Capacity - Spain – PRB Annual Monitoring Report

Capacity - Spain

Download Report

PRB monitoring

Spain registered 0.99 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2025, which has been adjusted to 0.95 during the post-ops adjustment process, thus not achieving the local target value of 0.38. Delays in Spain decreased by -0.05 minutes per flight year-on-year.
Delays were highest in July and August, mostly driven by ATC capacity and weather.
The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Spain decreased by -3 percentage points compared to 2024 and was lower than 2019 values.
The actual number of ATCOs in OPS in Spain was 1,306 FTEs, -1.7% or -23 FTEs below the planned level. The actual number of ATCOs in OPS was below the planned number for all five ACCs: 181 FTEs in Canarias ACC, -1 FTE below the plan; 373 FTEs in Barcelona ACC, -8 FTEs below the plan; 449 FTEs in Madrid ACC, -8 FTEs below the plan; 141 in Palma ACC, -2 FTEs below the plan; and 162 in Sevilla ACC, -5 FTE below the plan.
All Spanish ACCs recorded a number of sector opening hours in 2025 above the level recorded in 2024. In Barcelona ACC sector opening hours were 113,168, showing a year-on-year increase of 5%, while in Canarias ACC the value increased by 2% to 56,485 sector hours. For Madrid (105,322), Palma (36,778) and Sevilla (47,953) ACCs the number of sector opening hours increased respectively by +9%, +3% and +10% compared to 2024.
Barcelona ACC registered 9.87 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, 1% above the 2024 level; Canarias ACC registered 7.67 IFR movements per sector opening hour, 3% above the 2024 level; Madrid ACC registered 12.63 IFR movements per sector opening hour, -4% below the 2024 level; Palma ACC registered 10.23 IFR movements per sector opening hour, -1% below 2024 levels; and Sevilla ACC registered 11.86 IFR movements per sector opening hour, -3% below the 2024.
Spain registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 0.93 minutes per flight in 2025, thus not achieving the local target of 0.6 minutes. Compared to 2024, average arrival ATFM delays in Spain were -0.16 minutes per flight lower in 2025.
The main drivers of delays were weather, accounting for 0.65 of total delays, and other non-ATC causes, responsible for 0.18.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

Focus on en route ATFM delay

En route ATFM delay

Spain had 2,472k flights in 2025, up from 2,362k flights in 2024.
ENAIRE applied en route ATFM regulations resulting in 2,457k minutes of delay, an increase from the 2,405k minutes in 2024.
As part of the strategic traffic re-orientation programme (S25/NTDM) operated by the Network Manager, 43k minutes of delay originating in Spain were re-attributed to other ANSPs.
Under the auspices of the Route Network (RN) Scenarios during Capacity & Weather Based Operations between June and September 2025, 7k minutes of en route ATFM delay were re-attributed to ENAIRE; 6k minutes of delay originating in Spain were re-attributed to other ANSPs.
A further 42k minutes of en route ATFM delay, attributed to a national power failure, were excluded from the SES performance scheme, through agreement of ENAIRE, the Spanish NSA and the Network Manager. [The incentive scheme was not affected in this case, since the delays had already been classified as ‘Other’ and since the achieved performance by Spain was already beyond the point at which maximum penalties would be applied.]
When the above post-operations re-attributions are factored in, the total en route delay for Spain in 2025 was 2,351k minutes in 2025, down from 2,404k minutes in 2024.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the en route ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “In 2025, once all the processes of the delay reattribution (post-ops, eNM25 and CWBO, including the adjustment due to power failure in Spain in April 2025, approved by NM in January 2026) have been applied the final average en‑route ATFM delay per flight in Spain was 0.95 min/fl (that differs from the value included in the above table) , lower than the 2024 figure of 1.02 minutes per flight, even taking into account the significant increase in traffic in 2025, although it exceeded the performance target established in the Performance Plan.

The main driver of the en‑route ATFM delay was ATC capacity (71%), accounting for approximately two thirds of the total delay, reflecting the strong traffic growth experienced in Spanish ACCs during 2025, especially compared to the traffic level in 2019 (+15% in ENAIRE, +19% in Barcelona ACC, +33% in Sevilla ACC). It is worth mentioning that the peak levels were heavier than in 2024, with daily figures up to +60% compared to 2019 figures for the same day in Sevilla ACC. Actual and forecasted demand is far higher than forecasted by STATFOR & in RP4. By 2025 demand already showed a deviation of around 4% compared to the forecasts in the Spanish Performance Plan, and according to the latest STATFOR forecasts (Base, March 2026), this deviation is expected to grow moderately during the RP4 period. Some staffing constraints, with last minute absences unable to be covered, have also been a relevant factor in terms of ATC Capacity & Staffing. Weather-related delays were the second most significant factor (24%), particularly during the summer period, driven by convective weather and resulting traffic re-routings; it is also important to highlight the continuous increase of the number of the convective phenomena affecting tha Mediterranean area, especially Barcelona ACC.

Additional contributing factors included special events and disruptions, such as military exercises and temporary airspace restrictions, as well as ATC staffing limitations in specific periods.

Some of the Spanish ACCs (notably Barcelona, Madrid and Sevilla) experienced higher-than-average en‑route ATFM delays, mainly due to traffic levels exceeding forecasts and the limited availability of sector capacity during peak periods, exceeding even elementary sectors capacity.”

Regarding the description of the adjustments to the capacity plan included in adopted performance plan, the NSA reports: “The adopted performance plan for 2025 reflects several adjustments, aimed at mitigating the impact of increasing traffic demand and improving en‑route capacity delivery. These adjustments have required a stronger operational focus to address higher‑than‑forecast traffic levels and recurrent peak‑period constraints, particularly in several ACCs. As a result, greater emphasis was placed on operational capacity delivery measures. These included intensified use of ATFM measures (notably STAM, occupancy‑ and complexity‑based regulations), increased reliance on dynamic and optimised sector configurations, and closer alignment of sector opening schemes with actual traffic demand, especially during the summer season.

In the staffing domain, although moderate ATCO increases were envisaged in the initial plan, the effectiveness of capacity delivery in 2025 relied more heavily on short‑term availability measures, such as voluntary additional shifts during peak periods and optimisation of rostering and competency management processes.

Regarding airspace and system developments, several initiatives (such as the expansion of Free Route Airspace, advanced civil‑military coordination, and the deployment of new ATM system functionalities including TTM) progressed during 2025 but with phased implementation timelines, resulting in limited immediate capacity benefits within the year. Consequently, interim operational solutions were prioritised to maintain network performance.

Overall, the adopted performance plan for 2025 reflects some adjustments from the initial strategic assumptions toward a more operationally driven capacity management approach, aimed at preserving performance and resilience under intensified traffic conditions, while maintaining the medium‑term objectives.”

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: “Since January, the target set for Spain has been exceeded. Although the en-route traffic increase in Spain is very significant, 4,7% compared to 2024, the proportion of increase in ERD indicators has not been as higher as in 2024, only LECB and LECM have continued to rise, whilst GCCC, LECS and LECP have seen their indicators decline compared with the previous year.

In all ACCs the main cause of delay is C-ATC Capacity, representing at least two-thirds of the total delay in each ACC. The ERD ATT indicator of attributable causes of delay (CRSTMP) has also not met its target at national level, as well as in LECB, LECM and LECS.

The W-Weather delay is not a determining factor, although it contributes to complex situations in some sectors.

The non-compliance of ERD was anticipated before the end of the year and was informed to the Commission according to Regulation (EU) 2019/317 Article 37 (1), concluding that the main reasons that have led to this situation are the increase in traffic over the STATFOR forecast set in 2024 and the inability to accommodate new personnel in the short term. Moroccan flows via Barcelona/Seville ACCs to avoid Algerian airspace increased saturation of LECB and LECS sectors. Demand drift during the day into the night shift has also led to delays at the end of the day. Weather/network scenarios in SE France/Pyrenees add complexity and volatility to sector loads in LECB. Higher volumes of overflights and oceanic flows created saturation in upper sectors and Santiago area in LECM.

As a result of the monitoring of the capacity plan and the evolution of the en-route capacity related projects, both of those initially set out in ESPP4 and the new ones considered in NOP, it was observed that about 40% of the planned projects had not been completed but there were some new projects, not initially planned, already implemented or under development. Nevertheless, progress in the implementation of projects is not as expected and the improvements in capacity obtained after the implementation of the completed projects plus the new projects have not been sufficient to meet the volume of traffic managed as well as the current characteristics of the delay in the different regions, resulting in the non-compliance with the targets.”

Regarding recommendations to the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “In the report to the Commission, some of the additional measures planned by ENAIRE were explained. The common pillars are the incorporation of new ATCOs, improvement of the coordination and operational procedures related to bad weather situations, reorganization and strengthening of Regional FMPs, airspace use & network integration (DCTs, RAD, civil-military coordination), review of OTMV in high delay sectors and tools to reduce admin load.

Endorse ENAIRE to continue implementing the capacity plan according to the scheduled timetable in order to achieve the objectives of delays and better air traffic management, focusing on projects that have an impact on the increase of available capacity, as well as on the implementation of projects that improve operations to manage traffic increases.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “ENAIRE has implemented a set of remedial measures aimed at reducing en‑route ATFM delays and improving overall capacity performance. These measures include a productivity incentive program for ATCO (June - September), additional ATCO recruiting programm, implementation of ATFM Regulations based on Occupancy and ongoing revisions of sector capacities with regular performance monitoring.

Operational measures such as the deployment of new direct routings, enhanced civil‑military coordination, and continuous improvement in the application of STAM and dynamic sector configurations are being pursued.

In parallel, ENAIRE is progressing with ATM system modernisation initiatives, including the further deployment of TTM tools, to unlock additional capacity and improve predictability in future performance years, as well as intensive use of CPDLC.”

Regarding follow up of the remedial measures indicated in the previous monitoring report(s), the NSA reports: “AESA continues its monitoring activities in RP4, particularly that of the KPIs associated with a target to be met, which is monitored on a monthly and annual basis. With them, it is possible to keep track of the evolution of the indicators and to maintain an adequate coordination and communication with the parties involved.

Additionally, before the end of the year and having previously made a forecast of the possible final values of the KPIs, AESA monitors the implementation status of the projects mentioned in the ESPP4 Performance Plan as well as new projects that may have been included in the NOP and that can have a positive effect in the capacity area, in order to know their evolution as well as the impact on the corresponding indicators.

The measures are being implemented and future improvements are expected to be observed in the comig years.”

En route capacity incentive scheme

The Spanish NSA reports a financial penalty of €7,785,082 for the ANSP because of the 2025 performance. The local incentive target for en route ATFM delays, due to CRSTMP causes only, was set at 0.2890 mins/flight.

The NSA reports an achieved performance of 0.71 mins/flight, including the post ops adjustments mentioned above.

[NB The attribution of original delay causes on the ansperformance.eu dashboard is unverified]

En route performance indicators at ACC level (PI#4-5)

Focus en route performance indicators at ACC level

Percentage of total en route ATFM delay that occurred on days when the daily throughput was above the expected daily traffic

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “2025 is the first year this performance indicator has been monitored, so there is no information from previous years to compare it with.”

Annual weighted average of the daily peak throughput

Other en route information

Focus on other en route information

ATCOs in operations

“"Number of additional ATCOs in OPS planned to start working in the OPS room (FTEs)" it's been considered all the operative ATCOs (C4) who started working for all reasons: CMCD, transfer, secondment, article 88 (II ATCOs collective bargaining agreement), new recruitments, unpaid leave return (voluntary or without job post reservation), change of designation, etc.

"Number of ATCOs in OPS planned to stop working in the OPS room (FTEs)" it's been considered all the operative ATCOs (C4) who stopped working for all reasons: retirements, RAE or RA concessions, dismissals, CMCD, transfer, end of a secondment, end of article 88 application, voluntary unpaid leave,change of designation, etc.”

Regarding the training process, including details on the effective failure rate and the process used to allocate newly qualified ATCOs between ACC, APP and TWR positions, the NSA reports: “The allocation of positions among the different ENAIRE units is carried out before the air traffic controller recruitment process is opened. Following the internal staff transfer process, the vacancies are offered through the competitive selection process, having been calculated on the basis of expected traffic and other operational parameters.

Candidates who pass the selection process are given 18 months to meet the required qualifications, including the SATCO licence with all ratings and rating endorsements, a valid Class 3 Medical Certificate (CIMA), and the required level of language proficiency.

Once candidates have signed their contract with ENAIRE, they may begin unit training at their assigned unit.

The failure rate is low.”

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

Focus on arrival ATFM delay

Arrival ATFM delay

Average ATFM arrival delay in Spain was 0.93 min/arr in 2025, the first year of RP4. The performance has improved compared to 2024, last year of RP3, when there were 1.10 min/arr.

Palma de Mallorca suffered the highest ATFM arrival delay with 1.97 min/arr, which was nevertheless a small improvement from 2.07 min/arr in 2024. The main reasons behind are weather regulations, combined with ATC Capacity shortages during high demand season (May to October).

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM Arrival delay across Member States in 2025 was 0.97 min/arr.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the arrival ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “In 2025, once all the processes of the delay reattribution (post-ops and eNM25, including the adjustment due to power failure in Spain in April 2025, approved by NM in January 2026) have been applied, the final average of the arrival ATFM delay per flight in Spain (in the 7 main airports at national level) is 0,93 min/arr, representing a clear improvement compared with 2024, when the corresponding value was 1.10 minutes per flight, despite still remaining above the target value set in the Performance Plan.

The 2025 arrival delay result corresponding to ENAIRE, once the distribution of delays between ENAIRE and Skyway has been carried out, is 0.91 min/arr, which represents a 15% improvement over the previous year. This improvement is also evident when analyzing arrival delays causes attributable to ENAIRE, which improved from 0.17 min/arr in 2024 to 0.14 min/arr in 2025 (a 19% of improvement).

By may, 4 of the 7 airports were already failing to meet their target, as well as the national target (SPA7). In general, the indicators have improved except for LEMG and LEAL. Adverse weather conditions, including convective weather and wind‑related disruptions, weighted around 69% of the total minutes of delay (focused in LEBL and LEPA), and contributed to a great extent in the arrival ATFM delays, both directly and through knock‑on effects on airport operations and arrival sequencing. The second leading cause of delay is G-Aerodrome Capacity (14% of the 2025 total), focused on GCLP. The third cause of delay is C-ATC Capacity (11% of the 2025 total, focused on LEPA and LEMD.

The achieved level of performance in 2025 was mainly influenced by capacity‑related constraints at major airports during peak traffic periods, particularly in the summer season. Airports with the highest traffic figures, such as Madrid‑Barajas, Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca and Gran Canaria, experienced arrival delays when demand temporarily exceeded available runway capacity, combined with limited operational flexibility during peak hours, more pronounced than in previous year and involving a direct impact on the delay figures generated. Gran Canaria stands out for G-Aerodrome capacity delays and LEPA and LEMD for C-ATC Capacity delays, although the total number of minutes is lower than in 2024. Overall, the improvement observed compared with the previous year reflects the positive impact of operational and capacity‑related actions implemented since 2024; however, continued traffic growth and the concentration of demand at coordinated airports limited the extent to which further delay reductions could be achieved within the 2025 calendar year.

Regarding the particularity of the LEAL and LEIB airports, in which different ANSPs are involved, SKYWAY (Aerodrome ATC service provider) and ENAIRE (Approach ATC service provider), according to the document "Monitoring of delays in arrivals in RP3 for Alicante and Ibiza airports" prepared by AESA, the part of delay that would correspond to ENAIRE or SKYWAY (previously FerroNATS) for these two airports would be as follows:

- LEAL: ENAIRE: 0,02 min/flight. SKYWAY: 0,13 min/flight. Delay minutes due to G-Aerodrome Capacity and W-Weather mainly. Attributable delay causes (CRSTMP) is almost zero.

- LEIB: ENAIRE: 0,08 min/flight . SKYWAY: 0,19 min/flight. Delay minutes due to W-Weather and G-Aerodrome Capacity mainly. Attributable delay causes (CRSTMP) is almost zero.”

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: “The targets have been exceeded both at the Spanish level and at 5 airports. W-Weather was the first cause of delay at national level and very significant at LEBL and LEPA, G-Aerodrome Capacity was the next cause due mainly to the minutes accumulated in GCLP and, to a lesser extent, in LEMG, LEMD and LEBL. C-ATC Capacity was the third most common cause, particulary in LEPA, LEMD and LEMG. The minutes for these main causes across all 7 airports (SPA7) were slightly lower than in 2024.

The TAD ATT indicator of attributable causes of delay (CRSTMP) has met its target at national level but has not done so at 3 airports (LEPA, LEMG and GCLP).

The non-compliance of TAD was anticipated before the end of the year and was informed to the Commission according to Regulation (EU) 2019/317 Article 37 (1), concluding that the main reasons that have led to this situation are meterorological issues especially in the warm Mediterranean Sea.Environmental concerns in LEPA that have been delaying implementation of capacity improving projects. Shifts in demand during the day that bring higher than expected traffic counts to the night shift in LEPA and LEMG. Stronger seasonality year after year and structural demand growth in LEMG. In GCLP the main factor has been Aerodrome Capacity, Runway sharing with Spanish Air Force and large-scale military exercises.As a result of the monitoring of the capacity plan and the evolution of the arrival capacity related projects initially set out in ESPP4, it was observed that the delay in the projects planned prior to ESPP4 (SACTA iTEC 4.1, Stripless TMA and RECAT departures) is not a determining factor because Weather delay is the most relevant factor in not achieving the targets. The improvements in capacity have not been sufficient to meet the volume of traffic managed as well as the current characteristics of the delay in the different regions, together with the ocurrence of bad weather, resulting in the non-compliance with the targets.”

Regarding recommendations to the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “In the report to the Commission, some of the additional measures planned by ENAIRE were explained. On the one hand, on improving capacity and operations, such as progressive increases in capacity at LEMD, GCLP and LEIB APP, refinement of A-CDM integration, RECAT departures, Godox sector split to improve LEPA, improvements in sector structures such as NB (affecting GCLP) or Levante sectors (affecting LEAL) and, on the other hand, focus on improvements in processes related to Weather, such as improving coordination with NM in cross-border, adjustments in the Central sector affecting LEBL or the standardisation of ramp-up/down after Weather.

Encourage ENAIRE to continue implementing the capacity plan in order to achieve the objectives of delays and better air traffic management, focusing on projects that have an impact on the increase of available capacity, on the implementation of projects that improve operations to manage traffic increases and projects that can reduce the impact of weather.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “ENAIRE has continued to implement a range of actions aimed at improving terminal and airport arrival performance, focusing on both operational efficiency and capacity provision. These actions include the recruiting of additional ATCO for TWR & TMA, optimisation of TMA sector configurations and enhanced application of ATFM measures at airport level, including sequencing, regulation refinement, improved use of available capacity and additional capacity according to the capacity program agreed with AENA. ENAIRE is also progressing with operational improvements, including the gradual deployment of ATM system upgrades, such as P-DPI or OSF, which are expected to support improved arrival management and capacity utilisation in the coming years.”

The measures are being implemented and future improvements are expected to be observed in the comig years.”

Terminal capacity incentive scheme

In the first year of RP4, with an ATFM Arr delay of 0.93 min/arr, Spain did not achieve the national target of 0.60 min/arr. However, the pivot value for incentives (0.1796 min/arr) is limited to CRSTMP delay causes. According to the NSA, the CRSTMP attributable to ENAIRE is 0.14042 min/arr – Alicante and Ibiza ATC Towers are managed by Skyway and subject to market conditions. As such, the value falls within the deadband for the incentive scheme, no bonus or penalty applies.

Other terminal performance indicators (PI#1-3)

Airport name	Avg arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)					Slot adherence (PI#1)
Airport level
Airport name	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Alicante	0.15	NA	NA	NA	NA	99.7%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Barcelona	1.35	NA	NA	NA	NA	99.4%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Gran Canaria	1.28	NA	NA	NA	NA	98.0%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Ibiza	0.28	NA	NA	NA	NA	99.6%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Madrid Barajas	0.43	NA	NA	NA	NA	97.8%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Malaga	0.48	NA	NA	NA	NA	95.7%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Palma de Mallorca	1.97	NA	NA	NA	NA	99.1%	NA	NA	NA	NA

Airport name	ATC pre departure delay (PI#2)					All causes pre departure delay (PI#3)
Airport name	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029
Alicante	0.60	NA	NA	NA	NA	17.69	NA	NA	NA	NA
Barcelona	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	16.67	NA	NA	NA	NA
Gran Canaria	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	14.27	NA	NA	NA	NA
Madrid Barajas	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	16.52	NA	NA	NA	NA
Malaga	0.48	NA	NA	NA	NA	17.48	NA	NA	NA	NA
Palma de Mallorca	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	20.31	NA	NA	NA	NA

Focus on other terminal performance indicators

ATFM slot adherence

ATFM slot adherence in 2025 was equal to 98.4%, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 98.1%. With regard to the 1.6% of flights that did not adhere, 1.2% were early and 0.4% were late.

All individual airports monitored in RP4 achieved over 95% adherence, and many (Barcelona, Palma, Alicante, Ibiza) achieved over 99%.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM slot adherence across Member States in 2025 was 96.3%.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “The result for 2025 (aggregate of the 7 airports subject to monitoring) improves by 0,4% the result of the previous year, being all results well above the value of 80% set in Regulation (EU) No. 255/2010 of the Commission. ANSPs analyse trends which, if negative, would be corrected. Based on current figures, ANSPs does not believe it is necessary to establish specific improvement measures.

This PI is monitored by AESA. Should any significant deviations be identified, the possible causes will be analysed as part of the annual monitoring process, in collaboration with the relevant stakeholder.”

ATC pre-departure delay

The calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay is based on the data provided by the airport operators through the Airport Operator Data Flow (APDF) which is properly implemented at all 6 Spanish airports subject to monitoring of this indicator.

However, there are several quality checks before EUROCONTROL can produce the final value which is established as the average minutes of pre-departure delay (delay in the actual off block time) associated to the IATA delay code 89 (through the APDF, for each delayed flight, the reasons for that delay have to be transmitted and coded according to IATA delay codes.

However, sometimes the airport operator has no information concerning the reasons for the delay in the off block, or they cannot convert the reasons to the IATA delay codes. In those cases, the airport operator might:

Not report any information about the reasons for the delay for that flight (unreported delay)
Report a special code to indicate they do not have the information (code ZZZ)
Report a special code to indicate they do not have the means to collect and/or translate the information (code 999)

To be able to calculate with a minimum of accuracy the PI for a given month, the minutes of delay that are not attributed to any IATA code reason should not exceed 40% of the total minutes of pre-departure delay observed at the airport.

Finally, to be able to produce the annual figure, at least 10 months of valid data is requested by EUROCONTROL.

The high share of unidentified delay reported by 4 out of the 6 Spanish airports under monitoring (Madrid, Barcelona, Gran Canaria and Palma de Mallorca) prevent the calculation of this indicator. Ibiza is not subject to the monitoring of this indicator.

Delay in Alicante in 2025 was equal to 0.60 min/dep, very close to 2024 value– last year of RP3 – of 0.63 min/dep.

Delay in Málaga in 2025 was equal to 0.48 min/dep, very close to 2024 value– last year of RP3 – of 0.53 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATC pre-departure delay across Member States and for which enough data is available in 2025 was 0.74 min/dep.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “The final result of this indicator is N/A due to some of monthly data are not available.

There has been an improvement in the reporting of monthly data. LEIB, LEPA, LEMD and LEBL report data for less than half of the months, but with the exception of LEIB, they have improved by increasing the number of months for which data is reported. GCLP reports data for more than half of the months, and this figure has increased compared to 2024. Only LEAL and LEMG provide data every month, and a reduction in the indicator value is observed at both airports compared with 2024,

LEIB it is monitored together with these 6 airports since it is one of the airports considered in the Spanish performance plan (ESPP4) for RP4.

Regarding the absence of data at airport level, the NSA reports: “There has been no change compared to previous years.

During 2022 AESA focused on investigating the origin of the lack of data. The delay represented in this indicator is related to IATA code 89 and AESA was able to confirm that the lack of data was due to the fact that these data did not meet the minimum quality required to be considered. PRU sets a minimum threshold on the quality of its data, so if codes ZZZ and 999 exceed 40% of the delay minutes, then the indicator is not published with a numerical value, as it exceeds that minimum threshold set by PRU. Sometimes it happens that the airport operator has no information on the reasons for the delay or it cannot be associated with an IATA code. After several communications with the airport manager, AESA understood that codes ZZZ and 999 are generally assigned when no code has been given (and therefore the cause of the delay is not known) or when the actual delay does not match the declared delay. The indicator picks up the initial declared delay data but this is subject to change and so there are occasions when it does not match the actual delay. This is why there is so much indeterminacy represented by these ZZZ and 999 codes.

There does not seem to be a simple resolution to this situation since the data needed to publish the indicator is collected around the middle of the following month and the process of defining the codes that are more in line with reality is done through a post-operational analysis that takes considerably longer.”

All causes pre-departure delay

Six Spanish airports are subject to the monitoring of this indicator: Madrid – Barajas, Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, Málaga, Gran Canaria and Alicante. All of them except Madrid decreased their average departure delay by at least one minute.

Delay in Madrid – Barajas in 2025 was equal to 16.52 min/dep, very close to 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 16.65 min/dep.

Delay in Barcelona in 2025 decreased to 16.67 min/dep, 12% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 18.98 min/dep.

Delay in Palma de Mallorca in 2025 decreased to 20.31 min/dep, 11% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 22.89 min/dep. Still, Palma had the third highest delay among airports under RP4 monitoring.

Delay in Málaga in 2025 decreased to 17.48 min/dep, 18% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 21.20 min/dep.

Delay in Gran Canaria in 2025 decreased to 14.27 min/dep, 17% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 17.22 min/dep.

Delay in Alicante in 2025 decreased to 17.69 min/dep, 7% lower than 2024 value – last year of RP3 – of 19.02 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of all causes pre-departure delay across Member States in 2025 was 16.47 min/dep.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “2025 values are lower than the 2024 values, despite of the increase in traffic this year.

However, it should be noted that all-cause departure delay is very generic and ATFM delay is only a small contributor. Departure delay can be generated by ATFM en-route delay (not only local airport, but the complete Network), but also reactionary and turnaround delay, technical issues with the aircraft, airport operations, problems with passengers and/or luggage, etc. In other words, it is not always possible to address a specific reason as this delay is quite generic. Consequently, without a clear focus of the problem to address, it is not feasible to establish measures that can significantly impact the improvement of the indicator, beyond those already mentioned in section 2.2.2.D. PI #4 of this monitoring report.