Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Aena annual 2020 results presentation. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during this session, you will need to press star one on your telephone. I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today on Wednesday, the 24th of February, 2021. Now, I would like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Emilio Rotondo. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning to everybody and welcome to the full year 2020 results presentation. In this occasion, it will be led by Aena's Chairman and CEO, Maurici Lucena, also the CFO, Mr. José Leo, and myself. Although the presentation, as usual, is quite long, we'll focus mainly on the key highlights, and then we'll go to the Q&A session. Let me give the floor to Mr. L ucena. Thank you. Thank you, Emilio. Good morning, everybody. It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to present to you the results of Aena corresponding to 2020, and of course, we'll have plenty of time to discuss any other issues that may interest you. I will start with slide number four. This slide number four summarizes the evolution of the activity of Aena in 2020, starting with passenger traffic. Passenger traffic, including Spain, London Luton, and Brazil, decreased to 89.3 million passengers. In the Spanish network, the decrease was 72.4%. In Luton, minus 69.6%, and in Brazil, the decline was 44%. So, as you may easily conclude, it's been a very tough year for Aena, for every airport in the world. But, of course, we have introduced many measures to contain the very deep damage to the financial health of the company. Regarding total consolidated revenue, it fell to EUR 2.2 billion. This revenue includes, and this is very important, in application of IFRS 16, the revenues associated to the minimum annual guaranteed rent, the famous MAGS. I think that we will have time during the Q&A to try to answer any confusion that may arise for this, let's say, separation of the cash and the revenues. And we will try to explain this very clearly, especially our CFO. And for the time being, it's just important to take into account that we have registered the whole MAGS in 2020 because we have a contractual right to receive these rents. And this is why we have counted them as revenues. Concerning EBITDA for the period, it stood at a little bit more of EUR 700 million. This figure includes the impairments of both Brazil and Murcia. We'll have time to descend to the details of these impairments in the following view graphs. The consolidated net result closed in minus EUR 126.8 million. Excluding the effect of the mentioned impairments, net losses for the period would have been minus EUR 51 million. On the other hand, operating cash flow has ended with a decrease of 93.1% compared to more than EUR 2 billion in 2019. This is a natural consequence of the deep damage to the company related to the pandemic. Finally, the consolidated net financial debt of the Aena Group has increased to EUR 7 billion. This figure compares to EUR 6.7 billion at the end of 2019. This represents, in the end, an increase in the ratio of net financial debt to EBITDA for the consolidated group to 9.8 times compared to the, let's say, more usual 2.4x in 2019. I refer to normality within the activity of Aena. As you can conclude, of course, the problem is not the amount of debt, which has not changed significantly. The problem is with the drop of the EBITDA, but of course this now has been a usual trend in the whole airport industry, and finally let me highlight that the financial ratios included in the contracts with the financial covenants are linked to the EBITDA and debt of Aena individually. It means Aena SME, not the consolidated, and this means that the net debt to EBITDA ratio of Aena SME has closed in 8.1x compared to 2.3x in 2019. If we move to the following slide, slide number five, on this slide, you can see that the traffic and its recovery. It's difficult to assess. There are no signs at present of recovery in traffic in the short term. Of course, we are confident that traffic will really improve in the second part of the current year in 2020. But, of course, as it's been the case since the beginning of COVID-19, the visibility remains very low. And you have had the opportunity to see how, almost from the beginning, all the airlines, all the airports' operators, we have been, let's say, in retrospect, we have been too optimistic. But it is true that the analysis at every moment was completed with good faith. It's just that the pandemic has really overcome every optimistic forecast. And that is why, since the summer of 2020, we decided not to convey an official forecast, an official Aena's forecast, because we thought it was better not to introduce more confusion to the market and then mention the wide range of forecasts by the International Aeronautic Associations. In short, it is not possible at present to anticipate when the recovery will start. But I would like to insist that we are confident that, and I'm sure it will be the case, that the second part of the current year will be significantly better than this first part. Concerning aeronautical revenues, we recorded a decrease of almost EUR 2 billion, which represented a decrease of 67.1%. And in the area of commercial and real estate, the revenues decreased by EUR 209 million. The fall of this business, as I said a few minutes ago, has been positively impacted by the application of IFRS 16 because we have recorded a revenue of more than EUR 600 million associated to the MAGS, to the famous MAGS, given that Aena, I think this is indisputable, has a contractual right to receive these revenues. But I will elaborate a little bit more on this issue later on. On the next view graph, on slide number six, I would like to stress six important topics. Topic number one, the cost-saving plan. I think that we must recognize in retrospect the very hard effort that the company has made during at least the nine months, the last nine months of 2020. We accumulated during these nine months savings that amounted to more than EUR 400 million, which is, believe me, quite a lot for a business like Aena's business because you know that we have a considerable amount of fixed costs, so I'm really proud of the company's response in this cost-saving plan because this means that we have been able to accumulate savings of EUR 45 million per month, which, let me insist on that, is quite a lot. And this saving plan has been based on the continuous adjustment to the evolution of traffic and cost-cutting measures. Topic number two on this slide, it refers to investments. Aena, as you know, temporarily halted its investment program, which led to savings of EUR 175 million during the second quarter of 2020. Since June, this investment has resumed its rhythm. And it means that, in total, the amount of investment carried out by Aena amounted in the whole 2020, amounted to, I was saying, EUR 435.7 million. Topic number three, financing. At the present time, Aena has cash and credit facilities totaling more than EUR 2 billion. And in addition to this more than EUR 2 billion, we have the possibility to appeal to almost EUR 850 million of Euro Commercial Paper that can be issued at any time. Topic number four, it concerns the covenants, the financial ratios. In December 2020, temporary waivers were obtained by Aena. It means that until at least June 2022, we have these waivers, these waivers active with the European Investment Bank, the ICO, it means the Instituto de Crédito Oficial, FMS, and Unicaja. Topic number four of this view graph, it concerns airport charges. We had the last week the resolution of the CNMC, la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia. It issued a resolution which implies that the proposal of Aena concerning charges has been approved. It means that airport charges will not change from last year compared to last year. Finally, on this slide, topic number six, DORA II, you know our regulatory framework that covers 2022- 2025. The consultation process with the airlines is ongoing. In mid-March, Aena will submit its final proposal. So at least we hope that we have at least some visibility that comes from this new regulatory framework that you know that drives a very important part of our activity through the following five years. On the next slide, view graph number seven, here we will try to convey the main highlights concerning the negotiations of commercial contracts, which at present is a very, let's say, hot issue. And let me explain it very clearly. We knew in December 2020 that a royal decree was approved by the Spanish government. It was a decree related to urgent measures that affected the tourism sector and the mobility sector as a whole. And based on the many aspects, based on the myriad of aspects of this royal decree, Aena created, built a proposal. This proposal was sent to our commercial partners, to our commercial subcontractors in January, in the second part of January of the current year, 2021. These commercial partners cover duty-free activities, specialty shops, food and beverage, vending machines, financial services, and advertising. Let me explain the details briefly of this proposal, the proposal sent by Aena. This proposal, I would like to highlight firstly that from the 1st of January, 2020, to March 14th, 2020, the MAGs that we proposed to apply in accordance will be in accordance with the original contracts. This is very obvious. At that moment, the pandemic, fortunately, at that time, was not a concern. The activity in the airports, at least in Spain, was very vibrant. The change or the proposed change affects the next periods from March 15th, 2020, to June 20th, 2020. The state of alarm period, the MAGS that we proposed to apply are 0%. And later on, from June 21st, 2020, to September 8th, 2021, a percentage of 50% of the prorated MAGS we proposed to apply, except a very, let's say, small exception in advertising in which a MAG per passenger will be applied. So it means that as of September 9th, 2021, we propose that the original conditions of the contract will resume. This is, in summary, the details of the or the main details of Aena's proposal. And so far, 72 / 123 commercial operators have accepted this proposal. This represents almost 53% of the total agreements. And it represents a considerably less or lower percentage of the MAGS affected of the revenues, the potential revenues affected, because these 72 commercial operators, they cover only 13.2% of the MAGS. For purposes of illustration, let me explain the following. Should this proposal have been accepted by all commercial operators, the amount of MAGS of minimum rents invoiced in the activities affected would go from the current total of more than EUR 620 million- EUR 179.5 million. And it seems to me that these figures are, I would say, a crystal clear proof of the aim of Aena to mitigate the financial, the very hard financial impact for our partners, for our commercial operators. If we move to the next slide, slide number eight, on this slide, I would like to focus on the impairment tests due to the deep impact of the pandemic. Aena, as many, many companies in the world, has carried out valuations of its main assets. As a result of these valuations, the conclusions of the analysis are as follows. First, the Spanish airport network has not suffered impairments. This means that we feel very comfortable with the valuations that we have registered in our books. There is, secondly, no impairment either for Luton Airport. Thirdly, we have registered or recorded, we have recorded an impairment of the assets of the Murcia International Airport for the amount of a little bit more of EUR 45 million. And finally, for the assets in Brazil, an impairment of EUR 64.6 million has been recorded. These impairments in total amount to EUR 108.8 million. That, as you know, but I would like to underline this, that, of course, they don't have any impact on cash. Also, I would like to call your attention to the fact that in the cumulative conversion differences section in the statement of financial position, Aena has recognized a negative difference on foreign currency that amounts to EUR 145.6 million. And, of course, this negative difference is due to the adverse movements of the Brazilian real against the euro. And, excuse me. And last but not least, on slide number nine, we give you a little bit of color related to the Luton Airport. Regarding traffic in 2020, traffic in Luton reached 5.5 million passengers, which represents an almost drop of 70% of traffic. And on covenants, I would like to stress that in June 2020, the company exceeded the financial ratios, as it was natural when you follow the evolution of the traffic. And these financial ratios were a part of the financing contracts. However, at that time, we obtained temporary waivers from the financial institutions. And how I see things at present? Well, I think that it is likely that in the next 12 months, Aena will fail to comply with the mentioned financial ratios. Therefore, we are negotiating, we are keeping at it, negotiating with the financial institutions the extension of these exemptions until June 2021 and December 2021. In any case, Luton's management and, of course, Aena's management, we expect that as a result of the negotiations underway with the financial institutions, the exemptions that we need will be extended successively and successfully. And for my part, this is all I wanted to convey to you. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much. We now move into the Q&A session. Operator, please. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you wish to ask a question today, please press star one on your telephone and wait for a name to be announced. If you wish to cancel that request, please press the hash key. So we do have a couple of questions in the line already. Your first question comes from the line of Cristian Nedelcu of UBS. Please ask your question. Your line is now open. Hi. Thank you very much for taking my questions. Firstly, in terms of the MAG negotiations for 2020 and 2021, could you give us a bit more color on the timeline that you would expect to reach a final agreement there and effectively the possible scenario if you don't have agreement with the travel retailers? How do you see things evolving from here? Secondly, looking a bit from memory, I think this year you were supposed to organize a new tender for the car rental contract, as well as some of the specialty shops that were supposed to be rolled over. So some of the specialty shop contracts that were ending this year. Could you give us a bit of an update on the timeline there? You still target tenders this year, and what are your expectations in terms of the conditions that you can obtain in these new tenders? And lastly, on CAPEX, I mean, we were seeing everywhere forecasts on a slow recovery in traffic over the next years. I guess my question is, is there any reason why you would need to invest more than the current run rate, more than EUR 450 million of CAPEX per year through the next regulatory period? Is there anything specific, any investment in particular that would increase that number? Thank you very much. Hello. This is José Leo here. Before answering your question on the MAGS, I would like to make a very brief introductory statement. I read this morning some of you writing that the reason why we are accounting for the MAGS is somehow that this is helping us in terms of reporting better financial numbers or indeed being better prepared to deal with the covenant discussions. That's not the case. Simply, that's not true. Let me bring you back for a while to the discussions on this particular accounting that we have been, let's say, being very transparent about it in front of yourselves. We struggle a bit with this way of accounting for the MAGS. I personally, I think, mentioned sometimes that I found it a little bit exotic because it is making the cash and the revenues to go different ways. And that's not helpful at all for anyone trying to make sense of the numbers and indeed for the business to be able to talk through those numbers. The reason why we are accounting this way is because IFRS 16 mandatorily is taking us to that position. We have been in discussions with our auditors for months trying to get our heads around and to find an alternative solution, but the answer was no, no way. Of course, then you have to run your IFRS 9 analysis to see whether there is any meaningful or material credit risks attached to those revenues. And the conclusion is that there were no major issues in that regard. Ultimately, rest assured that the reason why we are accounting for the MAGS this way is because we have no alternative, and we are being so transparent and so insistent and so, let's say, sometimes really, I don't know, almost singly focused on that because we are conscious of how this can create trouble to your ability to analyze the numbers and indeed to take views on the business. With that in mind, the MAGS recorded, of course, are subject to the commercial discussions. You ask about the timeline. Frankly, we put forward a proposal after months of going, let's say, through different discussions and realizing that the art of the possible was something different from what we had in mind initially, and this is our proposal. It's a very generous one. It's very clear that all the SMEs, all the small operators are agreeing to the proposal. The big ones, the 2025 larger operators are, let's say, rejecting it or dragging their feet. That's understandable, but we have to protect ourselves. We have to protect our investors, our shareholders, and that's what we are trying to do. The proposal is really generous, so the deal is on the table. It is somehow a take it or leave it situation, and if there is no agreement with some of them, we will build and we will try and collect the revenues, and we will, of course, make use of the set of guarantees and securities and, I don't know, this kind of protections we have in place. I will answer to your question on CAPEX, and then I will hand you over to Emilio for the second question. The CapEx, definitely for DORA II, the CapEx is going to be very close to this is our expectation today, very close to the EUR 450 million or EUR 500 million per year, if that's what you are asking for, because the largest projects are going to be postponed slightly in time for obvious reasons. Different thing is 2021. In 2021, our expectation is to invest to the tune of EUR 830-EUR 840 million. And somehow this is about catching up with the DORA II commitments. Hi, Cristian. On your second question, the car rental contracts end in October 2022. As you know, these contracts have been the first to be negotiated and to have an agreement with them back in December 2020, and with, in fact, variabilizing the minimum annual guarantee to a minimum annual guarantee per pax during 2021. In terms of other contracts, mostly we have used the possibility of extensions, but we also have seen new tenders, for example, in car rental. There has been a new tender launched. I don't remember when, but I think it was at the start of 2021, and the result was very positive, and there was high interest from different competitors. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Siobhan Lynch of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Hi, good morning. Thank you very much for your time and for taking my questions. I have three, if possible. The first is just on the MAGS. So I understand that the current negotiations and the discounts are out to September 2021, as you said, and this is in accordance with the decree. But my question is just, beyond September, are tenants happy to be going back to 100%, I guess, effective MAGS payments? Has there been any kind of difficulty on negotiating that? And also, what is kind of stopping you from going to a MAGS per pax metric? And then my second question, so I know that 13% of the MAGS contracts are covered in the agreements you've signed so far. What are the bigger retailers unhappy about in the negotiations? Is it the size of the discount, the length of the discount, anything you could give on that? And then my final question is just on the route back to paying a dividend. So I think Bloomberg Consensus has you at positive EPS in 2021, obviously less than 2019, but positive nonetheless. So any thoughts on what this would mean to return to dividend payments? Would you consider reinstating the old payout ratio, or is the focus this year on preserving liquidity and the business? Thank you very much. Okay. Well, with regard to the MAGS negotiations, to be frank, probably one of the issues is, I mean, for those who are rejecting or at least not agreeing to the deal so far, is the idea of getting back to the standard contractual arrangements after September 2021. But frankly, we believe that the proposal we made is fair. This is about sharing risks and sharing difficulties rather than a one-sided solution. We believe that leaving on the table EUR 800 million of revenues is a good contribution. Clearly, the retailers or the travel retailers, which are more reluctant to the agreement, are the largest ones. And I understand that they are trying to protect their investors as well. But I would say the value of their investors is at least as important as the value of, or the other way around, the value of our shareholders is at least as important as theirs. And they are participated by large institutions. So they are not precisely people that cannot face these discussions in a balanced way. But frankly, probably the main issue is exactly that, to commit to get back to normal and not prolonging in any shape or form the current solution. We believe that moving to a per pax, let's say, revenue forever would damage something that we value highly, which is the protection of the MAGS. I'm sure some of you valued that very highly in the past. And we are giving up part of that protection, but we don't believe it's sensible to do it forever, at least now. Then with regard to dividends, well, the payout policy would expire soon, probably next year. Frankly, I don't find any reason to change that dramatically. The problem is that now our minds are not focused on that short term because clearly we are in losses. I don't feel that if everything comes back to normal, I expect Aena to keep being a very attractive, let's say, company from the dividend distribution standpoint and the payout policy. That's my view. Thank you. That's really helpful. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Elodie Rall of JP Morgan. Please ask a question. Your line is now open. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for taking my questions. I will hav three, if I may. So first of all, if I can just come back to the MAGS, sorry about that, but did it offer to give us a bit more color on the cash impact versus the P&L impact? And my question would be mostly on what we should expect on 2021 cash, if any, from the outcome of the 2020 negotiation on the MAGS. Sorry if I'm not completely clear on that. My second question is on traffic expectations. I mean, you seem quite confident that traffic will recover in H2. That's your word. So could you quantify a little bit? Do you see scope, for example, for traffic to recover to 50% or more of 2019 levels, for example? What makes you so confident? And also, what is your view on the Spanish government attempting to implement a vaccine passport to save the summer season? My last question is on the progress on the negotiation on DORA II. It seems to go quite fast. Could you give us a little bit of color about what we should expect with regard to CAPEX, WACC, and tariffs for the DORA II proposal? Thanks very much. Okay. Very comprehensive. In terms of the MAGS for, well, we have been giving, let's say, trying to give clarity on the numbers and the impact on cash because we believe that's probably the main reason for concern. Having said that, we cannot quantify the specific impact on cash because that will depend on the position of the different retailers in terms of agreeing or otherwise to the proposal. Clearly, for those who agree, we will be billing and collecting roughly 40% of the total. For those who will not agree, we will work hard to collect 100%. That's the position theoretically, but then the potential outcomes are different. That's the reason why. Can I just ask? Can I just Can I just ask? So it means if 100% of the MAGS are agreeing on the proposal, does it mean that on 2021 cash, we're going to see a decrease of EUR 440 million? Exactly. Exactly. That's the 2020 figure, the 2020 MAGS. Then you have the 2021 MAGS that will only affect 2022 because, as you know, the. But But in terms of cash for 2021, all is driven by the 2020 MAGS revenue. And the EUR 440 million, in summary, by March, we would be expecting to collect EUR 620 million. If everybody agrees, we would be collecting EUR 180 million. That's all. Okay. And you haven't provided for that yet? We have. No, because once again, this is accounting. And believe me, I know you are thinking in terms of common sense. Common sense. I'm really, I would like to be able to run these accounts on common sense. Once you account for that, then you have to go through the IFRS 9 Financial Asset Impairment Accounting Standard and that accounting standard applies based on a number of parameters of giving you an idea of the prospective forward-looking credit risks attached to each and every one of them, well, more than 95% of our MAGS are linked to 24, 25 retailers. They are all large, and they are in good shape. I mean, as in good shape, I mean relatively taking into account the current situation, so that's it, well, traffic expectations, I think we need to go a little bit faster, if I may. Traffic expectations, as the Chairman and CEO said, we are working on the basis of the different scenarios provided by different institutions. We believe that the 2021 traffic is likely to move in a range between minus 50% and minus 65% of the 2019. Well, we believe that we are taking from those institutions that this is the potential range of traffic in 2021, - 50% to - 65% of the 2019 figures. And that's the view overall. With that in mind, we know now that quarter one and quarter two are not looking good, but we are optimistic. I wouldn't say confident, optimistic, but we might be wrong that the new news coming up in terms of vaccines, I don't know, countries which are critical to us starting to relax the measures are giving us some optimism about the ability of facing a recovery in the second half of the year. But frankly, these days, there is no such a thing as a traffic forecast expert anymore. Okay? Then the Spanish government vaccine passport, we are in favor of any initiative that can make mobility easier, definitely in favor, and we, of course, as airport operators, are consulted by the Spanish government, as other peers are doing with their governments, and we are always very fond of any initiative helping people move around. DORA II, well, the consultation process has taken place, is about to be closed, has been, in my view, very positive, very engaging. I'm afraid we cannot comment on the details, WACC, or indeed the tariff final outcome because we don't know. What we will be doing is to submit our proposal in a couple of weeks' time, a little bit more, and then it's up to the regulator to make a final decision. But clearly, in terms of CAPEX, I think there is a consensus, generally speaking, between airlines and ourselves that the CAPEX program should be commensurate with the current situation. So definitely, the EUR 1 billion CAPEX per year originally expected is not anymore on the table. So it's probably EUR 500 million. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Luis Prieto of Kepler. Please ask a question. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I had a couple of questions. First of all, coming back to the MAGS argument, I appreciate that there's a theoretical protection provided by the mechanism, but the current situation has put that protection under extreme question. Wouldn't it make sense to change the model or to adjust it and make that part of a proposal to the tenants? I would assume that would have been the case in your case-by-case approach initially after changing to the broad-based proposal that you made. The second question, I know it's very difficult, and you've already sort of answered this, but regarding DORA II, would it be fair to assume that your proposal could include a traffic outlook relatively similar to where the big institutions or the big associations are heading to in terms of 2023, 2024 recovery of 2019 traffic levels, or is it going to be completely different from that? Thank you very much. With regard to the MAGS, I accept your point. This is a very valid view, but we have been thinking through that. We believe that, I don't know, we believe that the robustness of our contractual arrangements are worth defending. And bearing in mind that we are putting on the table a significant, a very material amount of cash by way of discounts. So we believe that it's good enough to make our tenants, our retail operators, to go through the most difficult time and then getting back to honor their commitments. We might be wrong. I mean, this is a decision made after a very long and deep reflection. Don't forget, the largest players are the ones who are, let's say, more reluctant. And we believe there is a balance to be taken into account there because they are not the smaller businesses that are, frankly, struggling more and that ironically are taking up the proposal. Then, with regard to DORA II, definitely, I'm not going to share with you any views on that, but I can tell you, of course, our DORA II proposal should be, and there is no other way around, in the range of the views that a number of different institutions have now. So it's not out of kilter with that, of course. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Stephanie D'Ath of RBC. Please ask your question. Yes. Hi. Good afternoon, and thanks for answering my questions. The first one would be on your commentary that you saw some positive news, obviously, on main countries traveling to Spain. And I think probably the U.K. mentioning they would reopen travel from 17th of May is very positive for you given U.K. passengers account for a significant part of your traffic. Could you maybe comment how much visibility you have on summer bookings and to which extent you get that visibility from the airlines? My second question is on the MAGS, just to make sure there's no condition that comes with the waiver in terms of recouping any of those MAG discounts at the end of this contract, right? Because I know that in the past, at least some discussions I had with investors had the hope that whatever cash impact you would be losing in the near term, you would basically get back in the longer term. And then maybe on cash generation for this year, thank you so much for sharing your traffic range for 2021 being probably between 35%- 50% of 2019 traffic. Are you optimistic that you will be able to be cash break even or generate a little bit of cash with that kind of traffic? And that's it from me. Thank you. Sorry. With regard to the bookings, frankly, it's early to say because, as I said before, our expectations or our wishes or whatever you call it, that the second half of the year would be better than the first half, it means that we are still a way away from that. Yesterday, we learned that one airline, as soon as the U.K. Prime Minister announced some changes, the bookings of one of the low-cost carriers went up by 600%. So definitely, it's difficult to say. These airlines can make decisions two, three weeks ahead of the travel. So there is no point in looking at that today as we used to do one, two years ago, two years ago, to be more precise. Then with regard to the MAGs, clearly, we are in a different world. One year ago or less than that, we expected to be able to protect the value of the contract. That's impossible today. So we are just, let's say, making an effort to deal with the current difficult times, and then we will move on. And we will never get that back other than by the fact that our tenants will be happier and will be engaging and committed, but nothing else. And in terms of 2021, let me just in a couple of headlines. First of all, our aspiration and our determination that is challenging, but we are going to work hard towards that, is to make sure that under any of these potential range of traffic scenarios for 2021, which are not our forecast, it's just the range of scenarios, we remain neutral at operating cash flow level, at least, obviously, or better than that, or positive. That's our aim. And it's not easy. It's a challenging bit. That would mean that at the level of free cash flows, the only impact, the only inverted commas, would be the investment, the CAPEX. That is sizable, bearing in mind that we are catching up on DORA I. But that's the goal, and we are of the view that this is feasible, but not easy. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of José Arroyas of Santander. Please ask your question. Good afternoon, gentlemen. A couple of questions from me. On DORA II and your comment describing the negotiations as good and engaging, I just want to make sure that the possibility that DORA I may be extended for another year, which I believe was on the table until only recently, is no longer considered. And if that were and DORA I would be extended for another year, what would that mean for 2022? And on second question, it's on the commercial incentive schemes for airlines. I mean, there has been political pressure in Spain. At least there is noise in the parliament that politicians want Aena to provide more meaningful discounts for the summer period. How final is the commercial incentive scheme that Aena is announcing today, and if that could be revised going forward if needed? Thank you. Okay. With regard to DORA II, first of all, I didn't mention negotiations. This is consultation. There is no negotiation per se. The possibility of extending DORA I was discussed, was thought through, even by ourselves at the point in time. I think everybody ended up realizing that that would be, first of all, would involve a discussion on a number of things like CAPEX, other points that would make still the process complicated. So what was the point to engage in this kind of discussions just for one year? Secondly, there were people thinking that, yes, of course, you have to extend, but the cost of capital should be revisited. In that case, what's the point? What's the case? So to cut a long story short, everybody, both sides of the table, I believe, now ended up engaging on the DORA II discussions, and we left the potential extension behind us. This is Maurici Lucena. Just to complement the explanation of our CFO, what José has said is completely true, and this is our impression. But formally, and I feel obliged to stress that, formally, the last word corresponds to the regulator. But regardless of the final decision of the regulator, which we, as José Leo said, which we are confident that will be, let's say, normal DORA II without extension of DORA 1, regardless of this final decision, Aena compulsory needs to present its DORA II proposal. And only after our proposal presentation, should the government, if it consider this adequate, they then could extend. In other words, regardless of the extension or non-extension, Aena has the obligation to present a DORA II proposal in mid-March. But I completely agree with José Leo's opinion, which is that after some hesitations by probably, I think, some airlines, we are now all aligned in the sense that at least it would be good to have part of visibility coming from this DORA II, which, on the other hand, I would say is a very reasonable DORA. And I think that I don't want to talk instead of the airlines, but my impression is that airlines, in general terms, consider our proposal in the consultations we went through a reasonable one in its main aspects. José, I don't know if you want to. Okay. With regard to the incentive scheme for airlines, we think this is a good and attractive one. So there are no plans to revisit it, at least for the coming season, unless, I don't know, things change dramatically for the worst. Next question, please. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, your next question comes from the line of Johannes Braun from Stifel Europe. Please ask your question. Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Sorry. Again, on the MAG, the first one, the question is, when would you need the clarity regarding the dispute in order to cash in the amount for 2020? I think normally you cash it in in Q1 or at the end of Q1. And then what happens to the commercial partners that will not have accepted the offer by then? Would you be willing to talk with them on a bilateral basis, or would you simply leave a 100% of the MAG to them? That's the first question. Second question, on this year's fees, obviously, headline fees will be flat, as you said. But what about the recovery of the COVID-19 costs? I think you mentioned in earlier calls that you can recover those. And also, what about the impact on the P and the K factor? And then the third question, the EUR 400 million cost savings that you have realized last year, will any of this be sustainable beyond the crisis, or would you expect that to return as traffic comes back? Thank you. One question. When you spoke about the headline fee, you mean for 2022 or? For this year, for 2021. Well, okay. Well, sorry, 2021 is done. It's flat. And the K factor, I don't recall now the figure exactly, but my team can tell me. But ultimately, now it's not relevant. It's just flat considering altogether. With regard to the COVID-associated costs, we have the right to recover them, not necessarily this year or the year after. It will depend, but we have that entitlement, and we are pretty sure that they will be accommodated over the coming years. So we are relaxed about it, so. With regard to the MAGS, well, the plan is very simple. If there is no agreement, actually, the invoices were already issued. Coming the day when the amounts are due, we will proceed according to our standards and rules. We have a significant amount of protections, usually as part of our procedures. Not 100%, I'm afraid, but. And indeed, we have built on a 100% basis to those who didn't agree to the proposal. Savings, well, beyond COVID, that will be DORA II. And then DORA II will come with a number of other things and features and quality standards, whatever. So I would struggle to tell you. Of course, we will be as efficient as we can, but frankly, the savings we have achieved over the COVID crisis, or we are achieving, are somehow driven by running the business in a very, very austere way. You cannot do that forever when you are trying to run attractive and well-equipped operations and airports with high-quality standards. Okay. Johannes. Thank you. Johannes, just to clarify, this is Emilio. On the fees you were asking, maybe we are mixing that. You have to remember that 2020, well, let's say K Factor or P Factor or COVID expenses will be included in the tariffs of 2022. So let's say in tariffs of 2021, what is included are the factors of 2019. Right. Right. With a two-year delay. Yeah. Correct. Yes. Understood. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Andrew Lobbenberg of HSBC. Please ask your question. Oh, hi there. And thanks for all your efforts at clarifying the confusing situation on the MAGS. Can I ask about the DORA? It's obviously not a normal environment, and I see you're very clearly ambitious to set a five-year pathway on CAPEX and charges. Are you envisioning any additional flexibilities in the structure of the DORA to cope with the extreme uncertainty that we face at the moment? Second question, with your MAG offer to your partners, can you explain what drove your decision of the turning point of September to go back to normal? Was there anything in the Royal Decree, or was that just a commercial decision on your part? And then a final question again on the MAG. I'm so sorry. Can I just make sure that I understand how the P&L and the cash move? Let's work on the sort of working assumption just for modeling that everybody accepts. And then it's an EUR 800 million offer, and you say EUR 440 million relates to 2020, and therefore, by my math, something like EUR 360 million relates to 2021 in the first nine months of that. So when do we lose those bits of cash? And equally, how does it play out in the P&L? Okay. First of all, flexibilities in DORA II, additional flexibilities? Frankly, I don't think so. Nothing material. Nothing that you should be surprised of. So with regard to the MAG, sorry, Andrew. I forgot your second question. Second question. Why September 2021 to go back to 2021? I think that's driven by the Royal Decree, which sets the time period to which it applies the second state of alarm or the state of emergency, plus four months, if I recall correctly. So the state of alarm, the current one will finish on the 9th of May, and then adding four months more. That's it. P&L and cash. Let me try to explain cash first, which, believe it or not, is the easiest part. If everybody agrees to the plan, we will be collecting, I would say, in March, but clearly, that would say March, April, we would be collecting EUR 180 million in cash out of the EUR 620 million we were entitled to. You can see there a minor difference between the EUR 635 million of total MAGS and the EUR 620 million I'm talking about, which are the ones affected by the proposal we made some one month ago, but bear with me, that's not critical, so we would be collecting EUR 180 million in cash in total. That's all. Nothing else. Full stop. Instead of EUR 620 million, which we don't believe are the amount we are going to collect, then, in 2021, we would be accounting for the same revenues, but I will come back to P&L, and then, on, let's say, March 2022, we will be collecting the final amount, which applies, which basically would be big numbers, EUR 600 million, roughly, of potential MAGs, less 250, or I don't remember the figure now, that will be collected in 2022. The rest will be gone. So in total, we would be collecting between the two years, let's say, EUR 450 million instead of, or less than EUR 500 million instead of EUR 1.2 billion that we were entitled to collect, obviously, in a different world. In terms of P&L, it's even more cumbersome because once you get to an agreement, let's say we agree with World Duty Free, for the sake of argument. Clearly, it's for the sake of argument, nothing else. If we agree with World Duty Free on this deal, we will have a hit. We will have a loss. That loss, let's say, is EUR 200 million. Once again, it's for the sake of argument and not instead of taking that to P&L at that very moment, in that very year, as per IFRS 16, we have to spread that in equal amounts over the years of the contract. So if we have a contract still running for four years, and we agree with World Duty Free on next week to this deal, next week, we will be accounting for just a portion of the loss. The rest of the loss will be spread over the coming four years. And I'm not going to talk you through an additional, yet more complicated point, which is the Spanish accounting, which affects Aena's single company, the parent company accounts. Obviously, the key points are the consolidation accounts. Could change this treatment. The Spanish rules could change that treatment for local purposes. Unfortunately, those accounts are those that are relevant to our covenant calculation. But bear with me. I will try to be we will try to be very transparent. We don't want to mess up all this. We are just the other way around, trying to be transparent. Hopefully, this helps. Probably not as much as you need, but. No. No. That's helpful. Thank you. It's fiendish, isn't it? Thank you. Your next question today comes from Arthur Truslove of Credit Suisse. Please ask a question. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking my call. First question from me. In terms of the COVID costs and, if you like, K factor that you've accrued through 2020, are you just able to tell us how much those are and therefore what the sort of impact in million EUR will be on the 2022 tariffs? And also, what you're expecting in 2021 in that regard. Second question, I've sort of already been touched on. You've done really well in saving EUR 45 million per month. Obviously, we've not had much traffic activity in the first quarter of 2021. How long do you expect that EUR 43-45 million per month saving to continue for? And what sort of level of activity would it require for that to materially change? And then my final one. I know last year there was a bit of discussion around tenders within the real estate projects that you're working on. I just wondered how they were all progressing. Thank you. Okay. Regarding your first question on the K factor, last year or in 2020 ended with an amount of EUR 132 million, which is roughly EUR 1.74 per pax. Okay? And regarding the COVID expenses, it will be roughly EUR 60 million, including both the, let's say, pure expenses and also the CAPEX that has been invested during this period. As you have mentioned, all these amounts would be included in future tariffs, okay, according to the Royal Decree announced last summer. For next year, the K factor would be just difficult to do any analysis as it would depend on the traffic. But in terms of COVID-19 expenses, we are budgeting around EUR 90 million-EUR 100 million for 2021. Of course, it would also depend on traffic and on the different measures to be taken by the government. I will answer. First of all, when Emilio mentioned EUR 130 million of K factor, this time around, K factor is going the opposite direction. This is concentration, not dilution. So that will bring the tariff down rather than in the past, we were used to experience dilution in the yield. Those EUR 130 million are concentration of yield. With regard to the EUR 43 million-EUR 45 million per month savings, clearly, that's challenging. It's challenging because we achieved that making a number of very difficult decisions. Literally, I would speak of a shake-up of our supply chain. But as I said before, our objective is to be able to run the business with, at the worst, zero or neutral operating cash flows, even in the, let's say, low end of the range of traffic that I mentioned before. So I don't know if that will involve EUR 43 million or EUR 45 million per month, but not very far from that, of course. And with regard to the real estate projects, yes, we are working towards putting that in the market probably soon. Once again, as ever, I try to manage your expectations. This is a first phase that will be based on very focused on logistics, which is the business that we believe is still very attractive, probably even more than before. And this is not going to be like, I don't know, hitting the ground running. It will take time to get the revenues and the value. So we are excited about the possibility because this is just making good use of land, and that's the right decision. But this is not going to transform Aena's profit and loss accounts. Thank you very much. Thank you Your next question today comes from the line of Dario Maglione of Exane BNP Paribas. Please ask your question. Hi. Good afternoon. And thanks for being so transparent about the MAG. I just want to clarify one point on the MAG. You mentioned in the presentation that a 100% reduction of MAG could be applicable if Aena is forced to close some of the airports. Can you explain this point again? I mean, does it apply to the future or to last year? And is there a risk that the MAG discount increases because of this? Second question on tariffs for next year. If you apply the current law, tariffs could increase significantly because of the K factor. My understanding is K factor still applies despite these current exceptional circumstances. But will also the cap of 0% apply then? So a scenario where tariffs next year drop because of the K factor and then cannot increase because there is by law a cap of 0%. And so they stay quite low for the whole DORA. Last question, but it was on traffic, but I think it has been answered already. So I'll just keep to the first two questions. Thanks. As part of our offer, what we are saying is if there is any part of our facilities which is closed by our decision, because we believe that organizationally or from the management standpoint, we believe should be closed, we offer 100% discount. We believe that it wouldn't be right to charge anything, even 50%, to the retailers if that particular area is closed by our decision. And that applies, definitely. There aren't many. I don't believe this is. We closed some areas for a period of time, but that period of time was coinciding with the state of alarm. And so the 100% discount applies anyway. Beyond that point, we have bits and pieces from time to time, but not a great deal. It's not going to be hundreds of millions. Okay. And so this one, sorry, it's already been included in your estimate of the discount. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. In terms of tariffs, well, you are right. Everything you said is right for 2022. So it's a bit of a, let's say, salad of different factors. But ultimately, what really is key is the maximum revenue per pax that will be approved for DORA II. So don't believe that the impact of the K factor could block permanently the tariffs for the rest of the DORA II. I don't want to elaborate any more on that because this is part of the discussions of DORA II, as you can imagine. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Marcin Wojtal of Bank of America. Please ask the question. Yes. Thank you so much for taking my question. The first one is on your costs and on your efficiency programs. I mean, would you be able to share some thoughts as to how much of that EUR 400 million of savings could be maintained in the medium term? Have you identified some areas to just run the company in a more efficient way? Perhaps some of that could be retained, let's say, in three to four years when traffic recovers. So that's number one. And number two, I was just wondering, is there any mechanism you think for you to request compensation for the revenue lost due to COVID? I think that the Royal Decree from 2014, it states that Aena could be eligible for some sort of compensation if there are unforeseen circumstances that cause a significant divergence of traffic versus forecasts. But I'm just wondering, is there any way explicitly or implicitly to include some sort of catch-up effect for COVID in the DORA II discussion, perhaps, or any other way to get compensation for the revenue lost? Thank you. With regard to savings, frankly, the way we reached that level of savings was very, very tough, as I said before. So the short answer, I don't believe these savings make sense to be achieved in the long run. That would damage the quality of the service. I want to remind you that before the COVID, we were the most efficient airport operator, I believe, in Europe, and I still believe that that will be the case, so you can always say, "I want more," but unless you are damaging the very fabric of the business, so the answer is no. Long-term, these savings make no sense. They were achieved through, well, a very particular situation. With regard to your point, yes, there is a mechanism, well, there is a provision, an article that provides for that. But there is no specific mechanism to calculate that or to, indeed, to run the process. We are thinking through it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Jenny Ping of Citi. Please ask your question. Nice, easy one. They've all been answered. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, as a reminder, it's line one. If you wish to ask a question or the hash key, if you wish to remove yourself from the queue, we do have two questions at the moment. Your next question comes from Nicolas Mora of Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question. Your line is now open. Yes. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Just a quick one on the MAG. I mean, we understand the cutoff for the agreement is September 2021. Based on the Royal Decree, I mean, a new Royal Decree could come up. I mean, whatever your expectations on traffic, traffic should still be down versus 19 from September 21 onwards. So on our side, we do understand some of your clients asking for further cuts. Why can't you, I mean, reach an agreement with them and agree to share some of the pain of the shortfall in traffic post-September? Is this something you're just not agreeing to, or this is something which could be on the table, especially for your large customer, which do also have a bit of power, like the Dufry, the Areas, and so on? That's the main question. Well, of course, any deal can be considered good or bad depending on your point of view. This deal is not perfect. Maybe there is another deal which is better than this. We ended up putting this deal on the table. Of course, they want more. Definitely, we would like to be offering less. But that's life. I mean, we can't give up 100%. I don't know. I suppose for our shareholders, the reflection would be, "Why the World Duty Free shareholder is more important than me?" I don't know. So this is a deal that we put on the table, and that's it. Of course, you can always speculate. But if you start blinking and speculating, of course, they will say, "Well, let's wait and see because these guys are going to come back." No, no. That's not the case. Okay. So I mean, the point was mostly, I mean, you talked about fair sharing of risk, upside and downside. You understand that by not granting any further discounts post-September 21st, you are protecting yourself from any downside from the traffic. That downside is all dumped on your client. But do you believe, Nicolas, EUR 800 million is not a good way of sharing the risks? No, no. What I mean, that's the 50% cut versus traffic, which should be down 70%. So I mean, the risk is fairly balanced. I agree. But I'm not sure I understand why there is a, outside of the Royal Decree limit, there is a commitment from you not to open the door to something viable post-September 21st. Would you put an agreement on the table to then say, "But I can change?" If you do that, of course, the other side would say, "Yes, definitely. This is not." We have put forward we know we are taking risks. We know this is a there is no final answer to all the questions. But this is the deal we believe is commensurate with the risk attached to their business, to our business, with the effort which you should share. And they are also big players, large institutions with strong muscles. So that's our position today. It took a while to get to this point, believe me. Maybe it's not the most attractive deal for them, but it's not the most attractive deal for us either. Okay. Thank you. I think we have one more. Thank you. Yes, we do have one more question. This comes from the line of Charles Maynadier of Kempen & Co. Please ask your question. The line is now open, Charles. Hi. Good afternoon. Just a few follow-ups, if I may. It's the last one on the MAG. Apologies to come back on that one. But assuming there's no agreement with the bigger retailers for your current proposal, could this go to court and then last for quite some time? So how comfortable are you with going down that route? And how protected are you from a legal point of view if that happens? Then a small follow-up on the sorry. Okay. Two more. Please, Charles. Quick. Yeah. Yeah. On the tariffs for DORA II, so tariffs can be flat at best according to law. We know that. But could you confirm that they could also increase on the back of the COVID-19 health costs? And then the last one is on your strategy on M&A. So obviously, not a priority at this stage. But we'll be keen to hear your thoughts on whether you're still committed to your international expansion pillar that you presented in 2018. Has COVID-19 changed that? And would you, for example, rather return more cash to shareholders in the medium term instead of doing M&A? Thanks. Well, with regard to the MAG, yes, we feel very strongly. We feel our case is very robust. So we will proceed as, well, as we have said. We will protect our rights. Of course, this is a process that involves risks. We are taking those risks for the good of the business and our shareholders, in our view. Secondly, yes, the tariffs will be flat until the end of 2025, not for 2026, which is, well, will be flat. I mean, they should be flat, by law. In 2026, which is the last year of DORA II, this cap will disappear, legally speaking, and then, yes, we can add the COVID costs on top of the flat tariff if that's the case, and then finally, we remain in the business of acquiring good opportunities across the world, so if there is any good opportunity, and we don't believe at the end of the day, making the decisions that we believe will generate more value long term. I hope that answers your questions, and I don't know, without any further. Is there anything in the pipeline? Well, you are asking me to share with you some things that now, frankly, I don't want to share any information with you at this stage. We keep vigilant. We remain vigilant. Sorry. Thank you. Have a good day, all of you. And thank you for being in the call. Anything from well, Emilio is telling me to say goodbye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Cheers. Thank you very much. Bye. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.