Aéroports de Paris Aktie

Welcome to Groupe ADP 2026 Half Year Results Presentation. [Operator Instructions]

Now I will hand the conference over to Cecile Combeau, Head of Investor Relations, to begin today's conference. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our 2026 half year results presentation. I'm here with the management team, Philippe Pascal, Chairman and CEO; Justine Coutard, Deputy CEO; and Christelle de Robillard, Group CFO.

Philippe and Christelle will first go through prepared remarks on H1 and on our Economic Regulation Agreement project before we open the line for a Q&A session.

Before we begin, I would like to remind you, as usual, that today's discussion may include forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. For more details, please refer to the disclaimer included in our press release and on the last slide of our presentation.

And I will now hand over to our Chairman and CEO, Philippe Pascal.

Thank you, Cecile, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us to discuss our 2026 half year results and progress on our Economic Regulation Agreement project.

Let me first start with the key message for the first half on Slide 3. The first half reflects two realities. First, the operating environment became progressively more challenging. While the direct impact of the Middle East conflict has gradually faded since April, its indirect consequences have spread more broadly, affecting traffic growth and airline behavior, and ultimately, demand trends. Second, the group demonstrated resilience. We reacted quickly by implementing targeted cost and efficiency measure, expected to deliver EUR 40 million to EUR 60 million of savings. This action will help protect margin while preserving our strategic investment and our quality of service.

At the same time, we continue to deliver on our industrial roadmap and strategic priorities. We completed the partial monetization of GMR Airports, crystallizing EUR 257 million of value, while continuing to prepare the group's next strategic plan. We also reached an important milestone on the future economic regulation framework, which will provide greater visibility for the 2027 to 2034 period. I will come back to this important topic in the last part of this presentation. As a result, while we are revising our traffic and EBITDA guidance to reflect the current environment, we remain confident in the strength of our business model and in our ability to deliver long-term value creation.

Slide 4 shows that despite this challenging environment, we delivered key investment. In Paris-Charles de Gaulle, we commissioned a new baggage handling system at Terminal 2. In India, GMR added two airports to its portfolio. In the U.S., PS opened two new premium terminals. These achievements illustrate our continued focus on operational efficiency, growth and customer experience.

Turning now to our first half result on Slide 5. Revenue increased by 1.6%, while recurring EBITDA remains above EUR 1 billion, and attributable net income reached EUR 312 million, supported by the partial monetization of GMR Airports. These numbers show that despite a significantly more challenging environment, we delivered resilient results through decisive action to protect profitability and continue to execute our strategic priorities.

Christelle will now take you through the details of this result.

Thank you, Philippe. I'm turning now to Paris traffic on Slide 7. Traffic grew by 0.5% in the first half. The direct impact of the Middle East conflict peaked in March and has since progressively faded. However, this improvement has been offset by softer demand across other international destinations, particularly long-haul. Combined with higher fuel costs, higher ticket prices and more cautious selling capacity deployment, this led us to adopt a more prudent view for the second half. This is the rationale behind our revised full-year traffic outlook of around 0.5% growth.

Looking now at our international assets. Traffic remained broadly resilient across the portfolio, although performance varied by geography, reflecting both different exposure of each asset to the current geopolitical environment and specific operational headwinds. At TAV Airports, traffic grew 1.2% in the first half. GMR traffic grew by 0.6%, while AIG was more significantly impacted by the Middle East conflict, with traffic down 15%.

Turning to our commercial performance on Slide 9. Extime Paris spend per pax stood at EUR 31 in H1, reflecting resilience despite a still softer luxury environment, the adverse currency effect from stronger euro in Q1 and the impact of works in Terminal 2E-K. Encouragingly, SPP remained broadly stable year-on-year in the second quarter, as the adverse FX impact that weighed on SPP in Q1 eased materially in Q2.

Turning now to revenue, Slide 10. Group revenue increased by 1.6% to EUR 3.2 billion, demonstrating the resilience of our diversified business model. In Paris, aviation revenues continue to benefit from tariff increases in the first quarter as well as traffic growth, which remained slightly positive in the first half. Retail and services proved broadly resilient despite the more difficult environment. In international assets, strong revenue growth at TAV Airports more than offset the impact of the conflict in Jordan on AIG. Overall, the diversity of our activities enabled us to continue growing revenue despite the challenging environment.

Turning now to EBITDA, Slide 11. Recurring EBITDA stood at just above EUR 1 billion and down only 1% year-on-year. We maintain tight cost discipline while continuing to invest in the business and absorb inflationary pressures across the group. In addition, the majority of the benefits from our cost-saving measures are expected in the second half.

Moving on to Slide 12. Net income reached EUR 312 million, more than 3x last year's level. This strong increase was primarily driven by the EUR 257 million gain generated by the partial monetization of GMR Airports, together with a more favorable financial result than in the first half of 2025, which was impacted by non-cash negative one-offs, as you will all recall. The key takeaway is that we continue to generate value, both through the resilience of our operations and through active portfolio management.

On Slide 13, net debt is totaling EUR 9.1 billion at the end of June, corresponding to a leverage ratio of 3.9x recurring EBITDA. Our financial position is robust. At the end of June, our net debt position reflects continued investment in the business, the annual dividend payment for EUR 3.8 per share as well as the noncash accounting impact of GMR-related options, which partially offset the cash proceeds from the transaction.

Let me now come back briefly on the partial disposal of our stake in GMR Airports on Slide 14 to emphasize one point that might have been overlooked by the market. This transaction is not only about crystallizing value from GMR, it is also a significant deleveraging transaction. Compared with our net debt at the end of 2025, once all three components of the transaction are completed, and all else being equal, net debt would be reduced by more than EUR 1.3 billion and leverage would improve from 3.7x to 3.1x EBITDA. At the same time, we preserve our strategic relationship with GMR and maintain significant economic exposure to India long-term growth potential.

In other words, we are at the same time crystallizing value, reinforcing the balance sheet, and retaining access to one of the most attractive aviation growth markets in the world. That combination is what makes this transaction particularly compelling for ADP shareholders.

Let's now turn to our 2026 outlook. As discussed throughout the presentation, we are operating in a more challenging environment. Slide 16 illustrates how we are responding to it. We have deployed targeted cost-saving measures across the group, focusing on discretionary spending, outsourced services, hiring discipline and expenditure prioritization. These actions are expected to deliver between EUR 40 and EUR 60 million of savings in 2026, with most of the benefits materializing in H2. Importantly, we are protecting profitability without cutting strategic investment or weakening quality of service. In many respects, these actions are also accelerating the efficiency journey embedded in our future economic regulation framework.

Let me conclude with our updated outlook on Slide 17. With a prolonged Middle East conflict, our assumption now reflects a more cautious traffic scenario for the second half. We now expect Paris traffic growth of around 0.5%, Extime spend per passenger broadly stable at EUR 32 and recurring EBITDA in the range of EUR 2.3 billion to EUR 2.35 billion, including EUR 40 million to EUR 60 million of saving measures. At the same time, we are maintaining our investment program broadly unchanged at around EUR 1.45 billion of CapEx at group level. We continue to target a disciplined balance sheet with net debt expected at around 3.8x recurring EBITDA. All in all, the key message is simple. We navigate the current environment with discipline to protect profitability in the short term without compromising our long-term growth.

And with that, let me hand back to Philippe, who will provide an important update about the Economic Regulation Agreement.

Thank you, Christelle. Let me now turn to the Economic Regulation Agreement, starting with Slide 18. We have reached an agreement with the French state on the parameters and provision of the future economic regulation agreement. This is a decisive milestone. This updated project addresses the main issue raised by the regulator and reflects the key recommendation for the April non-binding opinion, and it provides the visibility needed to move forward with the final phase of the process launch in December.

It is a result of several months of negotiation with the French civil aviation, a continued dialogue with airline and extensive technical works with the regulator. In all, while a few regulatory steps remains ahead of us, including the airlines' formal consultation and the ART binding opinion, we now have a clear and credible path towards implementation on January 1, '27.

This agreement reiterates the key fundamentals of the project presented in December. First, it confirms an ambition investment program aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of Paris Airport, improving operational efficiency, reinforcing quality of service and accelerating decarbonization. Second, it ensures a balanced economic framework combining tariff moderation for airlines and a fair return on invested capital. Since the proposal we issued last December, we took into account the recommendation of the regulator.

We listened carefully to airlines and engaged in extensive negotiation with the civil aviation. As a result, we confirm a program of EUR 8.2 billion regulated investment over an unchanged 8-year duration, supported by strong productivity commitment of around EUR 650 million annual savings accumulated over the duration of the contract, and a balanced tariff trajectory capped at CPI plus 2.1 percentage points on average.

The revised framework also relies on updated traffic assumption, updated allocation key that better reflects infrastructure use and redesigned risk-sharing adjustment factors. This change directly address regulatory recommendation and airline concerns, and we believe the contract now provide a robust basis of ART review. Ultimately, the parameters agree with the French state support the convergence of the regulated ROCE with the regulated WACC at 5.8% on average over the duration of the agreement. One important outlook today is the confirmation of the eight years duration of the agreement.

I am now on slide 21. This is critical because the transformation of Paris Airport require long-term visibility and a stable framework to deliver an unprecedented investment program. The agreement therefore confirms the planning horizon on which our industrial roadmap is built, and it also established the necessary safeguards associated with such long-term commitment, including a midterm review mechanism and revision clause. The result is a framework that provide both the visibility needed to invest and the flexibility required to manage long-term uncertainty.

Let me now turn to the weighted average cost of capital for the regulatory scope, which is the central component of the agreement. As required by law, the framework must ensure fair remuneration of the capital invested within the regulatory perimeter. Consistent with the principle, our objective remains for the expected regulated ROCE to converge on average over the duration of the contract with the regulated WACC. Importantly, the level of WACC retained in our proposal is fully consistent with the ART methodology. Based on the latest market parameter and applying the regulator's own approach, the result is an updated range of 5.1% to 5.9%, with our proposal set at 5.8% in the upper part of the range.

We believe this positioning is consistent with the framework as set out by the ART in its opinion published last April, the economic regulation agreement last eight years and compare with the initial proposal issued in December, the revised framework increase our exposure to a number of operational risks while maintaining protection against exogenous risk. Therefore, we believe that a regulated WACC of 5.8% appropriately reflects the duration and risk profile of the contract fully in line with the ART methodology.

I will now hand over to Christelle regarding the other parameter of this agreement.

Thank you, Philippe. Another important evolution compared with the December proposal is the allocation keys used to split cost and assets between the regulated and non-regulated businesses. This was a key issue identified by the regulator. We introduce two main changes. First, a wider recognition of mixed use areas within terminals; and second, a more granular allocation of transfer passenger infrastructure based on actual usage. The result is a transfer of around EUR 50 million of OpEx and EUR 64 million of regulated assets out of the regulated perimeter.

ART had estimated an allocation bias of around EUR 50 million to EUR 100 million of OpEx in its April opinion. Therefore, the adjustment is very much in line with the regulator's assessment and addresses one of its main expectations.

Turning now to OpEx discipline. Our project relies on an efficiency plan with aim to deliver around EUR 140 million of annual cost savings by 2034. This represents around EUR 650 million of cumulative savings over 8 years. Despite higher business-as-usual cost trajectory compared with the December proposal, and this is driven by the slightly heightened traffic growth rate, regulated OpEx are expected to remain broadly unchanged by 2034. The main savings levers remain unchanged, better procurement, more efficient operations and maintenance, improved support functions and continued control of staff costs. All those initiatives will allow us to contain regulated OpEx growth at around CPI plus 1.3 points.

Let's now move to traffic. We included a few adjustments to our assumptions. First, a lower starting point. Our revised 2026 outlook mechanically adds around 0.2 points to the average growth rate over the period. And second, we have also refined our assumption regarding the impact of subdeployment and other price-related regulatory effects on demand, and we are expecting a more limited effect compared to our initial assumptions. As a result, we now expect average traffic growth of 1.9% per year between 2026 and 2034.

Moving on to our industrial project. Since December, we have refined project cost estimates, completed additional technical studies, incorporated feedback from procurement consultation and airlines and finalized a number of choices regarding the design of some projects. As a result, we confirm EUR 8.2 billion regulated investment with the main project maintained, reflecting our unchanged ambition to improve operational efficiency of our platform, enhance quality of service, and reinforce competitiveness of both airlines at the Paris hub.

Let me now turn to the airport charges trajectory. The revised tariff path remains concluded, with CPI plus 4 points in the first 2 years, followed by CPI plus 1.5 points for the rest of the agreement. This trajectory supports the convergence between regulated ROCE and regulated WACC on average over the 8-year period. I would also like to remind you that the signing of the ERA will validate at the same time the 2027 tariffs, implying an increase of CPI plus 4 points from April 1, 2027. Overall, the agreements provide for a moderate tariff increase capped at CPI plus 2.1 percentage points on average, while preserving the competitiveness of Paris Airport tariffs relative to European peers.

The next slide illustrates the expected convergence between regulated ROCE and regulated WACC at 5.8% on average over the life of the ERA. This trajectory is not based on ADP assumption alone. The underlying business plan has been exhaustively challenged by both the state and the regulator, including traffic, investment, and execution assumptions. The resulting economic balance has been calibrated to deliver this convergence, while adjustment mechanisms help preserve it over time. As can be seen on the graph, we expect convergence from the very beginning of the contract. This is supported by the front-loaded tariff trajectory with the 2027 tariff validated upon signature of the ERA. Overall, we believe this is a robust and credible path towards a fair remuneration on invested capital.

Let me finish with the adjustment factors that help secure the long-term economic balance of the contract. Following IFC recommendation, the revised framework is simple. ADP bears more of the risk it can influence or manage through its operation, traffic, operational performance and project delivery, while remaining protected against major external risks, particularly fiscal risks. These mechanisms help preserve the contract's economic balance and support the fair remuneration of invested capital over time. Together with the review clause, they provide the flexibility and protection needed for an 8-year agreement.

With that, I will hand back to Philippe for the conclusion.

Thank you, Christelle. So today's agreement represent a major milestone in the economic regulation agreement process. There are 3 reasons why we believe uncertainty around this process has been significantly reduced. First, a revised contract address the key concerns raised during the review of our initial proposal, and we now see a credible path towards the signature of contract before year-end. Second, the initial project and its economic fundamentals have been confirmed. Third, the contract provide a credible path towards convergence between regulated ROCE and regulated WACC at 5.8% on average over the 8 years period, fully consistent with the methodology of the French ART.

More broadly, this agreement supports the most ambitious investment program ever undertaken at the Paris Airport, with EUR 8.2 billion of regulated investment over 8 years. Just as importantly for investors, it preserves the group's strategic flexibility with a confirmed capacity to invest in future non-regulated growth opportunity remain, maintain our dividend policy of 60% payout ratio with a flow of EUR 3 per share, and preserve our current credit profile.

Looking ahead, the next steps are well-identified. Consultation of airlines in September, ART binding opinion later in the year and our unchanged objective of implementing the economic regulation agreement on January 1, 2027. We therefore approach the next phases of the process with confidence.

With that, let us open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

Thank you very much for taking my questions. Both of them are on the economic proposal. The first one, a few months back, ART suggested that in order for the WACC to be at the higher end of the range, they would like to see more risk taken by ADP. I think in Slide 30, you bring a few references to the changes to the adjustment factor that you've made versus your first proposal. Could you elaborate on these changes? What gives you confidence that the changes you made, on the risk adjustment factors, are sufficient to allow a WACC at the higher end of the range?

Secondly, from a scenario perspective, could you tell us what's the tariff, the CPI plus 2% tariff sensitivity for a 50 basis points lower WACC than in your base case? Just for us to visualize, if by any chance the WACC ends up being a bit lower, what does it actually mean for the tariff you proposed today?

Thank you for this question. So for the first question, in fact, we are fully in line with the ART methodology, with a range of the WACC and the fact that when we have an Economic Regulation Agreement, mechanically, we are in the high part of the range. We are also very comfortable with a WACC at 5.8% due to the risk that we have in our Economic Regulation Agreement. That is a business risk, and not exogenous risk. Just to remind, the main risk that we have in this proposal, that is not the proposal of ADP, but the proposal of the French state and ADP. The first risk is a traffic risk. We increase likely the traffic growth trajectory to try to have a good and well-balanced in our business approach.

The second element is the investment risk that we increase, and we have a new mechanism, linking remuneration to deliver cost of certain major projects in addition to existing schedule-related incentive. The last, but very important risk, it is the service quality incentive that we have reinforced with a larger penalty in case of underperformance.

At the same time, that is very important to understand, the protection against tax-related change remain in place. We don't have exogenous risk in terms of tax. Change in the corporate tax are covered at 75% for the expenses accounted for as CapEx. The taxation of any kind factors allowing to offset any impact from an evolution in tax framework other than corporate tax above EUR 5 million. A good balance between business risk and the other risk that we also cover.

Today, the proposal is calibrated around a 5.8% conversion target, which we believe is consistent with French regulatory methodology and the revised risk profile of the contract. After a good negotiation with the Civil Aviation Administration, after a good dialogue with airlines, but also after an extensive work -- technical work with the regulator, we are fully confident.

For the second question, Christelle?

Yes. Maybe on the second question regarding the sensitivity of tariff trajectory and WACC, just to say that the sensitivity indicated in our December proposal remains valid. So it was mentioned that 10 basis points of ROCE or WACC equals plus 0.7 tariff increase on average. I really insist on average because, of course, it depends on the timing of the tariff increase. But to have just a color, it is this kind of sensitivity. Today, the proposal is calibrated around 5.8% convergence target, as Philippe mentioned, which we believe once again, as Philippe clearly explained, is consistent with the regulatory methodology and the revised risk profile of the contract.

The next question comes from Tobias Fromme from Bernstein.

We do understand that the agreement would be with the state, after all. Just because the state has issued its opinion and you published a strong proposal, we were just wondering, what do you think is the leverage on the regulator here? Obviously, you will enter into agreement with the state, that is clear. It's more like the regulator is entirely independent and has had a lot of sort of criticism on your first proposal in April. How much leverage do you think the strong proposal will put on the regulator?

We cannot prejudge the regulatory decision, and we fully respect the French regulatory independence. But with this new project, contract, we design and address all the main issue identified by the French regulator simple opinion in April. It incorporates change to allocation key. We also have worked with the risk-sharing arrangement, and we have a significant technical discussion during these last months, included regarding the update of the WACC with the current market parameters.

All in all, we believe the contract provide a robust basis for the French regulatory review. Obviously, we have to wait the formal consultation of the airline. We have to wait the audition with the French regulator and final review. But now with the French state, it's not just ADP, we consider that it's a very good balance with all the elements that we can have to finalize our agreement for the end of this year.

The next question comes from Eric Lemarie from CIC CIB.

I got 2 questions. The first one on India. I was wondering whether the recent social movement in India, the Cockroach political protest, had any impact on your traffic there and whether the recent opening of the Noida airport close to Delhi had an impact as well or not?

And the second question, on traffic in Paris. Did you see any negative impact from the implementation of the EES in Europe, and what's your view on the future step regarding the EES and the potential impact on Paris traffic?

Thank you, Eric, for your question. So the first one regarding India traffic, on the social movement, so far, no impact has been observed. The traffic trajectory increased by only 0.6% year-on-year, but it's not related to this element. To answer your second question on Noida Airport, as we had already the opportunity to tell, we consider that Noida Airport does not constitute a threat to Delhi traffic growth and prospects. You know that Noida Airport is located outside Delhi metro area and serve more point-to-point traffic, starting notably with local domestic traffic, without changing the hub status of Delhi. So clearly, no threat from that perspective.

Just about EES deployment, at this stage, we are not observing any material operational impact for the EES at our airport. We have fully implemented the infrastructure and equipment. The main point that is very important for us, it's the fact that the Border Police And the French government taking a pragmatic and flexible approach to implementation. In period of high passenger volume, the use of EES is not applied systematically. That is a key element for us. That is quite a different manner to approach this element compared to the other European country. Based on the experience to date, we do not consider EES to be a material operational risk and without impacting the tariff -- the traffic. Excuse me.

The next question comes from Elodie Rall from JPMorgan.

I have a few follow-ups on the regulatory agreement. First of all, I was wondering if you had any discussion with the regulator during this whole redrafting of the proposal, notably, on the OpEx to be transferred to the nonregulated scope. I think the ART had estimated in April that you should transfer EUR 50 million to EUR 100 million, and here you're proposing to transfer EUR 50 million. I was wondering how comfortable you are that the ART will be okay with this amount being at the bottom of their proposal.

And second, on the risk, you're saying that you've increased the risk that you are taking on your side. I'm just trying to understand, with regard to traffic estimate, previously, I think there was the case of a deviation being needed by a certain amount in order to be rebasing every year. Here it seems like it's not really necessary anymore, that every year on any deviation, no buffer zone, you can rebase. Is it really taking more risk in that consideration?

Elodie, so just to start by a global remark, just to understand that during the last months, we worked a lot with the French State, obviously, we finalize all the element of the agreement, that is a very large agreement in the details, which we are in fully alignment with the French State, first. Second, we have a strong dialogue with all the airlines, that is a key element. Obviously, we invest a lot, and it's a good news for the airline that we have a global interest to invest because growth in term of traffic, because performance in Paris, but it's not necessary or good news for the other airline that it's not fully aligned with the growth strategy.

The last, but not the least, element is the fact we have a lot of workshop, technical workshop, an extensive work with the team of the French regulator. So we are fully consistent with the methodology of the French ART and fully in line with the decision, the nonbinding decision of April.

So the detail and specifically for the cost allocation system, Christelle?

Thank you, Philippe. So on this topic, indeed, allocation keys was among the central areas of work since December, and it has been part of the extensive technical discussion that Philippe mentioned. As you've noticed, so we have transferred around EUR 50 million of regulated OpEx and EUR 65 million of regulated asset base between the two perimeters. This compares with an estimated bias of EUR 50 million to EUR 100 million OpEx in the view of ART December decision.

Of course, we can never prejudge the regulator final assessment, and we fully respect regulator independence. But we consider that what we've done addresses the ART main observation, particularly regarding misuse terminal areas and transfer passenger infrastructure. Once again, we had also extensive technical workshop with airlines, so we had a constructive dialogue both with the regulator and with the airlines on the cost allocation system. We therefore believe the allocation framework is now significantly more robust than it was in December and aligned with the regulator expectation.

Maybe regarding your second question in term of traffic deviation, so indeed, we've taken more risk compared to December proposal since we have revised upward the traffic trajectory, so 0.3 points difference compared to the initial proposal in December, in a context where we start from a lower beginning point -- starting point in 2026. This is where we are taking the risk. And at the same time, we have revised the traffic adjustment factor. Indeed, there is no longer a franchise corridor around the central scenario, but a symmetrical adjustment factor, which protects both operator and the airline, and only now the central trajectory plus this adjustment factor. We consider that it should also answer to ART recommendation in its nonbinding opinion in April.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Emilie Fung from Barclays.

I have two questions, please. One on the ERA process and another on the cost savings in 2026. My first question is, on the ongoing ART board appointments, how should we think about their implications for the timing and the outcome for the binding opinion? Do you have any comments on the process there?

And on the guidance of the EUR 40 million to EUR 60 million savings expected in 2026, how much is that structural cost removal rather than expenditure deferred into 2027? So what should we carry into the recurring cost base?

Thank you for these two questions. For your first question, for the moment, we don't have any news about the appointment for the French regulator. What we do and what we know is the fact that we work a lot with the technical team. We have some meetings also with the president of the French regulator. But indeed, at the end of the day, for the binding decision, we need to have the full agreement of the majority of the five guys that we have in the French regulator. But due to the huge technical work that we have made, we are quite confident about that.

For the other question?

So regarding cost savings, so as you understood, we have embedded EUR 40 million to EUR 60 million of savings in our assumption, with most of the benefit expected in H2. These measures are targeted at discretionary spending and efficiency levels. The cost saving measures have been deployed all across the group and different OpEx lines. To answer precisely to your question, a significant portion of the savings are temporary actions, including deferred recruitment, delayed discretionary spending, postponed expenditure that may resume when conditions improve.

But of course, certain measures will continue to generate benefits beyond 2026. You can consider that roughly half of the EUR 40 million to EUR 60 million savings is a structural saving and will be part of the productivity measures that we target to implement within the Economic Regulation Agreement.

The next question comes from Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas.

Two questions from me. Regarding the regulatory proposal for Paris, so putting all together, how confident are you that ADP will sign an agreement and the ART will sign it off by the end of the year?

Second question. Remind us, please, of the process. The ART will either sign it off or not. Can they approve with some conditions? For instance, saying, "We can approve this deal, but you need to make these changes." Or if they don't approve, what happens? Do you need to go back to discussions, long discussions on? If you can tell us a bit more about the signing off of the ART and what happen if they don't agree with a proposal that you presented today?

So thank you for your question. So just to remind that at the beginning of September, we have the formal consultation of all the airlines and, in mid-September probably, we have the formal decision of the French state to fast-forward the binding decision of the French ART. The French regulator have two months to decide and to analyze all the audition of the airlines and, after that, to finalize the binding decision. In term of binding decision, we have the first scenario, it's best scenario that we can have. It's a green light for all the elements, and we can sign a few day after just at the end of November.

The second scenario, that is, for us, not a real scenario, it's the fact that we have a negative decision. It's not realistic for us due to the fact that we work a lot with all the stakeholders, and we have the full support of the French state, and we are fully consistent with all the elements that the French regulator put in this non-binding decision, and fully consistent with the methodology of the French regulator.

The last scenario, it's a scenario that we have a green light, but with some reserve. If it's just reserve that is without impact in the main element of the Economic Regulation Agreement, obviously, it's a question of day. We can take account of this element, and we can sign a few days after in the beginning of December or the mid of December. If it's a reserve that in some element that is, for us, a key element, it's a little bit more tricky.

But at this time, what we can see, it's the fact that we have some elements that we are globally comfortable for the regulator and some elements that we have also to continue to work, especially the fact that we have a specific element for the review in the mid of the period. But for us, we are very confident to preserve this global economic balance and to sign. It's a key milestone for us, so no issue.

Perhaps we can complete, Christelle?

Again, just to complement, to tell that among the three scenario mentioned by Philippe, overall, the objective of all party is to obtain a positive binding opinion and to conclude the contract before year-end. We believe a robust and balanced contract. In fact, we have a robust and balanced contract and that it would be premature to speculate on alternative scenario. As Philippe mentioned, there are some key structural parameter for which we are comfortable, given the technical discussion, especially allocation key, especially traffic trajectory, especially the ERA duration.

And as Philippe mentioned, there remain a limited number of topics under discussion with the regulator, and we can mention here the adjustment factor and more specifically, the audit process to calibrate the cost of major investment. We mentioned that we have adjusted our proposal to have an incentive mechanism around the cost of some main projects. So on here, we need to continue the discussion, and indeed, the condition of mandatory mid-term review clause, where discussion will continue, especially because ART intends to disclose guideline expected from September. Once again, we believe the contract provide a robust basis for regulator review.

The next question comes from Nicolas Mora from Morgan Stanley.

Just a couple of questions on the ART agreement. When we look at the trajectory of the ROCE, you are obviously outperforming quite meaningfully at the back end of the period. You don't think this is one of the biggest risk in the agreement, that actually you never get to see the tariff increases that you promised today at the back end of the project? That is question number one.

Actually another one, more on the short term, well, short term at least on the earnings. Can you tell us a little bit what's going on in retail? You have had actually a decent second quarter in terms of Extime spend per pax. What are you seeing on the ground? When you expect, especially stores, either luxury goods stores or beauty and cosmetics to come back in all? Is it something we should expect from the back end of this year? Is it '27? Is it '28? Just trying to understand a little bit how you are going to finally benefit from a bit of tailwind on the retail front.

Nicolas, for your first question about the convergence between the regulated ROCE and the regulated WACC. As you know, it's in the law, and we have to convert on average over the life of the Economic Regulation Agreement. Mechanically, when we start with a very low regulated ROCE at the end of 2026, we have to accelerate the convergence at the beginning of the period. After that, linked by the trajectory in terms of investment, linked by the capacity, we have to rebalance the trajectory during the contract, we have to assume a higher ROCE at the end of the period. But it's a mechanical application of the law. We don't expect any issue about that, and we don't have any debate, any discussion about that during the preparation of this common proposal with the French state, so included with the French regulator.

What we can have in terms of discussion, it's more the fact that it's front-loaded in terms of tariff increase. We have two years, two first year with CPI plus 4%. And we know that for the first year, we have a mechanical validation of the tariff for '27. We de-risk the first year of the application of the tariff increase. We assume, and we don't have any concerns about the convergence on average, and the fact that at the end of the Economic Regulation Agreement, we have a higher ROCE compared to the level of WACC.

For the second question?

So regarding retail, indeed, the operating environment remains challenging. As you've been able to see, there's a combination of different headwinds contributing to our performance at the end of June. Among them, adverse FX effects, slowdown in luxury demand and a less favorable Middle East traffic mix, but also the continued works in Terminal 2E-K that you were mentioning. However, there are some few positive signs over the last few weeks, especially as anticipated, the adverse FX impact that I was mentioning that weighed very much on SPP in Q1 eased materially in Q2. We expect only a limited impact over the remainder of the year as exchange rates have stabilized now.

And secondly, after challenging recent quarters in the luxury sector, we are also beginning to see the first positive effects on the designer renewals at several major luxury houses, supporting the attractiveness of product offerings and underpinning demand. So all in all, and despite traffic headwinds, because you've seen that we have also revised our assumption in terms of traffic, SPP was flat in Q2, that's why we are confident in achieving the updated outlook at circa EUR 32 per passenger.

Regarding the works in Terminal 2E-K, no, nothing new from that front. Works will continue through 2026, 2027 with different phases in the work. All in all, you can expect a more normal commercial configuration progressively from 2028.

The next question comes from Marcin Wojtal from Bank of America.

I have two questions. Firstly, could you share with us perhaps the amount of unregulated CapEx that you are expecting over the eight-year period on top of the EUR 8.2 billion regulated? And related to that, and more broadly, are you planning to provide us with more, let's say, comprehensive projections, like a Capital Markets Day with a medium term earnings outlook for the entire company once you have the regulatory deal signed off? And when could we expect that potential update?

Marcin, so two elements in your question. So regarding non-regulated CapEx. We indeed mentioned EUR 8.2 billion amount of regulated CapEx, but of course, it includes mixed scope project related onto our discussion regarding cost allocation system. As a result, the nonregulated share of this mixed use project represents roughly EUR 1 billion -- additional EUR 1 billion on top of the EUR 8.2 billion, so roughly EUR 9.2 billion, EUR 9.4 billion cash commitment on those mixed use infrastructure. Of course, on top of that will come pure nonregulated investment, but it will depend on the strategic plan currently under preparation.

That's a good transition for your second question. Indeed, we intend to communicate on our strategic plan that we are currently working on. It's well underway, but we believe it's important to present investors with a clear and fully comparable medium term financial trajectory. So globally, we expect to present the plan in early 2027.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

It's time to close today's call as it is a busy day for everyone. Thank you for joining us this morning and for your continued interest in Groupe ADP. Our next scheduled quarterly publication will be on October 22, when we will report our 9 months revenue figures. And until then, we obviously look forward to be connecting with many of you during the upcoming conference and virtual season.

And as always, Eliott and I remain available for any follow-up questions you may have. For those of you about to take a break, we wish you a restful and enjoyable holiday period after the end of the last results publication, I know that there are a lot of them. So good luck with that. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you later in the year. Thank you.

The live presentation is over now. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Welcome to Group ADP 2026 First Quarter Revenue Presentation. [Operator Instructions]

Now, I will hand the conference over to Cecile Combeau, Head of Investor Relations, to begin today's conference. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for our 2026 first quarter revenue presentation.

Before we begin, I would like to remind you, as usual, that today's discussion may include forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. For more details, please refer to the disclaimer included in our press release and on Slide 34 of our presentation.

I will now hand over to Christelle de Robillard, Group CFO, who will take you through the prepared remarks before we open the call for questions during the Q&A session. Christelle, over to you.

Thank you, Cecile, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us to discuss our 2026 first quarter revenue.

Let me first turn to Slide 3 for our key highlights, starting with traffic. We delivered solid momentum in Q1 with group traffic up 2.3% to 84 million passengers and Paris traffic up 2.6% to 24 million, demonstrating the resilience of our platforms despite reduced passenger flows with the Middle East since March.

Consolidated revenue reached close to EUR 1.5 billion, down slightly year-on-year. Extime Paris SPP declined to EUR 31.5, mainly due to an unfavorable FX impact, but also softer Middle East traffic against a particularly demanding comparison base in Q1 last year.

Beyond the numbers, we continue to deliver on our strategic priorities. Service quality remains a strong focus as illustrated by Skytrax reaffirming our ranking in 2026. On the regulatory front, the 2027-2034 ERA process is firmly on track with nonbinding opinion from ART adopted on April 9th.

Regarding the management of our international portfolio of assets, we made meaningful progress with the 3-year extension of the Santiago concession in Chile, the sale of a 3.4% stake in GMR Airports and the closing of the Embassair disposal.

Overall, despite a challenging external environment, execution remains strong and we fully confirm our 2026 financial targets.

A quick word on service quality with Skytrax rankings for 2026. 10 airports from Groupe ADP ranked in the global top 100. Paris CDG was named Europe's best airport for the 5th consecutive year and ranked 6th worldwide, while Paris Orly was again recognized as Europe's best regional airports. This distinction clearly reflects the long-term commitment of our teams and reinforce our ambition to be a global reference in airport hospitality.

Let me now briefly walk you through the ART nonbinding opinion on our future Economic Regulation Agreement shown on Slide 5. Overall, we view this opinion as constructive and broadly in line with our expectations. Importantly, the ART confirms that the multiyear ERA is the right framework for Groupe ADP given the scale and duration of the Paris investment program and explicitly recognizes that an 8-year contract is justified by our industrial plan.

We read this opinion as the regulator road map for convergence ahead of the binding opinion. The ART has deliberately adopted a nonprescriptive principle-based approach at this stage, which we see as a positive signal in terms of process. As expected, the ART identifies some key work streams to be addressed over the coming months.

On return, the ART provides a clear framework. It estimates a WACC range of 4.6% to 5.6% under current assumptions and clearly highlights that access to the upper end of this range is conditional and balanced and credible risk sharing.

Importantly, the ART also remind that the WACC will be reassessed at the time of the binding opinion, taking into account prevailing market conditions. Following this simple opinion, the process now enters an active phase of discussions with the French state aimed at drafting a revised version of the ERA.

In parallel, we are also continuing technical and economic stream with airlines and discussions with the regulator. During this process, we will calibrate how the ART recommendation are reflected in the revised draft while ensuring that the overall framework remains balanced and does not result in ADP bearing disproportionate or excessive risks.

Our objectives remain unchanged to obtain a binding opinion from the ART in Q4 2026 with entering into force of the ERA on January 1, 2027.

Let me now come back to the transaction we announced last week regarding the partial disposal of our stake in GMR Airports Limited, which is summarized on this intentionally comprehensive slide. This transaction is a partial monetization designed to crystallize value, while preserving significant economic exposure to the long-term growth of Indian aviation.

In terms of transaction structure, we have put in place 3 separate arrangements with GMR Group. First step, completed on April 23rd, we sold the first equity tranche of 3.4% to our co-shareholder for EUR 256 million.

Second, we implemented options in order to sell a further 3.9% by April 2027. And third, we agreed on the sale to GMR Group of the GAL issued FCCBs. This will be done by March 2027, allowing an early repayment of this loan, which had been implemented to accelerate the merger listing of GAL. This structure provides us with both immediate liquidity and visibility on future cash inflows, while ensuring an orderly rebalancing of the GAL shareholding structure.

Turning to the key outcomes. There are 4 messages we want to highlight. First, we are rebalancing our economic exposure in GAL. We reduced our exposure in a disciplined way, while retaining a significant upside alongside our partner in a market with very strong growth prospects.

Second, our strategic partnership is fully preserved. Our governance rights and co-promoter status in GAL remains unchanged, and we continue to view this partnership as a long-term strategic asset.

Third, the transaction represents a material crystallization of value, implying roughly a 4x uplift compared to our entry valuation in 2020.

And fourth, this is fully consistent with a balanced capital allocation strategy with up to around EUR 924 million of post-tax cash proceeds expected by 2027, supporting both deleveraging and shareholder returns. This is why we have proposed a special dividend already in 2026.

Finally, a word on the expected accounting impacts. Details are specified on the bottom part of this slide. The main message is in 2026, reported net debt and P&L will reflect some temporary noncash accounting effects, mainly related to derivatives, which do not reflect the underlying economics of the transaction.

In 2027, as the FCCB are reimbursed and the second equity tranche is completed, we expect a structural and positive impact on reported net debt, driven by cash inflows and the disappearance of this accounting effect.

Let's now dig into the numbers for the first quarter. I am now on Slide #8 with traffic. Q1 2026 demonstrates the resilience of our platforms despite a challenging geopolitical environment. At Paris Aeroport, traffic grew by 2.6%.

Traffic loss on Middle East routes was partially offset by higher traffic towards Asia and China, both showing particularly strong momentum. At group level, traffic increased by 2.3% to nearly 84 million passengers.

TAV continued to benefit from strong performance at its local assets, while international airports showed more moderate growth. At GMR, traffic was broadly stable, reflecting temporary operational and geopolitical headwinds, but with solid underlying demand. Finally, traffic at Amman was impacted by the Middle East conflict.

Let me turn to the next slide, which focuses specifically on this topic. You can see on Slide 9, a focus update on the impact of the Middle East situation and how recent traffic trends have been evolving.

In March, we recorded the peak impact. Traffic was affected across several platforms by airspace closures and airline schedule adjustments.

In Paris, overall traffic remained solid, although, Middle East growth declined sharply. SPP was impacted by mix and FX effects, again, against a challenging comparison base.

At TAV, impact on traffic was benign, except for Georgia. Conversely, Amman Airport was the most directly exposed with traffic down around 41%. In India, both Delhi and Hyderabad airports were impacted. Delhi proved more resilient, supported by increased frequencies from international carriers.

In April, based on preliminary data, we are seeing sign of a gradual recovery, which remains our central scenario going forward.

Looking ahead, short-term bookings remain supportive and summer schedules are broadly stable versus initial plans. At the same time, we are proactively deploying cost discipline measures to preserve margin and financial flexibility. Based on trends observed so far, the saving measure implemented and assuming a scenario of short-term disruptions, we confirm our 2026 financial targets.

Turning to Extime Paris. Sales per passenger reached EUR 31.5 in Q1, down 5.7% year-on-year. This reflects a challenging retail environment driven by a global slowdown in luxury demand and unfavorable FX effects linked to euro appreciation and a particularly demanding comparison base as Q1 2025 reached historically high levels.

In addition, work in Terminal 2EK intensified compared to last year and weighed on performance. Since March, SPP has also been impacted by the Middle East situation, which affected high contribution passenger flows and the overall traffic mix.

Overall, we view the current SPP performance as a result of temporary and well-identified headwinds in a still disrupted context rather than a change in the underlying long-term fundamentals of the Extime Paris model.

On Slide 9, this bridge shows the evolution of group revenue in the first quarter, down 0.9% year-on-year to reach EUR 1.5 billion. This evolution reflects contrasted dynamics across segments.

In the Aviation segment, revenue grew by EUR 24 million, supported by traffic growth and the tariff increase of 4.5% implemented in April 2025. This positive contribution was partly offset by Retail and Services segment, which declined slightly, reflecting the well-identified headwinds we discussed earlier compared with a strong Q1 last year and an accounting effect that uplifted Q1 2025.

At the international level, revenues were down EUR 27 million. At TAV, this reflects contrasting trends between service companies and airport assets, noting that in Almaty, revenues were impacted by a change in the status of fuel activities.

Overall, revenue evolution reflects temporary and well-understood factors with resilient operation and continued discipline across the portfolio.

To conclude, our 2026 outlook remain unchanged and is built on disciplined and prudent assumption, including short-term conflict-related disruption and the saving measures implemented.

Our capital allocation priorities remain unchanged with disciplined CapEx, strict leverage control and a clear commitment to our dividend policy.

Overall, we remain confident in the resilience of our business model and in our ability to deliver our 2026 targets despite the challenging environment.

With that, let's now open the line for the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Graham Hunt from Jefferies.

I've just got 2 questions. First one, just on the ERA regulation and the opinion that we got from the ART. Could you just clarify sort of, if you can, any positions where you have moved closer to the view of the regulator, I guess, specifically on cost allocation? Is there anything there that you can share in terms of what we can sort of rule out as a point of difference? Or are you still -- do you still see yourself negotiating there?

And then second question, just on -- I wondered, if you could help around how we should think about the impact on retail going into Q2 and the relative weights of the headwinds in Q1, given that we only had 1 month of impact on Middle East travelers, but then the FX unwinds for Q2? So just if we're thinking about a full quarter of lost Middle East travelers, I guess, going into what is high season into Europe, how should we think about how retail tracks? And at what point in time you would say the disruption is no longer short term?

Thank you for those 2 questions. So maybe beginning with the regulation ones. So maybe first to begin and to highlight the fact that, we find the overall tone constructive. And so this is a positive signal, so that we are confident to find an agreement in the expected time line.

As you mentioned, there are maybe 3 most sensitive topic in the upcoming discussion that we will have with the regulator, which are highlighted in this nonbinding opinion. First of all, the underlying economic trajectories. We will have to -- they are asking us to make efforts on documentation, on traffic growth, on operating costs and on investment amounts.

ART is asking for greater robustness and documentation of our central case, ensuring that efficiency assumptions are well supported. So this will be our first work in the months to come.

Second, and this refers specifically maybe more to your question, the topic of allocation keys and analytical accounting. We know there was no surprise in this nonbinding opinion as the regulator reiterates what they said in their 2026 tariff decision. So we know that this is a central topic for us and a sensitive one given actually the direct impact on regulated returns.

As you've been able maybe to read through the decision, we have resumed technical work streams with airlines. And this is, by the way, noted as a positive element by the ART. We have begun to discuss on some main pushback that were made from the ART, especially on the surfaces key and the access key.

Having said that, divergencies remain and the authority has clearly indicated that its final position will be taken in the context of the binding opinion. But as for us, it will still be a key topic and our goal will be to preserve, as you know, the dual till system.

And maybe a third element highlighted in the decision worth noting is the consistency between the risk profile and the risk sharing mechanism with allowed return. As you've seen, ART has reiterated doctrine on these topics, access to higher allowed return is conditional and the level of risk effectively borne by the operator.

So we will now enter in a phase of discussion with the French state. But with this first step, it's already, once again, a positive and constructive tone of the regulator.

Regarding your second question on SPP and the Middle East conflict impact, so maybe just to remind you some key figures around that. Traffic with Middle East in 2025 represented 5.3% of total traffic in Paris, but 12% of retail sales on the same period. So we know that these are important contributive passenger. What we've seen since March on the SPP on this specific topic on Middle East reflect reduced flows with this destination and therefore, a negative mix effect on SPP. This impact at the same time has been partly mitigated by resilience in other long-haul segments and especially new increased traffic with Asia and China especially.

We are, as you understood, on a scenario, on a central scenario of a short-term conflict because -- and what we've seen in April is supportive of this assumption, because we've seen a progressive recovery in April. So that's why we are in a position to confirm our target. Maybe beyond those topics of Middle East, the main element in the SPP performance for this first quarter is the fact that the comparison base is unfavorable because Q1 2025 was particularly an outstanding one and because of the FX effect when you compare the euro between 2025 and 2026, it has appreciated of 15% on a year-on-year basis.

So this is an important element in the performance of this Q1. It is, of course, difficult to isolate each driver precisely on Middle East impact, FX impact. For sure, FX impact is the most important one, because once again, SPP started softening 1 year ago in April 2025 and weigh on the performance.

The next question comes from Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

So the first one, both of them are on the ART decision that was published a few weeks ago. The first one, I think ART is flagging that the way you split the CapEx between regulated and nonregulated, you're allocating more than 70% of the CapEx to the regulated side. I think they're given particular examples on the shuttle and on LISA, where you allocate 90% to 100% of the CapEx to the regulated side.

So I guess my question is, having this in mind, do you see a good chance to review downwards your EUR 8.4 billion regulated CapEx plan for the next 8 years? Or what are the arguments to defend the way you allocate there? The second one, also in the document, ART mentions that from February to April, there have been several workshops between ADP and the airlines in relation to cost allocation. And we know this has been going on in the past, too. But what I'm curious, could you tell us a bit more about the recent discussions with the airlines? I believe these are not yet taken into consideration by ART in their proposal. So I'm trying to understand a little bit and get a bit more color on how these discussions are evolving in terms of cost allocation. What is changing versus the past discussions or past workshops?

Thank you, Cristian, for those 2 questions, which are actually linked with each other. But maybe to begin with the first one on the CapEx. Indeed, the ART opinion points to an overallocation on the investment to the regulated perimeter, notably for LISA and the connected train. But this is once again, the same topic of the cost allocating system, because we are discussing of the way we allocate both OpEx and CapEx.

So at the end of the day, it's the same topic. So ART raised this question on certain investment allocation key, which have been, as you know, are under active review with airlines before, since 2022 actually, but since the beginning of 2026 tariff rejection, and as you understood, we've resumed those discussions and those topics, LISA and connected train are part of this discussion.

These works are clearly ongoing. So it's a little bit early to tell you, to give you a proper figure on those topics. Mechanically, if we make some change in some accounting rules, it can have an impact on the way the CapEx are allocated between regulated and nonregulated. So this will be just a mechanical review downwards should we change some specific keys on the CapEx that are part of the proposal.

But at the end of the day, there is no risk that the EUR 8.4 billion CapEx investment program is globally reviewed downwards. All in all, what's important to keep in mind is that it's a global balance. So once again, we are contemplating the topic of accounting rules at the same time, with the level of WACC and with the adjustment factors so as to make sure that on those 3 elements, we are really ensuring a fair return and a fair remuneration on our investment. And we are confident in our ability to find this coherent and consistent balance to allow fair remuneration of invested capital.

On the second question, and this is -- I already partially answered through the first one. So indeed, we have resumed technical working with airlines. The main topics we've discussed so far are related to the main pushback stated by the ART in 2026 decision around surfaces keys especially. Those works are clearly ongoing. We have not yet come to an end on those topics.

Once again, what will be key for us is to make sure that we are not challenging the integrity of the dual-till system. This is what drives our position on this topic since the beginning. And once again, to make sure that we will have a global view on all the topics and not just making progress on cost allocation key without having a view on the global economic balance.

The next question comes from Eric Lemarie from CIC CIB.

Yes. I've got 2 questions. So the first one on the saving measures you mentioned in the press release, the measure to deal with the current geopolitical situation. Could you remind us what kind of savings they are? And in a scenario with a further deterioration of the geopolitical situation, what can be done on your side in addition to these saving measures? I got the second question on the recent deal regarding GMR. And I was wondering, what was the trigger explaining this deal with EMR and if there is any specific reason behind the timing of this operation?

Thank you, Eric. So maybe beginning with your first question regarding the saving measures. So cost discipline is not a one shot action but we have really implemented a set of measures that can be activated gradually and progressively. This covers all our assets, both in Paris but also in our international assets. And this also covered different kind of OpEx, to answer more precisely to your question, consumable spending, subcontracting expenses, recruitment phasing and also support function optimization.

So all these measures are triggered in ways, depending on the actual revenue impact observed, and this is made so as to be as agile as possible. Our objective is very clear to preserve margin and stay in our targeted EBITDA path. So as you understood, once again, we are in a scenario of a short-term conflict, and we are seeing signals in that sense supportive to this assumption. Should Q2 show a sign of a different scenario, we will assess the situation, including opportunity to take additional measure. But clearly, we are not there yet. So it would be too early to comment on additional measure for the moment.

Regarding your question on GMR, the trigger and the specific reason for this deal. So many different reasons and a global strategic rationale for making this operation. First of all, portfolio management. The timing is fully aligned with our strategy to secure and optimize the financial contribution of our international portfolio, in line, by the way, with the priorities given by our CEO since his appointment.

Second reason for this deal, to have value crystallization at an attractive valuation. As you've seen this transaction implies a valuation approximately 4x higher than that of our initial investment in 2020. So this is a very good signal in terms of value for this asset and why also this timing. We've noticed that there is a strong market performance of GAL. If you look at numbers, since 2025, GAL's share price has performed strongly, up 20%, 30%.

Clearly, our long-term condition on India is strong and intact. There is no link to do this operation with the short-term geopolitical situation of traffic trends. Our long-term conviction stay clearly the same that the one -- when we made the acquisition back in 2020, India remains one of the most attractive long-term aviation markets globally. And we are fully committed to continue our partnership with GMR, and this is also the reason why we made this operation with our partner to reinforce our partnership.

The next question comes from Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas.

Two questions from me. One, it's on the GMR deal. So first of all, I'm happy to see this crystallization of value. You mentioned about the accounting of the foreign convertible bond. So that's the value -- the fair value of the derivatives is around EUR 570 million, that's included in the debt, financial debt, financial liabilities that you report on the balance sheet, correct? So when you will sell this FCCB, you will also reduce the debt, the financial debt by around EUR 570 million. Is that correct?

And second question around the guidance. And I just want to understand why you have not cut yet the guidance. What gives you confidence that to keep the guidance, given that the guidance was set before really this Middle East crisis became so apparent. So yes, what gives you confidence about this guidance? Maybe talking about the traffic schedule that you see for Paris, for Turkey, TAV and so on?

Thanks, Dario, for those questions. So thanks, particularly for the first question, which is indeed very important to understand, not maybe so easy to understand, but very important to understand. We will have indeed through this operation, different accounting impact.

If we look more specifically to the net debt as you are asking, maybe just a word before to begin with what will happen in 2026, so that you understand the different phases of the transaction. So in 2026, reported net debt will reflect, of course, the benefit from the EUR 256 million cash proceeds received last week, but before paying dividend. But this will also reflect some temporary noncash accounting effects, mainly due to the derivatives linked to the second equity tranche. As you understand, there is a call and put option, which will have an impact in the reported net debt, but a noncash impact.

Looking forward in 2027, indeed, there will be different streams explaining the evolution of the net debt. First of all, the cash inflows coming from the repayment of the FCCB and the sale of the second tranche, but which represents EUR 500 million and EUR 82 million estimated cash impact. But at the same time, exactly what you are saying, the disappearance of the derivatives linked to the FCCB because the FCCB will be repaid. So this will have a significant impact on total in the reported net debt in 2027.

For your second question, so what gives us confidence on the reaffirmation of the guidance. First of all, I'm sorry to repeat, this is a key assumption in our guidance. Our confirmation of guidance is based on a short conflict scenario. This assumes that tension do not materially affect the summer traffic.

So summer traffic will clearly be key from that front. It also assumes that flight schedule and load factor are broadly hold and that we continue to see the progressive recovery trends that we have observed since April. And indeed, since April, we have observed this gradual recovery. March has clearly corresponded to the peak impact, both in terms of traffic disruption and mix effect. And we are seeing in April improving movements and load factor across several export destinations, for instance, with destination with Israel, where traffic has resumed. So these trends are supportive to our view of a progressive normalization, consistent with our base case.

Maybe just to give you also some highlights on the summer traffic outlook, because as I was mentioning, it will be key in the way the year will happen. So at this stage, our view on summer traffic in Paris remains broadly unchanged. Compared to our initial expected trajectory, we are seeing some schedule erosion in early summer notably linked with this Middle East context.

But having said that, summer schedules overall remain broadly in line with initial plans and short-term bookings are holding up. So in the current context, we expect that summer bookings might be slightly delayed compared to usual. But what we are seeing today is once again supportive of this assumption of short-term conflict scenario.

The next question comes from Elodie Rall from JPMorgan.

So first of all, on the ART counter proposal. So you mentioned a WACC of 4.6% to 5.6%. And I was wondering, if the low end of the range was acceptable to you? And when or what would be a deal breaker, if there is anything that could be a deal breaker in your mind in this range?

And second, on the Middle East impact and all that, I know you're not changing your guidance, but there's a lot of discussion about what could the shortage in jet fuel mean for traffic in general, not necessarily just at your airports. So I was wondering, if you had any discussion on that with your airlines? I know you've seen some erosion of bookings in the summer. But should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed, like is there anything like a scenario that you are starting to stress at this stage?

Thanks, Elodie, for this question. Indeed, we have not touched upon for the moment the WACC, but this is an important element of the nonbinding opinion. Maybe let me just begin first by an element, which has been changed in technical evolution that is worth noting in this nonbinding opinion. Maybe you've seen that the regulator has adapted its data methodology now following a 5-year beta based on a weekly data compared to previously a 2-year beta.

So this explains why the range has slightly evolved and there was an upward shift in the WACC range. You remember that, it was previously 4.1% to 5.4% and they now state of 4.6% to 5.6% range.

So for us, once again, this is reflective of the overall positive tone of the decision showing that there is a desire for ART to keep growing. Having said that, once again, WACC in itself is not a deal breaker. It is a global balance. So we will have a view on the WACC only with, at the same time, a view on the cost allocation system and the adjustment factors, as the regulators say and they are making themselves this link between adjustment factor, risk sharing mechanism and level of allowed return, because they are explicitly saying that reaching the top of the range requires a commensurate level of risk borne by the operator.

So that's why we will be in a position to decide only, if we have this global approach. So the question for us and the key element for us will be to find this right overall balance between the risk effectively borne by ADP and the level of allowed return. But in any case, we won't accept bearing disproportionate or excessive risk. This will be a key for us.

Regarding your second question, so on the Middle East conflict and the potential impact on jet fuel, both maybe prices and potential shortage. So clearly, at this stage, once again, we are -- as you've understood and mentioned in your question, we are seeing schedule programs supportive of our assumption

. Coming to the question of the impact of potential jet fuel prices increase on the traffic evolution. Clearly, for us, it's too early to draw conclusion on the sensitivity of traffic to a prolonged period of high jet fuel prices. Recent traffic evolution have been influenced by different factors, a combination of schedule adjustment, airspace restriction and supply side decision by airline.

So the respective impact of fuel prices, potential traffic postponement and longer-term capacity responses remains clearly uncertain at this stage.

Of course, we are closely monitoring the situation and all those developments, but we clearly don't have sufficient visibility at this point to quantify or isolate the effect of fuel prices on traffic across our platform. And maybe as we are talking about jet fuel, maybe just a word on the question of potential shortages.

Just to remind you that Paris Aeroports are supplied through a pipeline network directly connected to refineries and to terminal in Laval and that the majority of crude oil feeding those infrastructure currently come from North America. So we are, compared to other, quite in a better situation. And we remain vigilant, of course, and continue to monitor the situation. But at this stage, we have the few reserves covering several days of operations.

The next question comes from Jose Manuel Arroyas from Santander.

I have 2 questions. One is about the transaction with the GMR Group. And I wanted to ask you in particular about the statement that you included in the press release on Thursday. Here, you said that the proceeds from the sale will give you freeway for potential future development projects. I wanted to ask you what you mean by those, if those may include new international M&A opportunities, including buying more shares in TAV in particular?

And my second question, and sorry, it's a very basic question that I perhaps should know myself. Who drafts the final ERA document? Is it the ART in isolation or is it the ART in tandem with the DGAC? What I wanted to ascertain is how influential the ART's opinion can be in the final agreement?

Thanks for those 2 questions. So indeed, regarding the cash proceeds, we have mentioned that we have a balanced capital allocation strategy. And our proposal clearly reflects a choice to keep balance sheet stability and long-term financial flexibility. So we have, as you've seen, allocated a part of these proceeds to shareholders with a special dividend coming that will be proposed to the general assembly in the month of May. And the rest of the proceeds will be dedicated to deleveraging and once again, keep this balance sheet stability and potentially give room of maneuver for potential future development.

Having said that, our development strategy and our potential target for M&A have not changed compared to what we were saying previously to this opportunity. We have a selective and opportunistic approach when it comes to development, opportunity must fit our strategic footprint, but offer long-term value creation and of course, most importantly, be compatible with our balance sheet, cash flow and credit strength objective. So scale for its own sake is not a target. And so there is no change from that perspective.

Regarding your second question, I hope I understand it correctly, so I will start an answer, but don't hesitate to precise if it's not answering your question. So regarding the role of the regulator, clearly, so we were here in a step of a nonbinding opinion. So it gives color for us and gives a road map for the next months to be in a position to sign the economic regulation agreement.

But for signing with the French state with the DGAC this final agreement, we need this time to have a binding opinion from the regulator, which is clearly mandatory. And if there is not a yes coming from the ART, the French states won't be in a position to sign the agreement. So for the time being, we are clearly in the expected time line.

The ART has also confirmed this is also a positive element in its decision, the expected schedule. So this is to say a consultation -- a new consultation on a revised draft of the contract -- consultation of airlines in September, following which the French state will have to ask the regulator for the binding opinion. The regulator will have 2 months to answer. And here, we will need their approval to be in a position to sign definitely the agreement.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Marcin Wojtal from Bank of America.

Yes, my first question relates to your stake reduction in GMR. You mentioned in the release that you have no intention to reduce your stake further. But I'm just wondering, is there any legally binding lockup with the Indian Stock Exchange perhaps, or have you committed to a contractual lockup with GMR Group? And could you perhaps clarify what would be like a duration of any potential lockup?

And question number two, if you allow me, it's on Extime Paris. So retail revenue per passenger, which I believe was minus 6% in Q1. Could you explain what was the main reason for that reduction? Is it the impact of the Middle East? Or is it driven by currency impact, weaker U.S. dollar? And what gives you the confidence that the run rate will improve in the rest of the year on retail?

So for GMR, for your first question, and indeed, the statements we made that we do not intend to make additional sale. There is no legal requirement and no lockup, formal lockup in our agreements with GMR. It's just an intention of the management. But for us, it was important to highlight this, because once again, if we are doing this transaction, we want to -- our long-term conviction on India is strong and intact, and we want to keep a strong exposure to this growth.

This was the rationale of the operation from day one. It stays true even after this crystallization of value and a minority stake. But clearly, no legal lockup, and so no explicit duration around that.

Coming to your second question in terms of retail, so indeed, the SPP was down compared to 2025. It's really difficult to isolate each driver precisely. But clearly, if we have to keep in mind one most important element, this is the FX rate. SPP clearly started softening a year ago in April 2025, coinciding with a sharper role, not only against USD, by the way, but also against the Japanese and Chinese currency, which are, as you know, all critical currency for key long-haul customer segments. So clearly, the comparison base from that perspective is unfavorable for 2026 Q1 performance.

Having said that, on top of the FX impact, also, the comparison base is not favorable because Q1 2025 delivered historically high SPP level, setting a particularly elevated benchmark above EUR 33. So what we are seeing for the first quarter of 2026 compared to 2025 is not necessarily representative of the rest of the year, because this creates really a pronounced base effect, which mechanically amplifies the apparent decline in 2026.

In addition to that, there are also a combination of exogenous headwinds that contributes to this evolution. So apart from this FX effect, there is also the slowdown in luxury demand that we have already been seeing for the last quarter of 2025. And of course, the less favorable Middle East traffic mix, because as I was mentioning earlier on, those passengers are particularly contributed in terms of retail sales on 12%, just to remind you the figure of total retail sales in 2025. So taken together, these elements mean that the current FCC performance should be viewed as a cyclical and conceptual dip rather than a structural deterioration, and our long-term fundamental clearly remain intact.

[Operator Instructions]

Okay. So if there are no further questions, I will say that, it's now time to close the call. So thank you again, everyone, for having logged into this conference.

Our next planned quarterly publication will be on July 29th with the 2026 half year results. And in the meantime, of course, feel absolutely free to get in touch with Elliot and I and the Investor Relations team for any follow-up questions. And with that, enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you.

The live presentation is over now. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Welcome to Group ADP 2025 Full Year Results Presentation. [Operator Instructions]

Now, I will hand the conference over to Cecile Combeau, Head of Investor Relations, to begin today's conference. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for our 2025 full year results presentation. I am here with Philippe Pascal, our Chairman and CEO; and Christelle de Robillard, Executive VP for Finance, Strategy and Development, who will first go through prepared remarks for about 20 minutes before the Q&A session, for which we will aim for 40-minute duration.

Before we start, and as usual, I remind you that certain information to be discussed today during this call is forward-looking and is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual revenue and results to differ materially. For these, I refer you to the disclaimer statement included in our press release and on Slide 46 of our presentation.

I will now leave the floor to our Chairman and CEO, Philippe Pascal.

Thank you, Cecile, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us to discuss our 2025 full year results. Let me first turn to Slide 3 for our key highlights. 2025 has been a strong year for the group and a key step in preparing our next strategic cycle. When I took office as Chairman and CEO a year ago, I set clear priorities: reinforcing our economic model in Paris through an economic regulation contract; deliver the best possible quality of service and accelerate the rollout of the Extime model; secure the contribution of our international activities; and support all this with more agile and engaged corporate culture.

With the new management team, we made solid progress on each of these priorities. We launched a very successful employee shareholder plan and modernized our compensation structure at ADP SA level. We improved quality of service day after day, started the Connect France partnership with Air France in June, and announced the renaming of Paris-Charles de Gaulle's infrastructure by 2027. We delivered key projects, our international assets and resumed dividend payment from TAV. And of course, we submitted our proposal for 8 years' Economic Regulation Agreement, now awaiting the regulator's first opinion. These achievements are combined with a strong operating performance in 2025 with all of our financial targets met, allowing the Board to propose a dividend of EUR 3 per share to the next general meeting after our dividend policy.

About our financial performance on Slide 4. Revenue reached EUR 6.7 billion, up nearly 9%. This reflects strong [ project ] traffic during the year and the continued development of our service businesses, included the scope effect from the acquisition of P/S and Paris Experience Group at the end of 2024. EBITDA also showed solid growth, up 12%. This performance comes from higher revenue and from disciplined cost execution, leading to further margin expansion. Finally, net result came at EUR 382 million. It was affected by FX noncash item and tax impact in 2025, but remains 12% compared with 2024.

Let me now move to Slide 5 about our employee-related achievements, which are a key driver of long-term value creation. Our employee shareholding operation was a clear success with 3 out of 4 employees subscribing. Employee ownership now represents almost 2% of the company's capital, showing strong internal alignment and confidence in the group's trajectory. It also creates collective incentive by sharing future value creation.

Just a few weeks ago, we also reached an agreement with trade unions to modernize our compensation framework and employee status. The goal is to build a more consistent, financially sustainable and performance-driven model. The impact of this reform is already reflected in our 2026 outlook. This measure will support our long-term cost trajectory, the same that was underlying our cost discipline, Economic Regulation Agreement proposal.

A quick word now on Slide 6 about the simplification and renaming plan for Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport announced at the end of 2025. Our objective is simple: make the passenger journey clearer and smoother, especially for connecting travelers. In March 2027, when the CDG Express high-speed link opens, all terminals will adapt a single numbering system, and boarding area will be renamed using specific letters. This will bring Paris back in line with the best standards of major international hubs. This renaming is a visible step, but it is only one of the main projects we will continue to roll out to reinforce the attractiveness of Paris hub and other initiatives such as the ones included in our Connect France partnership with Air France.

On Slide 7 now, still on the performance of our Paris assets, we continue to support it with several infrastructure projects delivered in 2025. First, the refurbishment of Runway 1 at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, which now meets best-in-class industry standards. Second, the commissioning of our geothermal plant for Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, a key milestone in our decarbonization road map. Third, the restructuring and extension of airside area at Paris-Orly, unlocking additional aircraft capacity and improving operational fluidity. And finally, the upgrade of baggage handling system in [ Terminal 2E ] and 2C at Charles de Gaulle, enhancing reliability. This project illustrates our ongoing efforts to maintain the high-performing and reliant Paris hub.

Finally, let me turn to Slide 8 and highlight the key achievements in our international assets. We delivered several major infrastructure projects in 2025, including the expansion of Antalya Airport in Turkey and the expansion of Delhi Airport in India. Both platforms are now ready to support further traffic growth and to capture more retail potential, thanks to new commercial areas. Both Antalya and GMR Airport secured refinancing operation. At the same time, TAV Airports successfully negotiated a 5-year concession extension for Tbilisi airport, which is a highly contributive asset. And on the back of solid performance and deleveraging, TAV announced it will resume dividend payments this year, TRY 3.61 per share, or roughly EUR 10 million for ADP SA, to be paid in 2026.

Overall, 2025 has been a year of strong execution and reinforced our foundation for the next strategic cycle.

I will now hand over to Christelle, who will take you through the 2025 financial performance in detail.

Thank you, Philippe, and good morning, everyone. Let's jump to Slide 10 and dive into our 2025 results. In 2025, we delivered continued solid traffic growth overall with different trends across our platforms. In Paris, traffic grew by 3.4%, fully in line with our annual assumption. Growth was driven by international passengers, while domestic traffic continued to decline. Looking at the group, TAV Airports delivered a solid 6% traffic increase, supported by its international assets. GMR Airports showed 3% growth, reflecting a resilient underlying profile despite some challenges during the year. AIG, specifically Amman Airport, recorded 11% growth even in a tense geographical context. Overall, these trends confirm the strength of our portfolio and the resilience of our geographically diversified model.

Now, turning to retail trends on Slide 11. Extime standard packs stand at EUR 31.7 in 2025, up 3.6% compared to 2023, but down 1.2% compared to 2024. After an outstanding first quarter, we saw a downturn in Q2, driven by several factors. First, a number of ADP-specific elements, which were largely anticipated: works in Terminal 2EK, the full year impact of the reopening of Terminal 2AC and the reallocation of some airlines there, but also a negative comparison base compared to 2024 due to lower advertising and the end of Olympic merchandise sales. In addition to these internal factors, broader external trends also weighed on performance. First, the slowdown in the luxury sector, but also significantly less attractive FX conditions since Q2 with stronger euro, while pricing strategy from luxury brands do not compensate for this effect. Despite these headwinds, we remain confident in the strength of Extime model. Underlying trends in most activities continue to support our long-term strategy.

Moving to Slide 12 about consolidated revenues. As said earlier, it reached EUR 6.7 billion, up 9% this year, reflecting a solid momentum across all our main segments. In Aviation, the revenue increase was primarily driven by the continued growth in international flows, as well as the 4.5% airport fees increase implemented in 2025. In Retail and Services, despite the headwinds I just explained, contribution to revenue growth was strong, benefiting from the international traffic growth and positive scope effect from recent acquisitions, which serve the development of our model. Abroad, TAV Airports' international assets and services companies were the biggest driver, while growth in Turkey was more moderate due to macroeconomics. AIG showed a remarkable rebound, showing resilience despite the geopolitical context.

Moving to Slide 13 to focus on our EBITDA. For 2025, EBITDA is up more than 12%, driven by revenue growth and good cost control. Excluding the integration of P/S and PEG, EBITDA is up 11.3%, above our EBITDA guidance of at least 7%. This strong performance reflects several factors: tight cost discipline in itself at ADP SA and retail subsidiaries, as well as at TAV. Parisian infrastructure is now fully open, which provides some operational leverage. We also benefited from positive base effects linked to Olympics-related expenses, which disappeared in 2025, and also the postponement of Exit/Entry System deployment to late 2025 and with a progressive rollout. 2026 OpEx are expected to increase due to this EES deployment.

Slide 14 now to look at our net income standing at EUR 382 million, up EUR 40 million. This figure reflects strong EBITDA growth, as well as the base effect from the 2024 accounting impact linked to the GIL and GAL merger. However, they are largely offset by other effects worth reminding: in D&A, the negative base effect from last year impairment reversal at AIG; in taxes, the exceptional tax surplus on large corporations in France for EUR 92 million; and as was the case in H1, all through the P&L, we recorded impact from the abnormal variations in FX rates in 2025, affecting notably the contribution of TAV and GMR Airports for a total net loss of EUR 130 million at the net income level. Overall, this all resulted in a net income attributable to the group of EUR 382 million. The cash position of the group is nevertheless solid, as apart from the tax impact, these negative impacts are mainly noncash ones.

So turning to the group debt on Slide 15. You can see net debt stood at EUR 8.6 billion at the end of 2025. Net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is improving to 3.7x EBITDA, in line with our 2025 target of 3.5x to 4x EBITDA. This deleveraging has been driven by the strong EBITDA growth, as well as the disciplined CapEx execution, both in Paris and at group level.

Moving to Slide 16 to conclude this financial part, I will focus on the regulated activities. As you can see on the left part, regulated ROCE for 2025 stands at 4.3%, up 0.3 points compared to 2024. The strong growth from traffic and increase in airport charges was notably offset by the higher tax rate applicable in France for 2025.

Let's look now at the right side of the slide, which summarizes the situation regarding 2026 tariffs. Our initial proposal, which included a 1.5% increase, was rejected in December, mainly due to divergencies on analytical accounting rules used to allocate costs and assets to the regulated perimeter. We then submitted a second proposal with flat tariffs on average. This proposal was also rejected on February 10, which means that airport charges will remain at 2025 levels from April 1, 2026. This is already reflected in our 2026 financial guidance, which Philippe will comment in just a moment. Now, importantly, the regulator explicitly stated in their decision that the ERA is the right framework to address structural topics such as allocation keys and that our envisaged timing remains valid. Our priority is to work through the regulatory process constructively, while protecting the interest of the company and its shareholders.

With that, I will now hand it back to Philippe, who will now comment on our outlook and our strategic priorities.

Thank you, Christelle. Let's now turn to the financial outlook for 2026. Our 2026 guidance is built with discipline with 3 factors explaining the calibrated EBITDA outlook: flat regulated tariff in Paris; higher-than-usual staff cost increase linked to the reform in wage structure at ADP SA level; retail revenue dynamic in a still challenging context and continuing works in Terminal 2E Hall K. All in all, we expect EBITDA growth to be driven by international assets, TAV in particular, to reach above EUR 2.35 billion EBITDA at group level.

We will continue to invest to prepare the future around EUR 1.45 billion at group level, on which, around EUR 1 billion at ADP SA with a gradual increase compared to actual 2025 CapEx, in line with the program set out in our proposed Economic Regulation Agreement. Our dividend policy remains unchanged, 60% payout with a floor of EUR 3 per share.

Our proposal for Economic Regulation Agreement for '27-'34 will be negotiated over the course of 2026. Slide 20 shows the key parameters of our proposal, which are designed to secure a fair remuneration of the investments included in our plan. Slide 20 shows the timeline for the elaboration of this new Economic Regulation Agreement. And I want to highlight that despite the non-validation of the 2026 tariff, the process is fully on track. We are fully committed to deliver a good agreement, ensuring fair remuneration of investment. We have the support of airlines. We can see on the slide that we started the year with a positive constructive vote from airlines, both on the duration and on the industrial plans, which confirm the quality of our proposal and their support. We also have the support of the French State, which asked the regulator to issue a nonbinding opinion on our proposal, which is then expected by April 11.

We anticipate that the regulator will make some negative comments on allocation key because the analytical accounting keys underlying our proposal are similar to those used for the 2026 projected tariff. We work through the process constructively, and the Economic Regulation Agreement is an appropriate framework to address such structural topic. And during the rest of 2026, we will continue negotiation with the State and hold the second round of user consultation in September. The objective remains unchanged: to obtain the binding approval of the ART in Q4 2026, followed by the signature of the Economic Regulation Agreement so that it comes into force on January 1, 2027. Overall, the timeline is progressing as planned with no deviation versus the schedule we shared in December.

Moving to Slide 21, which illustrates how 2026 will be a year dedicated to preparing our next strategic plan for '27 -- 2027 and 2030. We will focus on 4 main pillars. First, economic regulation elaboration. With the negotiation of the new Economic Regulation Agreement, its signature will bring clarity and long-term [ visible ] on the financial trajectory of our regulated activities. Second, cultural transformation, continuing to build a more agile and performance-driven organization, while strengthening the employee engagement. Third, corporate social responsibility, ensuring our road map stays aligned with long-term environmental and climate ambition and accelerating our commitments. And fourth, the portfolio review, focusing on nonregulated activities to refine our strategic priority and management focus and to optimize our portfolio for long-term value creation. Together, these 4 pillars will shape the foundation of the group's next strategy ambition.

With that, let's open the line for Q&A. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

The first one on this allocation of cost between regulated and nonregulated. [ ART ] concluded that there's a differential of 50 to 100 basis points on your returns due to the different views on cost allocation. Could you give us a bit more details? What are the arguments on your side that you believe the way you approach cost allocation is the correct one? Do you see reasonable chances to convince them to drop this claim going forward?

And secondly, considering a more conservative view from ART in terms of your actual regulated returns, at least from my side, it seems that CapEx and a multiyear regulatory framework are the only things that could avoid cutting your tariffs in 2027. So in this sense, what is the minimum level of WACC that you're willing to accept in order to deploy this CapEx plan that you presented for ERA going forward?

So thank you for your question. So perhaps just to have a view about the debate with the regulator, there are 2 main areas of misalignment in the view of the regulators, the WACC and the allocation key, as you say. Perhaps to start on the regulated WACC, main takeaway from last week's decision is that the regulator clearly stated that the WACC will be higher in case of multiyear agreements. And we will have more insight when this -- issue their nonbinding opinion of the economic regulation proposal, which is expected in -- by April. So it's not possible to give you a minimum of WACC. The key element is to have a global balance and a fair remuneration at the end of the day for our Economic Regulation Agreement, but also if we don't have an Economic Regulation Agreement. We are very confident that Economic Regulation Agreement, it's a good vehicle to find a very fair remuneration for us due to the fact that the head of ART said clearly that we can discuss about that through this process, and the fact that in the methodology of the French regulator, we can have a higher WACC when we have a multiyear agreement. So, in line with this element, we are convinced that in the process, we can find a good balance.

On allocation keys, in fact, the regulator estimates that we should implement analytical accounting correction that could increase the ROCE, the regulated ROCE by around 0.5 to 1 point. Among the pushbacks from the regulator on allocation keys, the most material are the space allocation key to allocate costs between scope regulated to share space in our terminals, in the boarding area, near the shops and so on. The key related to access to allocate the cost related to our airport shuttle system -- airport shuttle is a key element also -- we will resume discussion with airline and work through the regulatory process constructively, while protecting the interest of the company and its shareholders. That is very important for us and very clear. It's the fact that the French State, the decision of the government is to have a dual-till system with a regulated scope and a nonregulated scope. So we can obviously discuss about the cost allocation key if we respect this dual-till system. So we have -- obviously, we have to find the good rules and the good [ team ]. We have to work with the airlines. We have to work with the French regulator, and this work is on track with both airlines and the regulator. But at the end of the day, you have to respect the dual-till system. And I know that for the French State, it's vital because it's at the end of the French State, not at the end of the regulators.

So globally, to answer your question, in fact, we have this key question of WACC and of allocation key, but we are very confident that the Economic Regulation Agreement and the process to elaborate this agreement, it's a good process to success, and we are confident to do that. It's the reason why we are not so worried about the decision of 2026 tariff.

The next question comes from Tobias Fromme from Bernstein.

I'm trying to understand your traffic growth guidance in a little bit more detail. On Slide 7, you elaborate on the 2026 investment projects. What's the estimated impact of those projects on traffic growth, especially looking at sort of the runway renovation at CDG and capacity extension at Orly. If you will sort of not have to implement those projects, would the sort of guidance be very similar? Like, can you effectively shift the impact a little bit by having more aircraft flying into CDG, for instance?

And then, on retail, when I look specifically at the different quarters, the performance of the businesses in the different quarters, I see that duty free has obviously gotten a lot worse over the quarters, about 8% Q1, Q2, flat in Q3, and then minus 2% in Q4. Is that the trajectory we should keep in mind for 2026 as well? And have you maybe seen anything on duty free in the first 2 months -- first 1.5 months of 2026? And that's it.

Thank you for your question. So regarding the first one in terms of traffic, so as you've seen, we've posted a guidance of traffic expected growth between 1.5% to 2.5% in Paris, mostly driven by international. Just to remind you that it's totally in line with the assumption taken in the Economic Regulation Agreement, and there have been no change since then. So globally, we expect in 2026 to see similar trends as in 2025, continued dynamic growth of international traffic with Middle East and Asia notably, as other destinations have already more than recovered, but also a steady and lower growth for the Schengen area traffic, where traffic is now [ mature ] and above 2019 levels, and finally, French domestic traffic to remain structurally lower.

Regarding your specific question between CDG and Orly, indeed, the traffic in 2026 will be affected by temporary airside works at Orly that will constrain operations from April to December 2026. There will be, to be very precise, 2 work phases impact operation: April to early August, works on some taxiway; and from mid-August to early December, works on the runway itself. Some airlines can have chosen to proactively adjust their programs, reducing flights, transferring some activity to CDG and to reshape schedule. Some indeed chose to frontload reduction early in the season to smooth operational adjustments. But crucially, what you have to have in mind is that airlines will keep their early slots. And so, these cuts are just tactical, not structural. And all these elements of traffic in Orly are fully embedded in our 2026 traffic assumption.

Regarding your second question in terms of retail performance, so indeed, the performance was quite different quarter-by-quarter. There was more an outstanding performance in Q1, and then a gradual decrease. Clearly, that began when the euro appreciated a lot. So, as you understand, our performance has been impacted by all those FX tailwinds. Regarding 2026, our assumption is broadly a stable FX rate with no reversal of the 2025 currency impact. There was also this trend regarding the slowdown on luxury categories, which have also affected once again due to this sensitive FX competitiveness. So this is something on which we will pay attention for sure. But our assumption takes into account, as I said, a broadly stable FX. You saw that we posted a hypothesis above EUR 32 in 2026. We have some levers to drive this [indiscernible] in 2026 and the [indiscernible] strength, the traffic mix improvement, so all this should contribute to stabilize our retail performance.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas.

Two questions around the long-term regulatory agreement. I'm quite intrigued. You mentioned that you have support by the airlines for this agreement. Can you elaborate? And then, second question on this OpEx allocation and projection on regulated revenue. To what extent you're trying to find a compromise with ART or actually try to bring on board what ART said and just implement it?

Thank you for your first question about the support of airlines. In the formal process of the negotiation of an Economic Regulation Agreement, the starting point is the publication of the proposal in December. And the first step is a dedicated vote in a specific committee that we -- all the main airlines and representative organizations of airlines. So we executed this first step at the end of January in 2 elements. The first element, it's a specific for duration, and we obtained the full support of the main part of the airlines. And the second vote, it's about the proposal. That is clear. It's the fact that we have a favorable vote, positive vote due to the fact that all the airlines, and in particular, the main airlines in Paris support the industrial plan, the fact that we can develop and we have to develop the platform in Paris-Orly, but mainly in Paris-Charles de Gaulle. We have to develop the hub of SkyTeam. And we manage well this process because it's the industrial process. It's the result of a strong discussion with airlines and also the consultation of our main stakeholders during the consultation in 2025. So our proposal, it's a result of the first informal consultation and negotiation with the airlines. So -- but the good success is the fact that officially, when you consult the airlines, all the airlines adopt this project with a favorable vote. It's a good thing to try to convince the French regulator that it's a good Economic Regulation Agreement and well balanced.

That is -- for your second question about the allocation keys, the ART requested an analytical accounting adjustment, but we have just said, it's to increase the [indiscernible]. The main pushback related to space allocation key, as I say, it's the number of square meter in the regulated and in the nonregulated scope, and also the key related to access. These topics require structural formalized work with airline, which are resuming immediately. So we work a lot, and the ERA is precisely the appropriate framework to solve this technical point. We have -- with the French regulator, we have a discussion, regular discussion, technical discussion, professional discussion. The regulator demonstrates a good understanding of airport infrastructure constraints. But we do not prejudge decision, but the tone is forward-looking. And ART confirmed that the ERA is the right avenue to [ track ] long-term topics. So, for the moment, we have a positive discussion. In fact, we are a little bit surprised about the decision of -- in December that is not in line with all the work that we executed with airlines and also with the regulators. So, a little bit surprised, but it's not the same tone before than after the decision, perhaps due to some claims about some airlines. But all in all, we have to continue the discussion and remind that the question of cost allocation key, it's also the question of the dual-till system. So it's not just the regulator, but it's also the French State. And we are very confident about that because our industrial project is vital for the development of the airport sector in France. So it's -- we have the full support of the French State.

The next question comes from Jose Arroyas from Santander.

I wanted to ask you about your plans to review the company's portfolio. I think this is also something you talked about in December. But what do you exactly mean by a strategic review of nonregulated assets? Are you looking to sell some of the assets you already own partially or fully? Or are you looking to buy more of the assets you own? And if it is the latter, what type of businesses would you be considering adding?

Thank you for your question. So indeed, we announced in mid-December last time that we were going to conduct a portfolio review. So this is, of course, still our expectation. So the 2026 portfolio review will cover all nonregulated activities with the aim of clarifying long-term value drivers and the strategic role of each asset. We assess indeed every asset based on long-term value creation, strategic relevance and capital efficiency. At the end of the day, this review is not designed to trigger a major disposal. Having said that, we apply a clear discipline to cost allocation. We consider both disposal or acquisition only when they reinforce our long-term industrial and financial profile. So this is the way we will conduct this work. Thank you.

The next question comes from Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

Could I kindly ask on the OpEx side? You talked about the new compensation structure reform. Could you give a bit more detail on the actual wage increases in '26 and then the long-term savings associated with this new compensation structure? And maybe on this topic, could you talk, for ADP SA, the other OpEx components, what type of inflationary pressure would you expect in '26 versus '25?

And the second one, if I may, coming back to the allowed return, I think ART proposed a 5.3%, 5.4% WACC for Toulouse and Marseille airports. And I know these are different assets with different considerations. But I'm just trying to take a step back if, at the end of the day, ART believes today, you're earning somewhere between 4.5% to 5.5% regulated return, you're not too far away from this 5.3%, 5.4% WACC. So what I'm trying to think conceptually, in my eyes, from here to grow your tariff, effectively, it's all underpinned by your regulated asset base growth or by your CapEx because if the WACC indeed ends up being 5.3%, there doesn't seem to be a lot of tariff increase. So could you help us a bit -- am I missing something? Are you still confident in a healthy tariff increase above the inflation levels in France over the next years? And what are the arguments in that regard?

So I'll comment on your first question regarding the staff cost reform. So, as you have understood during the presentation, this is a comprehensive renovation of ADP SA remuneration structure for both nonexecutive and executive, aimed at making salary progression more predictable, more individualized and structurally more sustainable. As mentioned, this reform will generate a significant impact in 2026 as we implement salary increases to compensate for the withdrawal of certain future benefits, especially the automaticity of salary increases. This will create a onetime larger step-up compared to our usual staff cost trajectory. In practical terms, the 2026 wage increase will be roughly twice the normal annual run rate. But clearly, all this impact is fully included in our 2026 guidance for recurring EBITDA above EUR 2.350 billion. Clearly, this will -- the aim of this reform is to rebalance the compensation structure and to make it more sustainable over the long-term period. So it will also help secure the assumption we took in the Economic Regulation Agreement of wage inflation at CPI plus 0.6 points.

Regarding other OpEx evolution assumptions, so on your question about the inflation, we are expecting some classical inflation hypothesis, so between -- I would say, close to 1.5%. So, no specific element on that. Maybe just keep in mind that our OpEx base will be impacted, but like usual -- as usual, on consumable, by the trends with our level of activity and sales; on external services, as I mentioned in my presentation, by the deployment of Exit/Entry System, which was postponed in 2025; and on staff expenses, by this wage reform. And maybe just worth to say that, as you saw also, there was no significant move on the tax front.

So about the WACC, so what is clear for us is the fact that it's not possible to sign an Economic Regulation Agreement if we don't have a fair remuneration. The fair remuneration, we have 2 aspects of the fair remuneration. It's a level of WACC, but it's also the fact that we have to assume a pure convergence between the regulated ROCE and the regulated WACC. So about the regulated WACC, in fact, we can compare the situation of ADP with the situation of a regional airport. It's, as you say, not really the same airport, the same risk. That is a key element. the specificity of ADP, the fact that we propose an Economic Regulation Agreement for 8 years with EUR 8 billion. When you compare with Toulouse, it's not comparable because we have just a CapEx plan for EUR 130 million for 5 years, and we propose in ADP EUR 8 billion for 8 years. So globally, in terms of risk, we have a higher risk in ADP compared to the regional airport. And we are very optimistic for this real environmental economic view and the fact that, in the methodology of the French regulator, we have in line -- the fact that we have to assume a part of risk. We are globally confident at the methodology of the regulator that is -- it seems the level of regulated WACC is higher in case of this multiyear agreement, higher so probably in the high part of the range, perhaps a little bit higher. We have to assume that.

So, in terms of CapEx program, for me, the question of the level of CapEx, it's not in line with the level of WACC. We have to -- we need a fair remuneration for a low CapEx program or high CapEx program. It's the same thing. So in fact, if we don't have an Economic Regulation Agreement, mechanically, we -- it's not possible to deliver an industrial project as we plan. But we are globally confident due to the fact that it's vital to launch this plan and to compete with our main competitors like Istanbul, [indiscernible] and so on.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

The next question comes from Nicolas Mora from Morgan Stanley.

Just wanted to come back on the cost allocation and just the support of airlines. Obviously, they are on board on the industrial plan. I don't think anybody questions that. From the ART documents, they're not really on board on the cost allocation. I mean, they're talking about north of EUR 200 million of cost they would like to be put into the unregulated perimeter. They would like a cut in RAB. So is there for you a point where you just walk away because you just can't -- just basically can't [indiscernible] a 3-digit number of costs being switched into the unregulated perimeter? That's the first question.

Then on -- if we can come back on the results and just on the retail, just in '25, can you explain a bit why the operating leverage is so good? I mean, the step-up in EBITDA is quite impressive versus the revenue rise. Just wanted to know if there were any special elements there or what you're doing to actually squeeze a little bit more from the revenue? And thinking about retail in '26, just a confirmation. So we're going to start the year with tough comps, still some FX headwinds, still some construction headwind. So the year is pretty dramatically back-end loaded in terms of improvement in performance and spend per pax.

And last one, sorry, on '26 guidance. Can you help us understand what you've put for TAV in your EUR 2.350 billion EBITDA kind of minimum guidance? Are you at the midpoint? Are you at the low point, the high point? Because TAV range is quite wide. Just trying to understand what you've got in there for TAV and imply what you've got for Paris Airport.

So thank you, Nicolas. So about your first question and the fact that we have to discuss with the airlines about the cost allocation key, in fact, we have the support of the airlines to execute the industrial project but also to execute this project through an Economic Regulation Agreement. It's support in principle, but we have to discuss about the details. We have to discuss about the global economic balance. So it includes the cost allocation key. It includes also the level of WACC. It includes the level of CapEx, of OpEx and so on. So -- but in principle, it's a result of first discussion that is appreciated from the airlines.

In terms of cost allocation key, we discuss a lot with the airlines. We execute all the guidelines of the French regulator. And it's quite a surprise for us to have a negative decision of the French regulator due to the we take account for all the elements that the French regulator wants to study. So, after that, in terms of cost allocation key, as I say, it's a global balance with all the other factors, first. And the second point, specifically for the allocation key, the question is perhaps to discuss about the key in terms of square meter for the regulated scope or not. But it's also the fact that we have some red line, and the red line is to assume the fact that the decision of the French State is the dual-till system of ADP. So, that is the red line, and it's red line for ADP, but it's mainly a red line for the French State.

For the other question, Christelle?

Yes. So regarding your second question in terms of retail performance, so indeed, Retail and Services outperformed despite the SPP headwinds we just mentioned in our presentation. So this solid growth was attributable to 2 main elements. First, a solid cost discipline. This was the case at all the group level, as you can see, because we outperformed on every segment, but this was particularly the case on the retail segment. We also had a cautious stock management and purchasing policy. So this is the first reason. And the second reason is the Extime model, which clearly continues to drive higher-margin categories such as beauty. Maybe just to mention one figure, interesting figure, on Beauty, we made a plus 6% performance compared to a minus 2.6% on the national market. So it shows the robustness of our strategy and model. So this performance is partly structural, as you can understand. Extime has clearly raised the operational and commercial productivity of our retail ecosystem despite the FX and luxury cycle headwinds that remain in the near term. More generally, once again, when you look at our 2025 financial performance, we were well above our guided at least plus 7% EBITDA, but with strong double-digit increase all across our segments, both in aviation, retail and international.

Maybe concerning your third question, the assumption we are taking in our EBITDA guidance for TAV, so the guidance we take at the group level above EUR 2.350 billion is totally in line with the EBITDA guidance disclosed by TAV, which is guiding for EUR 590 million -- for a range between, sorry, EUR 590 million and EUR 650 million EBITDA in 2026. That means EUR 30 million to EUR 90 million EBITDA growth. So this is the underlying assumption for TAV. And bear in mind that the rest of the performance of the group will be impacted by flat regulated tariff in Paris, by the higher-than-usual staff cost increase that I mentioned previously, and this retail revenue dynamics in a still challenging context and the continuing works in Terminal 2E Hall K. Thank you.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

Yes. No more questions this time indeed. And so, it's time to close today's call. Thank you, everyone, for having logged into this conference. The next planned quarterly publication will be on April 28 with the 2026 first quarter [ review ]. And in the meantime, of course, feel free to get in touch with Eliott or myself in the Investor Relations team for any follow-up questions. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you.

Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Welcome to the 2025 9 months revenue presentation of Groupe ADP. [Operator Instructions]

Now I will hand the conference over to Cecile Combeau, Head of Investor Relations, to begin today's conference. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us for our 9 months revenue presentation. I'm here with Christelle Robillard, Group CFO, who will go through some prepared remarks before the Q&A session.

Before we start and, as usual, I remind you that certain information to be discussed on today's call is forward-looking and is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual performance to differ materially. For these, I refer you to the disclaimer statement included in our press release and on Slide 30 of our presentation.

And I will now leave the floor to our CFO, Christelle Robillard.

Thank you, Cecile and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us to discuss our 2025 9 months revenue.

Let me now turn to Slide 3 for our key highlights. The left part of the slide showcases the solid figures we have recorded over the first 9 months despite a demanding context, as I will comment later. Group traffic is up 4%, while consolidated revenue grew 9% to about EUR 5 billion. This enabled us to confirm our 2025 outlook and targets. On strategic matters, we continue to move forward on the key projects that will shape our competitiveness and long-term development. You already know about most of them: the Connect France partnership with Air France, which is delivering its first tangible results, including the Short Connection Pass, launched this summer; the CDG & VOUS public consultation completed in July, which has provided valuable insights for our long-term development plan for Paris-CDG.

And last but not least, our work towards the next economic regulation agreement is progressing well. I'm pleased to announce that our proposal will be unveiled on December 10, marking the start of the formal process that would lead to a new multiyear regulatory agreement starting in January 2027. I will come back to this important topic in a few minutes. On Slide 4, a few words on our airport tariffs. On October 17, the group submitted its tariff proposal for 2026, corresponding to a 1.5% increase. As a reminder, our 2 previous tariff hikes for 2024 and 2025 have fully offset the impact of the infrastructure tax under regulated scope. We will now be awaiting the approval decision by the regulator within 2 months as per the usual time line.

Let's jump to Slide 6. Traffic in the 9 months evolved broadly in line with our assumption despite a less favorable context in some geographies. In Paris, traffic was up 3.5% year-on-year versus a 2% growth in Q3. While domestic traffic remains on the decline, international traffic has been driving growth since the beginning of the year. Traffic with North America remains above 2019 levels with growth normalizing at 2%. Traffic with Africa is up 5.5%, driven by VFR demand being well above 2019 in traffic, reaching 121%. Traffic with Asia Pacific, still in recovery, is the most dynamic, growing 8%, exceeding 90% of pre-COVID level.

Among this, China catches up but capacities are not expected to increase further. At the group level, trends are mixed but showcased strong underlying growth dynamics, up 4% despite headwinds in some markets. TAV Airports traffic is up 5%, especially driven by its international assets, while Turkey saw less dynamism. GMR Airport traffic grew by 3%, largely driven by Hyderabad, while Delhi faced a difficult Q2 and Q3 given geopolitical tensions, runway works and the partial grounding of Air India fleet. Lastly, despite its unstable geopolitical context, AIG recorded a significant growth of 7.5%.

Let me now turn to Slide 7 to retail performance. As mentioned, Extime sales per pax stand at EUR 31.3, 5.3% above 2023 levels but down 0.3% year-on-year. After an outstanding Q1 and muted Q2, this confirms the sequential slowdown we had commented upon. As a reminder, our full year outlook guided for an underlying 1% decline of growth in SPP versus 2024. As discussed earlier this year, the cause of this trend is twofold: previously flagged effects inherent to ADP's 2025 situation, the adverse comparison against the Olympics-driven advertising in 2024, ongoing works in Terminal 2E-K and reopening of terminals with lesser retail performance but also external headwinds, namely the slowdown in the luxury sector driven by the appreciation of euro against foreign currencies and adjustments in brand pricing policy. Observing this transitory effect, we stand cautious but remain confident in our underlying retail strategy and offering.

Moving on to Slide 8. Revenue reached just above EUR 5 billion in the first 9 months of 2025, a solid growth of 9.4% compared to the same period in 2024. This increase is driven by various trends in each of our segments. In Paris, the Aviation segment is up EUR 106 million, reflecting both our tariff hike and the continued traffic growth. The Retail and Services segment is up EUR 178 million, which is largely due to scope effect from the acquisition of P/S and PEG in late 2024. Excluding those effects, the segment saw subdued growth due to the headwinds I mentioned and then [ of reinvoicing link ] to Line 14. International is up EUR 149 million. TAV delivered double-digit revenue growth, thanks to its international assets and services companies, while AIG continued its recovery despite geopolitical tension.

Now let's go through the outlook quickly on Slide 10 to confirm our outlook for 2025, unchanged since the last publication. You have already noticed the reinstatement of the dividend flow of EUR 3 per share for 2025. Looking forward, I can highlight that our 2026 outlook and targets will be provided upon our 2025 full year publication in February next year. Now on to Slide 11 to conclude this presentation with a word on our next Economic Regulation Agreement. We can now share a clearer time line for the start of the process. Groupe ADP will release its public consultation document on December 10, which will officially kick off the negotiation and approval process. The rest of the time tables remains unchanged. Discussion with the French state and regulator's opinion will unfold in 2026 with the to the new contract in January 2027.

To give you a comprehensive view of our industrial project and the key assumptions, parameters and clauses of our proposal, we will host an investor teach-in in Paris on December 11. This half day meeting will feature a plenary session, followed by deep dive workshops with management and plenty of time for Q&A and direct exchanges. The plenary will be live streamed for those cannot attend in person but we very much hope to welcome many of you in Paris and discuss the details of our proposal face to face.

That's all for this section. Let's now open the line for your questions.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Eric Lemarie from CIC Market Solutions.

Yes. I got 3, if I may. The first one on India. Maybe could you update us on Delhi and the difficulties you are currently dealing with? Do you see a better Q4 in particular for Delhi? And what about Noida Airport? I think it is open now. Are you still comfortable with the situation and with the competition from Noida? And do you see any risk there? My second question on Extime. Could you maybe tell us more on your guidance, given the performance so far in 2025? And how do you see Q4 so far? And the last question on the regulation. Do you see the current political situation as a risk for your future economic agreement negotiation, maybe a risk of delay, I don't know. And in particular, would it be an issue for you if the Minister of Transport, for instance, change sometimes in 2026?

Thanks, Eric, for all this question. So maybe beginning with India and the Delhi difficulties. Indeed, there was some conjunctural difficulties in Delhi regarding the traffic over the past few months. But this is something more conjunctural, as I highlighted in the presentation, especially unfortunately, the impact of the crash of Air India, which leads to have some check on the aircraft. Second element, some works on the runway, which are now finalized and should help to increase the traffic in the months to come. And lastly, some geopolitical tension due to the conflict with Pakistan, which can also lead to decrease the traffic. But all in all, we are confident that all of these elements are more conjunctural and that we'll have still an important exposure to traffic growth in the midterm.

Regarding your second question in India from Noida, So this has not -- the airport is not still open. It will be the case in a few weeks. Just to remind you that Jewar Airport is located 75 kilometers from Delhi city center, which implies a 2- or 3-hour journey by car, so not so easy. With an initial capacity of 12 million passenger, it will primarily address the catchment area allocated in its direct vicinity, like Noida and other cities from the state of Uttar Pradesh. With the opening of the new Terminal 1, Delhi Airport has a 100 million passenger capacity. So airlines do not have any development constraints in Delhi Airport. Jewar Airport, as for itself, may primarily have some freight flights and short-haul flights operated by regional or low-cost airlines. So all in all, we are confident that there won't be any impact on Delhi traffic due to competition.

Regarding your second question in term of retail. So indeed, there was a slowdown this Q3, especially due to the luxury sector impacted by the significant euro appreciation against U.S. dollar, first but also against Chinese renminbi that leads to have our prices much less competitive in this context. And all the more as brands have not readjusted fully their pricing and prefer to maintain momentum in the local market case impacted by this FX moves. Conversely, we can also notice at the same time that there is a strong momentum in categories driven by Extime, especially beauty.

On top of this macroeconomic element, there is also the impact of specific elements due to ADP previously flagged and supportive headwinds. I mentioned in my presentation the rebasing of advertising post Olympics, the works in Terminal 2E-K, the full year impact on some reopening of some terminals which are less performance in term of retail. But all in all, our performance is consistent with the outlook for the full year and we have confirmed our guidance, which is a growth between 4% to 6% compared to 2023.

And lastly, on your question regarding regulation. Clearly, we do not expect the current political context to affect the ERA discussion, which are more technical discussions than political ones. So we are still in a position to have technical discussion with the different technical services. Regarding specifically the regulator, as you know, it's an independent authority. So clearly, no issue here. And regarding your specific question of the Transport Minister, we are confident that there is continuity of the state so that there will always be a government representative to sign on ERA.

The next question comes from Andrew Lobbenberg from Barclays.

Can I ask 2 questions? Just coming back to that last point on regulation, where you say that you think that the ERA debate is technical. When you present your plan to us in -- on the 10th of December, it will reflect the plans to expand the airport. And surely, decisions over airport expansion are not technical but they are policy and how highly any one government weights the environmental agenda compared to a growth agenda or something like that does become very political. So I'd just be curious to see what you say to that?

And then my other question again is, sorry, it's going to come back to the retail. It seems that you guys have been guiding us to expect weakness in your sales per pax for about a decade because of [ 2A-C and Hall K ]. But it never came and it never came and it never came. And certainly, this quarter, we do see that weakness. I'm just wondering about the timing of these headwinds. I mean, is it that they've just started appearing and so we should expect the headwinds to be material for the coming quarters? Or perhaps is it the case that the headwinds have been there in previous quarters but underlying trading was so strong that it overcame them? So how should we think about the timing or the duration of the headwinds on retail?

Thank you, Andrew, for your question. So you're totally right. The discussion around capacity expansion is not technical and then have some political impact. But for that, we are totally confident because, as you know, we have shared and we have launched over the past few months, 2 consultation regarding the target vision both for Orly and CDG. So speaking specifically of CDG, the consultation generated over 20,000 contribution across more than 700 municipality, so giving us a clear view of stakeholders' expectation and the long-term vision for 2050. So we can consider that this political debate has already been addressed through this consultation.

We have different priorities that have emerged from this consultation, mobility and intermodality, quality of service, accessibility, sustainability and low carbon energy and local integration and employment. All this inside that we have received directly feed into our industrial road map, strengthening our priorities on environmental ambition, passenger experience and territorial integration. So finally, all this process that we have voluntarily conducted reinforce the legitimacy of our future ERA proposal as it demonstrates broad stakeholder engagement and secure common elements on our long-term priorities. So that's why we are kind of confident on this political debate.

Regarding your second question in term of retail and the specific headwinds for ADP. Indeed, we have spoken of these headwinds since -- for a long time. But clearly, it's now really -- we now really begin to feel the impact. The work at 2E-K will spread over a long period since the boarding lounges will be renovated in the second phase. So just to say that work in Terminal 2E-K will be continuing in 2026. And we have just begun a new phase of work leading to the closure of the beauty and cosmetics area. Some boarding gates are closed due to construction work, as I mentioned, which will lead to transfer to L and M of the terminal, which will continue to have an impact. So there will still be clearly an impact on those headwinds in the months to come.

The next question comes from Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas.

I have 3, if I may. First one, based on the consultation -- the outcome of the consultation for Charles de Gaulle expansion and works, then you published that in the beginning of this month, should we expect some major works to road access or rail access to the airport? And will this be included in the CapEx for the next regulatory period? Second question is related to the -- what's coming in terms of regulation. Of course, there are debates in France about the French corporate tax rate. How would you deal with this uncertainty in the next regulatory period? And third question about traffic, which in Paris, which in September was quite weak, so if you can explain why? And what shall we expect for the winter also based on the plans by airlines?

Thank you for these 3 questions. So beginning with the consultation of CDG. So as I mentioned, it's generated many, many contribution and we already tried to feed those feedbacks in our industrial road map. But regarding specifically your question in term of road access, no, that's not a major part of our industrial project. We will give you much more color and this will be the whole point of the presentation in mid-December. But clearly, there is not the same topic as it used to be the case where we -- when we were talking of a brand-new Terminal 4, which led to a important investment in term of road access.

Regarding your second question of the French corporate tax and the impact it can have on regulation. Just to tell you that the regulated WACC we are taking into account is based on the current corporate tax rate, excluding any temporary surcharge or one-off additional contribution. For the next economic regulation, you know that this WACC will be fixed over the entire duration of the ERA. But of course, we are totally aware that given the current context in France, we could be exposed to tax volatility. So that's why we are exploring adjustment mechanism that could partially offset any gap between the forecast and actual tax burden. Let's have this conversation more in detail on the 11th of December.

Cecile, you want to take the third one?

Yes. On September traffic, indeed, as we pointed out in previous disclosure, we were expecting a progressive softness in traffic evolution. In September, what you might have noticed in particular is in CDG, reflects mainly capacity reallocation, not an issue regarding underlying demand. Several airlines actually reduced or shifted some traffic from Schengen and North America, which were previously allocated to CDG, to Orly and they did that after the summer. So that's what is reflected in the September traffic.

So that weighed on CDG's short-haul traffic, while long-haul growth, North America and Asia kind of [ paused ] at the same time, reflecting here as well some elements that we had largely commented on. And -- so this capacity evolution are seen as short-term adjustments. And comparison as well for the rest of the year will ease towards the year-end because ATC disruptions that you had seen at the beginning of the year as well as Middle East tensions from the late of last year 2024 will fade from the comparison basis, so improving the comparison.

The next question comes from [ Tobias from Bernstein ].

I have 2 questions, please. One more on retail. Extime Duty Free was essentially flat year-over-year in Q3. And just to sort of quantify what you had said before, is that the trajectory that we should expect also for Q4 and maybe going into 2026? And then the second one on Aviation. Your tariff proposals for 2026 is 1.5%, which we all expect to be signed off, which very simplistically gives us a unit revenue increase by 1.5% for sort of airport fees. Could you give us a steer on how you see Aviation OpEx, operating cost, on a per unit base evolving in 2026?

Thanks for this question. So clearly, regarding the SPP, [indiscernible] we remain confident and conscious of the natural environment that could still play on the performance and the impact -- the performance for the rest of the year. Looking forward in 2026, it's a little bit early to comment. But as I was mentioning, as the specific headwinds that weigh on ADP performance will be continuing in 2026, especially the works in Terminal 2E-K. As I was mentioning, we are entering a more important phase in term of work with the closure of the beauty and cosmetics area. That should also weigh on 2026 performance. For the rest of the year for 2025, we are nevertheless totally confident in our capacity to reach the guidance, which is a growth between 4% to 6% growth compared to 2023.

Regarding your second question in term of the increase in tariff and the link with the evolution in term of OpEx. As you know, the main driver of our OpEx basis is the opening of new infrastructure and [indiscernible]. Having said that, when you look specifically on each of our [indiscernible], external services will be -- the evolution will be driven by the increase both in traffic growth of specific items and also our efforts towards quality of service. Regarding also the staff cost, which is an important item in our OpEx basis, it should remain dynamic in Paris, reflecting both the structural salary increase baseline of 2.5%, as you know, on average per year as well as the impact of the last recruitments we made over the past 12 months. Regarding the specific items in term of taxes, we will continue to follow the impact of the finance project deal that could have an impact but it's clearly too early to say as the process is ongoing. So all in all, the proposal we made with a tariff increase of 1.5% is in line with our OpEx assumption -- evolution assumption for 2026.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

Maybe can I start one with the CapEx for the next regulatory period? I think in the press release last night, you mentioned that during the consultations, the stakeholders appreciated your modular approach to CapEx. Are you trying to signal here that there will be no meaningful CapEx increase over the next years and it's rather a very lengthy, that the CapEx comes gradually over the years with no meaningful increase? Is this what you're trying to say? Secondly, just could I ask you a bit -- for a bit more detail around the tariff increase for next year? Can you tell us what's the actual regulator return you're expecting to achieve this year? My impression was that you will be very close to the WACC upper limit of the regulators. So in that context, I'm trying to think how does the math work for next year. You're going traffic growth of a couple of percentage points. You're asking for 1.5%. That suggests to me your regulator return goes up even further. So is your hope the WACC increases for next year already? Or am I missing any other moving parts there?

And then can I also ask you, looking at the next regulatory period, there's a lot of adjustments that you've been talking about, adjusting for risk, adjusting for traffic risk, potentially for the tax rate. I think in the past there are also adjustments for the CapEx that you generate or some buffers in place to protect you. I guess my question is all the more adjustments we put in there, the lower the WACC at the end of the day, So I guess my question is, how do you think about balancing the risks that you are willing to take over the next regulatory period versus the rewards, which comes via a higher WACC and a higher tariff? If you could talk a bit about the approach there.

Yes. Thank you for this 3 questions. So beginning maybe with the first one in term of CapEx. So yes, clearly, as you mentioned, we have a modular approach. We have a totally different approach than the one we had before the COVID crisis to have an industrial project, more modular, more phaseable to build inside the existing -- to find capacity inside the existing capacity first before going and expanding new capacity outside the existing terminal. Having said that, so regarding your question of if there is no meaningful CapEx increase. So as you know, it's a little bit early to comment on a precise figure.

But having said that, we have always mentioned that we will have important commitments in term of maintenance, especially because of the aging of our infrastructure. We will have also all the investment dedicated to new capacity. So all in all, we know that the investment will be kind of important. But let discuss about our proposal and the precise figure on the 10th of December. Once again, it has -- it means something to -- it's not easy to give you a figure -- a precise figure for the CapEx without giving you the full picture and especially the way they are financed. So this is -- this will really be the objective of the public consultation document, to give you a comprehensive view on the economic balance.

Regarding the tariff increase and the expected return on ROCE. So as usual, you know, we don't disclose our expectation in term of ROCE for next year. But having said that, the underlying WACC used for this 2026 tariff proposal is consistent with the regulator WACC methodology. This is important to ensure constructive dialogue with the regulator while securing a tariff approval within the current 1-year framework, as you know, which is the last one before the future multiyear framework. So the parameter we have taken into account for 2026 tariff approval are not indicative of the level that we will apply for the ERA in regulator view, the level of WACC and -- sorry, regarding your third question and the way we can balance the risk and the higher WACC.

So in regulator view, the level of WACC and adjustment factor are not linked. You know in the methodology of the regulator, there is an approach regarding the quantitative estimation of the each -- to calculate each parameter. And on top of this quantitative approach comes some qualitative criteria. But in those qualitative criteria, there is no link with the adjustment factor. On the contrary, in those qualitative criteria, I think it's important to remind that the duration of the ERA and the fact it'll be a multiyear -- in a multiyear approach leads to higher WACC.

At the end of the day, so yes, we are working and exploring some specific work on the adjustment sector to have a fair sharing of the ring as much as possible. At the end of the day, our objective is to reach a balanced outcome, to have the right industrial project by the right return condition, to ensure at the end of the day that the capital invested is fairly remunerated with a fair level of WACC and while, at the same time, keeping the system sustainable for all stakeholders. So all the work on the adjustment sector are part of this objective to reach a balanced outcome. Ultimately all parties in this negotiation have the same goal, a framework that enables the delivery of the right infrastructure at the right cost. And we are confident that we will find this parameter.

And if you allow me, could I ask a quick last one. In terms of capital allocation, a few quarters back, you were talking about potential M&A in developing markets if interesting opportunities arise. Is that still something in the plan for the next years? Or did the -- does the current investments in Paris mean that, that is out of the question?

So yes, thank you for this additional question. So regarding our M&A policy, as you know and this has always been the case, we remain disciplined and selective. Our focus is on value creation, not expansion for the sake of scale. So clearly, should we look at some new opportunities, we will -- we would analyze very carefully the impact on our balance sheet and the impact in term of rating. So it's something important for us. And this strategy will remain the same in the future.

The next question comes from Ashish Khetan from Citigroup.

Can you please help us provide some early thoughts on the traffic growth for Paris in 2026? And second question is with regards to TAV. You mentioned that traffic growth has been slower in Turkey so far. So how do you see that evolving in Q4?

Okay. Thanks for this 2 questions. So regarding the traffic growth in Paris in 2026, maybe just a word before regarding the end of 2025. Just to remind you that we expect to have trends similar to those we noticed on the last few months. This means, as I mentioned in my presentation, sequential slowdown in traffic growth because there is a comparison basis that was easier earlier in the year because of air traffic modernization system at the beginning of 2024. Secondly, French domestic traffic should remain down, as you saw at the end of September. And international traffic should remain also the growing factor. Having said that, we expect also the same trend in term of domestic traffic and international traffic for 2026. At this stage, nonwinter capacity are encouraging to this outlook and for further progression into 2026. We remain, of course, attentive as airlines are just at the moment setting up their schedules and adjusting them to actual demand.

So all in all, we confirm our guidance for 2025 but we should be in a position to give you more precise 2026 outlook during our full year 2025 results because we will have more visibility by them. Maybe on the second question, I'll let Antoine answer.

Thank you. So on your question regarding traffic in TAV. So just coming back to our 2025 figures. We saw indeed a relatively soft performance in Turkish assets, first, due to a tougher comparison basis at the start of the year with the weather effects and followed by a deterioration of macroeconomics, strong inflation in the country and geopolitical events, combination of which affected both domestic and international traffic.

Conversely, traffic in TAV's international assets, Georgia and Almaty, remained quite strong. So looking forward, we do expect some growth in TAV traffic for the rest of the year and 2026 with macroeconomic policies being stable in Turkey. And we expect some growth to happen but probably moderate. And we remain very confident also in the performance in the international assets, again, Georgia and Almaty, for the traffic of TAV.

The next question comes from Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas.

Actually, I have 2 quick ones. One on the Terminal 2E-K, Can you confirm when you expect the works to finish? You said 2026 but when should the work finish? And what are you exactly doing there? And why kind of uplift we would expect in spend per passenger? Second question on the budget under discussion in France. Is there any discussion about changing the rate on infrastructure tax that would impact ADP around [ '25 ]?

Yes. Thank you for these 2 additional questions. So regarding Terminal 2E-K, as I mentioned and as you understand, we have talked about that for long. So it can -- seems long but clearly, the work will still spread over a slightly longer period. So in 2026, all those work will continue. And as I explained, we are entering a new phase which could have more impact because we are closing the beauty and cosmetics area. And it should last over 2026. We don't disclose a specific impact in term of uplift but maybe more generally, what I could say is that Extime is clearly central to our retail and hospitality strategy. And it will still continue to play a central role in driving our profitability.

Regarding your second question in term of possible changing evolution in term of rate of tax infrastructure. So maybe just to give you a global overview that given the current composition of the parliament, this year's finance bill debate will be especially volatile. So the plenty of measures that will be put forward, amended or canceled between now and the final text. There was to be a clear, specific amendment 2 days ago on the possible evolution of this tax rate regarding tax infrastructure. But as the whole text was not adopted so far, in the current version, there is no evolution regarding that. But of course, we will continue to monitor all those elements and their potential impact and it can really change between the current version and the final version.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes our Q&A session. I give the floor back to the speakers for any closing comments.

Well, quickly to thank you all for joining and for all your questions. Our next major communication milestone will come in December, as you all noticed, with the release of our ERA proposal and the investor teach-in on December 11. We truly hope to see many of you in person in Paris on that occasion. It will be a great opportunity to engage and discuss our project in more detail. Invitations allowing you to register for the teach-in will be sent out in the coming weeks and before that date.

And in line with our disclosure policy, we will enter a quiet period starting November 11 included ahead of the publication of the public consultation document. During this period, we will refrain from engaging with the market in order to avoid the risk of disclosing any sensitive information. But of course, until then, Eliott and I at the Investor Relation team, we remain fully available to answer your questions, if you have any. So don't hesitate to reach out.

And so with these few housekeeping remarks, let me thank you again for your time and wish you all a very good day. Talk to you soon.

Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.