Summary:
ANAC approves a 2.97% increase in regulated fees at Lisbon Airport.
No increase for CO2 modulation, PMR fees, or security fees.
Average fee increases of 0.09% in the Azores and 0.47% in Madeira.
Porto and Faro airports to see reductions of 0.89% and 0.37% respectively.
ANAC withheld decisions on PMR and Security fees due to lack of clarity.
The National Civil Aviation Authority (ANAC) has recently approved a tariff proposal for the Lisbon airport group, announcing an average increase of approximately 2.97% in regulated fees for Lisbon. This decision was disclosed in a statement on Friday.
Key Exceptions
The increase does not apply to:
- CO2 modulation in landing fees
- Landing fees in Ponta Delgada
- Fees for passengers with reduced mobility (PMR) and their respective modulation
- Security fees
Additionally, the passenger service fees were not provisionally approved.
Other Airports Affected
The ANAC has also sanctioned tariff proposals for the Porto and Faro airports, with the same exceptions concerning CO2 modulation and PMR fees.
At Lisbon Airport, the regulated fees will see an average increase of 2.97%.
In the Azores (Ponta Delgada, Santa Maria, Horta, and Flores), the regulated fees will rise by an average of 0.09%, while in Madeira (Madeira and Porto Santo), the increase is set at 0.47%.
The Civil Terminal of Beja will experience an average increase of 1.13% in regulated fees.
Reductions at Porto and Faro
For the Porto and Faro airports, the proposal indicates an average reduction of 0.89% and 0.37% in their respective regulated fees.
Ongoing Considerations
The ANAC's board decided not to provisionally approve the PMR fee modulation due to insufficient conditions for the proposed methodology and calculation of the weighted average cost of capital presented by ANA.
Concerning the proposed Security fee, the regulator has withheld a decision as some cost increases presented by ANA require further clarification from the concessionaire.
The ANAC also rejected the proposed CO2 modulation in landing fees, citing that the information provided during the tariff consultation process did not ensure adherence to transparency principles.
Comments
Join Our Community
Create an account to share your thoughts, engage with others, and be part of our growing community.