Good morning, everyone, and welcome to all of you here in Paris and to those joining online. We're really delighted to have you with us today. It's a big day for Groupe ADP and an exciting one. This morning is dedicated to you, the financial community, and later today, we will gather our teams for an internal session. Of course, the dialogue will continue next week with a virtual investor roadshow as well. Most importantly, today marks the start of a broader sequence. With the release last night of the public consultation document and the preliminary draft agreement, we are formally launching the airport users' consultation process. This is a major milestone for our proposal to enter into an economic regulation agreement. So all the materials disclosed to inform investors, the press release, and today's presentation are all available on our website, and I will draw, as usual, your attention to the disclaimer on forward-looking statements at the end of these documents. We have a rich morning ahead of us. This will be in two parts. We will start with a plenary session, which should run for about one hour. Philippe Pascal, our Chairman and CEO, will share our ambition and the foundations of our proposal, and Justine Coutard, Deputy CEO, will walk you through our industrial project. Then, Christelle de Robillard, Executive Vice President for Finance, Strategy, and Development, will present the economic balance of our plan. We will then move to a Q&A session for around one hour again. I will be moderating this session. We will give the priority to the room here in Paris, but I will also take some questions coming from the webcast audience. After that, we will have a short break, and we will shift gears to move into two interactive workshops. These will not be webcasted, but all the materials will be made available, of course, on our website. The purpose of these workshops is really to bring you closer to the performance driver that underpins our proposal. The first workshop on operational performance will be led by Régis Lacote, Executive Vice President in charge of Operations and Innovation, and also the Director of Charles de Gaulle Airport, and Baptiste Morand, Director of Engineering and Capital Projects. The second workshop, focused on economic performance, will be presented by Christelle de Robillard and Antoine Crombez, Deputy CFO. So that's it with the agenda and the housekeeping remarks. Let's get started. I am very pleased to hand over to our Chairman and CEO, Philippe Pascal. Thank you. Thank you, Cécile, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for being with us. I am pleased to be with you today to present, as we had committed, our proposal for the Economic Regulation Agreement project. This project marks the start of a new industrial cycle for Paris Airport. Its aim is to support responsible and long-term development, contribute to accelerate decarbonization of aviation, and strengthen the competitiveness of Paris in a fast-changing environment. This both our responsibility and our mission as an airport operator. Our proposal reflects a development model that is ambitious, sustainable, and economically balanced. The airport industry has clearly entered a new cycle. First, the environmental transition remains a central priority and shared responsibility. This is key for the acceptability and therefore the sustainability of our business. Second, competitive pressure is intensifying, especially on long-haul connecting traffic with the heavy challenges of higher tax and construction costs in France compared with international peers. Third, overall traffic growth is becoming more moderate with the mix shifting. Long-haul international segments will remain the most dynamic. And finally, we must modernize our infrastructure to meet new regulatory standards and maintain strong operational performance at a time when our airports are entering an accelerating engine cycle. This is the starting point for our proposal. Groupe ADP enters this new cycle with strong structural assets. We remain a world leader in airport operations. In Paris, we do benefit from a unique potential with our airport system: three well-connected airports totaling 10 runways surrounding the capital city of the country. We are pioneers in decarbonization. We have built a powerful hospitality brand, Extime, with recognized operational expertise. Our economic model is robust, with an adjustable system secured. These assets are not only strengths. They are an enabler for the next industrial cycle and the foundation for our ability to deliver value for all our stakeholders. In this context, our vision is clear. We want to put Groupe ADP at the forefront of an acceptable, high-performing, and differentiating airport model. This is not about building more. This is about building better, smarter. This vision guides every dimension of our project: infrastructure planning, design of our investment plan, framework of our proposal for the Economic Regulation Agreement. Our vision is guided by one clear objective: investing to boost airline performance and, of course, to boost Groupe ADP performance. Invest and planning with a long-term vision is indeed our core mission. By investing, we prepare the future and continue to grow, creating value for all is our responsibility. This approach rests on our four priorities, mirroring the shift of our industry. First, reinforcing operational competitiveness by ensuring punctuality, fluidity, and reliability. Second, developing airport capacity in a way that is efficient, scalable, and aligned with future traffic trends. Third, elevating service quality, aiming for the highest international ACI ASQ standards. Last, accelerating energy transition and boosting intermodality, fully consistent with our 2050 net- zero ambition. All together, this approach establishes a new balance between performance, responsibility, and competitiveness, driving value across the entire ecosystem, in particular, airlines. So to deliver this strategy, we are adopting a new model of infrastructure development, which is designed to succeed within these new constraints. It is based on three guiding principles. The first principle is intentional efficiency. This means that we will give priority to the optimization and the densification of our existing assets before adding new infrastructure. The second principle is modularity, a series of medium-sized projects integrated with existing structures. The third principle is progressivity, deploying step by step, limiting long use, and adapting to operational maturity and demand. These principles lead to not building a new major infrastructure such as a new terminal. This is a strategic decision. This principle leads to a new development model to ensure the project acceptability and environmental viability. At the same time, this choice makes the project highly demanding, requiring precise phasing and to minimize operational disruption. We will create capacity only when needed, aligned with traffic dynamics, never ahead of them. This infrastructure development project is the result of one of the most extensive consultation processes ever conducted in our sector. At Paris-Orly, more than 6,000 participants, over 100 municipalities. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle, over 17,000 participants, more than 800 municipalities. The outcome is clear. The airport community, including airlines, strongly supports our international industrial project. To deliver this challenging project, visibility and consistency are key. That is why we are preparing to enter into an Economic Regulation Agreement. Only a multi-year framework can give us the ability to execute such an ambitious infrastructure development project, deploying step by step. When committed into a multi-year agreement, we have to realize a defined investment plan supported by a controlled airport fees trajectory and a good quality of service for the passenger. Our projects involve securing the sequence of a complex set of projects, many of which require environmental approval. This is why the eight-year time framework from 2027 to 2034 is appropriate, making it possible to achieve our project. In very concrete terms, our infrastructure development project unfolds in three phases, each aligned with a specific objective. First phase: improve and streamline passenger flow. Second phase: densify, optimize existing infrastructure. Finally, for the third phase, create new smart infrastructure and develop intermodal transport. Justine will present our infrastructure project in detail just after me. The key takeaway is that our Economic Regulation proposal is a contract designed not only to plan, but really to be able to deliver, to be acceptable, and to bring performance for airlines. Now, what about the returns? As required by law, and for the project to be economically viable, it must ensure a fair return on the capital invested within the regulated perimeter. Accordingly, our proposal aims for the regulated watershed to converge, on average, over the duration of the contract with the regulated WACC. The regulated WACC is estimated at 5.9%. The proposed framework aims to strike the right balance, delivering an unprecedented level of investment: EUR 8.4 billion over the period, whose return is both guaranteed and capped by law. After the proposed increase, the airport charges remain at the lower end of the range compared with our peers. We remain lower end of the range compared with our peers. This balance implies also a strong cost control effort for ADP with around EUR 130 million target saving for 2034, compared to the nominal trajectory of our regulated OPEX. Last, because risks are inherent to a multi-year commitment, the proposed framework also includes additional mechanisms designed to preserve value and share risk fairly. Christelle will circle back on our balanced economic proposal and its parameters in her presentation. This proposed contract will also reinforce Groupe ADP's economic model. Our model reinforces the fundamentals of the regulated perimeter and embedding strong financial discipline from cost control to modular investment, allowing for an efficient capital allocation, all supporting a robust balance sheet. In all, this proposal fully preserves our financial flexibility and robustness. Fully preserved. We retain the capacity to invest in our non-regulated activities, the core long-term value creators. We retain the ability to distribute 60% of net result with a floor of EUR 3 per share. We keep the headroom needed to maintain our current credit rating. In short, these projects give us the means to transform our Paris Airport responsibly while maintaining our financial strength and our shareholder return profile. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I will hand over to Justine. We will present to you our infrastructure development project in detail. Thank you, Philippe, and good morning to all. I am very happy to present to you our proposed plan to shape the long-term transformation of our Parisian airports. Our proposal of investment plan for Paris- CDG and Paris- Orly is a new model of development based on strong guidelines. First, we have designed this development project so as to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructures before deploying new constructions. As outlined by Philippe in his introduction, our plan is based on a modular and progressive development of our airport infrastructures. This reinvented model is designed to limit impact on operations and preserve business continuity. Secondly, this investment plan is the result of a rich dialogue with all our stakeholders: airlines, airport communities, state services, territories, and our employees. This unique consultation process constitutes a real factor for trust and visibility, essential for ensuring that the long-term development of Paris- CDG and Paris- Orly is both shared and sustainable. Last, our plan is aligned with our environmental ambitions. All projects have been designed to minimize land take and to limit our environmental impact. This project is divided into three different phases for addressing future traffic growth, each representing a specific objective. First, improving passenger flows over the period 2027-2030. This involves addressing bottlenecks of the customer journey by reducing border control waiting times, reducing passenger congestion in specific areas, making orientation signage easier, and renovating boarding halls. The second phase focuses on making a better use of the space we have and optimizing existing infrastructure capacity between 2030 and 2032. Terminals will be densified gradually, progressively, by optimizing check-in, security checkpoints, boarding, and luggage delivery. Optimizing airside capacity and bringing aircraft stands into contact will allow us to keep pace with traffic growth. In addition, this project will improve luggage system capacity and robustness significantly. The final phase aims to develop new infrastructures. This final stage includes the construction of new boarding piers to raise passenger capacity at both Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Paris-Orly. In addition, this phase will improve connection performance, and rail connectivity will be reinforced to avoid the use of carbon-intensive modes of transport. To bring these plans to life, we've put together a short video showcasing the key development projects ahead. Let's have a look at what the future of our Paris Airport could look like. So now that you have seen the big picture, let's dive deeper into these projects and look at what's behind them. So we'll start with the first phase of our plan, which pursues three main objectives. First is to solve border control waiting time issues. It aims to reinforce existing borders and create new ones to reduce waiting times. In addition, you know that a new European entry-exit system for controlling the external borders on the Schengen Area will be implemented. Second objective: enhancing the security control process, especially, new equipment will maximize security and make the security process smoother by allowing passengers to keep their electronic devices, liquids, gels, and aerosols in their cabin luggage. Third objective: improving customer journey and experience. Navigation of passengers within terminals will be clearer thanks to simpler wayfinding for connections. Moreover, boarding lounges will be renovated by prioritizing congested areas. Let's now look at concrete examples of projects. First example: the creation by 2030 of a completely new border control under the so-called Alpha Taxi Lane at Paris- CDG Terminal 1. This project will double the area dedicated to border controls, and current bottlenecks in this area will be totally removed. Moreover, journeys for people with disabilities will be improved greatly. Second example: the new Terminal 2E arrival border at Paris- CDG. This aims to reduce saturation and to improve the quality of waiting areas prior to border controls thanks to major layout reviews. This includes the construction of a new 18,500 sq m building located east of Terminal 2E. Then, a new arrivals border, 1.7 x bigger than the current one, will be created. The number of checkpoints will increase at the same time. Last but not least, a new and expanded state-of-the-art lounge area will be designed. Let's now move to the second phase of our investment plan: optimizing capacity within existing infrastructures over the 2030-2032 period. Numerous terminals will be densified. Existing capacities will be strengthened, such as check-in, security checkpoints, boarding, and luggage delivery. Then, existing capacity will be optimized. The main objective is to grant priority to the aircraft contact stands while limiting the impact on operations. During this phase, we will also improve operational performance of the luggage process. A luggage highway will be built for a high level of performance and robustness. Moreover, storage capacity will be improved. Let's now see the main projects of the second phase. The first project I would like to focus on is the construction by 2030 of a new international satellite located at the east of Paris- CDG platform. The first phase of this major project covers the construction of an international boarding area, converting six aircraft remote stands into aircraft contact ones. This new building will be connected to the rest of the hub through the extension to the internal metro, the LISA system. The project I would like to present to you now is the extension of our remote stands located at the north of Paris- CDG platform in an area called HOTEL Apron. This project, delivered by 2030, covers the creation of 10 additional wide-body aircraft remote stands, and the objective is to create additional stands as close as possible to the terminals, allowing faster aircraft towing operations, ultimately improving the aircraft contact stand rate. The next project I would like to focus on is the densification and airside extension at Terminal 3 of Paris- CDG by 2030. This project aims to increase the target capacity by 4 million passengers per year. It contains the creation of a new boarding pier connecting six existing aircraft stands through a walking contact configuration. Furthermore, we will create an additional capacity of seven new medium-body aircraft stands. At the same time, security checkpoint resources will be densified, and the arrivals border and luggage delivery area will be reinforced. The last project of the second phase is the construction at Paris-Orly Airport of a new 10,000 sq m building across the Orly 1A/1B halls. This building, delivered in 2031, contains the creation of a state-of-the-art security checkpoint, allowing the expansion of the boarding areas 1A and 1B. The surface area of the Orly 1B boarding lounge will increase a lot, improving customer satisfaction. Let's now focus on the final phase of our investment plan: developing new infrastructures. Three main goals are pursued. First, increasing the number of available contact stands. This objective is to accommodate higher traffic by increasing the number of aircraft contact stands needed both at Paris-CDG and Paris-Orly. Second, improving the performance of connecting journeys. A robust and fast internal train system at Paris-CDG will be developed to ensure the performance of connections at the hub. The last goal is expanding airport access by developing intermodality and connectivity in order to encourage modal shift to low-carbon transport. Now, let me present to you four concrete examples. First, the second part of the new international satellite located at the east of Paris-CDG platform by 2034. A new boarding pier with nine wide-body aircraft stands will be constructed. This building will be connected with the rest of the hub for origin and destination passengers thanks to the 2030 extension of the internal metro LISA system. This project allows us to keep pace with traffic growth in existing areas before sealing new surfaces to the north of the airport. Another project to highlight is a new intermodal hall project at Paris-CDG. This includes the construction of a new building between CDG 2 train station and Terminal 2E. By 2034, the first phase of this project covers check-in capacity, a luggage delivery area, and dedicated departures for intermodal passengers. As a result, this new intermodal hall will provide the needed capacity for our new eastern satellite. The next project I would like to present to you is a new connecting train at Paris-CDG. This is an automatic intra-platform transport system in the airside area, connecting Terminal 2F, all satellites of Terminal 2E, to the new international satellite located at the east of Paris-CDG platform. This train will be put into service gradually between 2032 and 2034. This new service will guarantee a high level of performance of connecting journeys within the hub. Let me present to you now an important project located at Paris-Orly Airport: the construction of a new satellite at the west of the platform. By 2034, a sky bridge will be built connecting this new satellite to Orly 2 and Orly 3. Existing aircraft stands will be brought into contact, converting existing aircraft remote stands into six to eight contact stands. At the end of the day, by bringing aircraft stands into contact, this major project allows us to generate new capacity to handle the growing traffic. Still in Orly, the last project I would like to mention is called Landside Orly. The main objective here is to develop intermodality and improve accesses to the airport. This includes, first, the creation of both north and south welcome centers at the entry of the airport. Then, the construction of an internal transport system to connect various key locations to the north of the airport, such as terminals, of course, but also parking areas, which could be an extension of the OrlyVal shuttle to improve access to the airport also for neighboring communities. At the end of the day, the Landside Orly project aims to create a new model of airport access to reduce the place taken by cars and to encourage intermodality. Beyond the additional capacity we managed to create, the key message I want you to take away is that each of these projects creates value for all stakeholders. This project enhances competitiveness of our airports, of course, and that of airlines, creating at least EUR 550 million of economic gains for airlines. The additional capacity of aircraft stands will largely improve punctuality at departure and connectivity performance. This is supportive to growth and profitability. Second, the customer journey and experience will benefit from continuous improvement, increasing both customer satisfaction and revenue. And last, neighboring communities will benefit from the high level of investment generated by our development project. During the next eight years, Groupe ADP will invest more than EUR 1 billion per year. This will create approximately 13,000 jobs. These territories will also benefit from better connectivity, and especially the intermodal one. Régis and Baptiste will dive deeper into the operational performance levers in the first workshop later on. That's all from me at this stage. Let me now hand it over to Christelle, who will demonstrate the economic balance underpinning our proposal. Thank you, Justine, and good morning, everyone. Now, let's turn to the third part of our presentation, which will focus on the overall balance of our economic proposal. Let's go directly to next time. As Philippe explained, our aim within the ERA is to reach the fair remuneration of invested capital as it is our right. Our proposal is built as to reach an average regulated RAB share equal to the weighted average cost of capital over the period, which is 5.9%. As you can see, after a couple of years of catch-up, the RAB share trajectory will remain very close to the level of WACC for the rest of the ERA. The trajectory results from our key ERA parameters and assumptions on the next slide. Here, you can see the core parameters of our economic balance. First, a moderate traffic growth driven by international traffic, an optimized and phased investment plan of EUR 8.4 billion, an eight-year contract duration to deploy our investment, an efficiency plan of EUR 130 million to generate OPEX savings compared to the natural growth despite new needs, and a tariff proposal consistent and proportionate with this investment plan, calibrated at CPI + 2.6 points on average. To preserve the economic balance of the agreement, we have also included four adjustment factors to the tariff proposal for a fair risk sharing with airlines. I will now dive deeper into each of those items. Regarding traffic first, I mentioned a moderate growth. We indeed expect a yearly traffic growth on 1.6% on average over the period, starting slightly stronger and slowing down sequentially toward the end of the contract. This estimate is based on economic forecasts and the industry's estimates. It also takes into account regulatory and environmental pressures on the air sector. We can here specifically mention the growing mandates to incorporate sustainable aviation fuel, four times more expensive than traditional fuel, which will weigh on ticket prices and hence on the level of demand. This is the trajectory that drives the need for the progressive addition of new capacities in the next years to come. On the next slide now, we see that this traffic growth hides very different trends. We anticipate the trend from the last year to continue during the ERA, with French domestic traffic declining, Schengen traffic on a steady growth pace, and international traffic as the most dynamic segment of our traffic, growing at an average 2.7% per year. These trends will result in a permanent shift in the traffic mix that you can see below, with international traffic rising from 51% in 2019 to 56% expected in 2034. This is, of course, a welcome evolution as international traffic is more contributive to our overall economic performance. However, it is also more demanding in terms of infrastructures. As such, let's look at the necessary investment to address those trends. As mentioned earlier, our regulated investment plan totals EUR 8.4 billion, corresponding to an amount slightly above EUR 1 billion per year on average. These amounts are constant euros. Those are aimed at improving, optimizing, and developing our infrastructures with a profile as smooth as possible across the three phases. Justine already presented to you most of the key projects that are part of this plan. On this slide, you can see the broad categories they will fall into. Capacity works, terminal, airside, and luggage account for more than half of this program. Improvement of the passenger journey is the second largest item and accounts for EUR 1.7 billion. The rest will be spent on accesses, intermodality, aeronautical real estate, and the preparatory works for future capacity developments. Out of the total envelope, EUR 2.4 billion will be dedicated to projects to sustain the performance of the existing infrastructure in a context of aging. This is a program aimed to deliver value in existing and upcoming infrastructures. Moving to the next slide about the upcoming capacity. Again, our plan aims for gradual development to accompany the growth and avoid creating overcapacity. As a result, the capacity profile over the years shows a smooth and efficient addition through the program. All in all, the industrial project will provide a total increase in capacity of 18 million passengers, out of which 14 in Paris-Charles de Gaulle and four in Paris-Orly. Efficient CAPEX and capacity delivery will be key, and so will be, of course, efficient cost control. On the next slide about OPEX, our proposal is built on an efficiency plan estimated to save around EUR 130 million of cost by 2034 compared to the natural growth. This natural growth is expected to be CPI + 2.4 points and is explained by several factors, among which traffic growth, opening of new infrastructure, commitment in terms of decarbonization, and commitment in terms of quality of service. The main targeted levers for savings will be, first, optimizing our procurement policy, notably during the renegotiation with our subcontractors, as we did over the past few years. Second, optimizing our operation and maintenance of our infrastructures, where we are turning to predictive maintenance solutions. Third, a continuous performance effort on the support functions. And last but not least, a control of the staff expenses by a tight recruitment policy of 200 new FTE planned over the whole ERA, meaning a barely 3% increase over the period compared to a 14% increase in traffic. All those initiatives will allow us to contain the regulated OPEX growth at CPI + 1.2 points. All in all, the OPEX per incremental passengers in 2034 is expected to be down 30% compared to average OPEX per passenger in 2026. This performance directly benefits both ADP and the airlines that operate in our infrastructures. I will now touch upon a key element of our proposal, the calculation of the level of the regulated WACC that will serve as the allowed level of regulated returns for the ERA. This calculation, which is based on the methodology of the regulator, is twofold. First, a quantitative approach. We calculate a WACC range that reflects recent economic trends and market data from comparable peers. Then, a qualitative approach with different factors coming into play. The main one, as defined by the regulator itself, is the fact that a multi-year framework, even more with our eight-year proposal, leads to a positioning at the higher part of the range. Then, we put forward other elements of risk inherent to ADP and its proposal. The scale of our investment plan, multiple times higher, larger than any other regional airport in France, and the characteristics of the Parisian platforms, subject to high competition on hub traffic and lack of flexibility of our infrastructures to handle the different kinds of traffic. These together justify a WACC position at the upper end of the calculated range at 5.9%. To finance the development of our airports, we have put together the above tariff proposal. With an average of CPI + 2.6 points per year, this proposal is consistent with our investment program and the moderate traffic growth. It also hedges the core of the regulated model against inflation risk. Its sequencing will support our right for the convergence of returns and the regulated WACC earlier on in the ERA, while being acceptable for airlines and giving them visibility of the evolution on the fees. Note, this tariff proposal is accompanied by upward or downward adjustment factors to keep the economic balance of our proposal. I will return to this later. Looking at the benchmark, we are confident in the fair and moderate nature of our tariff proposal. Historically, ADP has managed to keep the smoothest airport fee evolution trend among other hubs in Europe, providing both steady revenue growth and visibility to airlines. On absolute terms, the Parisian airport also remains among the most cost-attractive compared to major European peers for airport fees. Looking ahead and given the known tariff hike of those peers, our own proposal should not undermine Paris' favorable positioning. Now, let's have a deeper look in our proposal with the underlying tariff structure, which intends to reflect our strategic priorities. This tariff structure evolution aims at reinforcing the competitiveness of our Parisian platform and modernizing the structure, optimizing the use of our infrastructure, and last, reducing the environmental impact of our activities. Among those changes, I can mention the reduction of the gap between international and Schengen passenger fees to support competitiveness on the most dynamic and high-value traffic, the increase of incentives on parking fees for short aircraft rotation to align our operational performance targets with airlines. And then, I can also mention the implementation of new modulation linked with the level of air pollution to incentivize quieter and more environmentally efficient aircraft and to reduce the impact of our activities on neighboring communities. Overall, all those adjustments proposed will foster more competitive, efficient, and acceptable airport operations. To make a truly balanced economic proposal, several key mechanisms allow us to preserve value and balance the risk of this long-term contract. First, as you can see, mechanical adjustments to the tariff cap included in the agreement. We call them adjustment factors, and I explain them in a minute. They apply in case of deviation from the trajectory and targets we set. Second, we have included some revision clauses to have the possibility to amend the contract if a deviation becomes structural and challenges the economic balance. Finally, termination clauses allow for an early exit in case of force majeure events or unsuccessful revision. Bear in mind that, given the length of our contract proposal, a rendezvous is also foreseen at the fourth year with a mandatory consultation of the airlines and a say by the regulator on the continuation of the revision of the contract. I mentioned the adjustment factors. Those mechanisms add a bonus or a malus to our yearly tariff trajectory. This means either allowing a higher tariff hike to reward or compensate the company, or, on the contrary, reducing the tariff hike to compensate airlines. Those are at the core of the economic balance of such a long-term contract, in which deviation from the core trajectory will be unavoidable. As you can see, there are four different adjustment factors. On traffic, the objective is to balance revenues if traffic underperforms or outperforms our expectations. On investment, the factor enables us to have a fair remuneration in function of the reality of the volume of CAPEX we will deliver, but also to incentivize the timely delivery of major projects. On quality of service, the factors allow us to reward or penalize the company on certain quality of service targets. Last, on legal changes or change in law, the factor enables us to compensate impactful changes in legal norms or regulations, including tax. Together, those allow for a fair risk sharing throughout the contract and to maintain a financial trajectory of regulated activities consistent with the execution of our industrial project. The details are all set out in our proposal, and I will dive deeper into their working in a later workshop. All in all, the strength of this proposal lies in its ability to serve the interests of the group and of all stakeholders. It has been consulted upon and will be furthered to ensure it is acceptable. It is built on robust assumptions and will align economic performance with operational and industrial delivery. And finally, it balances risks and commitments to provide visibility on our regulated activities and convergence on average of returns to the WACC level of 5.9%. And with that, I will hand it back to Philippe, who will wrap up and share a few closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Christelle, for this clear overview. So let me conclude with a reminder of the process ahead of us and how this agreement opens our new strategic cycle. So, as you have understood, the Economic Regulation Agreement is much more than a regulatory mechanism. It is a strong industrial project designed with our shareholders and our stakeholders. It is also a way to win competitiveness in this new challenging cycle for the industry. And it is also a tool providing eight years' visibility, stability, and alignment and prepare the future. This process to commit into such framework is structured, transparent, and inclusive. In the first half of 2026, there will be formal consultation with users and engagement with the Transport Regulatory Authority, followed by negotiation with the French State. Once an agreement is reached, the signature of the contract will be possible after a formal proposal of the regulator in Q4 2026. On this basis, the Economic Regulation Agreement is expected to take effect on January 2027, marking the start of the eight-year infrastructure development project. This timeline allows us to move forward with clarity and with all stakeholders on board. As a first step of our platform transformation, we unveiled this week our plan to completely rename the terminal of Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport. This initiative stems directly from passenger feedback and is part of our Connect France partnership with Air France. It will be deployed in March 2027, coinciding with CDG Express launch. Our ambition is clearly to simplify the passenger journey to consolidate Paris-CDG's position as a world-class hub by moving from a complex system of letters and numbers to an intuitive logic: numbers for terminal and letters for boarding rooms. We are aligned Paris-CDG with the standards of the world's best new airport. This project marks the starting point of a complete passenger experience transformation, as explained by Justine. It is the first step of our global modernization strategy, which will be supported by our upcoming Economic Regulation Agreement. As a whole, 2026 will be a pivotal year for Groupe ADP. It will be the year we prepare our 2027- 2030 strategic plan, projecting our long-term value creation. By finalizing the Economic Regulation Agreement, by completing a review of our portfolio of our non-regulated activities, aiming and clarifying our value drivers and priorities, and by reinforcing our performance culture, and also by conducting key social negotiations to support the overall transformation. The Economic Regulation Agreement is the first step of a new strategic cycle for the group, a cycle where we transform our assets in Paris, accelerate the energy transition, and create long-term value for airlines, passenger territories, and for our shareholders. Thank you again for your attention today. Let's now open the Q&A, and I will invite Cécile to come back on the stage to moderate this session. Thank you. Élodie, you can start. Thank you. Thank you very much for this presentation. So maybe I'll ask questions each at a time. So first of all, could you share with us the preliminary feedback that you potentially have received already from the regulator or Air France or your customers? So thank you, Élodie, for this first question. So good question. So as you know, we prepared this industrial project a long time. We started by a public consultation for the industrial project of Paris-Charles two years ago. We continue this year with the voluntary consultation, public consultation for the industrial plan of Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport. And in this consultation, as I said during my presentation, we built together with all our airport community this project, included with the airline, included with all the territory, included with the civil aviation department. So in terms of industrial project, it's evident. We can see that we just deliver what we explained during two years for the first step, that is the step between 2027 and 2034. To finance this step, we need an Economic Regulation Agreement. So for the industrial project, no issue with all our stakeholders, including airlines, including the French State. For the second step, that's the Economic Regulation Agreement with the global economic balance. We work also a lot with airlines and with all the stakeholders. We spoke with the French regulator of what we are possible to do. To do that, we have a workshop. We have also formal consultation. We have a vote, a favorable vote for the airlines for the duration of the contract, eight years. We have also a debate about the tariff structure that is positive for part of airlines and not so positive for the others. We have also spoken about quality of service for the passenger to define precisely what is the adjustment factor for the quality. So we have a lot of things that we disclose and debate before this proposal. The only things that we don't disclose are three points. First, the level of WACC, 5.9%. Second, the cost control policy. And third, the level of tariff increase. So in this case, we can see that we try to have a moderate approach, proportionate with our CAPEX plan, and very comparable with the other peers of ADP, like Fraport, Heathrow, AENA, Schiphol, as Christelle said. When you see our proposal, it's a very balanced proposal. So it's a little bit early to know if we have or not a bad or a favorable feedback. But now we are confident to convince. Thank you, Élodie. Thank you, Philippe. So my second question is on the benefit from this plan on retail performance, as you haven't yet touched on that. Do you see already a scope for retail to improve thanks to this regulated CAPEX at the moment? So for the retail performance, so first of all, it's the thing about the Economic Regulation Agreement. So we speak about the regulated activity. Retail, it's non-regulated activities. And we have to wait next year to have the global view with our strategic plan. But when you see our proposal, we can see, for example, the level of traffic and our assumption. We can see that for the traffic, we have a good and favorable mixed traffic for the charges fees, but also for the retail activities. We have a decrease for the domestic flight, a slight increase of 1.2% for the European flight, but a very strong increase for the international flight at 2.7%. So it's a favorable mixed traffic for the retail. Second thing, we have also to work to accompany the performance in terms of retail with this new CAPEX plan, with this new vision of infrastructure. And for that, we have to wait because we are very confident to deliver, but now it's a little bit early. Thank you. Luis from Kepler Cheuvreux. Hello. Good morning. Thanks a lot for devoting this time to us. I had a couple of questions. The first one is, what are the weak links in the process regarding the approval of the proposal in 2026? Who could push back on what proposed variables? Is it mainly WACC and ART? Our CAPEX and the eight-year duration, the easy ones? And I'll let you answer before I go for the second one. So as you know, it's a negotiation. We start the negotiation now with a public document. So obviously, we don't disclose the strategy of the negotiation. We don't disclose that it's possible to push back, that if we have room of maneuver, if we have some buffer. If we don't have some buffer, perhaps we try for the negotiation to reduce the number of buffer, to be clear for the target, and just to organize the debate between CAPEX plan and traffic and tariff, excuse me, CAPEX plan and tariff. In fact, if we don't have a fair remuneration, perhaps we don't sign the Economic Regulation Agreement. See, if we don't have a fair remuneration, but if we have a global balance with a good level of WACC, that is the remuneration, but with some issue constraint in terms of adjustment factor, we don't sign the Economic Regulation Agreement. Perhaps we can find a good balance with another plan with less CAPEX and perhaps, as a consequence, a mechanical consequence, less tariff. But for that, we have to have a fair discussion with the airlines because in our CAPEX plan, we have just and only the CAPEX plan that is important for the airlines. So if the airlines decide that, yes, I say one year ago, that is vital for me, but now if I want to manage a system, perhaps we can postpone. Okay. But for the moment, we have the industrial project that we discuss with all the stakeholders, including the airlines. That is also important to understand, as Justine said, it's the fact that perhaps we increase the tariff, but we create a strong competitiveness for the airlines. So we have also to discuss about the way that we can create value for the airlines with the fact that at the end of the day, we have an increase in terms of tariff. My second question is, I was a bit surprised by the OPEX optimization because obviously, it puts a lot of pressure on your return on capital employed regulated. So what is the risk of not managing to contain CAPEX? Are all these targets you're disclosing easy wins, or is there a challenge? How tough are they? Thank you. Thanks for this question. We have tried to find the best balance between showing to airlines that we are making efforts and we are not demanding them to finance a kind of underperformance in terms of OPEX trajectory, but at the same time, having a reasonable and realistic trajectory. This efficiency plan will come on top, as you have understood, of a natural growth of OPEX evolution. We have different levers, traditional levers that could be used to generate this OPEX efficiency plan. First of all, as I mentioned, optimizing our purchasing and procurement policy. Each time we will renew some contract, we will try to reach productivity gain, first of all. Secondly, we will work on optimizing our maintenance program. I mentioned that we are entering into predictive maintenance, which can enable us to optimize this maintenance plan. Third element, important, we know that we have room of maneuver to reduce our OPEX in the function support function, sorry. Last but not least, as I highlighted during the presentation, we will have to monitor our staff cost evolution. For that, we will try to limit the number of recruitments over the whole duration of the contract to 3% compared to a 14% increase in terms of traffic. We will also have the willingness to monitor and to control the average salary increase. For that, we have launched some discussion with the unions that are currently being conducted. We will also be helped by the fact that there will be kind of 50% of retirement over the 10 next years. So we will replace those people who are leaving the company by a more junior salary, which will cost less. So all in all, we are confident with the ambition we are taking, and we think that the best balance was to convince airlines and to be in a position to deliver it. Thank you very much. I'm Arpitel, UBS. We've already spoken about sort of if the regulator could assess the WACC to potentially be lower and you maybe have an unfavorable outcome. You have a lower tariff. You cut some CAPEX. But can you help us understand if you were to reach such a scenario, how are you prioritizing CAPEX? What sort of are the key priorities in terms of deciding what CAPEX you will go ahead with versus that you may postpone or potentially even scrap? So yeah, that's the first question. As you saw, our CAPEX plan has been designed with airlines. So we tried to define something which meets the airlines' needs and expectations. So that's a part of the question. The prioritization, it's not only our responsibility. It's also a collective work on it. A second element you have to keep in mind is that our CAPEX plan is a very comprehensive single plan. So for example, the new Eastern satellite by 2034 is a multi-year project, and it's only made possible by the destruction of the current Terminal 2G. And itself only made possible if capacities are created elsewhere, especially in Terminal 3 and Terminal 1, as I presented. So you have really an intertwined pipeline with a lot of projects we need to have to deliver the next ones. That's why it's a flexible and proportionate plan, but a lot of projects are embedded in another one. That's why it will be a global debate with the airlines, with the state to find some adjustments in the CAPEX plan, which is a comprehensive and cohesive project itself. That's why it will be this prioritization won't be the only work of ADP, and we will have to work on it with airlines to find the best way to keep meeting their expectations in a different way. Perhaps just to answer about the balance between WACC and CAPEX. The Economic Regulation Agreement, it's not a balance between WACC and CAPEX. It's a global economic balance with regulated OPEX, with a tariff structure, with an adjusted factor that is very important because it's an eight-year contract. So it's not possible to say it's not a fair remuneration, so we decrease the level of CAPEX. If it's not a fair remuneration, it's not a fair remuneration for EUR 600 million CAPEX or for EUR 1 billion CAPEX. It's not a fair remuneration. So it's a reason why we don't want, at this beginning of the negotiation, to say that obviously we decrease the number of CAPEX. No. It's not okay. It's not a fair remuneration. We don't sign the Economic Regulation Agreement. If we don't sign the Economic Regulation Agreement, we have an annual regulation. And in annual regulation, we don't have visibility to launch a CAPEX plan, as we explained, with a step-by-step CAPEX plan, with huge work to improve the quality and the performance of the airlines. So in fact, we can continue without an Economic Regulation Agreement. It's not an issue for us, but it's an issue for the airlines because the CAPEX plan, as Justine said, is for the airlines. So we can discuss about the CAPEX plan for the airlines. Second question, I guess. I appreciate you'll probably provide more detail in the workshops on the adjustment factors, but if we take a step back, can you maybe help us quantify some of them in big lines? A lot of the information provided in the presentation slides, at least, is quite qualitative. So in terms of traffic, can we quantify service quality, all those things? Yes. Thanks for this question. So as you've understood, we propose four adjustment factors. So the impact and the way we have constructed this proposal is different for each factor. Beginning with the traffic, the idea is to have something close to what we had in the previous Economic Agreement for ERA 3, especially with the central trajectory and a kind of corridor, which is a little bit different depending on the year, but at the end, a 3% deviation in revenues. The major difference is that we are looking at aeronautical revenues and not the volume of traffic. This is how it's different from the previous one. There is a kind of allowance range around the central scenario in which no adjustment will be taken into account, and we keep the overperformance or outperformance. Above this allowance range, there is what we call the revision range. If we are in it, we share the overperformance or underperformance 50/50 between airlines and us. If we are three years in a row above or below this revision threshold, we can ask for a revision itself of the contract. This is for the traffic, so a kind of symmetrical mechanism. Regarding the CAPEX adjustment factor, it's a little bit different from what existed in the previous one. Here, what we're proposing is in line with the general philosophy we're understanding from the regulator, with the fact that we will be remunerated only for the real executed level of CAPEX in terms of volume. It means that for each euro non-spent globally, to say it briefly, we won't have, in fact, there can be an adjustment, an increase or a decrease on the tariff cap foreseen in the contract. Note that we have also proposed when there is an overspending of more than 7% cumulated since the beginning of the period, that there is a cap in terms of remuneration for us. That means that if we're overspending, we won't be able, above 7% overspending, to have the remuneration. It's a way to show that we are an efficient operator. Then regarding the quality of service adjustment factor, the range is at maximum we can have EUR +9 million impact. And in the malus, the maximum malus is EUR 15 million. But we will come back in the workshop on the detailed indicators we've proposed. And then the new element of this proposal, clearly, that was something that was not existing in the previous one, but which we consider was relevant given the macroeconomic context, the factor adjustment called LEX, change in law, which will enable to be compensated in case there is a meaningful impact above EUR 5 million. And in this case, it would be a euro-to-euro compensation mechanism. Thanks very much, Graham Hunt from Jefferies. Maybe just I'll start with where you ended there on the LEX adjustment factor. As it's new for this era, is this something that you discussed with the regulator in advance of putting this proposal forward? And maybe if you could touch on what your assumptions are around the long-distance transport taxes currently. So indeed, this is something new. As Philippe explained, we had already some discussion ahead of the disclosure of this proposal, both with airlines, both with the regulator. So we have presented it both to our clients and regulator. We will need to see clearly. We'll have the insightful comments in the expected non-binding first opinion of the regulator given and expected by mid-April. But in a first approach, something that works kind of mechanically could be acceptable. But let's see clearly what they will put in their non-binding opinion. But yes, clearly, in what we are proposing, the kind of should the long-term infrastructure capex increase during the ERA period, if it's above EUR 5 million, we could be in a position to have an adjustment. So maybe something important to precise two years after the mechanism works so that we are looking at the impact only when it's really known and we have the accurate and precise numbers. So it's in the tariff proposal two years after. For example, if we have the impact, if the tax is increased in 2030, it's in the tariff proposal for 2032 that we will be in a position to have the compensation in the tariff. And then just a second question on coming back to the CAPEX and the modularity nature of it. Is there value there for you really in the negotiation process such that you can flex that up and down depending on your stakeholders' view? Or do you envisage flexibility during the industrial plan? And I guess I'm touching a little bit on the review clause, which as well is new for this era. What does that give you, the four-year review? Are there benefits that you are happy with now that you've got that four-year review coming halfway through this period? Thanks. So thank you. To be clear, first of all, what is important for us is to have a global balance for the Economic Regulation Agreement, but also the capacity to deliver this Economic Regulation Agreement. When you see the change in the aviation sector, we see that when you decide, for example, to build a new pier for Terminal 3 with a European and international destination, it's a decision now. In two years, three years, if we have a huge increase in terms of international destination, perhaps we have to build not piers with European and international, but just piers for full international. Perhaps we have to not put seven aircraft in the international piers, but 12. We need flexibility. We need flexibility. This plan, it's a plan that we work a lot with all the airlines. This is a key plan for the moment. Obviously, we need flexibility. It's the reason why in the adjustment factor, we preserve the capacity to have room of maneuver. When you see the guideline of the French regulator for the adjustment factor in terms of investment, it's more rigid than us. Because for the moment, the French regulator works about the Economic Regulation of Toulouse and Marseille. For Toulouse, the CAPEX plan is EUR 140 million. For ADP, it's EUR 8.4 billion. It's not possible to manage a CAPEX program as Toulouse. For us, we adapt to adjustment factors to be able to have this flexibility during the agreement. That is a key element for us. So obviously, we have some commitment to deliver EUR 8.4 billion. Obviously, it's a deal. It's a deal. We have a remuneration to deliver CAPEX and to operate the airport, by the way. So it's a global deal. But at the same moment, for our client, for the airline, we need some room of maneuver. Thank you. It's Marcin Wojtal from Bank of America. Can I ask about financial leverage? Can you just confirm that it is in line with your previous indications over the course of the ERA, I think 3.5-4 x? Not that too a bit down. And also, I wanted to ask about your regulated asset base. I haven't actually seen any guidance. Maybe I missed it. But could you maybe indicate what will be the average growth or what will be the regulated asset base at the end of this regulatory settlement? Thanks. Thank you, Marcin, for your two questions. Regarding the first one in terms of leverage, maybe just to remind you that we have only disclosed for the moment a guidance in terms of leverage for 2025. You know it. It's between 3.5x-4x for the ratio of net debt- to- EBITDA. At this stage, we have not put any guidances. As you have understood, we are just talking here about the regulated scope, and we will give you more visibility by one year when we will disclose our strategic program. Having said that, the ERA will be supportive to EBITDA growth through our tariff proposal. It's a little bit early to give you the full visibility also on unregulated activities. All in all, our objective will be to keep a balanced capital allocation policy. As Philippe mentioned, we consider that the underlying business case of this proposal allows us to confirm both that we will maintain our dividend policy, that we will maintain our capacity to invest in non-regulated activity, and to maintain and to preserve our current rating policy. Regarding your second question in terms of RAB, if I'm not mistaken, so yes, by the end of the contract, the RAB should have increased by 74% and reached near EUR 11 billion. Question? Yeah. Thank you very much, Emily from Barclays. I just have two questions. The first one on the OPEX plan you mentioned, are you able to give any sort of idea of magnitude of the different buckets which the OPEX plan is driven by? And secondly, you mentioned in your ERA the airline cumulative gains of EUR 550 million. Could you explain a little bit more about the buckets driving this? And yeah, a little bit more color on that, please. Thank you. So maybe beginning with your first question, we don't disclose a specific breakdown of the efficiency plan of EUR 130 million. But as I mentioned, from a qualitative approach, you've understood that it will be a mix of optimizing in terms of external services, fees, different fees, and also monitoring the staff cost. But we don't disclose a precise split between those different buckets. Yeah. Regarding the gains for the airlines, yes, we estimate they will gain around EUR 550 million during the plan, during this eight-year duration. So it's just a limited estimation. It could be more if we consider the period after the next era. And these gains will be obtained thanks to the new capacities. All the airlines will benefit from these new capacities, not only the hub, but also the non-hub airlines will have these extra capacities regarding airside stands, but also terminal capacities. The contact rate will increase. That's why we expect more punctuality, more reliable operations for airlines, which enables them to save a lot of compensation expenses they can have when they have delays and cancellations to their passengers. Another element, even more difficult to account, but a real one, is the attractiveness of the platforms, both Orly and CDG, and the fact we better connect these two airports with the railway connections and that they can expect some new passengers from these new facilities to access our airports. I will maybe take one question from the webcast. This is a question from Hari Ramamoorthy from Deutsche Bank. How confident are you with the regulator approving this proposal, especially with the risk-sharing mechanisms? Shouldn't there be an argument for lower returns as there are lower risk assumed? Thank you for this question. For the moment, we have spoke with the French regulator, but not about the global economic balance. We have to start this dialogue. It's difficult to say if we are confident or not. But it's clear we have put on the table a fair proposal, very balanced proposal in terms of CAPEX, in terms of performance, cost control, in terms of tariff increase, and also in terms of level of work. The question of the risk and how we share the risk, as Christelle said, we have some guideline about the French regulator. We try to follow this guideline, except when we believe that we have a specificity and strong specificity. When you see the other airport under the Economic Regulation Agreement and managed by the French regulator, we see that ADP is around 60%, 65%, 70% of the total of the traffic. So it's not possible to compare a regional airport with an international hub. It's not possible. We want to try to find some synergy. Perhaps we have some synergy to find, but not in the same way by non-regional airport. So perhaps we have some element in terms of risk. Perhaps we have more traffic, more destination, more airlines, and we can say that we have less risk. But it's not our position. We have a regulation because at the beginning of the historically for the regulation, because we are in monopoly. But it's not the case in this world. We are in competition. CDG only is an airport in competition, not in competition with the other airport in France, but in European and international competition. So the question to manage and an asymmetric approach with the airline, it's not a question about in terms of economic approach, we have to balance the risk. The risk for ADP, the risk for our airlines, is to lose market share. And when you see the situation of Air France, Air France doesn't have the good infrastructure to compete in the world. We propose this CAPEX plan. Perhaps the question of risk, it's not in the theoretical spirit of an economic philosophy approach by a university. But in real life, we are in competition. This is the main risk. So it's not possible to compare the work of Toulouse and Marseille with the work of ADP. It's not possible to say that the work of ADP is mechanically less than the work of the regional airport because we have a larger port. No, it's not the real life. I have another question on 2026 tariff. You recently submitted them to the regulator. This will be the starting point for the economics of the ERA. It is the last year before the beginning of the ERA. When do you expect an answer from the regulator? And how could that impact the upcoming negotiation? Yes, indeed. So we submitted our proposal mid-October. As you know, the regulator has two months to answer and give his feedback. So hopefully, it should be in the few days to come that we have the feedback of the regulator on this tariff proposal. Remember that one key element of this proposal will be the comments that the regulator will make on the allocation key system. As you know, the regulator is now in charge of this allocation system between OPEX and CAPEX. The transitory period they gave the different operators to comply with their guideline is at the end of the year. As we mentioned to you several times earlier on, we will have, hopefully, comments on this allocation key system that we propose. We have made all the efforts in terms of consultation process, and we have made also some slight adjustment on our keys. In any case, whether the tariffs are validated or not, there will be for sure some comments on this allocation key system. Depending on those feedbacks, we will have to review our own proposal because bear in mind that the key that we have used in this ERA proposal is the same one as the one we used for the 2026 tariff approval. Then one last question from the webcast and then back to the room. A question from Tobias Fromme from Bernstein Société Générale. To fully understand if an agreement is not found and you continue with the are you going to continue with the yearly adjustment mechanism? And does that mean that the proposed CAPEX plan is scrapped entirely and investment project decided on a case-by-case basis? So obviously, it's scrapped. Indeed. So it's not possible to launch this CAPEX program. But at the same time, it's our responsibility to continue to manage the airport, to improve the quality, to continue the story like we executed during the last five and six years without Economic Regulation Agreement. So we stop this industrial project, but we continue the story as we do since five years. So with less CAPEX mechanically. Yes, José? Yes, thank you. Three quick questions from me. I mean, we are talking about the regulated scope today, but I want you to understand if you can give us a sense of the amount of CAPEX in the non-regulated part of the business; will it be similar to what we are seeing today, EUR 150-200 a year? Second question is on your expectation that international traffic will rise in importance. Does that also apply to connecting traffic? Will connecting traffic also rise? What's your share of traffic from connecting that you are modeling? And thirdly, on your dividend floor of EUR 3, what's the logic behind that? Is it just continuity versus the current policy? Because you mentioned that your expectation is that there will be higher earnings based on this plan. Thank you. Regarding CAPEX in the non-regulated, maybe just to repeat that here, we are not talking about the non-regulated CAPEX, and we have made the focus only on the regulated CAPEX. Having said that, maybe it's also the opportunity for me to tell again that for some, so here, it's the amount of CAPEX for the project that will be dedicated to the regulated scope. But as you know, some projects will be kind of mixed projects, and they will be allocated through regulated or non-regulated. As I mentioned earlier on, with the same keys that we were traditionally using. And for sure, with the adjusted key, we propose in the 2026 tariff proposal. And then you have the 100% non-regulated activities, and it's on those elements that it's a little bit early to give you some color about that. Even if the logic and the fundamental of our economic model will stay the same, we will only invest in non-regulated activities if they are profitable and with a return higher than the WACC. And you know that on retail activities, it's not that much intensive activities in terms of CAPEX. Regarding your second question in terms of connecting traffic, our assumption is based on a kind of stability of the connecting rate, so nearly close to 20%-25% in total. Regarding your last question in terms of dividend policy, indeed, as you mentioned, it's a kind of continuity with the long-term historical policy we've built and we've tried to preserve. So here, what we are saying is just that the underlying business case attached with this proposal allows us to confirm this capacity to distribute a 60% payout ratio with this floor, totally in line with what we've made so far. Yes, Luis? Luis? Yeah. Yeah. Follow-up question, Luis Prieto again. This is pertaining to traffic, your traffic assumptions, a twofold question. Is there a degree of traffic disruption due to construction works embedded in your projections? And the second one is you talked about SAF implementation being part of your long-term traffic forecasts. Given recent decarbonization developments, is there a chance that the turnout is actually more positive than you project, particularly at the very end of the curve? So in terms of traffic assumption, perhaps just to remind that we disclosed two years ago the traffic assumption for the voluntary consultation in early and this year for the voluntary consultation for the project in CDG. We are very aligned with airlines, with civil aviation, with all the stakeholders about this assumption. As you know, in our model, we have a bottom-up methodology, but also a top-down methodology. It's a mix. We have enough expertise internally to define precisely what is, at this stage, the better vision of the traffic. We don't take account the disruption due to the works because the heart of the expertise design and engineering development is to manage these kinds of works. Just because in our mission, we have to operate the airport, but also to build an airport. When you see around the world, when you have an international development of ADP, we don't choose a greenfield project. We choose a big airport, capital airport in the Middle East, in India, with a main element that is to develop, to expand the airport. So we have the expertise. We have the knowledge to do that. Without the strong impact in terms of traffic, we can have an impact, but not at the level of an assumption for eight years. The second element about the traffic, in fact, historically, we have a traffic increase between 2% and 2.5%, historically. We know that we have to manage now an increase in terms of traffic, but probably without the same dynamic, a very strong dynamic for the international destination, but not in European destination, not in domestic flight. The main explanation of that, the first, it's the fact that in our traffic assumption, we take account the rules in Europe to integrate the sustainable aviation fuel that is quite more expensive. We also integrate the tax impact in France. And when we manage these two elements, we can see an impact because now we can increase slightly the price for the flight without a strong impact in terms of demand. But in this year, for the first time, historically, we have an impact due to the level of price in the ticket. So it's the reason why we have this kind of assumption. Perhaps we have sustainable aviation fuel that is not so expensive. Perhaps we have a favorable approach in terms of tax. But for that, we have adjustment factors. I have some additional questions coming from the web. One investor is asking, could you please provide a high-level indication on the main financing levers you intend to use to support this plan? For example, operating cash flow, debt, or potential disposals, or even equity need or raise. So I start, and Christelle or Justine complete. So in the business case, in the regulated scope, but also in the global business of the group, the main drivers, it's obviously the growth of traffic. It's obviously the capacity we have to have more charges fees. It's also the fact that we can create value in the adjusted activities, parking, energy, rental in the airport. So we have the capacity to finance a large part of this CAPEX plan. After that, it's a global equilibrium at the group level. But we want to preserve the capacity to develop the non-regulated scope, the retail, the real estate, but also the international development. We know that we have the capacity to create value and to have cash in the international portfolio. It's one of my priorities, but also to develop our extended branch that is very relative activities. So all in all, we have the vision of the cash. We are confident to do that. But we don't disclose the full picture due to the fact that we don't have to work next year for the non-regulated scope. Christelle? Yeah, maybe just a word to complement the investor. I think mentioned the possibility of asset disposal. As Philippe explained in his presentation, we will launch a review of our portfolio in 2026. So the disposal of assets is always a possibility, but as it was in the past. Then I have another question this time from an analyst, Andrew Lobbenberg from Barclays. Why did you go for eight years? Why not 10? Why not six years Economic Regulation Agreement? What got you to land there? So as you know, we have a new law. This new law allows the capacity we have to have an Economic Regulation Agreement, not just for five years, but until 10 years. We have one condition to do in this way. It's to have an underlying industrial plan. So we have to explain why we need 10 years, nine years, eight years, seven years, six years. What we try to explain during the presentation is the fact we have a lot of medium-sized projects, around 200 projects. We try also to manage the fact that we want to solve all the bottlenecks of the airport in Paris-Orly, but also in Paris-CDG. So it's a step-by-step project. But when you see the project, in particular in Paris-Charles de Gaulle, we can see that we optimize, we densify the current infrastructure, we expand the current infrastructure, and after, we built just one new infrastructure in CDG, Paris-CDG, that is the new satellite at each part of the terminal to replace the Terminal 2G. We built also a connecting train. But all this work is in the south part of the airport. So it's a brownfield project. We stop the Economic Regulation Agreement before going to the greenfield project at the north part of the airport. And all the elements, it's a step-by-step project. We have a link between the new satellite, the new train, the capacity we have to expand the Terminal 3, the capacity we have to manage the capacity in Terminal 1. We create capacity during eight years, step by step. But it's a global project due to the fact that to build Satellite 5, a new satellite, we have to create capacity before in Terminal 3. And to build capacity in Terminal 3, we have to create capacity in Terminal 1. But to do that, we have to manage the flow of passengers during these huge works. So it's a global project, indivisible project for eight years. So it's a main explanation for us to make the proof that we need eight years, not seven years, not nine years, but eight years. It's a condition fixed by the law. Yes, Dario? Thank you. Dario from BNP Paribas. Just one question for me. It's more on French politics, but linked to your plan. Clients we speak to in France or outside France, they have, let's say, it's not comfortable. It's not easy for them to invest in real assets in France, given the political uncertainty, given the taxation risk, and so on. And here you are presenting a big plan, eight years ahead. So just can you give us your thoughts on how politics can affect your plan, either on the negative side but also on the positive side? Maybe there are discussions, different parties that will support your plan and the growth of ADP in the future. So just in terms of the political environment now in the future, how do you think it will affect your plan? So if we have to give you some political view for Groupe ADP, it's a good manner to make the proof that it's also possible to invest in France, EUR 8.4 billion. It also makes the proof that we can convince the airlines or convince our territories, municipalities, to convince all our ecosystem, including the government. That is the first step. So we try to make the proof that it's possible. So it's an entrepreneurship spirit. So we have the capacity to do that, and we try to do, and we have enough confidence to know that perhaps we can convince, including the French regulator, including the civil aviation, including all the airlines. But it's a company. It's a listed company, ADP. So we have the capacity to convince. And we believe that it's possible. So first, I think the main things that we have to try to communicate, it's an open optimistic view. We believe that in the airport sector, in the aviation sector, we can continue the development because we have the capacity to decarbonize our activities, because we have the capacity to reduce the noise, we have the capacity to create works together. So it's possible. It's also our conviction. But we are not a political guy. And it's difficult to say that it's not good news to invest EUR 8.4 billion in France. Difficult. We're close to one hour. I will take last questions. Yeah. Jean-François? Jean-François Delcaire, HMG Finance. I'm not very familiar with the ART procedures. Can you remind me what is the mandate, the criteria, the priorities for the ART to validate in their two opinions the proposal? Yes, thanks for this question. So maybe to give you the elements in terms of process. So first of all, the French State has the ability, once we have disclosed our proposal and once we have formally consulted airlines, which we expect and plan to do at the end of January, to request a first non-binding opinion by the regulator. So normally, the French State should do that. It is what they've done for Toulouse and Marseille a few months ago. In this first non-binding opinion, the regulator will give colors about the different parameters, the underlying assumption of our business case, but also the mechanism, the adjustment factors, the level of WACC. They could even publish their own estimate about the WACC. But at this stage, it's a non-formal opinion. So depending on the comments made, we will have to adjust or not our proposal. And then, and this is really what is new in this era because that was not the case for era three, the French State needs a binding opinion on the regulator before signing. So that means that once we have this non-binding opinion, we will enter into negotiation with the French State. Once we have finalized the copy with the French State, we will consult again the airlines. When this consultation is done, the French State will necessarily, this time, request this formal and binding opinion from the regulator. So at this time, if everything happens as we contemplate, it should be the final binding opinion should be given by the end of November so that we are in a position to sign the era to enter into force at the beginning of 2027. They can really, once again, in this formal opinion, and this time, it's not a green light, the French State won't be able to sign. And they will give, it will embed all the different components of this global economic balance. All right. It's been precisely one hour. So thank you for your attention and discipline in respecting this timing. So we will end up this session online. We will have a break. We are in advance compared to the initial plan. So we will probably have a slightly longer pause. But I will propose to start the workshops at 11:15 A.M. And we will be happy to have Régis and Baptiste starting with the operational performance. So thank you again, and see you in a bit.