Kiri

Annual Monitoring Report 2023

Local level view

ESTONIA

This page was intentionally left blank

ESTONIA Monitoring of SAFETY for 2023

Score Safety Culture

Safety Policy

and

Objectives

Safety Risk

Management

Safety

Assurance

Safety

Promotion

EANS 100 D D D D D

Effectiveness of Safety Management

Note: EoSM questionnaire has been updated in RP3 using CANSO Standard of Excellence as the basis, maturity levels of study areas and calculation of the score

have been updated too. A direct comparison with maturity levels and scoring of EoSM used RP2 is not advisable.

Observations

All five EoSM components of the ANSP meet, or exceed, already the RP3 target level. Maximum maturity level was maintained

compared with 2022.

ESTONIA ENVIRONMENT - Horizontal flight efficiency

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

1.33% 1.22% 1.22% 1.22% 1.22%

1.21% 1.43% 5.46% 6.55%

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

KEA 5.99% 6.32% 6.43% 6.48% 6.53% 6.59% 6.60% 6.62% 6.60% 6.60% 6.58% 6.55%

KEP 6.28% 6.61% 6.74% 6.80% 6.85% 6.89% 6.89% 6.90% 6.85% 6.85% 6.83% 6.77%

KES 6.26% 6.57% 6.68% 6.72% 6.75% 6.80% 6.79% 6.79% 6.75% 6.74% 6.71% 6.65%

The indicators are the ratio of flown distance and achieved distance over all (portions of) trajectories over a one year rolling window,

excluding the ten best and ten worst days. The rolling window stops at the last day of the month.

KEA

Target

Actual performance

End of month indicators evolution in 2023

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0% KEA Comparison

ESTONIA other States/FAB

1.33% 1.22% 1.22% 1.22% 1.22%

1.21% 1.43%

5.46%

6.55%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

H o

ri z o

n ta

l F

li g

h t

e ff

ic ie

n c y (

K E

A )

Target

Actual Profile

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0% KEP Comparison

ESTONIA other States/FAB

ESTONIA ENVIRONMENT - Airports

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 2

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 4

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 2

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 4

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 2

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 4

Tallin-EETN - - - - - - - - 61% 56% 66% 66%

Tartu-EETU - - - - - - - - 69% 44% 71% 49%

5. Appendix

1. Overview

Estonia identified two airports, Tallinn and Tartu, as subject to RP3 monitoring. In accordance with IR (EU) 2019/317 and the

traffic figures at these 2 airports, additional taxi-out and ASMA times are not monitored and the environmental performance

focuses only on the share of arrivals applying CDO.

Traffic at these Estonian airports in 2023 was still 23% lower than in 2019.

The share of CDO flights is in the higher range of all observed values in 2023. Estonia has the highest share of CDO flights

when calculated by State (65.5%).

2. Additional Taxi-Out Time

3. Additional ASMA Time

This indicator is not monitored for airports below 80 000 IFR movements average during the 2016-2018 period, so it is not

monitored for any airport in this state.

This indicator is not monitored for airports below 80 000 IFR movements average during the 2016-2018 period, so it is not

monitored for any airport in this state.

4. Share of arrivals applying CDO

The share of CDO flights has stayed stable for Tallin (EETN)

but has significantly decreased again for Tartu (EETU): -22.5

percentage points with respect to 2022. They are still well

above the overall RP3 value in 2023 (28.8%). Tallin (EETN) is

in the top 10 of all observed values in 2023.

n/a: airport operator data flow not established, or more than two months of missing / non-validated data

Airport Name

Additional taxi-out time Additional ASMA time Share of arrivals applying CDO

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

E E

T N

E E

T U

%CDO Share of CDO

2020 2021 2022 2023

ESTONIA ENVIRONMENT - Military dimension

Update on Military dimension of the plan

Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity

PI#6 Effective use of reserved or segregated airspace - national level

Ratio PI#6 2020 2021 2022 2023

PI#6 Effective use of reserved or segregated airspace (per ACC)

Ratio PI#6 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

2024

Estonia

Tallinn

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6

No data available

PI#7 Rate of planning via available airspace structures - national level

Ratio PI#7 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

PI#7 Rate of planning via available airspace structures (per ACC)

Ratio PI#7 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Estonia n/a

Tallinn n/a

Estonia n/a

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7

FRA has been implemented

PI#8 Rate of using available airspace structures - national level

Ratio PI#8 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Tallinn n/a

PI#8 Rate of using available airspace structures (per ACC)

Ratio PI#8 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8

ESTONIA CAPACITY - En-route

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

0.05 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

- - 25 27 27 27

30 23 23 23 21

EANS 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

0.05 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03

- - - [0-0.06] [0-0.06]

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Observations

National Capacity target

Actual performance falls inside the deadband

range; therefore no bonus is due. Deadband +/-

Actual performance

En route Capacity Incentive Scheme

Additional Information Related to Russia's War of Aggression Against Ukraine

Estonian airspace continues to be impacted by sanctions and the resulting decrease in air traffic between Europe and Asia.

The ANSP has had to scale down and streamline operations while maintaining readiness for when traffic picks up again.

Summary of capacity performance

Estonia experienced an increase in traffic from 142k flights in 2022, to 148k flights in 2023 with zero ATFM delay. Traffic

levels remain significantly below the 227k flights handled in 2019.

Due to the limited traffic volumes capacity planning remains standard. ATFM delays are anticipated to remain at zero, as

capacity continues to align with user demand

ATCO in OPS (FTE)

Tallinn ACC Observations

Planned (Perf Plan)

Actual

Capacity Planning

Minutes of ATFM en-route delay

Observations

National Target

Actual performance

NSA's assessment of capacity performance

In operational context, in 2023 we faced significant challenges and modest recovery across different quarters. The year was

largely impacted by the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine, comparable in its effects to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Estonian airspace continues to be impacted by sanctions and the resulting decrease in air traffic between Europe and

Asia.

In 2023, Estonia experienced a slight increase in flights compared to the previous year but still faced significant decrease

compared to 2019.

The en route capacity targets of Estonia, measured in minutes of ATFM delay per flight for 2023, was set at 0.03 minutes.

The actual ATFM delay per flight for 2023 was recorded at 0.0 minutes. No capacity issues have been identified. Air traffic

flows have remained significantly below 2019 levels due to the sanctions on Russia and airspace closures caused by

Russia's war against Ukraine.

Monitoring process for capacity performance

Review of the actual values from the NM dashboard.

ESTONIA CAPACITY - Airports

This indicator is not monitored for airports below 80 000 IFR movements annual average during the 2016-2018 period, so it is not

monitored for any airport in Estonia.

6. All Causes Pre-departure Delay

This indicator is not monitored for airports below 80 000 IFR movements annual average during the 2016-2018 period, so it is not

monitored for any airport in Estonia.

5. ATC Pre-departure Delay

1. Overview

Estonia identified two airports, Tallinn and Tartu, as subject to RP3 monitoring. In accordance with IR (EU) 2019/317 and the traffic

figures at these 2 airports, pre-departure delays are not monitored and the capacity performance focuses on arrival ATFM delays and

slot adherence.

Traffic at these Estonian airports in 2023 was still 23% lower than in 2019.

Like in the rest of RP3, no arrival ATFM delays were observed in the entire 2023 at these two airports and slot adherence remained

very high (2023: 98.9%; 2022: 98.3%).

2. Arrival ATFM Delay

Like in previous years, no arrival ATFM delay was observed

at the Estonian airports (Tallinn and Tartu) in 2023.

According to the Estonian monitoring report, this is due to

low traffic volumes and well functioning systems

3. Arrival ATFM Delay – National Target and Incentive Scheme

The Estonian performance plan sets a national target on

arrival ATFM delay for all RP3 of 0.0 min/arr. This target, like

in the rest of RP3, was met in 2023 with an actual

performance of 0.0 min/arr.

The Estonian performance plan does not establish any bonus.

According to the Estonian monitoring report: Since the

number of flights remains low and the number of delays

attributable to EANS is zero, there is no point in establishing a

bonus, as a bonus should motivate change, but it is

impossible to improve non-existent delays.

4. ATFM Slot Adherence

Tallin showed very high slot adherence (98.9%) and at Tartu

there only 11 regulated departures in 2023, from which only 1

departed outside of the STW.

The national average was 98.9%. With regard to the 1.1% of

flights that did not adhere, 0.3% was early and 0.8% was

late.

According to the Estonian monitoring report: Performance

remained on the same high level.

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Actual 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Target 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0Arrival ATFM Delay

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

EE TN

EE TU

Slot adherence

2020 2021 2022 2023

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

EE TN

EE TUmin/Arr

Arrival ATFM delay 2020 2021 2022 2023

Airport Name Avg arrival ATFM delay

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

2 0

2 4

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

2 0

2 4

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

2 0

2 4

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

2 0

2 4

Tallin-EETN 0 0 0 0 98.5% 98.2% 98.6% 98. 9% - - - - - - - -

Tartu-EETU 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a 50.0% 90. 9% - - - - - - - -

7. Appendix

n/a: airport operator data flow not established, or more than two months of missing / non-validated data

Slot adherence ATC pre-departure

delay

All Causes Pre-departure

Delay

ESTONIA: En route charging zone Monitoring of en route COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

1. Contextual economic information: en route air navigation services

·   Estonia ECZ represents 0.4% of the SES en route ANS actual costs in 2023

·   National currency: EUR Exchange rates (1 EUR=) 2017: 1 EUR 2023: 1 EUR

·   Performance Plan: RP3 draft performance plan dated 10 February 2022 and found consistent as per Commission Decision (EU) 2022/771 of 13 April 2022

The final version of the plan was adopted and published by Estonia in accordance with Article 16 (a) of Regulation (EU) 2019/317

2. Monitoring of the en route determined unit cost (DUC) at charging zone level

3. En route actual unit cost (AUC) vs. en route determined unit cost (DUC)

Estonia: Data from RP3 Performance Plan 2020D 2021D 2020-2021D 2022D 2023D 2024D

En route costs (nominal €) 26 963 328 26 899 545 53 862 873 26 786 115 28 336 431 29 613 617

Inflation % 0.0% 1.8% 2.5% 2.1% 1.9%

Inflation index (100 in 2017) 105.8 107.7 110.4 112.7 114.8

Real en route costs (€2017) 26 132 098 25 829 816 51 961 914 25 297 780 26 447 397 27 337 166

Total en route service units 418 749 444 561 863 310 726 854 865 151 912 301

Real en route DUC per service unit (€2017) 62.41 58.10 60.19 34.80 30.57 29.97

Real en route DUC per service unit (€2017) 62.41 58.10 60.19 34.80 30.57 29.97

Estonia: Actual data from Reporting Tables 2020A 2021A 2020-2021A 2022A 2023A 2024A

En route costs (nominal €) 26 963 329 26 509 273 53 472 602 26 102 327 26 710 715

Inflation % 0.0% 4.5% 19.4% 9.1%

Inflation index (100 in 2017) 105.8 110.5 132.0 144.0

Real en route costs (€2017) 26 132 099 25 148 805 51 280 904 22 396 739 21 725 843

Total en route service units 418 749 466 942 885 691 428 511 446 250

Real en route AUC per service unit (€2017) 62.41 53.86 57.90 52.27 48.69

Real en route AUC per service unit (€2017) 62.41 53.86 57.90 52.27 48.69

Difference between Actuals and Planned 2020 2021 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

En route costs (nominal €) in value 1 -390 272 -390 271 -683 788 -1 625 716

in % +0.0% -1.5% -0.7% -2.6% -5.7%

Inflation % in p.p. 0.0 p.p. 2.7 p.p. 16.9 p.p. 7.0 p.p.

Inflation index (100 in 2017) in p.p. 0.0 p.p. 2.9 p.p. 21.6 p.p. 31.3 p.p.

Real en route costs (€2017) in value 1 -681 011 -681 010 -2 901 041 -4 721 554

in % +0.0% -2.6% -1.3% -11.5% -17.9%

Total en route service units in value 0 22 381 22 381 -298 343 -418 901

in % - +5.0% +2.6% -41.0% -48.4%

Real en route unit cost per service unit (€2017) in value 0.00 -4.24 -2.29 17.46 18.12

in % +0.0% -7.3% -3.8% +50.2% +59.3%

Real en route unit cost per service unit (€2017) in value 0.00 -4.24 -2.29 17.46 18.12

in % +0.00% -7.3% -3.8% +50.2% +59.3%

4. Focus on en route DUC monitoring at charging zone level

The Determined Unit Cost (DUC) is the cost per service unit, at which the service is planned to be provided during the year. The Actual Unit Cost (AUC) reflects the cost per

service unit, at which the service has actually been provided during the year.

The monitoring of the DUC / AUC is carried out in national currency in real terms, at 2017 prices.

In 2023, the en route AUC was +59.3% (or +18.12 €2017) higher than the planned DUC. This

results from the combination of significantly lower than planned TSUs (-48.4%) and significantly

lower than planned en route costs in real terms (-17.9%, or -4.7 M€2017). It should be noted that

actual inflation index in 2023 was +31.3 p.p. higher than planned.

En route service units

AUC vs. DUC

En route costs for the main ANSP (EANS) at charging zone level

Significantly lower than planned en route costs in real terms for EANS in 2023 (-28.0%, or -5.6

M€2017) result from:

- Significantly lower staff costs (-21.7%) in real terms due to the inflation index impact (+31.3

p.p.) since, in nominal terms, staff costs are in line with the plan (+0.03%).

- Significantly lower other operating costs (-31.0%) reflecting the impact of inflation index but also

"extensive cost-cutting measures to reduce losses. Travelling expenses, equipment

maintenance costs and training expenses were the main items for savings ",

- Significantly lower depreciation (-42.0%), reflecting "changes in actual investment costs of new

investments due to a delayed/postponed implementation ",

- Significantly lower cost of capital (-36.9%) reflecting the use of lower than planned share of

financing through equity.

Actual real en route costs are -17.9% (-4.7 M€2017) lower than planned. This is the result of

lower costs for the main ANSP, EANS (-28.0%, or -5.6 M€2017) and higher costs for the

NSA/EUROCONTROL (+13.1%, or +0.9 M€2017).

En route costs by entity

The difference between actual and planned TSUs (-48.4%) falls outside the ±10% threshold

foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The resulting loss of en route revenues is

therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace users, with the ANSP (EANS) bearing a

loss of -0.7 M€2017. -28.0%

+13.1%

-17.9%

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Main ANSP

Other ANSP(s)

METSP(s)

NSA/EUROCONTROL

Total CZ

Costs by entity at ECZ level (M€2017):

-21.7%

-31.0%

-42.0%

-36.9%

-28.0%

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Staff costs

Other operating costs

Depreciation

Cost of capital

Exceptional costs

VFR exempted flights

Total Main ANSP

Costs by nature for main ANSP (M€2017):

-48.4%

2023 actual vs. planned TSUs

ESTONIA: En route charging zone Monitoring of en route COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

5. Monitoring of the en route actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level

6. En route actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

Components of the AUCU €/SU €/SU

Initial DUC charged 32.75 32.75

DUC to be charged retroactively 0.00 0.00

DUC 32.75 32.75

Inflation adjustment 10.44 10.44

Cost exempt from cost-sharing -1.86 -1.86

Traffic risk sharing adjustment 21.25 21.25

Traffic adj. (costs not TRS) 7.37 7.37

Traffic adj. (adjustments)*

Financial incentives 0.00 0.00

Modulation of charges 0.00 0.00

Temporary UR**

Cross-financing 0.00 0.00

Other revenues -0.03 -0.03

Application of lower unit rate 0.00 0.00

Total adjustments 37.16 37.16

AUCU 69.92 69.92

AUCU vs. DUC +113.5% +113.5%

7. En route costs exempt from cost sharing Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

€ '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

New and existing investments -1 689 -1 689 -3.78 -3.78

Competent authorities and qualified entities costs 839 839 1.88 1.88

Eurocontrol costs 19 19 0.04 0.04

Pension costs 0 0 0.00 0.00

Interest on loans 0 0 0.00 0.00

Changes in law 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total costs exempt from cost sharing -831 -831 -1.86 -1.86

These costs will be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users. These may be subject to change following user consultation and NSA Report on the verification of cost-sharing.

8. En route regulatory result at charging zone level

ANSP(S) € '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

EANS 5 170 5 170 11.59 11.59

METSP(s) € '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

Total charging zone 5 170 5 170 11.59 11.59

Actual cost for users*** 31 216 31 216 69.95 69.95

Regulatory result (% AUCU) 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6%

*** before deduction of other revenues, as is the case for the regulatory results (see items 10 to 13)

9. Focus on en route AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

The Actual Unit Cost for Users (AUCU) reflects the price per service unit that is charged in fine to users for the services provided in the year. It corresponds to the sum of the

DUC for the year and of the different adjustments stemming from that year.

The monitoring of the AUCU is carried out in national currency in nominal terms.

b y i te

m

* The traffic adjustment on adjustments is not considered to avoid double counting, as the related adjustments have already been taken into account in full in the AUCU for the current year or

previous years.

** The difference in revenue due to the application of the temporary unit rates in 2023, if applicable, is already reflected in the DUC (part to be charged retroactively) and is therefore not

considered in the total adjustments, in order to avoid double counting.

The actual en route unit cost incurred by airspace users (AUCU) in respect of activities performed in 2023 (69.92 €) is +113.5% higher than the nominal DUC (32.75 €). The

difference between these two figures (+37.16 €/SU) is due to:

- the positive inflation adjustment resulting from higher than planned inflation (+10.44 €/SU);

- the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost-sharing mechanism (-1.86 €/SU);

- the addition of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (+21.25 €/SU);

- the addition of the traffic adjustment (+7.37 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing; and

- the deduction of the other revenues (-0.03 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see items 10 to 13) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is 16.6%.

Note that the cost exempt from cost sharing presented in this report for 2023 are preliminary figures which are subject to change based on the information that will be provided in

the NSA Reports on the verification of the cost sharing to be submitted by the 1st September 2024. These changes may affect the analysis of the Actual Costs for Users (boxes 6-

9) and of the regulatory result (boxes 11-14 for en route and terminal, and box 3 for gate-to-gate).

32.75

69.92

+10.44

-1.86

+21.25

+7.37

-0.03

+37.16

-22.75316

-12.75316

-2.753162

7.2468384

17.246838

27.246838

37.246838

47.246838

57.246838

67.246838

77.246838

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

D U

C

In fl a ti o

n a

d ju

s tm

e n

t

C o

s t e

x e m

p t

c o s t-

s h

a ri

n g

T ra

ff ic

r is

k s

h a ri

n g

a d

j.

T ra

ff ic

a d j. (

c o

s ts

n o t

T R

S )

T ra

ff ic

a d j. (

a d

ju s tm

e n ts

)

F in

a n c ia

l in

c e

n ti v e s

M o d

u la

ti o n c

h a

rg e s

T e m

p o

ra ry

u n it r

a te

C ro

s s -f

in a

n c in

g

O th

e r

re v e

n u

e s

A p p

lic a ti o n l o w

e r

u n it r

a te

T O

T A

L A

D J U

S T

M E

N T

S

A U

C U

Estonia 2023 DUC vs. Actual Unit Cost for users in national currency in nominal terms - €

113.5% vs. DUC

58.36

11.59

AUCU before OR: 69.95

Share of regulatory result in the AUCU (before deduction of other revenue)

AUCU without regulatory result Regulatory result

16.6%

ESTONIA: En route main ANSP (EANS) Monitoring of en route COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

10. Monitoring of the en route ANSPs regulatory results (RR)

11. Net gain/loss for the main ANSP for the en route activity at charging zone level

Cost sharing (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Difference in costs: gain (+)/Loss (-) retained/borne by the ANSP -29 651 2 483

Inflation adjustment to be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users 398 3 100 4 659

Amounts excluded from cost sharing to be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users -36 -100 -1 689

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of cost sharing 333 3 651 5 453

Traffic risk sharing (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Difference in total service units (actual vs PP) % 2.6% -41.0% -48.4%

Determined costs subject to traffic risk sharing for the ANSP (PP) 41 272 20 124 21 544

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of traffic risk sharing 899 -885 -948

Incentives (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of incentives (bonus/penalty) 0 0 0

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) on en route activity (€ '000) 1 231 2 766 4 505

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) on en route activity (€ '000) 1 231 2 766 4 505

12. Regulatory result (RR) for the main ANSP at charging zone level

EANS planned regulatory result (€ '000) from RP3 PP 2020D 2021D 2020-2021D 2022D 2023D 2024D

Total asset base 28 085 27 018 55 103 26 775 28 649 30 168

Proportion of financing through equity (in %) 61% 23% 42% 36% 71% 77%

RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

RoE (in value) 1 257 452 1 708 708 1 491 1 687

Ex-ante regulatory result (+/-) for the en route charging zone 1 257 452 1 708 708 1 491 1 687

Revenue for the en route charging zone 21 284 20 433 41 716 20 360 21 792 22 944

Ex-ante regulatory result (+/-) in percent of revenues 5.9% 2.2% 4.1% 3.5% 6.8% 7.4%

Ex-ante RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

EANS actual regulatory result (€ '000) 2020A 2021A 2020-2021A 2022A 2023A 2024A

Total asset base 28 085 28 876 56 961 22 928 24 872

Proportion of financing through equity (in %) 61% 52% 57% 61% 37%

RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

RoE (in value) 1 257 1 096 2 353 1 018 665

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) for the en route charging zone 0 1 231 1 231 2 766 4 505

Ex-post regulatory result (+/-) for the en route charging zone 1 257 2 328 3 584 3 783 5 170

Revenue for the en route charging zone 21 284 21 694 42 977 22 474 23 814

Ex-post regulatory result (+/-) in percent of revenues 5.9% 10.7% 8.3% 16.8% 21.7%

Ex-post RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 15.5% 11.1% 27.1% 56.8%

13. Focus on the main ANSP regulatory result on en route activity

The Regulatory Result (RR) corresponds to the revenues generated by the activities of the year, that exceed the direct and indirect operating costs of an ANSP, and so provide

for a reasonable return on assets to contribute towards necessary capital improvements. The notion of RR focuses on the ANSP results entitled to the ANS activity in the year. It

is therefore different from the net accounting profit disclosed in ANSPs financial statements. Also, it does not take into account any opportunity cost.

The RR, when expressed in percentage of the revenues, can be associated to a “margin” generated by the ANSP with respect to the activity of the year, but it is not comparable to

the margin that would be calculated straight from ANSPs financial statements.

- Ex-ante, the RR is equal to the RoE (in value) included in the determined cost of capital.

- Ex-post, the RR is the sum of the RoE (in value) in the actual cost of capital and the net gain/loss resulting from risk sharing and incentives generated from that year.

The net gain/loss calculated in box 11 results from the combination of three distinct items: a) the outcome of the cost-sharing mechanism to be retained by the ANSP (including

the impact of costs exempted from cost-sharing and of the inflation adjustment); b) the outcome of the traffic risk sharing mechanism; and c) the outcome of the financial incentive

mechanism for capacity and environment targets.

The monitoring of the RR is carried out in national currency in nominal terms.

EANS net gain on activity in the Estonia en route charging zone in the year 2023

EANS reported a net gain of +4.5 M€, as a combination of a gain of +5.5 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -0.9 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing

mechanism.

EANS overall regulatory results (RR) for the en route activity

Ex-post, the overall RR taking into account the net gain from the en route activity mentioned above (+4.5 M€) and the actual RoE (+0.7 M€) amounts to +5.2 M€ (21.7% of the en

route revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is 56.8%, which is substantially higher than the 7.3% planned in the PP.

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Net ANSP gain/loss

Incentives

Traffic risk sharing

Cost sharing

Net gain/loss for 2023 M€

ANSP loss ANSP gain

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

M €

En route main ANSP regulatory result in percent of revenues

Ex-post RR (in value)

Ex-ante RR (in value)

RR in percent of en-route revenues

ESTONIA: Terminal charging zone Monitoring of terminal COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

1. Contextual economic information: terminal air navigation services

·   Estonia TCZ represents 0.2% of the SES terminal ANS actual costs in 2023 ·   Airports with fewer than 80,000 IFR mvmts: 2

·   Number of airports in charging zone in 2023: 2 of which: ·   Airports with more than 80,000 IFR mvmts: 0

·   National currency: EUR Exchange rates (1 EUR=) 2017: 1 EUR 2023: 1 EUR

·   Performance Plan: See item 1 for the en route charging zone(s).

2. Monitoring of the terminal determined unit cost (DUC) at charging zone level

3. Terminal actual unit cost (AUC) vs. terminal determined unit cost (DUC)

Estonia: Data from RP3 Performance Plan 2020D 2021D 2020-2021D 2022D 2023D 2024D

Terminal costs (nominal €) 2 572 617 2 526 192 5 098 809 2 393 127 2 528 987 2 646 202

Inflation % 0.0% 1.8% 2.5% 2.1% 1.9%

Inflation index (100 in 2017) 105.8 107.7 110.4 112.7 114.8

Real terminal costs (€2017) 2 496 661 2 422 118 4 918 779 2 254 405 2 355 293 2 438 319

Total terminal service units 8 201 9 972 18 173 17 372 18 786 19 870

Real terminal DUC per service unit (€2017) 304.43 242.90 270.66 129.77 125.37 122.71

Real terminal DUC per service unit (€2017) 304.43 242.90 270.66 129.77 125.37 122.71

Estonia: Actual data from Reporting Tables 2020A 2021A 2020-2021A 2022A 2023A 2024A

Terminal costs (nominal €) 2 572 617 2 446 840 5 019 457 2 809 249 3 320 847

Inflation % 0.0% 4.5% 19.4% 9.1%

Inflation index (100 in 2017) 105.8 110.5 132.0 144.0

Real terminal costs (€2017) 2 496 661 2 323 789 4 820 450 2 393 352 2 697 694

Total terminal service units 8 201 10 986 19 188 17 403 17 305

Real terminal AUC per service unit (€2017) 304.43 211.52 251.23 137.53 155.89

Real terminal AUC per service unit (€2017) 304.43 211.52 251.23 137.53 155.89

Difference between Actuals and Planned 2020 2021 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Terminal costs (nominal €) in value 0 -79 352 -79 352 416 122 791 860

in % - -3.1% -1.6% +17.4% +31.3%

Inflation % in p.p. 0.0 p.p. 2.7 p.p. 16.9 p.p. 7.0 p.p.

Inflation index (100 in 2017) in p.p. 0.0 p.p. 2.9 p.p. 21.6 p.p. 31.3 p.p.

Real terminal costs (€2017) in value 0 -98 329 -98 329 138 948 342 401

in % - -4.1% -2.0% +6.2% +14.5%

Total terminal service units in value 0 1 015 1 015 30 -1 481

in % - +10.2% +5.6% +0.2% -7.9%

Real terminal unit cost per service unit (€2017) in value 0.00 -31.38 -19.44 7.76 30.52

in % - -12.9% -7.2% +6.0% +24.3%

Real terminal unit cost per service unit (€2017) in value 0.00 -31.38 -19.44 7.76 30.52

in % - -12.9% -7.2% +6.0% +24.3%

4. Focus on terminal DUC monitoring at charging zone level

Terminal costs by entity

Actual real terminal costs are +14.5% (+0.3 M€2017) higher than planned. This is the result of

higher costs for the main ANSP, EANS (+14.8%, or +0.3 M€2017) and the NSA (+12.8%, or

+0.04 M€2017).

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

Significantly higher than planned terminal costs in real terms for EANS in 2023 (+14.8%, or +0.3

M€2017) result from:

- Significantly lower staff costs (-12.5%) in real terms due to the inflation index impact (+31.3

p.p.). In nominal terms, staff costs are above the plan (+11.8%), which, based on the information

provided by Estonia, is due to the fact that "higher proportion of actual costs were allocated to

terminal costs " due to a significantly lower en route traffic.

- Significantly higher other operating costs (+21.1%), which, as already detailed above, is also

explained by the changes in the allocation of actual costs.

- Significantly higher depreciation (+46.4%), reflecting continuation of the invesment programme,

including projects which had been postponed in previous years.

- Significantly higher cost of capital (+20.3%) reflecting a combination of higher than planned

interest rate on debt and higher proportion of financing through equity.

The Determined Unit Cost (DUC) is the cost per service unit, at which the service is planned to be provided during the year. The Actual Unit Cost (AUC) reflects the cost per

service unit, at which the service has actually been provided during the year.

The monitoring of the DUC / AUC is carried out in national currency in real terms, at 2017 prices.

AUC vs. DUC

In 2023, the terminal AUC was +24.3% (or +30.52 €2017) higher than the planned DUC. This

results from the combination of significantly higher than planned terminal costs in real terms

(+14.5%, or +0.3 M€2017) and significantly lower than planned TNSUs (-7.9%). It should be

noted that actual inflation index in 2023 was +31.3 p.p. higher than planned.

Terminal service units

The difference between actual and planned TNSUs (-7.9%) falls outside the ±2% dead band, but

does not exceed the ±10% threshold foreseen in the traffic risk sharing mechanism. The

resulting loss of terminal revenues is therefore shared between the ANSP and the airspace

users, with the ANSP (EANS) bearing a loss of -0.1 M€2017. +14.8%

+12.8%

+14.5%

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Main ANSP

Other ANSP(s)

METSP(s)

NSA

Total CZ

Costs by entity at TCZ level (M€2017):

-12.5%

+21.1%

+46.4%

+20.3%

+14.8%

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Staff costs

Other operating costs

Depreciation

Cost of capital

Exceptional costs

VFR exempted flights

Total Main ANSP

Costs by nature for main ANSP (M€2017):

-7.9%

2023 actual vs. planned TNSUs

ESTONIA: Terminal charging zone Monitoring of terminal COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

5. Monitoring of the terminal actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level

6. Terminal actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

Components of the AUCU €/SU €/SU

Initial DUC charged 134.62 134.62

DUC to be charged retroactively 0.00 0.00

DUC 134.62 134.62

Inflation adjustment 24.75 24.75

Cost exempt from cost-sharing 18.32 18.32

Traffic risk sharing adjustment 4.76 4.76

Traffic adj. (costs not TRS) 2.40 2.40

Traffic adj. (adjustments)*

Financial incentives 0.00 0.00

Modulation of charges 0.00 0.00

Temporary UR**

Cross-financing 0.00 0.00

Other revenues -34.74 -34.74

Application of lower unit rate 0.00 0.00

Total adjustments 15.51 15.51

AUCU 150.13 150.13

AUCU vs. DUC 11.5% 11.5%

7. Terminal costs exempt from cost sharing Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

€ '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

New and existing investments 274 274 15.81 15.81

Competent authorities and qualified entities costs 43 43 2.51 2.51

Eurocontrol costs 0 0 0.00 0.00

Pension costs 0 0 0.00 0.00

Interest on loans 0 0 0.00 0.00

Changes in law 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total costs exempt from cost sharing 317 317 18.32 18.32

These costs will be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users. These may be subject to change following user consultation and NSA Report on the verification of cost-sharing.

8. Terminal regulatory result at charging zone level

ANSP(S) € '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

EANS -17 -17 -0.96 -0.96

METSP(s) € '000 € '000 €/SU €/SU

Total charging zone -17 -17 -0.96 -0.96

Actual cost for users*** 3 199 3 199 184.86 184.86

Regulatory result (% AUCU) -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5%

*** before deduction of other revenues, as is the case for the regulatory results (see items 10 to 13)

9. Focus on terminal AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

The actual terminal unit cost incurred by airspace users (AUCU) in respect of activities performed in 2023 (150.13 €) is +11.5% higher than the nominal DUC (134.62 €). The

difference between these two figures (+15.51 €/SU) is due to:

- the positive inflation adjustment resulting from higher than planned inflation (+24.75 €/SU);

- the impact of adjustments resulting from the costs exempted from cost-sharing mechanism (+18.32 €/SU);

- the addition of the traffic risk sharing adjustments (+4.76 €/SU);

- the addition of the traffic adjustment (+2.40 €/SU) for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing; and

- the deduction of the other revenues (-34.74 €/SU).

The share of the regulatory result (see items 10 to 13) in the AUCU (before the deduction of other revenues) is -0.5%.

Note that the cost exempt from cost sharing presented in this report for 2023 are preliminary figures which are subject to change based on the information that will be provided in

the NSA Reports on the verification of the cost sharing to be submitted by the 1st September 2024. These changes may affect the analysis of the Actual Costs for Users (boxes 6-

9) and of the regulatory result (boxes 11-14 for en route and terminal, and box 3 for gate-to-gate).

The Actual Unit Cost for Users (AUCU) reflects the price per service unit that is charged in fine to users for the services provided in the year. It corresponds to the sum of the

DUC for the year and of the different adjustments stemming from that year.

The monitoring of the AUCU is carried out in national currency in nominal terms.

b y i te

m

* The traffic adjustment on adjustments is not considered to avoid double counting, as the related adjustments have already been taken into account in full in the AUCU for the current year or

previous years.

** The difference in revenue due to the application of the temporary unit rates in 2023, if applicable, is already reflected in the DUC (part to be charged retroactively) and is therefore not

considered in the total adjustments, in order to avoid double counting.

134.62

150.13+24.75 +18.32

+4.76 +2.40

-34.74

+15.51

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

D U

C

In fl a ti o

n a

d ju

s tm

e n

t

C o

s t e

x e m

p t

c o s t-

s h

a ri

n g

T ra

ff ic

r is

k s

h a ri

n g

a d

j.

T ra

ff ic

a d j. (

c o

s ts

n o t

T R

S )

T ra

ff ic

a d j. (

a d

ju s tm

e n ts

)

F in

a n c ia

l in

c e

n ti v e s

M o d

u la

ti o n c

h a

rg e s

T e m

p o

ra ry

u n it r

a te

C ro

s s -f

in a

n c in

g

O th

e r

re v e

n u

e s

A p p

lic a ti o n l o w

e r

u n it r

a te

T O

T A

L A

D J U

S T

M E

N T

S

A U

C U

Estonia 2023 DUC vs. Actual Unit Cost for users in national currency in nominal terms - €

11.5% vs. DUC

185.82

-0.96

AUCU before OR: 184.86

Share of regulatory result in the AUCU (before deduction of other revenue)

AUCU without regulatory result Regulatory result

-0.5%

ESTONIA: Terminal main ANSP (EANS) Monitoring of terminal COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

10. Monitoring of the terminal ANSPs regulatory results (RR)

11. Net gain/loss for the main ANSP for the terminal activity at charging zone level Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

Cost sharing (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Difference in costs: gain (+)/Loss (-) retained/borne by the ANSP 65 -378 -748

Inflation adjustment to be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users 39 289 428

Amounts excluded from cost sharing to be recovered from (+) or reimbursed to (-) users -14 133 274

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of cost sharing 89 45 -46

Traffic risk sharing (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Difference in total service units (actual vs PP) % 5.6% 0.2% -7.9%

Determined costs subject to traffic risk sharing for the ANSP (PP) 4 128 1 883 2 002

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of traffic risk sharing 127 3 -75

Incentives (€ '000) 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Gain (+)/Loss (-) to be retained by the ANSP in respect of incentives (bonus/penalty) 0 0 0

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) on terminal activity (€ '000) 216 48 -122

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) on terminal activity (€ '000) 216 48 -122

12. Regulatory result (RR) for the main ANSP at charging zone level Manual override (nat. currency, nominal)

EANS planned regulatory result (€ '000) from RP3 PP 2020 2021 2020-2021D 2022 2023 2024

Total asset base 7 835 7 538 15 373 6 499 7 992 8 416

Proportion of financing through equity (in %) 35% 2% 19% 3% 16% 19%

RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

RoE (in value) 202 13 215 13 94 117

Ex-ante regulatory result (+/-) for the terminal charging zone 202 13 215 13 94 117

Revenue for the terminal charging zone 2 263 2 200 4 463 2 061 2 188 2 297

Ex-ante regulatory result (+/-) in percent of revenues 8.9% 0.6% 4.8% 0.6% 4.3% 5.1%

Ex-ante RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

EANS actual regulatory result (€ '000) 2020 2021 2020-2021A 2022 2023 2024

Total asset base 7 835 8 055 15 890 6 396 6 888

Proportion of financing through equity (in %) 35% 38% 37% 38% 21%

RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

RoE (in value) 202 222 424 177 105

Net ANSP gain(+)/loss(-) for the terminal charging zone 0 216 216 48 -122

Ex-post regulatory result (+/-) for the terminal charging zone 202 438 641 225 -17

Revenue for the terminal charging zone 2 263 2 352 4 615 2 486 2 815

Ex-post regulatory result (+/-) in percent of revenues 8.9% 18.6% 13.9% 9.0% -0.6%

Ex-post RoE pre-tax rate (in %) 7.3% 14.4% 11.0% 9.3% -1.2%

13. Focus on main ANSP regulatory result on terminal activity

The Regulatory Result (RR) corresponds to the revenues generated by the activities of the year, that exceed the direct and indirect operating costs of an ANSP, and so provide

for a reasonable return on assets to contribute towards necessary capital improvements. The notion of RR focuses on the ANSP results entitled to the ANS activity in the year. It

is therefore different from the net accounting profit disclosed in ANSPs financial statements. Also, it does not take into account any opportunity cost.

The RR, when expressed in percentage of the revenues, can be associated to a “margin” generated by the ANSP with respect to the activity of the year, but it is not comparable to

the margin that would be calculated straight from ANSPs financial statements.

- Ex-ante, the RR is equal to the RoE (in value) included in the determined cost of capital.

- Ex-post, the RR is the sum of the RoE (in value) in the actual cost of capital and the net gain/loss resulting from risk sharing and incentives generated from that year.

The net gain/loss calculated in box 11 results from the combination of three distinct items: a) the outcome of the cost-sharing mechanism to be retained by the ANSP (including

the impact of costs exempted from cost-sharing and of the inflation adjustment); b) the outcome of the traffic risk sharing mechanism; and c) the outcome of the financial incentive

mechanism for capacity and environment targets.

The monitoring of the RR is carried out in national currency in nominal terms.

EANS net gain on activity in the Estonia terminal charging zone in the year 2023

EANS reported a net loss of -0.1 M€, as a combination of a loss of -0.05 M€ arising from the cost sharing mechanism, with a loss of -0.1 M€ arising from the traffic risk sharing

mechanism.

EANS overall regulatory results (RR) for the terminal activity

Ex-post, the overall RR taking into account the net loss from the terminal activity mentioned above (-0.1 M€) and the actual RoE (+0.1 M€) amounts to -0.02 M€ (-0.6% of the

terminal revenues). The resulting ex-post rate of return on equity is negative (-1.2%).

-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Net ANSP gain/loss

Incentives

Traffic risk sharing

Cost sharing

Net gain/loss for 2023 M€

ANSP loss ANSP gain

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

E x -a

n te

E x -p

o s t

2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

M €

Terminal main ANSP regulatory result in percent of revenues

Ex-post RR (in value)

Ex-ante RR (in value)

RR in percent of terminal revenues

ESTONIA: Gate-to-gate Monitoring of gate-to-gate COST-EFFICIENCY for 2023

1. Monitoring of gate-to-gate ANS costs

Charging zones concerned:

En route charging zone 1: Estonia

Terminal charging zone 1: Estonia

Estonia: data from RP3 performance plan 2020D 2021D 2020-2021D 2022D 2023D 2024D

Real en route costs (€2017) 26 132 098 25 829 816 51 961 914 25 297 780 26 447 397 27 337 166

Real terminal costs (€2017) 2 496 661 2 422 118 4 918 779 2 254 405 2 355 293 2 438 319

Real gate-to-gate costs (€2017) 28 628 758 28 251 934 56 880 693 27 552 184 28 802 690 29 775 486

En route share (%) 91.3% 91.4% 91.4% 91.8% 91.8% 91.8%

Estonia: actual data from reporting tables 2020A 2021A 2020-2021A 2022A 2023A 2024A

Real en route costs (€2017) 26 132 099 25 148 805 51 280 904 22 396 739 21 725 843

Real terminal costs (€2017) 2 496 661 2 323 789 4 820 450 2 393 352 2 697 694

Real gate-to-gate costs (€2017) 28 628 760 27 472 594 56 101 354 24 790 091 24 423 537

En route share (%) 91.3% 91.5% 91.4% 90.3% 89.0%

Difference between actuals and planned (actuals vs. PP) 2020 2021 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

Real gate-to-gate costs (€2017) in value 1 -779 340 -779 339 -2 762 093 -4 379 153

in % 0.0% -2.8% -1.4% -10.0% -15.2%

En route share in p.p. 0.0 p.p. 0.1 p.p. 0.1 p.p. -1.5 p.p. -2.9 p.p.

2. Share of en route and terminal in gate-to-gate actual costs (2023)

3. Gate-to-gate regulatory result (RR) 2023

In € '000 Ex-ante Ex-post

ANSP(S) RR Revenues RR % revenues RR Revenues RR % revenues

EANS 1 585 23 980 6.6% 5 153 26 629 19.4%

METSP(s) RR Revenues RR % revenues RR Revenues RR % revenues

Total 1 585 23 980 6.6% 5 153 26 629 19.4%

In 2023, actual gate-to-gate ANS costs are -15.2% (-4.4 M€2017) lower than

planned, as en route costs are lower than planned by -4.7 M€2017 and terminal

costs are higher than planned by +0.3 M€2017.

The actual share of en route in gate-to-gate ANS costs (89%) is lower than

planned in the PP for 2023 (91.8%).

For the ANSPs providing services in the en route and terminal charging zones of Estonia

covered by the SES performance scheme, the ex-post gate-to-gate regulatory result in 2023

amounts to +5.2 M€ (+5.2 M€ for en route and -0.02 M€ for terminal - see boxes 10 to 14 for the

detailed analysis at charging zone level), corresponding to 19.4% of gate-to-gate ANS revenues.

This is higher than the return planned for the year (6.6% of gate-to-gate revenues).

9 1 %

9 1 %

9 1 %

9 2 %

9 1 %

9 1 %

9 2 %

9 0 %

9 2 %

8 9 %

9 2 %

9 %

9 %

9 %

8 %

9 %

9 %

8 %

1 0 %

8 %

1 1 %

8 %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

D e

te rm

in e d

A c tu

a l

2020 2021 2020-2021 2022 2023 2024

6.6%

19.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Ex-ante Ex-post

Estonia gate-to-gate 2023 regulatory result in % of revenues

En route Terminal

4 Cost-efficiency monitoring at State level: Reader’s Guide

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The objective of this section is to facilitate the understanding of the cost-efficiency analysis at State level presented in Annex II to the annual monitoring report.

4.1.2 The source of the data used for the cost-efficiency monitoring are the June 2024 en route and terminal Reporting Tables provided by the States for each charging zone (CZ). These have been complemented by the updates of ANSPs costs exempted provided in the NSA reports on the verification of cost risk sharing for the year 2023 due to be submitted by 1 September 2024.

4.1.3 The analysis is structured into three main parts: en route charging zone(s), terminal charging zone(s) and gate-to-gate ANS cost-efficiency monitoring for all the charging zones covered by the SES performance scheme under the responsibility of the State. Common templates and analytical frameworks are used for both en route and terminal ANS, and for the States having several en route (Spain) or terminal (Italy, France and Poland) charging zones, the framework is replicated for each charging zone.

4.1.4 Graphs, tables and comments are displayed into “boxes”, with each box focusing on a particular aspect of the monitoring analysis. Section 4.2 below provides explanations of the content of each box constituting the en route and the terminal analysis. Section 4.3 presents the content of the gate-to-gate analysis.

4.2 En route and terminal ANS analysis

1. Contextual economic information

Box 1 presents information on: - The State’s share in SES ANS actual costs in 2023; - The national currency and the exchange rates against the € (source: Average of the daily "Closing Rates" calculated by Reuters based on daily BID rates) for the years:

2017: used for the conversion in real €2017; 2023: used for the conversion of 2023 costs and adjustments into €;

- The date of issue of the performance plan and whether or not it was found consistent with the references of the relevant EC decision. Information on the adoption and submission of final performance plans or revised performance plans where applicable. - For Terminal Charging Zones, box 1 also indicates the number of airports in the TCZ (with a classification per number of air transport movements).

2. Monitoring of the en route (or terminal) determined unit costs (DUC) at charging zone level

Box 2 contains standard text identical for all States, explaining the notions of determined unit costs (DUC) and actual unit cost (AUC).

3. En route (or terminal) actual unit cost (AUC) vs en route (or terminal) determined unit cost (DUC)

Box 3 identifies whether the AUC is lower (improvement of the performance indicator) or higher (deterioration of the performance indicator) than the DUC target set in the Performance Plan (PP), and what were the drivers for the improvement or deterioration (costs, traffic). It provides transparency on the different steps required to undertake the monitoring of the DUC, for the calendar year 2023, showing: • The planned performance (based on RP3 PP data); • The actual performance (based on the June 2024 Reporting Tables for all RP3 years); • And the differences between actual and planned performance. To ensure consistency with the determined costs data provided in the adopted PP, actual costs are expressed in 2017 prices. Planned and actual inflation indices are also shown in box 3.

4. Focus on en route (or terminal) DUC monitoring at charging zone level

Box 4 contains graphical summaries (right-hand side) of the differences in traffic (service units), costs by entity, and costs by nature for the main ANSP as well as comments (left-hand side) on the situation observed for the calendar year 2023. The comments provide an analysis and general conclusions on the 2023 DUC at State/Charging zone level, including: • Comparison between the AUC and the DUC; • Comparison of actual costs and traffic to the costs and traffic in the PP; • Comments on the application of the traffic risk sharing mechanism in the State; • Comments on which entity is driving the difference between actual and planned costs, and on which drivers for the main ANSP. For the purpose of analysing the differences between determined and actual costs, as presented in box 4, all cost items are expressed in real 2017 terms on the basis of the inflation index computed using the planned/actual inflation rates provided by States in the en route and terminal reporting tables. Specifically, as provided by article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2019/317, costs incurred by competent authorities, qualified entities and EUROCONTROL costs are not corrected for inflation. Similarly, for all the ANSPs and METSPs, depreciation costs and the cost of capital are not corrected for inflation.

5. Monitoring of the en route (or terminal) actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level

Box 5 contains standard text identical for all States, explaining the notion of actual unit cost for users (AUCU).

6. En route (or terminal) actual unit cost for users (AUCU) at charging zone level

Box 6 shows all the adjustments required to calculate the AUCU for the calendar year 2023, starting from the DUC (in national currency in nominal terms). This reflects the unit cost that airspace users genuinely incur in respect of the activities performed in 2023. The bar on the left-hand side of the chart presents the 2023 DUC and each bar moving to the right shows the contribution (in nominal terms) of each adjustment to reach the 2023 AUCU (the last bar on right-hand side of the chart). The detailed figures, both in national currency and in € are given in the table on the right-hand side. The rationale for the different adjustments, and the methodology used for their conversion into € is provided below:

• Inflation adjustment: to reflect the impact of higher/lower inflation index in 2023 which will be charged/reimbursed to airspace users in year 2025;

• Costs reported by the State as being exempted from cost-sharing in accordance with Art. 28(3) to 28(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/317 (i.e. costs exempt from cost-sharing): to reflect the elements of the cost sharing mechanism, where differences between determined costs included in the performance plan and actual costs for 2023 are shared between air navigation service providers and airspace users, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 (EU) 2019/317 and will be charged/reimbursed to airspace users in future years’ unit rates.

• Traffic risk sharing adjustment: to reflect the gain/loss in revenues due to higher/lower traffic than planned in 2023, which will be reimbursed/charged to airspace users in 2025.

• Traffic adjustment (for costs not subject to traffic risk sharing): reflects the fact that, for the costs not subject to traffic risk sharing, over/under recoveries due to higher/lower traffic than planned in 2023 will be fully reimbursed/charged to airspace users in 2025.

• Traffic adjustment on adjustments: Left blank. The traffic adjustment on adjustments for 2023 relates to adjustments that have already been taken into account in full in the AUCU for the current year (i.e. other revenues or cross-financing between charging zones that relate to years 2023) or previous years (i.e. adjustments from the combined year 2020-2021 or from 2022). As a result, the traffic adjustment on adjustments is not considered, in order to avoid double counting.

• Financial incentives: to reflect the adjustment relating to achievement (or failure to achieve) capacity performance targets in 2023 that will be fully reimbursed/charged to airspace users in 2025 in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/317 (under review by the European Commission);

• Modulation of charges: to reflect the adjustment relating to 2023 that will be fully reimbursed/charged to airspace users in 2025 to ensure that the modulation of charges in respect of points (a) to (c) of Article 32 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/317 does not result in any overall change in annual revenue for the ANSP compared to the situation where charges would not have been modulated.

• Temporary UR: Left blank. The difference in revenue due to the application of the temporary unit rates in the reporting year is already reflected in the DUC presented (DUC to be charged retroactively) and is therefore not

considered in the total adjustments, in order to avoid double counting.

• Cross-financing: to reflect the amounts of cross-financing between en route charging zones, or between terminal charging zones, in accordance with point (e) of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;

• Other revenues: to reflect the deduction of “other revenues” obtained in 2023.

• Application of a lower unit rate: to reflect the actual reduction per service units given to airspace users through the application of a lower unit rate as foreseen in Art. 29(6) of (EU) 2019/317.

For the calculation of the AUCU in box 6, all cost categories listed above are divided by the actual TSUs for the calendar year 2023.

7. En route (or terminal) costs exempt from cost sharing

Box 7 contains a table presenting the costs reported by the State as being exempted from cost-sharing (Differences between determined and actual costs referred to in (EU) 2019/317 Art. 28(4) to 28(6)). Costs are listed by item (in nominal national currency, in nominal €, as well per actual service unit in nominal national currency and in nominal €). The total costs exempted from cost-sharing are summed at the bottom of the table. If the total is negative, the costs are to be reimbursed to airspace users in future years; if costs are positive, they are to be recovered from airspace users. These data are taken from the June 2024 en route and terminal Reporting Tables (for Eurocontrol costs and costs of competent authorities and qualified entities) and from the “NSA Report on the verification of cost risk sharing for the year 2023” submitted in accordance with Article 28 (7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/317 (for ANSPs costs). It is to be noted that these amounts may still be updated in the context of the compliance review process in line with Art. 29(3) of (EU) 2019/317.

8. En route (or terminal) regulatory result at charging zone level

Box 8 presents the share of the regulatory result (RR) in the AUCU at charging zone level. For this, the AUCU is considered before the deduction of the other revenues (financing from other sources) in order to show a fair view of the share and to be consistent with the computation of the RR itself (described in boxes 10 to 14). The RR is shown separately for each ANSP/METSP, in nominal national currency, in nominal €, as well per actual service unit in nominal national currency and in nominal €. For the NSAs and Eurocontrol costs, it is considered that there is no RR since the amounts charged in fine to users are their actual costs, through the cost-exempt and traffic adjustment mechanisms. The RR in percentage of the AUCU corresponds to the total RR for the charging zone divided by the AUCU before the deduction of the other revenues. It indicates the share of “margin” contained in the charges paid in fine by the airspace users.

9. Focus on en route (or terminal) AUCU monitoring at charging zone level

Box 9 summarises the conclusions on the AUCU for the calendar year 2023, its components and comparison with the DUC. It also refers to the share of the regulatory result in the AUCU.

10. Monitoring of the en route (or terminal) regulatory results (RR)

Box 10 contains standard text identical for all States, explaining the notion of regulatory result (RR), including the net gain/loss.

11. Net gain/loss for the main ANSP for the en route (or terminal) activity at charging zone level

Box 11 focuses on the main ANSP net gain/loss on ANS activities for the calendar year 2023. A graphical illustration of this analysis is also shown on the left-hand side of box 13. The main ANSP is the most significant contributor to the State’s costs and the only (or main) entity subject to costs and traffic risk sharing mechanisms foreseen by the performance and charging regulation ((EU) 2019/317). The net gain/loss calculated in the bottom line of box 11 results from the combination of three distinct items:

1. The outcome of the cost-sharing mechanism to be retained by the ANSP, including:

- the difference between determined and actual costs to be retained/borne by the ANSP;

- the impact of the inflation adjustment to be charged/reimbursed to airspace users;

- the impact of the costs exempt from cost-sharing that are foreseen to be recovered from or reimbursed to users (as per the “NSA Report on the verification of cost-sharing for the calendar year 2023” submitted in accordance with Article 28 (7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/317).

2. The outcome of the traffic risk sharing mechanism. For this, the following elements are taken into account:

- The difference in total service units (actual vs. PP) in percentage terms.

- The determined costs subject to traffic risk-sharing of the main ATSP for the calendar year 2023.

- The features of traffic risk sharing mechanism (standard as applied by all Member States): if actual traffic is ±2% compared to the PP, the gain/loss in revenues is borne entirely by the ANSP; between 2% and 10% (higher or lower) than the PP, it is shared between the ANSP (30%) and airspace users (70%); and if the difference between actual and planned traffic exceeds ±10%, the gain/loss relating to traffic beyond ±10% is entirely borne by the airspace users and has therefore no impact on the ANSP gain/loss from traffic risk sharing.

3. The outcome of the financial incentive mechanism for capacity and environment performance targets (under review by the European Commission).

The computation of the net gain/loss is presented in nominal national currency. The total net gain/loss is also presented in nominal € on the basis of the 2023 average exchange rate.

12. Regulatory result (RR) for the main ANSP at charging zone level

Box 12 presents the computation of the regulatory result (RR) for the main ANSP for the calendar year 2023. It is important to emphasise that this analysis focuses on the ANSP results relating to the ANS activity in the year. It is therefore different from the net accounting profit disclosed in ANSPs financial statements. Indeed, the latter include revenues from other activities (e.g. consultancy services) which are not covered by the SES performance and charging scheme, as well as revenues and costs pertaining to other years of activity. The RR combines two elements:

• The return on equity (RoE) in value embedded in the cost of capital; and

• The main ANSP net gain/loss on ANS activities (see box 11). Box 12 is structured in two parts.

• A first table presents the computation of the ex-ante RR for the charging zone, consisting in the RoE in value included in the determined cost of capital for the main ANSP from the RP3 PP. For an ANSP which is 100% financed through debt, the ex-ante RR will be null, while for an ANSP which 100% financed through equity, the entire cost of capital will be considered as the ex-ante RR.

• The second table shows the computation of the ex-post RR, comprising the RoE in value included in the actual cost of capital for the main ANSP from the RP3 PP and the net gain/loss on ANS activity, as presented in box 11.

• In both tables, indicators are calculated:

- The RR in percent of en route revenues;

- And the resulting ex-ante (determined) or ex-post (actual) return on equity (in %). The elements taken into account to calculate the RoE in value:

- The total asset base, as reported in the PP and the June 2024 Reporting Tables.

- The proportion of financing through equity (in %), as reported in the PP and the June 2024 Reporting Tables. - The RoE (pre-tax) rate in %, as reported in the PP and in the June 2024 Reporting Tables (with the actual RoE %

expected to match the determined RoE % from the PP).

The actual RoE in value is then calculated as the actual (=determined) RoE (pre-tax) rate multiplied by equity (total actual asset base x proportion of financing through equity). The elements taken into account to calculate the net gain/loss on ANS activities are presented in box 11.

For the ANSPs having no equity, the ex-ante and ex-post return on equity cannot be calculated and is indicated as N/A, not applicable.

It is important to note that the computation of the RR does not take into account the use that will be made of it in the sense that some ANSPs reimburse to airspace users all or part of their RR through commercial other revenues, or through the application of a lower unit rate as per Art. 29(6) of (EU) 2019/317. When such case has been identified, it is highlighted in a note in the table.

13. Focus on the main ANSP regulatory result on en route (or terminal) activity

Box 13 provides:

• On the left-hand side, a graphical summary of the ANSP net gain/loss for the calendar year 2023 arising from variations in costs, traffic, and incentives (see box 11).

• On the right-hand side, a bar chart comparing the ex-ante and ex-post RR, both in value (in national currency) and in % of the en route revenue (see box 12).

The notion of revenue used in boxes 12 to 14 corresponds to the revenue arising from the activity in the year, ex-ante it corresponds to the determined costs of the ANSP and ex-post to the sum of the actual costs and the net gain/loss for the ANSP. Box 13 also provides conclusions on the net gain/loss of the main ANSP for the calendar year 2023 and the overall regulatory result for the ANSP in the charging zone.

14. Other ANSP(s) / METSP(s) regulatory result on en route (or terminal) activity

Box 14 presents the ex-ante and ex-post regulatory results for the other ANSPs/METSPs providing services in the charging zone, if any. The computation of these results is made in accordance with the same methodology described for the main ANSP in boxes 10 to 13. Box 14 also provides conclusions on the net gain/loss of the other ANSPs/METSPs for the calendar year 2023 and the overall regulatory result for the other ANSPs/METSPs in the charging zone.

4.3 Gate-to-gate ANS analysis

1. Monitoring of gate-to-gate ANS costs

The monitoring at gate-to-gate level takes account of all the charging zones covered by the SES under the responsibility of the Member State. Box 1 presents the list of the charging zones concerned. Since, they have a common en route charging zone, Belgium and Luxembourg are presented together in this section. Box 1 presents an aggregation of en route and terminal costs (in €2017) as well as the share of en route costs in total gate-to-gate costs. It also shows the difference between actual and planned data measured at gate-to-gate level (in €2017 and in %).

2. Share of en route and terminal in gate-to-gate actual costs (2023)

The left-hand side of box 2 shows a graphical presentation of the planned and actual split of gate-to-gate costs between en route and terminal. It helps identify possible changes in cost-allocation methodology. Comments and conclusions are provided on the right-hand side of box 2.

3. Gate-to-gate regulatory result (RR) 2023

Box 3 presents the gate-to-gate regulatory result (RR) covering all the charging zones covered by the SES under the responsibility of the Member States. The ex-ante and ex-post RRs in percentage of the revenues for the ANSPs/METSPS of the State are shown in the graph at the bottom on the right-hand side. The RR is then shown separately for each ANSP/METSP, in nominal national currency, as well as in percentage of their revenues. Comments and conclusions are provided at the bottom on the left-hand side of box 3.