growth, en route ATFM delay per flight in 2025 was 25% lower than in 2024. This improvement is encouraging, but it should be acknowledged that a notable part of the reduction in delays was due to the reduced impact of weather and other non-ATC causes. On the other hand, the general improvement is underlined by the fact that the performance of 19 of the 29 ANSPs improved (including improvement in five of the seven ANSPs that did not meet their local target).

Compared to 2024, total delay minutes decreased by -22% to 16.3M. Average delay per flight decreased from 2.19 min/flight in 2024 to 1.64 min/flight in 2025. Main contributors to this -0.55 min/flight reduction in average delays are weather (-0.30 min/flight), ATC capacity (-0.10 min/flight) and other non-ATC (-0.10 min/flight). The main cause of delay in 2025 remains lack of ATC capacity (42% of all delay minutes), followed by weather (28%) and ATC staffing (17%).

A large majority of the delays in 2025 were accumulated during the summer season, with a clear peak in July, when the average delay was 3.87 min/flight. The improvement in performance compared to 2024 was also visible here, as the peak in July 2024 was 5.85 min/flight. Similar reductions occurred in June (4.06 in 2024; 2.52 in 2025) and August (4.38 in 2024; 2.69 in 2025).

Although the reduction in delays due to weather played a large role in the performance improvement, this is not only due to a reduction in disruptive weather events. Improved handling of the impact of such events, for example at network level through the introduction of the Capacity and Weather Based Operations (CWBO) procedures introduced by the Network Manager for summer 2025, has had a positive effect.

Improvements in Union-wide performance are also visible in other indicators related to average en route ATFM delays: the average delay per delayed flight decreased from 16.89 min/flight to 14.69 min/flight, the share of flights experiencing any ATFM delay reduced from 12.9% to 11.1%, and the share of delayed flights experiencing an ATFM delay of more than 15 minutes reduced from 4.9% to 3.7%.

En route incentive scheme

Based on the parameters defined by the Member States in their performance plans and their respective 2025 performance in en route capacity, 15 ANSPs are eligible for a bonus – however, for four of these ANSPs the maximum bonus has been set to 0%, meaning there is no financial effect. Six ANSPs are subject to a financial penalty. The total amount of bonuses equals 20.9M€, while total penalties amount to -23.3M€, giving a net effect at network level of -2.4M€ to be returned to users.

Summary of performance at local level

En route delay (min/flight)
State Target Actual
Austria 0.28 0.41  ✘
Belgium 0.22 0.08  ✓
Bulgaria 0.24 0.05  ✓
Croatia 0.29 0.42  ✘
Cyprus 0.17 0.03  ✓
Czech Republic 0.19 0.08  ✓
Denmark 0.10 0.11  ✘
Estonia 0.06 0.01  ✓
Finland 0.05 0.00  ✓
France 0.44 1.89  ✘
Germany 0.39 0.95  ✘
Greece 0.34 0.89  ✘
Hungary 0.85 0.58  ✓
Ireland 0.03 0.01  ✓
Italy 0.28 0.07  ✓
Latvia 0.06 0.01  ✓
Lithuania 0.03 0.00  ✓
Malta 0.03 0.03  ✓
Netherlands 0.16 0.14  ✓
Norway 0.16 0.04  ✓
Poland 0.24 0.17  ✓
Portugal 0.30 0.28  ✓
Romania 0.24 0.04  ✓
Slovakia 0.20 0.08  ✓
Slovenia 0.17 0.10  ✓
Spain 0.38 0.95  ✘
Sweden 0.18 0.02  ✓
Switzerland 0.36 0.25  ✓
FABEC 0.63 1.67  ✘

En route performance at local level

A limited number of ACCs registered a significant increase in delays. The following ACCs with 2025 delays above 0.15 min/flight saw clear increases:

  • In France, delays in Brest ACC and Marseille ACC increased by +52% and +102% respectively. In Brest, the increase was mainly due to weather and ‘other’ causes, i.e. capacity reduction due to ATM system implementation and associated training. In Marseille ACC the increase was to a very large extent driven by ATC capacity issues, which caused an additional 1.5 million minutes of delay compared to 2024.

  • In Spain, delays increased in Madrid ACC by +37%, due to a combination of a lack of ATC capacity and ‘other’ causes, in particular military exercises.

  • Delays in MUAC increased by +37%, with in particular ATC capacity issues increasing significantly. These issues were mostly linked to traffic shifts within MUAC-controlled airspace from the Netherlands to Belgium.

Consistent with Union-wide performance, there were notable improvements in a number of ACCs. Clear reductions in delays were observed in the ACCs listed below, which all showed a performance above 0.15 min/flight (meaning that in a number of cases they still experienced relatively high delays, despite improvements):

  • For several ACCs, the improvements were due to reduced ATC capacity issues in combination with reduced impact of adverse weather conditions: average delays decreased by -35% in Bremen ACC, by -52% in Canarias ACC, by -47% in Karlsruhe UAC, and by -76% in Zagreb ACC.

  • ATC capacity and weather were also the main contributors to improvements in Vienna ACC, but the improvements were partly countered by increased delay due to ATC staffing issues, resulting in an overall reduction of average delays by -24%.

  • In Paris ACC, the reduced average delays (-34%) were largely due to the absence of ‘other’ causes (ATM system implementation) that affected 2024 performance. ATC capacity issues in fact increased in 2025 compared to 2024.

  • In Budapest ACC, average delays decreased by -79% due to reduced impact of ‘other’ causes (complexity resulting from the closure of Ukraine airspace) in addition to fewer delays due to ATC capacity and weather.

  • In Warsaw ACC, the -25% reduction in average delay was due to a combination of lower delays due to ATC capacity and staffing but higher delays due to ‘other’ causes (ATFM trials and complexity resulting from the closure of Ukraine airspace).

  • Sevilla ACC showed a significant reduction in ATC capacity issues, leading to -37% lower average delay.

  • In Geneva ACC (-33% average delays) and Zurich ACC (-42%) the improvement was mainly due to the absence of disruptions which occurred during 2024.

Although average en route ATFM delays were still well above the target in 2025, actual performance shows an improvement compared to 2024 and also breaks the trend of increasing delays in the post-Covid years 2022-2024. These improvements have been achieved while traffic increased by 4.2%. However, in some parts of the network capacity is still insufficient to deal with strong traffic growth, especially during peak periods.

Other en route information

Staffing

The following analysis is based on planned and reported actual ATCOs at ACC level. Austria did not report relevant ATCO numbers for 2025. Additionally, the reports of some Member States give rise to questions regarding the scope of the numbers provided. Austria has been excluded from the analysis, for all other States the figures are used as provided in the annual monitoring reports for 2025 despite these concerns.

At Union-wide level, the reported number of ATCOs is -61, or -0.8%, below the planned number. However, this Union-wide result is strongly influenced by the fact that the number of ATCOs reported by France is +80 above the plans. Excluding France, the reported number of ATCOs at Union-wide level is -2.1% below planned number.

The difference between reported and planned numbers ranges from +6.3% for Lithuania to -11.5% for Greece. Only seven States report a higher number of ATCOs than planned, with 21 States (incl. MUAC) reporting fewer ATCOs than planned. Of these 21 States, eight report the number of ATCOs being -5% or more below the planned number.

There was no clear link in 2025 between average en route ATFM delays and deviations between reported and planned ATCOs. Of the seven States that did not meet their capacity targets (noting that this includes Austria, which did not report ATCO numbers), only three report ATCO number being -5% or more below planned levels, while two of these States in fact report more ATCOs than planned.

Most States meeting their en route capacity targets shows that in general ANSPs, often in coordination with the NM, manage to take the necessary measures to provide sufficient capacity despite the ATCO shortage. However, at the same time such measures confirm the need to close the gap between planned and actual ATCO numbers because of the limits to the applicability or benefits of the measures taken. For example, some Member States report temporary agreements with ATCOs which by definition cannot be structural solutions, while others mention optimisation of rostering and shifts which enhances availability of existing resources but has limits in terms of potential further optimisation.

When analysing the ATCOs in training, it is worrying that Member States report -7.4% fewer ATCOs in training than planned at the end of 2025, the first year of the reference period. Specifically, 10 States which already report a shortage of ATCOs, also report fewer ATCOs trainees than planned.

Sector opening hours

At Union-wide level, the sector opening hours decreased by -2.3% in 2025, despite the traffic increase at network level (4.2%). However, behind this figure there is a significant variation in the situation at the level of individual ACCs, ranging from a +26% increase in sector opening hours in Malta and Prague ACC to a -36% decrease in Oslo ACC.

The number of IFR movements handled per sector opening hour can be seen as an indication of operational efficiency of an ACC, although there are various issues that may influence this ratio. Increasing the number of sector opening hours at a higher rate than the increase in traffic can contribute to reducing delays, but it will also reduce the operational efficiency determined through this ratio. Furthermore, reducing the number of sector opening hours may be necessary during periods of e.g. major system replacements, leading to a temporary change in the IFR movements to sector opening hours ratio. Additionally, calculating this ratio at an annual level may not reflect the impact of peak traffic periods during the year.

In 10 ACCs, the number of IFR movements handled per sector opening hour decreased in 2025 compared to 2024. In six of those ACCs, delays decreased or remained stable, which suggests that increasing sector opening hours at a higher rate than traffic growth contributed to closing the capacity gap and therefore any perceived reduction in operational efficiency is outbalanced by improved capacity performance. Only in Copenhagen, Reims, Barcelona and Madrid ACCs did delays increase clearly despite reduced IFR movements per sector opening hour.

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (PI#1)

Summary of performance at local level

Arrival delay (min/flight)
State Target Actual
Belgium 1.50 0.77  ✓
France 0.65 1.02  ✘
Germany 0.43 0.37  ✓
Luxembourg 0.20 0.15  ✓
Netherlands 2.20 4.44  ✘
Switzerland 1.60 2.07  ✘
Sweden 0.35 0.01  ✓
Malta 0.01 0.18  ✘
Poland 0.06 0.48  ✘
Austria 0.53 0.66  ✘
Romania 0.40 0.17  ✓
Spain 0.60 0.93  ✘
Portugal 2.19 1.88  ✓
Norway 0.50 0.13  ✓
Ireland 0.20 0.28  ✘
Greece 1.50 5.46  ✘
Denmark 0.20 0.55  ✘
Czech Republic 0.40 0.56  ✘
Hungary 0.10 0.04  ✓
Italy 0.35 0.29  ✓
Finland 0.14 0.18  ✘

Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

Terminal capacity is monitored by one performance indicator at the Union-wide level, which is the average airport arrival ATFM delay. In 2025, the average Union-wide airport arrival ATFM delay was 0.97 minutes per flight.

The average arrival ATFM delay in 2025 was comparable to 2024, which was 0.93 minutes per flight (due to limited differences in the airports in scope in RP3 and RP4, these figures cannot be compared directly). The top 20 busiest airports in 2025 experienced a +3.5% increase in IFR arrivals on average compared to 2024, while experiencing a +10.4% increase in total arrival ATFM delay minutes. Average arrival ATFM delay per flight increased at six of the top 20 airports: Amsterdam, Paris CdG, Athens, Zurich, Palma de Mallorca, and Warsaw.

Weather and other non-ATC issues continue to account for a large proportion of the delays; in 2025 this was 75%. The majority of the airport arrival ATFM delay was generated between May and October, when average Union-wide arrival ATFM delays were consistently equal to or above 1 minute, although the seasonal pattern that can be observed clearly for en route ATFM delays is much less prominent for arrival ATFM delays. Where the ratio of highest to lowest average ATFM delays per month is 8.4 for en route, for arrival ATFM delay this is only 2.7 (July vs February for both cases). As was already noted for 2024, the pattern of high delays occurring also outside the summer period reflects negatively on both network resilience and the predictability of network performance.

While taking into account that there is a limited difference in the airports in scope, average arrival ATFM delays for most causes remained stable, with only delays due to ATC capacity issues showing a clear increase, from 0.13 minutes per flight to 0.19 minutes per flight.

Terminal incentive scheme

For terminal capacity, based on the parameters defined in the performance plans, ten ANSPs are eligible for a bonus, with the maximum bonus for two ANSPs being set to 0% and therefore not having a financial effect. Seven ANSPs are subject to a financial penalty. The total bonuses amount to 2.3M€, whereas the sum of penalties is -4.1M€, giving a net effect of -1.8M€ to be returned to users.

Other terminal performance indicators (PI#3)

Average departure delay from all causes per flight

Average Union-wide all-causes pre-departure delays was 16.5 minutes in 2025. This is a significantly lower value (-12%) than what was measured in 2024, i.e. 18.8 minutes per flight. This difference is notable also because all-causes pre-departure delays in 2022 and 2023 were very similar to 2024 (19.0 and 19.2 respectively) despite much lower traffic volumes in those years. Although there is a limited differences in the airports in scope in RP3 and RP4, the reduction in average all causes pre-departure delays does point towards a clear improvement in performance. This is supported by the fact that at individual airport level, all causes pre-departure delays reduced by one minute or more for a strong majority of airports.

Gate-to-gate delay analysis

A gate-to-gate analysis that combines ATFM delays with other delay types and other sources of flight time extensions demonstrates the overall impact on performance. For this analysis, four performance indicators defined in the Regulation are used to illustrate gate-to-gate delays:

  • All cause pre-departure delays, including en route ATFM delays and airport arrival ATFM delays;

  • Additional taxi-in time;

  • Additional taxi-out time; and

  • Additional time spent in terminal area on arrival (Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area).

Based on these indicators, on average airspace users experienced a gate-to-gate delay of 22.9 minutes per flight in 2025 while in 2024 a gate-to-gate delay of 25.2 minutes per flight was measured (noting again that these figures cannot be compared directly due to limited differences in the airports in scope). Additional taxi-in and -out times and additional time spent in ASMA were all broadly the same in 2024 and 2025, and the gate-to-gate delay reduction is therefore almost completely due to reduced all-causes pre-departure delays.

Due to a combined reduction from 3.12 minutes per flight in 2024 to 2.61 minutes per flight in 2025, en route and airport ATFM regulations (i.e. the delays assessed under the Regulation and counted within the all causes departure delay group) contributed -0.5 minutes per flight to the -2.3 minutes per flight improvement to gate-to-gate delays in 2025.