Yes, welcome ladies and gentlemen to our full year 2025 results day. All the material got released this morning at 7:00 a.m.

CET, including for the management speech, and right now it's time for the management Q&A session. With me in the table, we got Dr.

Stefan Schulte, our CEO, and Dr. Matthias Zieschang, our CFO.

Today marks a very special event as we invited all the sell side to come to Frankfurt to see our brand-new Terminal 3 building. Correspondingly, the Q&A session will be held as a hybrid one, we got questions inside the audience and questions coming from the analysts who join us remotely.

If you want to raise a question remotely, please use the raise your hand sign in the Teams link that we sent to you, and we're going to tell your name and then you will be unmuted from our side so that you can raise a question. However, we want to be polite.

We want to start with the questions here in the audience, and we want to process as following: that you kindly limit your questions to the number of two, given so many of you are here on-site. We'd appreciate everyone to have the opportunity to raise some question.

Having said this, and yeah, without further ado, we'd like to open up the Q&A session right now. Do we have a mic coming to you?

Yes, maybe ladies first today. All right, Elodie, if you can say your name and the company you're working with, that will be good for the transcript.

Thank you very much, Florian. Thank you, and so I'm Elodie Rall from J.P.

Morgan. My first question will be potentially on dividend, since you've made this announcement on Friday.

We understand it's €1 up until you are below 5x net debt to EBITDA. When do you think that you'll reach that level?

What is your internal base case? If it's around 5x, does that mean that we are switching back to that payout, or does it need to be meaningfully below 5x?

Second, if there is an extraordinary impact on net income going forward after you switch to this payout policy, is there a minimum dividend payment that you would guarantee shareholders? That's my first question.

Maybe one question on traffic given the current events. You've been reassuring on your presentation.

Nevertheless, the guidance I think implies 3.7%, 3.7% at the midpoint. It's a bit lower than what I think you were thinking about, maybe in January when we discuss.

Did you already put some cushion in there from the Middle East impact from what you've seen already, at least year-to-date or in March? Thank you.

Elodie, thanks very much for your questions. On dividends, yes, we gave the guidance to the market on Friday, absolutely right.

From our base case, we expect to be under the threshold on 5x net debt to EBITDA in the year 2027. That's our best estimate from today's point of view.

That would mean that for 2028, the new guideline on 60% to 80% would be first time applicable. A worst case regarding a minimum dividend has not been discussed.

We are not on worst case, and I don't hope that a worst case will happen ever. You mean worst case if EPS is coming too much down?

No. In principle, there are two factors for us relevant: the one is how do we see the business going forward, second, what's the net free cash flow positive and how is that development.

This will be the two drivers on the dividend policy. On traffic, the traffic was done in connection with the annual results, setting up annual results and so on with the whole process.

It was before the war, it's not influenced by the war. If it's 65 to 66 million passengers here in Frankfurt, that's the best guidance we have at the moment.

There are no war effects included, but I mentioned already this morning, up to now we see a net effect of -1% because Middle East carriers have, that's right, they have up to 5% of our traffic, but 73%, 75% are transfer passengers. We see more and more that those transfer passengers are taking other routes or more direct traffic.

Airlines coming in with additional frequencies. We also see that Emirates and others are also taking up their flights again.

At the moment the net effect is these days by -1%. So -1% is not really affecting our guidance.

There's a big but, it depends very much what's going on forward, how long is the war going on, what does that mean for kerosene prices, for oil prices, for inflation, and at the end for the hunger, for the appetite to fly and to book flights for summer and so on. It's mainly leisure traffic.

It could be that the one or the other is booking other destinations, more staying in Europe or Western countries or USA, Canada, whatever. That's too early at the moment.

We stay with our guidance. Everything else we will see.

Yes, we marked there is a war out, it could have effects, but we are not reducing our guidance or not taking the guidance away.

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe Carlos here in front.

Hi, Carlos Caburrasi from Kepler. Two questions.

A follow-up on the dividend: I just wanted to see if maybe once you are below the 5x net debt to EBITDA, if that payout you think could be above 60% during the rest of the decade or maybe it's going to be at the lower end. Second question, I was wondering if you could update us on the passenger handling contract, and also sticking to ground handling, if maybe you could provide some visibility on EBITDA margin by the end of the decade.

Thank you.

I'm really glad to be quite honest that we had the discussion also with our supervisory board, and that there was a very, very clear support on the 60% to 80%. We haven't discussed, and that would be too early, is it 60% or is it 80%.

The proposal will be done by the management, and that depends very much how the further development is and how Matthias is able to get up the free cash flow to €1 billion and so on and so on. I'm optimistic it will be somewhere in the range, otherwise we would have given the guidance it's 60%.

No, we gave the guidance 60% to 80%, so that's the option we have and it will go from 60% to 80%, whatever. It depends a little bit how free cash flow then is.

On ground handling, we reached an agreement with Lufthansa Cargo. We are quite fine with that agreement to put a neutral wording on that.

We are in the discussion, in the negotiations with Lufthansa on the passenger handling contract, and I think we gave you already the clear guidance: we have to make money out of that, otherwise we will reduce, and that's our clear guidance we can give you today on that side. What could it mean?

If we would lose some volume, could be, because for us it's more important on that way than we would have on some one-off payments because then we would have to reduce maybe on the one or the other side the staff numbers. That's the better thing, but going forward would have a clear contract which is making money.

In ground handling in general, we have a market share of more than 90% now, clearly above. That was not our target, but it's a problem with our second operator over here.

We got, with a very favorable pricing, contracts we didn't want to get. Pricing is fine.

Over the time, the market share will come down somewhere because it's not our target to stay on what we have now, 95%, 93%, something like this. That's clearly too high, but it was the market.

Very good. Maybe Christian and then Andrew.

Thank you very much. Cristian Nedelcu from UBS.

Could I ask you on the free cash flow bridge from 2025 to '26? The CapEx reduction and the EBITDA growth are clear drivers, clear positive drivers, but I think there are also some headwinds.

Working capital I think was a €95 million cash-in in 2025, that will not repeat. I think the cash and tax outflows were around €340 million in 2025, you're guiding for €400 million.

I'm just trying conceptually, when we put all these things together, what's a realistic free cash flow range? Is it €100 to €200 million or clearly it's going to be at €200 or above €200 million, any more color there?

The second one in Greece, you have the dividends that are paid to minorities, and I believe the last couple of years there's been the shareholder loan being paid back. We have a net debt to EBITDA in Greece of around two turns, relatively low leverage.

Are you seeing any pressure from the minority shareholders to increase the leverage or pay larger dividends in '27, '28, or you believe this run rate of €30, €35 million you're paying is sustainable going forward? Thank you.

First question regarding free cash flow, it's relatively simple. You have to look on the parameters.

On one side, as a cash-in you have see the EBITDA where we are looking for a number close to €1.5 billion as a proxy for the operational cash flow on one side. On the other side, we have our clear CapEx guidance for '26, €900 million.

Then we have, as always, a box of €400 million consisting out of taxes on one side and cash-out for interest expenses on the other side. This is a stable number also looking forward, about €400 million.

Then we have non-cash items in the EBITDA which we have to adjust, and on the other side we have dividends from minorities, primarily Antalya on the other side. With other words, and then of course we have all these elements we can control relatively precisely.

The only thing which is always a little bit white noise or random walk, this is working capital. If and when you look in the past how the fluctuation has been, sometimes a little bit positive, sometimes negative, we assume for '26 this as neutral position.

With other words, if you're doing the math, it should be an outcome of €200 million, perhaps even a little bit more. This is our ambition and the direction in which we are going to run.

On the minorities, then maybe you can give more clearance on that. I can here just tell you on Greece, there's no pressure these days.

For us, it's a focus to have a good operation of course, and grow in the business. We have a clear look on extension programs, CapEx, no question at all, and a focus on dividends.

We will not refinance these days, at least what's in five years, I don't know, but at the moment not.

Thank you. Then I think Andrew, you're still in the line?

Good.

Hey, it's Andrew Lobbenberg from Barclays. Can I ask a question about the discussions in the press from Lufthansa about their desire to have a joint venture here for Terminal 1 and Terminal 2, and how they are pitching this as a driver for their decision whether to dedicate their future growth to Frankfurt or to Munich?

How do you think about the attractions of a joint venture, the pros and cons, and how much do you care about securing that their mid-term growth? My second question would take us over to Lima where I know there've been interruptions with runway resurfacing and stuff like that, but the growth has been somewhat quiet so far.

Also the airlines remain very unhappy about the international connecting fee, and the implementation of that looks very difficult, messy. How do you think traffic can develop from here, and how do you think you can move to a more normal relationship with airlines and a more normal transfer process for consumers?

Maybe start with Lima. The information we get from Lima and we are in a frequent exchange with Lima is that passengers are getting more and more used to this.

There's on the international side not a big mess with this on passengers. Airlines are not really a friend of this transfer charge, that's absolutely right.

It's not because of Lima itself, it's more they don't like it as a showcase for South America in general. We have a clear regulatory approval on this.

We are open if you want to restructure it in a different way, but for the time being it will stay this way. Of course we also would enjoy if we could collect it via the ticket price directly.

We are in discussions with airlines, but up to now they are taking up a position not to involve it into the ticket price. I think that would be the better solution, but we will go ahead this way because passengers are getting more and more used to this, and we don't see any big queues, we don't see big protests on that side.

It's approved. Regarding Lufthansa, regarding the joint venture discussion, to be very clear on that, there are no discussions on a joint venture between us and Lufthansa.

We are always in discussions, that's no question because it's a major customer. We explored also ideas.

One year ago or something like this, we also offered them the opportunity to go into a joint venture regarding Terminal 2. That has not been taken up.

It's too far out for them, and probably they didn't want to go into a joint venture like plain vanilla as you go into a joint venture, but we are an Aktiengesellschaft, we have to go such a way like we would do on an arm's-length base with everybody else. If they want to go in Munich, they have to go for the next satellite because Munich is coming in Terminal 2 to some limitations, and that's clear that they do this.

If they have to go, if they want to go, and it's clear they want to go with the market, they have to do it in a joint venture together with Munich Airport because they are already in Terminal 2 in a joint venture. I take some of these discussions publicly also a little bit to make more pressure on Munich for more favorable conditions.

That's their responsibility, Munich and Lufthansa. I've seen over the recent 10 years that we are also going with the market also together with Lufthansa, at least if they have the aircrafts and they're getting now the aircrafts, independent from the question of a joint venture or not.

Also the signals I get from Lufthansa are yes, they want to continue to grow in Frankfurt. Whether a little bit overproportion or underproportion, that depends more on the aircrafts, that depends more on the market.

We will go ahead with Terminal 2 as mentioned, but we are flexible how we do it on the timeline. At the moment we have the planning jobs out, that will take at least two years because we need really very, very good planning without any conflicts in between the plannings, down really to the details before we can start with construction on that side.

That construction will not before the year 2029 or 2030. Also if you go regarding a new satellite in Munich, will also take at least, my opinion, 10 years.

It's also long term, and they have a lot of opportunities also here in Frankfurt, even without Terminal 2 at the beginning, but later on they would need it, because we move Condor into the south, there's enough capacity in the Terminal 1, and we can even brand Terminal 1 more Star Alliance focused or Lufthansa focused, and they have more gate positions, they have more better quality on apron positions and so on because the ways are much shorter, punctualities is higher, customer satisfaction is better, I'm not very much concerned on this.

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe Graham and then Dario afterwards.

Thanks very much. Graham Hunt from Jefferies.

Just two questions from me. First actually on Terminal 3, thanks very much for the tour this morning.

Are you happy with the retail offering that you have and that you're starting with here? I think maybe we were noticing a lack of very high-end luxury brands in the terminal.

Was that a conscious decision because of the mix of traffic, or is that somewhere that maybe there's a little bit of upside on format and spend as we go forward with the terminal? Then second question, just on capital structure.

You mentioned that below 5x leverage to hit your payout ratio, but is that where you're comfortable keeping the balance sheet, or if we think about 2030, where would you expect leverage to land at that point? Thanks.

First start with retail. On Terminal 3, there's a mix on fire protection rules and so on.

I would say it's a starting point due to the knowledge two or three years ago, three years ago, which kind of aircrafts will be the first, kind of airlines will be the first airlines going down there. Then you test the market, and I'm absolutely sure that the retail components and the wayfinding will be different in three years from now and five years from now.

If you go, for example, out of the central marketplace, it's too open at the moment. There will have to find ways to put eye-breaker, let's call it this way, but nevertheless that you can walk through because of fire protection rules.

Steels or

Säulen, what's heißt Säulen?

Pillars or something like this as a break to shift the people more in the duty-free and yeah. The other thing is what's probably very positive over there in the marketplace that there are big areas of food and beverage, which is the main topic these days with the main growth rates with direct view on the apron, to the city and so on.

That's very positive. On the shop side, we have to see how it's developed over the time.

Capital structure? Capital

structure, yeah. Question regarding net debt to EBITDA, we both are very ambitious.

You can believe that we are going to do all that already in 2027 to achieve a number which is slightly below 5x to open the fantasy box for dividend payment. Second, when you look forward into 2030, where we have clear targets, €2 billion/€1 billion, if you take the €2 billion and we are doing all to achieve this number, if you take the €2 billion and on the other side look on net debt to EBITDA and 3x as an absolutely minimum, then our floor regarding the indebtedness is €6 billion.

We are coming down from 8.2, and let me say the roadmap is going down to the near of €6 million, not million, billion. This is defining, but we are coming from EBITDA, €2 billion indebtedness, and then we can via increasing dividend payment we can control the path to our targets in 2030.

Thank you. Dario, yeah, you were...

Dario Maglione from BNP Paribas. Congratulations for this important milestone of reaching free cash flow positive in 2025.

I have two questions. One is on the CapEx guidance.

You provided a good slide where you show CapEx until 2031 for Frankfurt. My question, I like to understand how you baked in inflation, inflation risk, also in the context that here in Germany there is an infrastructure fund from the government, and there might be more projects in the future, maybe less labor availability, construction costs might go up.

I just wanted to understand how you factor in this in your projections. Then the second question instead is always this debate about M&A potential, and M&A appetite.

When do you think

Fraport may start to look again at international opportunities to grow?

I start with the second one. On M&A, I would say I would exclude it to be quite honest for the next two years, at least no big tickets.

Something like Kalamata or something like Jerry, yeah, could always be or the one or the other smaller thing, but nothing big. I would more expect if there is something coming around more regarding end of the decade.

It's not affecting any discussion on dividends or whatever or capital structure or something like this. We have been very clear: below 5, we'll go to 60% to 80% and we will also continue that way.

It's also, as Matthias just mentioned, it's not a target to go to 3, was just as a minimum. We will go up with the dividends then.

On capital structure...

CapEx guidance,

yeah, inflation.

CapEx guidance, whether inflation is embedded or not. Perhaps we can show this slide from the presentation, is it possible, where we showed you the guidance for the next couple of years for maintenance CapEx?

You can see that these are increasing numbers, and the increase is equivalent to anticipated inflation rates and price increases in the construction area. You can see, for example, maintenance, a grey box is going up, as well as maintenance for international assets.

This is of course on a normalized basis, we have the inflation included in our forecast.

Maybe Christian and then afterwards Marcin, I think that was your line, and then we can continue with Nicolo.

Christian Cohrs, Warburg Research. Two questions from my side.

You confirmed the €2 billion and €1 billion target for 2030. The 2030 targets also include that ROFRA is going to exceed the WACC.

Does this apply for all divisions, because this would actually mean a massive EBIT improvement in ground handling, and do you think that's realistic? Secondly, now with all the capacity in place, do you expect that low-cost carriers will come back to Frankfurt?

Can start with the question on low-cost carriers. No, if you mean with low-cost carriers Ryanair, I would not expect it.

Whoever else, because there's not any longer this clear distinction between low cost and not low cost, there are more hybrid models out and so on, also on the intercontinental side, I would not exclude anything. That depends on market, that depends on airlines strategy, but if you are so clear on Ryanair, if this is the question, I would not expect it.

If they are willing to come back, if they see a market, they are highly welcomed, but as a normal airline as all other airlines with normal tariffs and so on.

First and second question regarding how to achieve the €2 billion target in 2030. Based on our internal planning, all four segments must go up.

This is part of our planning. If you look on the several units, you first of all starting with ground handling where we have negative numbers or had negative numbers, and we are far away from any cost coverage also regarding cost of capital, and so the first big step you will see in 2027 in combination with a new contract with Lufthansa, and à la longue also cost of capital must be covered.

This means there's a significant relative as well as absolute increase in this segment. The international segment is unconstrained, there's also a huge headroom based on natural growth at all assets in our portfolio, combination of volume times prices.

Retail, we are looking forward, we are relatively optimistic on a conservative basis that all numbers will improve. Last but not least, in aviation itself, with for example in ROFRA 4.6% in '25, we are far away from the regulated one.

This is a headroom. It's a growth at all four segments, of course overproportionately in ground handling relatively seen, and absolutely unconstrained in retail as well as in the international segment.

Thank you. Marcin, please.

Hello, hi, it's Marcin Wojtal from Bank of America. Two questions.

Firstly, on Terminal 2, could we just confirm that the total CapEx envelope for this upgrade and refurbishment is around €1.5 billion? Could you clarify how are you planning to obtain an attractive financial return on that investment?

Could it allow you to obtain further tariff increases, for example, over the medium term? Perhaps question number two very quickly, could we just come back on retail performance in Q4?

Should we consider Q4 to have been impacted by some one-offs or that was more of a clean quarter, would you say?

Maybe I take the first question. On Terminal 2, I think we explained already, the next three, four years are planning phase, decision phase, then preparation phase for construction.

Real construction will not start before end of 2029, something like this, 2030. The question, how do we earn long time our money on that?

If you know that Terminal 2 will not be back on operation 2034 or something, 2035, something like this, we are flexible on that, and if you know that the market is at least growing by rough number, 2% per year, something like this, 10 years from now, 2% per year plus interest on that, it's 25%, something like this. We need Terminal 2 also by volume, not just financed via price or something like this, inflation and so on, also by volume, by growth.

I don't have any doubts on the question how do we earn our money in the long run because this €1.5 billion, yes, we confirm it on this number, that's a long-term number of several years and it's not a short-term burden for us, something like this.

So. As an addition of this what you mentioned, all the investments already done before the reopening of Terminal 2, each and every euro goes directly into the wrap.

This is a base also for gaining more and more money. It's creating headroom also à la longue for fee increases.

Second question was on Q4 retail. Retail performance these days relatively difficult to monitor because if you take on the one side Terminal 2 where, together with the concessionaires, we have not done any further modernization on that side for the recent two or three years, it's coming a little bit down.

Then if you look at all the jobs done in Terminal 1, you see more and more empty spaces in the central area of B because of the fire protection works they are done these days and these years. It's not just these days, that's the problem on that side.

End of Q4, I think food and beverage came back in on the airside of Pier B was end of Q4, I think.

That

was a huge area, there we should see for food and beverage positive results. The one or the other shop came back there, one shop I think or two shops, I'm not exactly sure, in Pier B.

What we learn also, I don't know what your experience is from other airports, on the pure duty-free business there's not the big growth these days. It's more on food and beverage, and we have to find new answers on duty-free, it's more on other types of shops.

This shop business, there are small growth rates, but not big growth rates. That's not just Frankfurt, this we learned across Europe somewhere.

Thank you. Nicolo.

Thank you. Nicolo Pessina from Mediobanca.

First question: if you can elaborate on the OpEx outlook for 2026 implied in the €1.5 billion EBITDA target you provided this morning, if you see any risk from energy prices, your expectations on labor costs in Frankfurt, or any risk from the opening of Terminal 3. Second question, on the regulatory agreement with the airlines here in Frankfurt: do you see that it could be at risk under a scenario of a severe impact on traffic from the current crisis, or it's totally safe and there is no discussion about it?

Thank you.

Regarding OpEx, we continue to control OpEx. We have, as always, two items: material expenses as well as personnel expenses.

On the personnel cost side, we have in so far an advantage that based on the existing wage contracts, now the further wage increase in '26 is significantly lower than in '25. We had in '25 a pure wage increase of more than 8%, which was unbelievable so to say, based on the agreements.

It's now going down to a little bit more than 4%. It's still too high, but it's better than in '25.

This helps us to control, and on the FTE numbers, yeah, there will be still a small increase due to Terminal 3. After this, we are on the peak level, and based on our internal planning then looking forward to 2030, there's year by year a small reduction of the total number of employees here at the site.

Second, material expenses, you mentioned energy cost: here we have in so far also advantages that now we have the total electricity consumption is covered by photovoltaic devices on one side and the wind park where we have a share on the other side. It's CO2 neutral and it's cheaper than before, and all other energy things are covered and hedged by long-term contracts, so that we don't see any increase on the energy cost side.

Could be that we are lower than in the past. Regarding other material expense items, we are in line with modest inflation rates, we see increases 2% to 3% regarding all other items.

With other words, we control the cost side. Regarding

your second question, if you work in the aviation business on the airport side, you are used to the point there's always pressure from airlines. They always would like to pay less, that's clear.

If you have such a lot of airlines, you have big airlines, there are more business relations than if you have just an airline which is coming once a day or something like this. Having said this, there's nothing specific around at the moment.

That on the aviation side we have a contract in place for four years, there are another two years I think to go if I'm correctly informed on my memory, another two years to go, there's no point to discuss anything. If I would have to discuss, we lost at least 100,000 passengers because of the strike.

That effect is more than the war effect at the moment. Nothing.

Thank you for this. Ashish, you're still in the line?

Yeah.

Hi, it's Ashish from Citi Group. Thanks for taking some questions.

Just one from me on this point on the airlines and the tariff increases. In the context of what some of your peers are going through, namely regulatory reviews and maybe even potential declines in tariffs, what is the assumption that you have in your 2030 EBITDA and FCF numbers?

What's the tariff increase that you're projecting beyond 2028? Do you think that's, like you alluded to just now, airlines would be always wanting to pay lesser, but do you think that's going to be a possibility?

Thanks for your question, but please understand that I first would like to discuss this with airlines and not with you. The contract is up to the year 2028 or 2027, what is it,

'28?

Early enough in 2028 we will start that discussion, and we will give you then also a guidance, but not now.

Thank you for this. I think Nicolas is still in the line.

Right. Nicolas Mora from Morgan Stanley.

Two, maybe three. Just on coming back on retail, if I understand you correctly, it's tough in duty-free and so on.

Now the biggest upside, especially with T3 in mind, is, what, advertising, it's food and beverage, and it's what, lounges as well? Are you just giving up on the traditional retail?

It's just not working in Frankfurt? Or and with enough set on the others, or other pillars maybe or other levers to pull to make the most of T3?

That's the first one. Very quickly on costs, we've been used to a bit of stop-and-go on staff numbers.

If traffic growth comes back, can you really hold on to declining staff numbers? We have not seen any productivity gains basically being kept by Frankfurt for more than let's say 12 months.

Thinking about the mid-2010s where these gains evaporated pretty quickly. What is different now?

Why would you be suddenly able to keep the productivity gains through into '27, '28? Last one on traffic, is there a bull case where Lufty and Condor fight it off for years and boost traffic 3%, 4%, 5%?

What do you see beyond '26, which is bound to be a healthy growth year, putting aside geopolitics? What do you see in '27 onwards, and how can the platform keep growing at a relatively high pace?

I would like to start with the final question on traffic. Because we don't see anything there, very simple.

On 2027 onwards, you have a market outlook, and the market outlook is the best what you have at the moment, and you have some indications from the one or the other airline group on they are coming in additional aircrafts, but not much more. I would take there a guidance in between 2%, 2.5%, that's normal growth on the market here in Europe or in western parts of Europe, and that's maybe with some deduction, but around 2%, 2.5% is about the growth rate that would apply for Frankfurt around this level.

It could be the one year much more, it could be in another year a little bit less, but that's what I would take as an average. Regarding staff, we are, Matthias and I, absolutely convinced that the staff numbers will not go up even with the higher traffic volumes over the next 5 or 10 years.

Why? Because on the one side, where is the direct relation?

That's especially on ground handling. In ground handling, we are going more and more into the digitalization and AI-supportive applications how we drive the whole ground handling, with systems that we are more productive on that side, camera-based for example, with better signals we get centralized information with better turnarounds and so on.

That will come in and that will go against the question of additional traffic, it will be productivity at the end. In other areas, take Florian's area or whatever, no, that's productivity also via digitalization, AI and all those things, but no additional growth on that side.

On retail, I didn't want to say that we don't see any growth on retail or on shop business. If you take non-aviation in general, advertisement you mentioned, parking running really well, food and beverage is great.

I just wanted to say that we don't see the big growth on the shop side. We will see an increase, and we mentioned this several times and you can explore on this more than I, that the move from Terminal 2 to Terminal 3 will give us an addition of roughly 50%.

Maybe not in the first step, maybe next year, because there will be some adaptations you have to do, some better practice you have to bring in, one I mentioned before, we'll have to find pillars or another solution, we have to see. I would like to get it in before we open it up on 23rd of April, but I'm not sure at the moment whether this is realistic or not.

That we have, but we will make experience there what we can improve, that's absolutely clear.

Perhaps in addition to this what Stefan said, when you look on T3, you have to see where are the passengers coming from. We are in the first step in summer now, we are reallocating about 10 million passengers from Terminal 2 into Terminal 3.

Of course not a full year effect in this year. In summer next year, we have a second step on the volume side, in a way that up to 6 million Condor passengers are removed from Terminal 1 to Terminal 3.

We are talking about 16 million passengers roughly in 2027 in Terminal 3. We have more passengers than in the past in Terminal 3 in a better situation, a better retail area.

That's the reason why our internal assumption is an full-year uplift of about 50% regarding the spend per pax. This is then full-year effect times 16 million, and not 10 million, in a like-for-like basis removing the today's Terminal 2 passengers into T3.

Are there any further questions here in the audience before we open up to those who joined remotely? That's not the case.

We'd like to unmute Ashish's line, and we kindly remind everyone who is joining us remotely to please use raise the hand button if you want to raise a question. Ashish, please go ahead.

Just a second, we're still...

Hello, everyone.

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello everyone, this is Ashish from Citi Group. Thanks for giving me an opportunity.

Most of my questions have already been answered, I just have one query. When do you plan to start the negotiation for next phase of tariff increase?

Will it also be a multi-year contract, like 3 to 4 years as we've seen in the past? Just wanted to check.

We will start that discussion for sure beginning of 2028. Whether it's a full-year contract, a four-year contract, whether it's three years, whether it's five years, much too early.

We will see. It depends on the negotiations then.

Thanks.

I'm not any longer in charge at that time, but Matthias is still in charge. I can tell you, we all are always in favor if you can agree on a long term, but it must make sense.

Thank you very much, Ashish, for the question coming in remotely. Anyone else from the audience that wants to raise a question?

Elodie, yeah, maybe one follow-up and then Andrew.

Maybe as you mentioned that you might not be there at the time, could you give us a bit of color about management succession, how you see that going, the steps, what you think, or anything you can share with us would be interesting? I

can give you as much of color as much I have. I will step down end of August next year.

That's absolutely fixed, and that's very good because I'm too long with this company and working too long and whatever. No, they need a new CEO and that's absolutely right, that's very positive.

End of next year, end of August next year, my contract is ending and I will not prolongate it. To give you color, the subgroup of the supervisory board discussed already a first version of a profile for my successor.

I would assume that mid of this year we will start the search externally. More I can't give you now, but I hope that up to year end somebody is signing the contract, and I would assume yes.

Thank you for this, Stefan. Andrew, one follow-up maybe and then...

How optimistic are you that the German government will bring some more support to the aviation industry after making the cut in the aviation tax? I think there's still some hope from the airlines and indeed from the ADV that you get some support for either security costs or reductions to air traffic control or maybe elsewhere.

Do you think there is more support for aviation from the government?

We are working for that on a more or less day-to-day work all together in the industry because we know how important it is, and we know that even with this one first step, we have still regulatory costs in Germany which are much higher than in other countries. The government understood that they really could do something positive for the economy if they give a push on that side, and it costs them really not a much.

I'm somewhere optimistic with this government that over the next what do they have, another three years, there will be a second step. We have to work for this, it's not granted.

Okay. Thank you everyone.

Unless there are no further questions, we'd like to conclude the Q&A session right now. Thank you everyone for the good questions.

We look forward to seeing you guys and girls on the road soon, and yeah, thank you also, Stefan and Matthias, for the answers. Thanks a lot, and see you soon.

Thank you very much.