Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on

Ground Handling Services 1996-2007

Final Report
February 2009

Contact:

Airport Research Center

Bismarckstr. 61

52066 Aachen

Germany

Phone: +49 241 16843-0

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.airport-consultants.com
Version Date Change Sign

V1.0 2008/09/01 Draft Version RJ/RS/VS

V1.1 2008/11/05 Draft Version – minor adjustments on Report and Annex RJ/RS/VS

V1.2 2009/02/13 Draft Version – revision of the report and annex RJ/RS/VS

V 1.3 2009/03/10 Final Version – minor adjustments on Report RJ/RS/VS

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 2

Content:

Figures ............................................................................................................................6

Tables..............................................................................................................................8

Acronyms......................................................................................................................10

Glossary........................................................................................................................12

IATA Codes and Airport Information ..........................................................................14

1 Management Summary..................................................................................16

1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................16

1.2 Approach / Methodology ..................................................................................16

1.3 Results of the study .........................................................................................16

2 Objectives and methodology of the study ...................................................21

2.1 Task.................................................................................................................22

2.2 Approach / Methodology ..................................................................................22

3 Background of the ground handling market in the EU................................28

3.1 The structure of ground handling markets – overview ......................................28

3.2 The Council Directive 96/67/EC .......................................................................29

3.3 SH&E report (2002) .........................................................................................34

3.4 Report from the Commission / Draft report European Parliament resolution
(2007) ..............................................................................................................35

3.5 Ecorys Study: Social developments in the EU air transport sector ...................37

3.6 Legal cases / Directive 96/67/EC .....................................................................39

4 The impact assessment ................................................................................41

4.1 General Conditions and specifics of national legislation in the EU Member

States ..............................................................................................................41

4.2 Analyses on competition of ground handling markets ......................................60

4.2.1 Baggage handling (category 3) ...................................................................61

4.2.2 Freight and mail handling (category 4) ........................................................66

4.2.3 Ramp handling (category 5.4) .....................................................................70

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 3

 4.2.4 Fuel and oil handling (category 7) ...............................................................74

4.2.5 Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling ......77

4.3 Contestable markets........................................................................................81

4.4 Changes in handling prices..............................................................................87

4.5 Changes in Quality Levels ...............................................................................92

4.6 Participation of Airport operators in ground handling markets ........................102

4.7 Involvement of airlines in ground handling markets........................................107

4.8 Centralised Infrastructure (CI) / Access to installations ..................................112

4.9 Airport Users’ Committee...............................................................................118

4.10 Tender process..............................................................................................124

4.11 Sub-contracting..............................................................................................133

4.12 Employment...................................................................................................140

4.12.1 Changes of average income levels ........................................................141

4.12.2 General Working conditions ...................................................................144

4.12.3 Development in the type of contract .......................................................147

4.12.4 Number and quality of training ...............................................................150

4.13 Staff Safety ....................................................................................................154

4.14 Security..........................................................................................................160

5 Summary of the results ...............................................................................161

5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................161

5.2 Results of the study .......................................................................................162

5.2.1 General conditions and specifics of national legislation in the EU Member

States ..................................................................................................................162

5.2.2 Analyses of competition of ground handling markets.................................162

5.2.3 Stakeholder specific Market Shares ..........................................................164

5.2.4 Contestable market ...................................................................................164

5.2.5 Changes in handling prices .......................................................................165

5.2.6 Changes in Quality Levels.........................................................................165

5.2.7 Participation of Airport operators in ground handling markets....................166

5.2.8 Involvement of airlines in ground handling markets ...................................166

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 4

 5.2.9 Centralized Infrastructure / Access to installations ....................................167

5.2.10 Airport Users’ Committee (AUC) ............................................................168

5.2.11 Tender process......................................................................................168

5.2.12 Sub-contracting......................................................................................168

5.2.13 Employment...........................................................................................169

5.2.14 Staff Safety ............................................................................................170

5.3 Final remarks.................................................................................................171

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 5

Figures
Figure 3-1: Overview on airside related ground handling services. ..................................28

Figure 3-2: Overview on ground handling industry ...........................................................29

Figure 4-1: Overview on types of liberalisation in the EU according to the national

legislative framework......................................................................................41

Figure 4-2: Consulted authorities and overview on participation at the internet survey.....43

Figure 4-3: Airports under the Directive with more than 2 Mio. Pax in 2006 .....................44

Figure 4-4: Number of baggage handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15 .....63

Figure 4-5: Number of baggage handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member
States ............................................................................................................64

Figure 4-6: Number of freight and mail handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 –
EU-15 ............................................................................................................67

Figure 4-7: Number of freight and mail handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New
Member States...............................................................................................69

Figure 4-8: Number of ramp handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15 ...........71

Figure 4-9: Number of ramp handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member
States ............................................................................................................73

Figure 4-10: Number of fuel and oil handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-
15 ..................................................................................................................75

Figure 4-11: Number of fuel and oil handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New
Member States ..............................................................................................76

Figure 4-12: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling

between 1996 and 2002 – EU-15 ..................................................................78

Figure 4-13: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling

between 2002 and 2007 – EU-15 ..................................................................79

Figure 4-14: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling

between 2004 and 2007 – New Member States ............................................80

Figure 4-15: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at EU-15 airports -
Representative Sample .................................................................................83

Figure 4-16: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at EU-15 airports –
Internet survey data.......................................................................................84

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 6

Figure 4-17: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at airports in the New
Member States – Representative Sample......................................................85

Figure 4-18: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between

1996 until 2002 - airports in the EU-15 ..........................................................88

Figure 4-19: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between

2002 until 2007 - airports in the EU-15 ..........................................................89

Figure 4-20: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between

2004 until 2007 - airports in the New Member States.....................................90

Figure 4-21: Summary of answers on quality development - EU-15 airports......................98

Figure 4-22: Summary of answers on quality development - NMS airports .......................98

Figure 4-23: Functional overview on market forms and tender process ...........................125

Figure 4-24: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between
1996 and 2002 according to the type of stakeholders ..................................141

Figure 4-25: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between
2002 and 2007 according to the type of stakeholders ..................................142

Figure 4-26: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the EU-15
between 1996 and 2002 according to the type of stakeholders....................142

Figure 4-27: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the EU-15
between 2002 and 2007 ..............................................................................143

Figure 4-28: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the NMS between
2004 and 2007.............................................................................................143

Figure 4-29: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the NMS
between 2004 and 2007 ..............................................................................144

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 7

Tables
Table 2-1: Overview of visited airports and consulted stakeholders................................24

Table 2-2: Overview of consulted associations and unions.............................................25

Table 2-3: Overview of internet survey participants ........................................................26

Table 3-1: Exemptions at airports under the Directive since 1996. .................................31

Table 3-2: EU-Airports under the Directive 96/67/EC......................................................33

Table 4-1: Overview of developments in the number of handlers in the EU-15 ...............77

Table 4-2: Overview of developments in the number of handlers in the New Member
States ............................................................................................................77

Table 4-3: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 1996 - 2002 – EU-
15 ..................................................................................................................94

Table 4-4: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 2002 - 2007 – EU-
15 ..................................................................................................................96

Table 4-5: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 2004 - 2007 –
New Member States ......................................................................................97

Table 4-6: Participation of airport operators in ground handling markets – EU-15 ........103

Table 4-7: Participation of airport operators in ground handling markets – New

Member States ............................................................................................104

Table 4-8: Market presence of handling airlines at visited airports in the EU-15 ...........108

Table 4-9: Market presence of handling airlines at internet survey airports in the EU-
15 ................................................................................................................109

Table 4-10: Market presence of handling airlines at airports in the NMS ........................110

Table 4-11: Centralised infrastructure at visited airports in the EU-15 ............................113

Table 4-12: Centralised infrastructure at internet survey airports in the EU-15 ...............114

Table 4-13: Centralised infrastructure airports in the New Member States .....................116

Table 4-14: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees at visited airports in the EU-15 .......120

Table 4-15: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees at internet survey airports in the
EU-15 ..........................................................................................................121

Table 4-16: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees airports in the New Member
States ..........................................................................................................122

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 8

Table 4-17: Overview of market forms and tender process at interviewed airports in
the EU-15 ....................................................................................................126

Table 4-18: Overview of market forms and tender process at internet survey airports
in the EU-15 ................................................................................................128

Table 4-19: Overview of market forms and tender process at airports in the NMS..........129

Table 4-20: Sub-contracting at interviewed airports in the EU-15 ...................................134

Table 4-21: Sub-contracting at internet survey airports in the EU-15 ..............................136

Table 4-22: Sub-contracting at airports in the NMS ........................................................137

Table 4-23: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working

conditions between 2002 and 2007 at interviewed airports in the EU-15 .....145

Table 4-24: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working

conditions between 2002 and 2007 at internet survey airports in the EU-
15 ................................................................................................................146

Table 4-25: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working

conditions between 2004 and 2007 at airports in the New Member States ..147

Table 4-26: Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts

hold by employees – at visited EU-15 airports .............................................148

Table 4-27: Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts

hold by employees at visited airports in the New Member States ................150

Table 4-28: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 1996 and 2002 at
airports in the EU-15....................................................................................155

Table 4-29: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 2002 and 2007 at
airports in the EU-15....................................................................................156

Table 4-30: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 2004 and 2007 at
airports in the New Member States..............................................................157

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 9

Acronyms

ADR Aeroporti di Roma

AENA Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea

ANA Aeroportos de Portugal SA

AOC Airport Operators Committee

ATM Air Traffic Movements

AUC Airport Users’ Committee

BAA British Airports Authority

BRS Baggage Reconciliation System

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CBT Computer Based Training

CSA Czech Airlines

CUSS Common use self service

CUTE Common use terminal equipment

ENAC Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (Italian Civil Aviation

Authority)

FOD Foreign object damage

GH Ground handling

GSE Ground Service Equipment

IATA International Air Transport Association

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 10

EU-OPS Regulation 3922/91

LFV Luftfartsverket (Swedish airport operator)

MCT Minimum connecting time

MTOW Maximum take-off weight of the aircraft.

NMS New Member States

PAX Passenger

PRM Passenger with reduced mobility

SLA Service Level Agreement

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 11

Glossary

Cascade sub-contracting: The use of sub-contracting by a company, which is itself already

sub-contracting.

Centralised Infrastructure Facilities, which are provided by the airport and have to be used
/ Facilities: by ground handling company.

Centralised Service: Services that are provided by the airport operator and cannot be
done itself by the ground handling company.

Contestable market: Within this questionnaire the contestable market is defined as the
ramp handling market open to independent ground handling com-
panies. The contestable market therefore excludes the market
share comprised by self-handling airlines.

EU-15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom.

Independent ground han- Ground handling company, not linked to an airport operating com-
dling company: pany or an airline.

Market opening: The year when the airport came under the Directive 96/67/EC (Ei-
ther because of the eastern enlargement of the European Union or
due to market growth of the airport).

MTOW: Maximum take-off weight of the aircraft.

Multi station contracting: A contract between the airline and the ground handling company,
which includes the handling of an airline at more than one airport.

New Members States: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania.

Ramp Agent: Coordination and control of the handling processes on the apron.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 12

Safety Management Sys- A documented process for managing risks that integrates opera-
tem (SMS): tions and technical systems to ensure aviation safety or the safety
of the public.

Self-handling Airline: An airline that does the ground handling itself (excluding the han-
dling of alliance partners).

A ground handling company, which belongs to more than 50% to

an airline counts as a self-handling airline.

Sub-contract: A contract assigning some obligations of a prior contract to an-

other party.

Third party handling com- For a given airline, a company other than this airline, which is pro-
pany: viding ground handling to this airline.

A third party handling company can be either the airport operator,

or another airline or an independent ground handling company.

Third party handling air- Airline, which provides ground handling services for another air-
line: line.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 13

IATA Codes and Airport Information

Traffic volume in 2007

Region IATA code Airport Country
Pax in Mio. cargo in (t) ATM
EU-15 AMS Amsterdam-Schipol Netherlands 47,8 1.610.000 436.000
EU-15 ARN Stockholm-Arlanda Sweden 17,9 192.000 216.000
EU-15 ATH Athens Eleftherios Venizelos Greece 16,5 108.000 205.000
EU-15 BRU Brussels Airport Belgium 17,9 784.000 264.000
EU-15 CDG Paris-Charles de Gaulle France 59,7 2.053.000 544.000
EU-15 CGN Colgone/Bonn Germany 10,5 719.000 134.000
EU-15 CPH Kastrup Airport Copenhagen Denmark 21,4 396.000 288.000
Leonardo da Vinci International (Fiumicino)
EU-15 FCO Italy 32,9 155.000 335.000
Roma
EU-15 FRA Frankfurt International Airport (Rhein-Main) Germany 54,2 2.095.000 493.000
EU-15 HEL Helsinki-Vantaa Finland 13,1 145.000 178.000
EU-15 LHR London-Heathrow United Kingdom 67,9 1.314.000 476.000
EU-15 LIS Lisbon TP Portugal 13,3 829.000 140.000
EU-15 MAD Madrid Barajas Spain 52,1 322.000 483.000
EU-15 MAN Manchester United Kingdom 22,8 151.000 230.000
EU-15 VIE Vienna-Schwechat International Austria 18,7 272.000 255.000
NMS BTS M.R.Štefánika Bratislava Slovakia 2,0 2.000* 22.000
NMS BUD Ferihegy Airport Budapest Hungary 8,6 61.000 124.000
NMS LCA Larnaca Airport Cyprus no data no data no data
NMS OTP Bukarest Henri Coanda International Romania 4,9 411.000* 71.000*
NMS PRG Ruzyne Internatonial Prague Czech Republik 12,4 55.000 175.000
NMS RIX Riga International Latvia 3,2 8.000 47.000
NMS SOF Sofia Airport Bulgaria 2,8 17.000 43.000
NMS WAW Warsaw Frederic Chopin Poland 9,3 40.000 133.000
* data from desk research
Source: Interviews performed by the Airport Research Center

Table 0-1: Airport information – Sample: visited airports in the EU

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 14

 Traffic Volume in 2007
Region IATA Code Airport Country
Pax in Mio. cargo in (t) ATM
EU-15 AGP Pablo Ruiz Picasso Málaga Spain 13,6* 6.000* 130.000*
EU-15 ALC Alicante El Altet Spain 9,1 5.000 80.000
EU-15 BCN Barcelona El Prat De Llobregat Spain 32,8 97.000 352.000
EU-15 DUB Dublin Airport Ireland 23,3 133.000 212.000
Duesseldorf
EU-15 DUS Germany 17,8 58.000 222.000
International Airport
EU-15 FAO Faro Portugal 5,5 0.7* 40.000
EU-15 FMO Muenster/Osnabrueck Greven Germany 1,6 14.000 39.000
EU-15 HAJ Hanover-Langenhagen Germany 5,7 7.000 88.000
EU-15 HAM Hamburg Airport Germany 12,8 37.000* 151.000
EU-15 IBZ Ibiza Airport Spain 4,8* 4.000* 58.000*
EU-15 LEJ Leipzig-Halle Germany 2,7 101.000 51.000
EU-15 LGW London-Gatwick United Kingdom 35,2* 171.000* 261.000*
EU-15 MAH Menorca Mahon Airport Spain 2,8* 4.000* 34.000*
EU-15 MUC Munich Airport Germany 34,0* 258.000* 410.000
EU-15 NUE Nuremberg Germany 4,2 107.000 81.000
EU-15 OPO Porto Francisco Sá Carneiro Portugal 4,0 361.000 51.000
EU-15 ORK Cork Airport Ireland 3,2 13.000 71.000
EU-15 ORY Paris-Orly France 26,4 96.000 233.000
Son San Joan Airport Palma de
EU-15 PMI Spain 23,2 23.000 197.000
Mallorca
EU-15 SNN Shannon Ireland 3,6 48.000 48.000
EU-15 STN London-Stansted United Kingdom 22,8* 203.000* 182.000*
EU-15 STR Stuttgart Echterdingen Germany 10,3 20.000 165.000
EU-15 SXF Berlin-Schoenefeld Germany 6,3 4.000 66.000
EU-15 TXL Berlin Tegel Germany 13,4 25.000 151.000
NMS LJU Ljubljana Airport Slovenia 1,5 5.000 27.000
NMS MLA Malta International Gudja Malta 3,0 no data 27.000
NMS TLL Ulemiste Airport Tallinn Estonia 1,7 23.000* 39.000*
NMS VNO Vilnius Airport Lithuania 1,7 6.000 33.000
* data from desk research
Source: Interviews performed by the Airport Research Center

Table 0-2: Airport information – Sample: internet survey

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 15

1 Management Summary

1.1 Introduction
Since the introduction of Council Directive 96/67/EC of the 15th of October 1996 on access
to the ground handling market at Community airports, ground handling markets experienced
a very dynamic phase of development and growth. Additionally, with the entrance of the New
Member States into the European Union, the European air transport market has changed
siginificantly. In preparation for a possible revision of the Directive, the European
Commission assigned the Airport Research Center, in cooperation with MVV Consult, to
carry out this review on the impacts of the Directive 96/67/EC on the ground handling
markets at Community airports.

The main objectives of the study are to update the SH&E report (published for the European
Commission in 2002) and to focus on employment, safety and security issues as well as on
the ground handling markets in the New Member States, which came under the Directive in
2004.

1.2 Approach / Methodology

The study methodology comprises of 3 pillars:

Desk research and analyses: This part of the study consisted of collecting data and of
analyzing the Directive 96/67/EC as well as documents (e.g. legal cases and studies).

Preparation of the questionnaire and definition of the airport sample: The study is mainly
based on interviews with stakeholders from ground handling markets at European airports
(airport operators, airlines, ground handling companies) as well as with associations and
authorities. Since not all European airports under the Directive could be visited for on-site
interviews, a representative sample of 23 airports was selected for interviews and in depth
analyses of ground handling markets.

Internet survey: In parallel to the interviews questionnaires were provided for stakeholders at
the remaining airports within the scope of the Directive. Furthermore, Civil Aviation
Authorities (CAA) in all EU countries were contacted to submit information and comments on
the Directive.

1.3 Results of the study

General Conditions in the EU Member States

In compliance with the provisions of the Directive 96/67/EC, the Member States introduced
various types of liberalisation. While in some Member States the access to ground handling
markets is fully liberalised (i.e. every handling provider is allowed to be active at the airport

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 16

without attending a tender procedure), in other countries the access is limited. In accordance
with the Directive, in those countries, handling licences for all or some limitable categories of
ground handling such as baggage (cat 3), freight and mail (cat 4), ramp (cat 5) and fuel and
oil (cat 7) handling are tendered and granted for seven years in maximum. Other countries
liberalised the access at selected airports.

Analyses of competition of ground handling markets

Generally, the number of self-handling airlines and third party handling companies increased
since the introduction of the Directive. However, the findings vary between the airports sig-
nificantly. At airports with former handling monopolies the number of third party handlers in-
creased more than at airports which were already liberalised before the introduction of the
Directive.

By analysing the restricted handling categories, similarities in the number of ground handling
companies can be seen within category 3 to 5: while the number of self-handling airlines re-
mained stable or increased slightly, the number of third party handlers increased more sig-
nificantly. However, regarding fuel and oil handling the number of handlers remained stable:
the opening of the market did not have a significant influence on this ground handling activity.

By comparing the changes in the EU-15 and in the New Member States, it can be concluded
that the change was more significant in the EU-15 countries. This could be due to the limited
time between the opening of the market in 2004 and the year of the study. Therefore the
New Member States are still in the implementation phase.

In accordance with those developments in the number of handlers, the main changes of
stakeholder specific market shares can be observed at airports where the airport operator
was in monopoly previously. As a general rule for most airports, the market shares of inde-
pendent ground handling providers increased, while market shares of airport ground handling
subsidiaries and handling airlines decreased. The most important changes in the develop-
ment of the market shares have taken place in the period from 1996 to 2002.

To receive a better picture of competition at the analysed airports, stakeholders were re-
quested to estimate the size and the structure of the contestable market. The estimations of
the contestable markets varied largely between the analysed airports.

However, two factors are viewed as limiting the opening of the market: a high volume han-
dled by the main carriers; and the share of ground handling volume which the airlines handle
themselves. Since the share of handling airlines is however decreasing over time, the con-
testable market has increased.

For the New Member States, the opening of the market at certain airports is still on-going (or
for the future): and it seems that the implementation of the Directive in the New Member
States is still to be enhanced.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 17

Changes in handling prices
Although the perception of price changes differs between the stakeholders, it might be
concluded, that since the introduction of the Directive, prices and the subsequent increase in
competition in ground handling markets, prices have decreased, even though the Directive is
not the single driver of the developments.

With a focus on the EU-15, prices decreased with a higher intensity at airports with a former
handling monopoly than at airports which already had open markets. Considering the
findings regarding the ground handling markets in the New Member States, it could be
concluded that, in general, prices for ground handling services decreased since the
introduction of the Directive. However, at some New Member States airports competition had
not started yet whereby prices did not change either and could still decrease in the future.

Participation of Airport operators and airlines in ground handling markets

Due to historical and strategic reasons, many airports provide ground handling services in
competition with handling airlines and independent third party handling companies. With a
focus on the EU-15 Member States, the number of airports actively involved in ground han-
dling markets did not change significantly in the time between 1996 and 2007. However,
market shares in the EU-15 and the New Member States decreased and several airport
operators decided to sell their ground handling activities. At airports where the airport
operator stayed active, the market shares of airport handling companies decreased but
remained on a high level.

Airlines participate in ground handling markets as customers as well as self handlers and
third party suppliers. Due to economies of scale, most self-handling airlines provide ground
handling services to other airlines. It can be noted that a generalisation of this principle is
currenly developing: on a reciprocal basis, some network carriers provide ground handling
services for their alliance partners, while other network airlines select other suppliers.

Centralized Infrastructure / Access to installations

According to Article 8 of the Directive, Member States are authorised to reserve the man-
agement of defined infrastructure elements used for the supply of ground handling services
for the airport operator or other management bodies, in case complexity, costs or environ-
mental impacts do not allow the division or duplication.

Analysing the results from most of the airports, centralised facilities are defined (which con-
sist mostly of baggage sorting, de-icing, water purification, fuel-distribution systems etc.),
while a minority did not see a benefit to declare several elements such as centralised infra-
structure even though those are provided by the airport operator.

The problems which were encountered are mostly due to capacity and space constraints at
the airport and the quality of the facilities. Furthermore users of the centralised Infrastructure
such as independent ground handling companies and handling airlines criticised high costs
for the centralized infrastructure.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 18

Airport Users’ Committee (AUC)
In compliance with the Directive, almost all airports set up an AUC. Based on the analysed
questionnaires, the AUC is mainly consulted on topics related to ground handling, charges
and tender procedures. The influence of the AUC on decisions varies. While the AUC votings
at all airports are not decisive, at some airports the position of the AUC might be stronger
than at other airports.

Tender process
The majority of airports decided to limit the market access and set up tender procedures.
Therefore at most airports two licences are tendered and at some even three for each
ground handling restricted category. The duration of licence validity and the tender procedure
differs significantly. At the remaining airports, self-handling airlines and ground handling sup-
pliers could enter the ground handling markets and provide services without tender proce-
dures. At some airports in the New Member States, no tender process which complies with
the provisions of the Directive has taken place yet since the airports are still in the implemen-
tation phase.

Sub-contracting
At most airports, sub-contracting is part of the ground handling industry. Cascade sub-
contracting in contrast, is only practised at a minority of airports due to safety and security
concerns stated by some stakeholders.

According to the comments stated in the questionnaires, at most airports the (cascade) sub-
contracting parties need to be approved by the authority or the airport management body in
order to operate at the airport.

Employment
Since the implementation of the Directive as well as the differing legal framework conditions,
the employment related developments in ground handling markets vary between the Member
States and airports significantly. A broad variety of influencing variables (social protection,
collective labour agreements, and specifications) affects social and employment conditions in
ground handling at a national level, for which reason no clear conclusions on the impact of
the Directive can be drawn.

Staff Safety
According to the analysis of the submitted benchmarks, a majority indicated increasing or
stable levels of safety issues since the introduction of the Directive (i.e. the number of safety
issues increased over time).

The increase could have been due to the implementation of the safety management system
which could have led to more events being reported. But it could also have been due to in-
creasing traffic volume at airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 19

Security

Due to the absence of data provided by stakeholders, no analysis of the security impacts of
the Directive could have been carried out in the framework of this study.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 20

2 Objectives and methodology of the study
With the adoption of the Directive 96/67/EC in October 1996, the liberalisation of the ground
handling markets at Community airports was initialised. Between 1997 and 2000 the EU-15
member states transposed the opening of ground handling markets by implementing the Di-
rective into the national legal framework. The 12 New Member States applied and respec-
tively prepared the application of the Directive since their entrance into the European Union
between 2004 and 2007.

In accordance with the liberalisation of the air transport market in the European Union, the
Directive 96/67/EC focuses on the strengthening of competition and by implication

• to increase the efficiency within the ground handling sector,

• to decrease the average costs,

• to increase the quality levels of service,

• to enhance the choice for airlines.

With the objective to review the impact of the Directive, the European Commission appointed
SH&E International Air Transport Consultancy (SH&E) in 2001 to undertake a ‘Study on the
quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU airports as a result of the implemen-
tation of Council Directive 96/67/EC. The central findings of the impact assessment,
completed in 2002, are in summary:

• decrease in terms of price for ground handling services,

• since the perception of the stakeholders vary significantly, no conclusions on devel-

opments regarding quality are drawn,

• increase of competition by an increasing number of independent third party handling

companies and stagnation in the number of self-handling airlines

Since the completion of the SH&E report ground handling markets experienced a very
dynamic phase of development and growth. Additionally, with the entrance of the New
Member States to the European Union from 2004, the common European air transport
market has changed significantly.

The present study is carried out by ARC, in conjunction with MVV consulting. Undertaken on
behalf of the European Commission, it provides a factual review of the impacts of the
Directive 96/67/EC on the ground handling market at Community airports from 1996 to 2007.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 21

2.1 Task
The objective of this study is to update the SH&E report and additionally to focus on
employment, safety and security issues as well as on the ground handling markets in the
New Member States, which came under the Directive from 2004.

Therefore the impact of the Directive on airports, airlines, ground handling companies and
their employees are analysed within the scope of the initial study:

• Number of ground handling service providers

• Price developments in ground handling markets since implementation of the Directive

• quality developments of ground handling services

• level of competition

Furthermore the study considers additional categories in relation to the ground handling ser-
vices:

• Ground handling staff safety

• Security at airports

• Employment conditions for ground handling staff

Regarding the ground handling services, defined within the Directive, the study focuses on
limitable categories:

• Baggage handling

• Ramp handling

• Freight and mail handling

• Fuel and oil handling

In compliance with the Directive services such as passenger handling (e.g. Check-in etc.),
aircraft maintenance, ground administration and supervision, flight operations and crew ad-
ministration, surface transport, other aircraft services need to be fully liberalised. Therefore
those categories are not considered within this study.

2.2 Approach / Methodology

According to the work plan the study is based on the following work phases:

• Desk research and analyses: Data collection and analysis of the Directive 96/67/EC
as well as documents (e.g. legal cases) and studies prepared in this context. As this
study is prepared as an update of the SH&E report, the findings and the methodical
approach are reviewed in detail.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 22

• Preparation of the questionnaire and definition of the airport sample: Due to the
proposed methodology the study is based on interviews and an internet survey with
stakeholders from ground handling markets at European airports as well as with
associations and authorities. Since not all European airports under the Directive can
be visited for on-site interviews, a representative sample of airports needs to be
defined. In consulting with the Commission, 15 major airports in EU-15 Member
States and eight representative airports located in the New Member States are
selected for interviews and in depth analyses of ground handling markets. In order to
assure a comprehensive methodological approach and compatibility with results from
the previous study, the selection of EU-15 airports is harmonized with the airport
sample selected by SH&E in 2002.

In the prearrangement for the interviews, two draft questionnaires are set up. Even
though both are thematically identical, one is dedicated to stakeholders at airports in
EU-15 Member States and covers the time between 1996 and 2002 according to the
study of SH&E and additionally until 2007. The other questionnaire provided for
stakeholders at airports in the New Member States covers the time between 2004
and 2007. After discussions with associations and stakeholders, both questionnaires
were adjusted and finalized. The questionnaires are provided within the Annex.

• On-site interviews: Based on the questionnaires this work phase consists of

interviews with airport operators, airlines, ground handling companies and their asso-
ciations. To ensure the accuracy of the information, gathered during the interviews,
and to avoid any misinterpretations, following every meeting, we provided the
interviewees with minutes. Moreover, we encouraged the stakeholders to submit
additional information, which highlighted their point of view. The schedule of the on-
site interviews is summarised in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 below.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 23

 Stakeholders consulted
Region Airport Date of visit Independent ground
Airport operator Airlines/AUC/AOC
handling providers
Martinair, KLM Jet
EU-15 AMS 17.04.2008 Schiphol Group Center, KLM Ground ---
Services
EU-15 ARN 28.05.2008 LFV Group SAS Ground Services ---

Athens International Aegean, Olympic Swissport, Goldair

EU-15 ATH 02.07.2008
Airport S.A. Airways Handling
The Brussels Airport
EU-15 BRU 14.05. / 26.05.2008 United Airlines Aviapartner, Flightcare
Company
Aéroports de Paris
EU-15 CDG 23.05.2008 --- Group Europe Handling
Group
Flughafen Köln/Bonn
EU-15 CGN 22.04.2008 --- Aviapartner
GmbH
Københavns
EU-15 CPH 24.04.2008 --- ---
Lufthavne A/S
Aeroporti di Roma FlightCare Italia,
EU-15 FCO 20.05.2008 Alitalia Handling
ADR Aviapartner
EU-15 FRA 29.04. / 12.06.2008 Fraport Lufthansa Acciona
EU-15 HEL 29.05.2008 Finavia, Airpro Blue1 Servisair Finland Oy*
EU-15 LHR 05.06. / 06.06.2008 BAA Air Canada Aviance UK, ServisAir
ANA Aeroportos de
EU-15 LIS 05.05. / 06.05.2008 Portugal, --- GroundForce
Portway
EU-15 MAD 27.05.2008 AENA --- ---
Manchester Airport
EU-15 MAN 04.06.2008 --- ServisAir
Group
EU-15 VIE 21.05.2008 Flughafen Wien AG Austrian Airlines Fraport Austria*
Airport Bratislava,
NMS BTS 21.05.2008 Slovakia Air Services ---
a.s. (BTS)
Malev Ground
NMS BUD 22.05.2008 Budapest Airport Zrt. Celebi
Handling
Larnaca
NMS LCA 01.07.2008 --- 2 Serve
International Airport
NMS OTP no meetings could be arranged

Prague International
NMS PRG 29.05.2008 Airport, Prague Czech Airlines ---
Airport Handling
Riga International
NMS RIX 18.07.2008 --- ---
Airport RIX
NMS SOF 30.05.2008 Sofia Airport --- ---

Polish Airports' State

NMS WAW 15.05.2008 Enterprise, Warsaw --- ---
Airport Services
* Participation at the internet based survey

Table 2-1: Overview of visited airports and consulted stakeholders

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 24

 Represented Stakeholder
Association Date of visit Independent
Airports Airlines ground handling Unions
providers
Airports Council
ACI-Europe 19.05.2008 X
International (Europe)
Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Deutscher ADV 30.04.2008 X
Verkehrsflughäfen
Association of
AEA 19.05.2008 X
European Airlines
European Transport
ETF 03.06.2008 X
Workers' Federation
International Air Carrier
IACA 26.05.2008 X
Association
International Aviation
IAHA 14.04.2008 X
Handlers' Association

Table 2-2: Overview of consulted associations and unions

• Internet survey: In parallel, both questionnaires are provided for stakeholders at the
remaining airports within the scope of the Directive. Furthermore, Civil Aviation
Authorities (CAA) in all EU countries are contacted to submit information and
comments on the Directive.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 25

 Participation internet based survey

Region Airport Independent ground handling

Airport operator Airlines/AUC/AOC
providers

EU-15 AGP AENA --- ---

EU-15 ALC AENA --- ---
EU-15 BCN AENA --- ---
EU-15 DUB Dublin Airport Authority plc --- ---
Flughafen Düsseldorf GmbH,
EU-15 DUS Flughafen Düsseldorf Ground AUC ---
Handling GmbH
EU-15 FAO ANA --- ---
FMO Flughafen
EU-15 FMO --- ---
Münster/Osnabrück GmbH
EU-15 HAJ --- AUC ---
EU-15 HAM Flughafen Hamburg GmbH --- Acciona Airport Services
EU-15 IBZ --- --- Acciona Airport Services SA
EU-15 LEJ PortGround GmbH --- ---
EU-15 LGW BAA --- ---
EU-15 MAH --- --- Acciona Airport Services SA
Munich Airport International -
EU-15 MUC Business Devision Ground AOC ---
Handling
EU-15 NUE Flughafen Nürnberg GmbH AUC ---
EU-15 OPO ANA --- ---
EU-15 ORK Cork Airport Authority --- ---
EU-15 ORY AEROPORTS DE PARIS --- ---
EU-15 PMI AENA --- Acciona Airport Services SA
EU-15 SNN Shannon Airport Authority --- ---
EU-15 STN BAA --- ---
EU-15 STR Flughafen Stuttgart GmbH AUC ---
EU-15 SXF --- AUC Acciona Airport Services
EU-15 TXL --- --- Acciona Airport Services
NMS LJU Aerodrom Ljubljana, d.d. --- ---
NMS MLA Malta International Airport plc --- ---
NMS TLL --- Estonian Air ---

NMS VNO SE Vilnius International Airport --- ---

Table 2-3: Overview of internet survey participants

• Analyses of the findings: All information is summarised and reviewed according to the
completeness, representation and plausibility. Based on this collected and compiled
data the findings on every category are analysed and assessed. With a focus on the
airports in the EU-15, the analyses consider the years 1996, 2002 and 2007, to en-
sure compatibility with the SH&E report as well as to cover the years since the intro-
duction of the Directive. Concerning the airports in the New Member States, analyses
are carried out for the period 2004 and 2007.

Even though all airports and stakeholders under the Directive are contacted and
requested to submit information on this impact study, the analyses will focus on
findings and insights received in the on-site interviews, because the number of
different stakeholders as well as their geographic distribution were set in an objective

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 26

 of representativeness. The study will be completed by the results and insights
received from the internet based survey.

• Preparation of the report: All findings are compiled and summarized within the pre-
sent report. More details about the presentation of results in the report can be found
in the introduction of chapter 4.2.

• Limits of the approach: Besides the regulatory framework, the European ground han-
dling markets are subject to a wide range of influencing variables, which effect
growth, competition and structural changes. As a very dynamic sector, ground han-
dling markets change frequently and gathered information could change its validity.
Furthermore deviating legal frameworks and provisions at national levels affect the
impacts of the Directive. Considering these limiting factors, changes, developments,
trends and tendencies are highlighted.

The study consists of three sections. In the first part (chapter 3) the general provisions of the
Directive 96/67/EC as well the main findings of the SH&E report are shown. Part two (chap-
ter 4) summarises the results of the impact assessment. The last part gives the main conclu-
sions. Complementary documents are given in Annex.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 27

3 Background of the ground handling market in the EU

3.1 The structure of ground handling markets – overview

Between arrival and departure, an aircraft is subject to various ground handling services. In
correspondence to the categories of ground handling, defined in the Directive, types of air
side related ground handling services are presented in Figure 3-1.

Arrival Departure

Parking Unloading Loading Push-Back

Ramp Supervision Ramp Supervision

Cleaning
Ramp

Toilet / Water Services

Stairs Deboarding Crew Transport Crew Transport Boarding Stairs

Pax Transportation Pax Transportation

Fuel and Freight and Baggage

Baggage unloading Baggage Transportation Baggage Transportation Baggage loading

Cargo Transportation Cargo Transportation

Mail

Mail Transportation Mail Transportation

Oil

Fueling
Infrastructure
Centralised

Marshalling Fuel System / Station

Passenger Bridges Passenger Bridges

Baggage Transportation System

Fixed Power Installations (400Hz) and / or Toilet Servicing

Source: C. Templin: www.dvwg-rhein-main.de/060530_templin_DeregulierungBVD.pdf

Figure 3-1: Overview on airside related ground handling services.

Beside others, airport operators, airlines and independent ground handling companies are
the most important stakeholders in ground handling markets. Generally, airport operators
provide the infrastructure and in some cases they provide ground handling services to air-
lines. The role of airports is discussed within chapter 4.6. Airlines are involved as clients for
ground handling services. Some carriers, especially network carriers, supply themselves as
self-handler, mostly at their home base. Moreover, most self-handling airlines provide ground
handling services to other airport users as a third party supplier. The role of airlines is dis-
cussed within chapter 4.7. Independent ground handling companies focus only on the ground

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 28

handling business and are not controlled by either airports or airlines. A simplified structure
of the ground handling markets is shown in Figure 3-2.

Ground Handling Industry Airlines as Clients

Ground Handlers
Airports as Operators
of Infrastructure

Airport ground handling

Self handling Airlines
companies

Independent
ground handling Airlines as third party
companies handler

Figure 3-2: Overview on ground handling industry

3.2 The Council Directive 96/67/EC

In coherence with the gradual introduction of the common European air transport policy, in
October 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted the Directive 96/67/EC on ground
handling markets. Within a time-span between 1997 and 2000, the EU-15 Member States
implemented the Directive into the national legal framework while the New Member States
applied and respectively prepared the application of the Directive since their entrance into
the European Union between 2004 and 2007.

The objective of the Directive is to increase efficiency, quality and competition as well as to
reduce the average prices, related to ground handling activities at Community airports.

As key essentials the application of the Directive 96/67/EC requires the following

1. Freedom of third party handling (Article 6): At airports with a traffic volume of two mil-
lion passengers or 50.000 t of freight per annum, the Member States are allowed to
limit the number of suppliers for ground handling services to no fewer than at least
two for the following categories:

• Baggage handling (category 3),

• Ramp handling (category 5),

• Fuel and oil handling (category 7),

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 29

 • Freight and mail handling (category 4).

Additionally, at least one of the suppliers must be independent from the management
body of the airport and any dominant airline (market share of more than 25 percent of
total airport passengers during one year period) at the specific airport.

2. Freedom of self-handling (Article 7): The provision of self-handling applies to every

airport in the Community, regardless of its specific traffic volume. Moreover, for air-
ports with more than 1 million passengers, respectively 25.000 tonnes of cargo,
member states are allowed to limit the number of self-handling airlines to no fewer
than at least two for the following categories:

• Baggage handling (category 3),

• Ramp handling (category 5),

• Fuel and oil handling (category 7),

• Freight and mail handling (category 4).

3. Exemptions (article 9): At an airport, where there are specific constraints of available
space or capacity, arising in particular from congestion and the area utilization rate,
make it impossible to implement the provision of the Directive, the Member States are
allowed to limit the number of suppliers for ground handling services. Therefore
ground handling services, provided by third party handling companies, could be re-
served to one single supplier regarding the listed categories. For all other categories
of ground handling, the number of suppliers can be limited, but to no fewer than two
for each category of which one needs to be independent.

In respect to self-handling, the Member States may decide to ban or limit any activi-
ties, related to the above listed categories of ground handling to one single user. For
all other categories of ground handling, the number of self-handling airlines can be
limited.

Generally, every exemption can be approved for a limited time. The Member States,
which decide to constrict market access more than foreseen by the articles on the
freedoms on self- and third party handling, need to consult the European Commission
and indicate the temporary character. Every exemption needs to be assessed and
admitted by the European Commission.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 30

 Exemption
Date of decision of
Airport Type of exemption granted
Commission
until
To reserve the categories 3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and the handling of freight
Frankfurt 14 January 1998 and mail to Frankfurt airport in parts of Terminal 1; one airport user 1 January 2001
should be allowed the right to self-handle

To prohibit self handling for category 5.4 as from 1 January 1999

where the German authorities have not
Hamburg 30 October 1998 31 December 2000
notified the Commission by that date that a user has begun self-
handling operations in the space available

To prohibit self handling for baggage transport between the air

terminal and the aircraft as defined in
Stuttgart 30 October 1998 category 5.4 31 December 2000
To limit self handling to a single user for the categories 4, 5.5, 5.6
and 5.4

Cologne/Bonn 30 October 1998 To limit self handling to a single user for the categories 3, 4 and 5 Not granted

Terminal CDG 2:
To ban self handling and to reserve for the airport the provision of
31 December 2000
services for category 5.4 (excluding halls
A, B, D and F)
Paris CDG 27. April 1999
Terminal T 9:
- To reserve for the airport the provision of services to third parties
for category 3 1. April 2000
- To limit to two the number of service providers and users
authorised to self handle for category 2

To ban self handling for the categories 3, 5.4 and 5.6

Berlin Tegel 27. April 1999 To reserve for Berlin Tegel airport the provision of services to third 31 December 2000
parties for the categories 4, 5.4 and 5.6

To ban self handling for the categories 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6
To limit self handling to two users for the categories 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
To reserve for Dusseldorf airport the provision of services to third
14 January 1998 parties, for the categories 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 31 December 2000
5.5 and 5.6
Dusseldorf To limit to two the suppliers of handling services for third parties for
the categories 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3

To ban self handling

To reserve for Dusseldorf airport the provision of services to third
5 January 2000 31 December 2001
parties, for the categories 4.1, 5.4, 5.5 and
5.6
To restrict self-handling to a single user for the categories 3, 4 and
Funchal 10 January 2000 31 December 2000
5.4
To limit to four the number of users authorised to self-handle for
Oporto 10 January 2000 Not granted
category 2

Source: DG TREN, SH&E report (2002)

Table 3-1: Exemptions at airports under the Directive since 1996.

4. Centralised infrastructures (Article 8): The Member State is allowed to reserve the
management of defined infrastructure elements, used for the supply of ground han-
dling services such as the baggage handling system, for the airport operator or other
management bodies in case that costs are incurred or there is environmental impact
which does not allow for division or duplication. As a result it could be defined as
compulsory for suppliers of ground handling services, to use these infrastructure ele-
ments. The Member State shall ensure, that the management of the centralised

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 31

 infrastructure is transparent and objective and that the access is non discriminatory
for all airport users.

For any further analyses in depth and information on detailed provisions, the Directive
96/67/EC is provided as a document within the Annex.

In respect to the dynamic traffic growth of many Community airports, the number of airports
above the thresholds of one million and two million passengers respectively 25.000 and
50.000 tonnes of freight per annum, defined in the Directive, changes over time. For informa-
tion purposes, every year the European Commission publishes a table, which indicates the
airports under the Directive, according to their traffic volume. For the year 2007, the list of
airports, categorized in correspondence to the thresholds, is presented below.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 32

 Airports > 2 million passengers / Airports > 1 million passengers /
Region Country
50.000 tons of freight 25.000 tons of freight

EU-15 Austria Vienna Salzburg

Brussels, Charleroi, Oostende-Brugge,
EU-15 Belgium
Liège
EU-15 Denmark Copenhagen Billund
EU-15 Finland Helsinki
Paris-CDG, Paris-Orly, Nice, Marseille,
Pointe-à-Pitre-Le Raizet, Montpellier,
Lyon, Toulouse-Blagnac, Bâle-
EU-15 France Fort de France-Le Lamentin, Beauvais,
Mulhouse, Bordeaux, Nantes,
Chalons-Vatry, St. Denis, Tahiti
Strasbourg
Berlin-Schoenefeld, Bremen, Dortmund,
Berlin-Tegel, Hamburg, Duesseldorf,
Dresden, Munster/Osnabrueck,
EU-15 Germany Frankfurt/Main, Hahn, Hanover, Leipzig-
Paderborn-Lippstadt
Halle,Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg,
Cologne-Bonn
Athens, Iraklion, Salonika, Rhodes,
EU-15 Greece Chania, Kos
Kerkira
EU-15 Ireland Cork, Dublin, Shannon

Roma-Fiumicino, Roma-Ciampino,
Milano-Malpensa, Milano-Linate, Napoli, Olbia, Firenze, Bari, Lamezia, Genova,
EU-15 Italy
Bologna, Catania, Palermo, Bergamo, Treviso, Alghero
Venezia, Torino, Verona, Cagliari, Pisa

EU-15 Luxembourg Luxembourg

EU-15 Netherlands Amsterdam Maastricht-Aken , Rotterdam
EU-15 Portugal Lisboa, Faro, Funchal, Oporto
Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao,
Fuertaventura, Girona, Gran Canaria, Valencia, Almeria, Asturias, Jerez,
EU-15 Spain Ibiza, Lanzarote, Madrid, Malaga, Murcia, La Palma, Reus, Santiago,
Minorca, Palma de Majorca, Seville, Vigo, Vitoria, La Coruna
Tenerife Norte, Tenerife Sur, Valencia
Stockholm-Arlanda, Gothenburg- Stockholm-Bromma, Stockholm-
EU-15 Sweden
Landvatter Skavsta, Malmo-Sturup
Aberdeen, Belfast-International, Belfast-
City, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh,
East-Midlands, Glasgow, Liverpool,
London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick,
EU-15 United Kingdom Cardiff, Southampton
London-Stansted, London-City,Luton,
Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-
Bradford, Nottingham East Midlands,
Prestwick
NMS Bulgaria Sofia Varna, Burgas
NMS Cyprus Larnaca Paphos
NMS Czech Republic Prague
NMS Estonia Tallinn
NMS Hungary Budapest
NMS Latvia Riga
NMS Lithuania Vilnius
NMS Malta Luqa-Malta
NMS Poland Warsaw, Krakow Katowice, Gdansk
NMS Romania Bucharest Henri Coanda
NMS Slovakia Bratislava
NMS Slovenia Ljubljana
Source: Official Journal of the European Union

Table 3-2: EU-Airports under the Directive 96/67/EC.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 33

3.3 SH&E report (2002)
In 2001 the European Commission appointed the Consultancy SH&E Limited to carry out the
‘Study on the quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU airports as a result of
the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC’. Methodically, besides desk research and
analyses, the study is based on interviews and a postal survey. Stakeholders at 33 European
airports as well as associations and authorities were visited for interviews, additionally stake-
holders at 48 airports were considered by the postal survey. After the submission of the draft
report and discussion with the stakeholders, the study was finalized and published in 2002.

Summarising the results, the SH&E study gives an overview on the impacts of the Directive
96/67/EC and highlights the developments of European ground handling markets (EU-15) for
the period from 1996, when the Directive was adopted, until the year of reference in 2001.

The main findings of the report are:

• Number of handlers: Generally, with the opening of the ground handling markets the
number of suppliers for restricted services increased. Therefore, the number of third
party handling companies at Community airports increased, while the number of self-
handling airlines remained stable.

• Changes in handling prices: The prices for ground handling services decreased
throughout the EU. Moreover, in Member States with former handling monopolies
prices decreased more significantly than in states which already had open markets.

• Changes in handling quality: The perception of quality changes varies between air-
ports and stakeholders so therefore no general conclusion is drawn.

Within the full report, besides others, more findings on the transposition of the Directive into
national legislation, the tender process, the centralised infrastructure and the contestable
market are introduced. Even though some results are valid more universally, in many cases
the views on the topic differed between the suppliers of ground handling services, airport op-
erators and air carriers that self-handle or provide handling services to third parties respec-
tively.

The full report of SH&E on ground handling services at EU airports can be found on the web-
site of the Commission.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 34

3.4 Report from the Commission / Draft report European Parliament reso-
lution (2007)
In compliance with Article 22 of the framework, the European Commission set up a report on
the application of the Directive 96/67/EC in 2007 (the report is available on the European
Commission website 1). Referring to the SH&E study, the Commission highlights the impacts
of the Directive on ground handling markets at Community airports. In addition, the report fo-
cuses on the implementation process in the New Member States as well as on ground han-
dling and security.

• Application of the Directive in the 10 New Member States since their admittance in
2004: According to the thresholds, defined in the Directive, 13 airports in 9 New
Member States came under the Directive since 2004. Furthermore, the Commission
states, that in the majority of these Member States the application appears to comply
fully with the provisions of the Directive. In those cases, where the compliance with
the Directive seems to be insufficient, the Commission underlines its willingness to
achieve the full application of the Directive.

• Ground handling and Security: Based on security inspections and annual reports on
national quality control, the Commission states, that no indications could be found,
which prove any correlation between the number of ground handling providers and
the number of security events. The Commission points out, that common security re-
quirements for staff and vehicles in the field of aviation security are laid down in the
Regulations (EC) No 2320/2002, (EC) No 622/2003 and (EC) No 1138/2004. Those
regulations require, beside other measures, physical screenings of staff and vehicles
as well as background checks, identity controls and security training of staff entering
security - sensitive areas. The common security requirements have proven, that an
adequate level of security is ensured, irrespective of the number of ground handling
suppliers at an airport.

Finally, the report of the Commission provides an outlook on the possible revision of the Di-
rective. Under consideration of comments received from stakeholders and Member States
during the last years, the Commission proposes to improve the Directive by the introduction
of simplifications and clarifications on several provisions. A future proposal could aim to pro-
vide a further market opening accompanied by requirements on insurance cover, quality
standards applicable at airports and improvements of the selection procedure of service sup-
pliers.

In reference to the report of the Commission on the application of the Directive, the European
Parliament applied to a motion for a European Parliament Resolution on airport capacity and

1
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006DC0821:EN:HTML:NOT

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 35

ground handling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI)) in 2007. Considering the
statements, provided in the report from the Commission, the European Parliament welcomes
the positive impacts of the Directive 96/67/EC but notes that some difficulties and uncertain-
ties concerning the interpretation and transposition into national legislation still remain.

Regarding the considerations on the revision of the Directive, the European Parliament rec-
ommends concentrating on the following aspects:

• Clarification of advantages of further liberalisation: Before any decisions on the revi-

sion of the Directive are to be made, the benefits of further liberalisation should be
assessed. In the case, when more value can be expected by further opening of the
markets, the European Parliament suggests to increase the number of ground han-
dling providers in the limited categories at larger airports (e.g.< 10 million passen-
gers/year) and at airports with a substantial contestable market.

• Consideration of airport users` interests / opinions within the procedure of selection of

service suppliers: The choice of new entrants at limited markets is made by the air-
port and the authority, while the contracts of supply are made between the service
providers and the airlines. Regarding the revision of the Directive, the European Par-
liament suggests the introduction of a more user-oriented policy, which reflects on a
larger scale the position of the airport user within the selection procedure of service
suppliers.

• Provision of minimum quality standards: As prices for ground handling services de-
crease minimum levels of quality as well as security and safety levels should be safe-
guarded. Therefore, the European Parliament proposes to establish a licensing proc-
ess in order to guarantee a minimum level of quality and sustainability, which should
become mandatory for any ground handling provider. In addition, the revised Direc-
tive could foresee that every airport can define minimum quality standards that need
to be considered within the tender process as well as in the contracts between air-
lines and ground handling providers. Furthermore, to secure a minimum level of
safety and to guarantee fair competition, some provisions could be introduced that
require the prior identification of any sub-contractors.

• Social issues: The turnover of staff from a former provider of ground handling ser-
vices to a new selected supplier could limit the market access and could have impli-
cations on social conditions as well as on safety, rules for the transition process
should be examined. Moreover, to ensure a certain level of quality as well as to con-
solidate the position of staff, a reasonable level of training should be required for all
employees of ground handling providers.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 36

3.5 Ecorys Study: Social developments in the EU air transport sector
Ecorys carried out a study for the European Commission about the social developments in
the EU air transport sector - a study of developments in employment, wages and working
conditions in the period 1997-2007. (The summary of the report is available on the European
Commission Website 2.)

This study can give an insight on general developments in the air transport sector and there-
fore also in the ground handling sector. It however needs to be noted that stakeholders ex-
pressed within the interviews done by Airport Research Center, that the working conditions
differ between the stakeholders involved in ground handling (airport operators, airlines and
independent ground handling companies).

For this reason the main objectives and the results in regard to the ground handling sector
are highlighted in the following chapter.

The main objectives of the study were:

• To evaluate the principal tendencies of the development of air transport within the
European Union since the full opening of the market, in 1997, and its impact in terms
of direct jobs (on board staff, jobs in the airport, air traffic controllers, air transport
companies).

• To determine the developments in terms of working conditions and of wage condi-

tions over the same period in the EU.

• To determine these tendencies and developments in comparison to major events

which could have a positive or negative impact (effects of competition, external
events, and perspectives related to the agreements with 3rd countries).

In general we can conclude that the developments in employment, wages and working condi-
tions are related to the economic trends that the sector has experienced in the past ten
years. It is plausible that the increase in employment in the past ten years is strongly related
to the increase in air traffic in the EU. Also it is very plausible that the financial crisis that the
sector experienced between 1999 and 2004 through the efforts to increase productivity, has
had an impact on employment, wages and working conditions such as operational pressure.

To filter out the extent to which the developments in employment, wages and working condi-
tions were directly or indirectly caused by the EU liberalisation of the sector, is virtually im-
possible since there are many explanatory factors that are intertwined with each other and
above all also intertwined with the effects of EU liberalisation. However, it is clear that the
new context created by the liberalisation and deregulation provided new opportunities which
are an important explanation for the recent developments.

2
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/studies/doc/internal_market/2008_01_social_study_summary.pdf

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 37

Development in relation to the EU liberalisation

Another point that is clear is that the introduction of competition has had an important impact
on recent developments in the ground handling market. Moving from a monopoly or duopoly
market towards more competition, the position of employees in this part of the sector is
changing rapidly. More flexibility is demanded from the companies operating in ground han-
dling and therefore also of their staff. This for instance has a direct impact on the contracts
employees are hired under and their job security.

Development of employment

The number of persons employed by independent ground handling companies clearly in-
creased significantly in the past ten years. However, exact figures for this trend are not avail-
able.

Development of wages and contractual conditions

For cabin crew and especially ground handling staff the results of the study on the point of
remuneration are inconclusive. Many national employers’ organisations report in the survey
that in their organisation the wages have increased in line with the national average wage in-
creases. According to trade unions, however, remuneration has lagged behind inflation and
the national average wage increases in the past ten years. The -minority of- employers
agreeing with them is larger by employees in ground handling than in cabin crew.

Overall there is a trend in the sector towards more flexibility in contracts. In this the sector is
not unique. Also in many other sectors flexibility in contracts is increasing.

The trend towards more flexibility in contracts is most visible for ground handling staff. The
introduction of competition in the ground handling sector means that service providers need
to react faster to changes in the level of their activities. A flexible workforce is an important
condition for this. As a result the use of fixed term and temporary contracts for ground han-
dling staff has increased in the past ten years.

Development of working conditions

In view of the lack of other sources available at EU level, the study for this subject has to rely
heavily on the survey and interviews conducted with employer and employee representative
organisations. It is to be expected that employers and trade unions often have diverging
opinions on such subjects; this is also the case when discussing about the development of
working conditions in general. Trade unions generally feel that working conditions have dete-
riorated in the past ten years. Employers state that working conditions on a whole have im-
proved. Nonetheless, the study also shows that the opinions of employers and trade unions
amongst themselves vary according to the profession under review and that for certain pro-
fessions, in certain areas of working conditions, some convergence appears.

In most professions employers are positive while trade unions are negative about the devel-
opments in health and safety. For the ground handling occupations, however, employers are

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 38

somewhat less positive than or other professions. This profession was also an area for much
concern for trade unions during the in-depth interviews.

3.6 Legal cases / Directive 96/67/EC

During the last years the implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC has been a contentious
issue between the Commission of the European Communities and Member States on one
side and between airports and airlines on the other side. Main points of litigations had been
the access to installations on Community airports and questions about social and environ-
mental protection. In the following the main legal cases and their sentences are summarised.

Before going into details of the litigations concerning social protection it should be clarified at
the outset that the Directive 96/67 is without prejudice to the effective application of the
Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12th March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees rights in event of transfers of un-
dertakings, business or parts of undertakings or business (see Article 18 of the Directive
96/67EC but also cases C-460/02 and C386/03). This fact should be the starting point and
also explains why the latter cases only related to situations not falling within the Scope of Di-
rective 2001/23/EC.

In case C-386/03 the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany, the Commission claimed that some paragraphs in the German regulations
concerning ground handling services at airports, are not compatible with Articles 16 and 18
of the Directive 96/67/EC. The German regulations had imposed incentives on ground han-
dling providers to take on staff from former ground handling companies. Furthermore the
regulations enabled the airport operators to acquire charges from self-handling airlines and
ground handling providers for not taking over workers in addition to other airport charges.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities came to the ruling that the right of Mem-
ber States to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of ground handling
services, cannot be used in a way which hinders the application of the Directive 96/67/EC
and the access to ground handling markets. Therefore providers of ground handling services
cannot be obliged to take over workers employed by other (former) suppliers.

It must be pointed out, however, that the judgement applies only to cases that are beyond
the scope of the application of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (see para. 23 and 24 of the
judgment). In other words, when the change of an employer in the ground handling sector
can be considered as a transfer in the meaning of the Directive, it must be ensured, so far as
possible, that the rights of employees are safeguarded by allowing them to remain in em-
ployment with the new employer on the terms and conditions agreed with the old employer.
Article 4(1) of the Directive expressly states, that the transfer does not itself constitute
grounds for dismissal (although this provision does not stand in the way of dismissals for
economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce).

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 39

In 2004 the European Court of Justice came to a comparable ruling in the case C-460/02 the
Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic, where the Italian law
provided some not compatible articles on social protection.

Other cases had been conducted between airports and airlines. Therefore the focus had
been on a free access to installations on community airports.

The legal case (C-363/01) Hanover airport against Deutsche Lufthansa AG contains mainly
the question of a free access to airport installations. A point of contention was the nature of
the access charges between Lufthansa and Hanover airport, which had the position that the
charges had to be seen as charges for providing airport users with economic access to
ground handling markets. In opposition Lufthansa refused this position and took the view that
charges need to be service related. In 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled that Article
16(3) does not enable the airport operator to impose charges on airport users and ground
handling providers only for the access to the market. It is clarified that charges for the use of
airport installations must be determined according to the criteria laid down in Article 16(3).

The current legal proceedings between Lufthansa AG and Aeroportos de Portugal SA (ANA)
focus on charges for ground administrative assistance and supervision. In this case (C-
181/06) the reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 6 and
16(3) of Directive 96/67/EC.

Community law precludes rules of national law which provide for the payment of a fee for
ground administration and supervision by providers of ground handling services to the airport
managing authority, unless the fee for ground administration and supervision provided for by
that legislation is payable as the consideration for some or all of the services defined in para-
graph 1 of the Annex to Council Directive 96/67/EC and does not constitute a second charge
for services already paid for through another fee or tax. If the examination carried out by the
referring court discloses that that fee constitutes a fee for access to the airport installations, it
is a matter for that court to ascertain whether the fee at issue meets the criteria as specified
in Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67/EC.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 40

4 The impact assessment

4.1 General Conditions and specifics of national legislation in the EU

Member States
In compliance with the provisions of the Directive 96/67/EC, the Member States introduced,
through the national measures of transpositions of the Directive, various types of liberalisa-
tion. While in some Member States such as the United Kingdom the access to ground han-
dling markets is fully liberalised, in other countries such as Germany the access to ground
handling markets is limited. In accordance with the Directive in those countries handling li-
cences for all or some limitable categories of ground handling such as baggage handling,
freight and mail handling, ramp handling and fuel and oil handling are tendered and granted
for 7 years maximum. In Italy and France the access to some ground handling markets is
fully liberalised while for other ground handling markets the access is restricted. Figure 4-1
gives an overview on the types of liberalisation of ground handling markets in the EU accord-
ing to the national legislative frameworks.

Full liberalised market access

Finland (1997)
Market access at selected airports full liberalised
Limited market access / tender procedures Sweden (2000)

Non EU Member States

No reliable data available yet Estonia (2002)

Country (year/implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC) Latvia (2004)

Denmark (1997)
Lithuania (2002)

United Kingdom (1997)

Netherlands (1998)

Poland (2005)

Ireland (1998) Belgium Germany (1997)

(1998 - 2000)
Czech Republic
(2002)
Luxembourg Slovakia (2006)
(1997)

Austria (1998)
Hungary (2002)
France (1998)
Slovenia Romania (2004)

Bulgaria (2006)

Spain (1999)
Italy (1999)
Portugal (1999)

Greece (1998)

Malta (2004) Cyprus (2007)

Figure 4-1: Overview on types of liberalisation in the EU according to the national legisla-
tive framework

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 41

 “Full liberalised market access” is used for Member States where at all airports an unlimited
number of ground handling companies can be active in each ground handling category (e.g.
all airports in Sweden or the Netherlands). Member States corresponding to a “limited mar-
ket” are those where at least at one of the airports ground handling companies need to at-
tend a tender procedure to receive a handling licence for at least one ground handling cate-
gory. Those handling licences are limited to a certain number, depending on the national leg-
islation: the determination of this number differs from one country to another. For instance,
German national legislation specifies that at all German airports, there are 2 licences for
each of the restricted ground handling categories, whereas in the case of France, the na-
tional legislation defines a different number of licences according to the airport and to the
ground handling category. In certain cases, national legislation only sets that the number of
licences is limited and leaves it to the airport to define the number of licences, according to
airport specific rules (e.g. Madrid airport).

For more detailed information on the implementation of the Directive in the EU Member
States, authorities in charge were requested to submit information on this issue. (Question-
naire submitted to the Authorities, which can be found in the Annex.) In case the Authority
did not provide country specific information, details were excerpted from the interviews (Bel-
gium, Italy, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands). The exception is
Romania where due to the lack of information, desk research delivered the following informa-
tion. For Luxemburg some information was excerpted from the SH&E report.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 42

 Participation
Country Authority
internet survey

Austria Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie X

Belgium Service public fédéral Mobilité et Transports
Bulgaria Bulgaria's Civil Aviation X
Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation Cyprus
Czech Republic Civil Aviation Authority Czech Republic X
Denmark The Danish Civil Aviation Administration (CAA-DK)
Estonia Estonian Civil Aviation Administration
Finland Finish Civil Aviation Authority X
France La direction générale de l’Aviation civile X
Germany Luftfahrt Bundesamt X
Greece Hellenic Republic Civil Aviation Authority X
Hungary National Transport Authority X
Ireland Irish Aviation Authority
Italy Italian Civil Aviation Authority
Latvia Civila Aviation Agency
Lithuania Civilines Aviacijos Administracija X
Luxembourg Direction de l'Aviation Civile
Malta Department of Civil Aviation Malta X
Netherlands Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat
Poland Civil Aviation Office X
Portugal Instituto Nacional de Avicao Civil, I.P. X
Romania Government of Romania Ministry of Transports
Slovakia Ministerstvo Dopravy Post a Telekomunikacii Slovenskej Republiky X
Slovenia Government of the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Transport X
Spain Gobierno de Espana, Ministerio de Fomento X
Sweden Swedish Civil Aviation Authority X
United Kingdom UK Civil Aviation Authority X

Figure 4-2: Consulted authorities and overview on participation in the internet survey

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 43

 Airports > 2 million passengers / 50.000 tons of
Region Country
freight
EU-15 Austria Vienna
EU-15 Belgium Brussels, Charleroi, Oostende-Brugge, Liège
EU-15 Denmark Copenhagen
EU-15 Finland Helsinki
Paris-CDG, Paris-Orly, Nice, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse-
EU-15 France
Blagnac, Bâle-Mulhouse, Bordeaux, Nantes, Strasbourg
Berlin-Schoenefeld, Bremen, Dortmund, Berlin-Tegel,
Hamburg, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt/Main, Hahn, Hanover,
EU-15 Germany
Leipzig-Halle,Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Cologne-
Bonn
EU-15 Greece Athens, Iraklion, Salonika, Rhodes, Kerkira
EU-15 Ireland Dublin, Shannon, Cork
Roma-Fiumicino, Roma-Ciampino, Milano-Malpensa,
EU-15 Italy Milano-Linate, Napoli, Bologna, Catania, Palermo,
Bergamo, Venezia, Torino, Verona, Cagliari, Pisa
EU-15 Luxembourg Luxembourg
EU-15 Netherlands Amsterdam
EU-15 Portugal Lisboa, Faro, Funchal, Oporto
Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Fuertaventura, Girona, Gran
Canaria, Ibiza, Lanzarote, Madrid, Malaga, Minorca,
EU-15 Spain
Palma de Majorca, Seville, Tenerife Norte, Tenerife Sur,
Valencia
EU-15 Sweden Stockholm-Arlanda, Gothenburg
Aberdeen, Belfast-International, Belfast-City, Birmingham,
Bristol, Edinburgh, East-Midlands, Glasgow, Liverpool,
EU-15 United Kingdom London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, London-Stansted,
London-City,Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-
Bradford, Nottingham East Midlands, Prestwick
NMS Bulgaria Sofia
NMS Cyprus Larnaca
NMS Czech Republic Prague
NMS Estonia Tallinn*
NMS Hungary Budapest
NMS Latvia Riga
NMS Lithuania Vilnius*
NMS Malta Luqa-Malta
NMS Poland Warsaw, Krakow
NMS Romania Bucharest Henri Coanda
NMS Slovakia Bratislava
NMS Slovenia Ljubljana*
* Biggest Airport in the country but counts less than 2 Mio. Pax in 2007
Source: Official Journal of the European Union

Figure 4-3: Airports under the Directive with more than 2 Mio. Pax in 2006

The country specific key findings are presented below. Figure 4-3 gives an overview of all
airports under the Directive 96/67/EC (the year of reference for traffic figures is also given).

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 44

Austria:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1998

• Responsible authority: Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology.

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Vienna airport (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access; the number of handling licences at Vi-
enna airport is limited to two licences for limitable categories (cat. 3, 4 and 5) includ-
ing one licence for an independent handling company (the other licence is reserved
for the airport operator), due to limited space for equipment. At Salzburg airport the
freedom of self-handling is safeguarded.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Experience, references to assess to the qual-
ity of services, working funds, organisation of the supplier, quality management sys-
tem, offering several handling activities, sufficient insurance cover, voting of the air-
port and AUC.

• Sub-contracting: Not indicated during the tender process. Choice for sub-contractors
is limited to suppliers who already have a licence for third party handling. Services
such as cleaning, toilet/water and catering transport are for example sub-contracted
to Vienna Airport Ground Handling at Vienna Airport.

• Specifics: Historical very strong market position of airport operator.

Belgium:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: Due to the
federal system in Belgium the Regions are responsible for the implementation of the
Directive into legislation. In the Brussels-Capital Region the provisions of the Direc-
tive were implemented into legislation in 1998 (Region Brussels), in the Flemish Re-
gion in 1999 and in the Walloon Region in 2000.

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport, Flemish and Walloon government.

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Brussels, Charleroi, Oostende, Liege (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access due to Belgian law; The Royal Decree of
1998 that transposes Directive 96/67 in Belgian law limits the restricted categories to
2 handlers as a maximum. Self-handling is also limited to 2.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 45

 • Decisive criteria in the tender process: Cost basis, use of airport infrastructure, opera-
tional plan and business plan.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting was indicated during tender and exists e.g. for
cleaning at Brussels Airport.

• Specifics: Since the bankruptcy of Sabena, the amendment foresees the possibility to
transfer ground handling licences.

Bulgaria:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2007 in the
“Regulation No. 20/1999 on the certification of the operational worthiness of civil air-
ports, airfields, ground services systems and facilities, and on licensing airport and
airport handling operators and the access to ground services market at the airports.”
There the Directive 96/67/EC is literally transmitted and supervises all international
airports in Bulgaria (Sofia, Varna, Bourgas, Plovdiv and Gorna Oriahovitza).

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Administration.

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Sofia (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised access at airports with more than 2 million pas-
sengers per year (Sofia).

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Approval from the CAA is
granted if a company can demonstrate its competence in respect of experience, finan-
cial resources, equipment, organization, staffing, maintenance and operating proce-
dures. The licence will be renewed every year due to an audit of the CAA

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Subject to future amendment in Civil Aviation
Act.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting exists e.g. at Sofia airport.

• Specifics: The access to the ground handling market at SOF is theoretically totally
opened, but due to the strong role of the Bulgarian Law, the number of full service
suppliers is limited up to two licences plus few self-handling activities.

Cyprus:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: Ministerial

Decree 406 of 2007 – Civil Aviation. The decree was published on October 19th 2007.

• Responsible authority: Department of Civil Aviation

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 46

 • Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Larnaca (traffic 2006)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access (Larnaca, Paphos). (2 self-handling li-

censes and 2 third party handling licences due to space and capacity constraints at
the airport)

After a competitive tender in 2008, LGS (Louis Aviation Services, Goldair Handling
and Servisair) and Swissport-GAP secured the seven year licence to provide ground
handling operations.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Operational concept, technical and profes-
sional solvency, financial solvency and business plan, quality proposal.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting needs to be approved by the CAA. Right now how-

ever, sub-contracting is not practised at Larnaca airport.

• Specifics: New airports are being built in Larnaca and Paphos.

Ground handling providers holding a licence to operate at Larnaca airport need to

provide handling services at Paphos airport, as well.

Czech Republic:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2002

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Authority.

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Praha/Ruzyně airport (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised market access at airports with more than 2 mil-
lion passengers per year (Prague). Liberalisation of ground handling market since
2001, only minimum requirments (safety, environmental, insurance) must be fullfiled.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Every applicant who meets the
requirements in the civil aviation law must be licenced. The airport operator has no
influence on the decision of the CAA and has no right to comments or stop
application processes. General CAA requirements: safety, equipement, level of
insurance.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Due to national legislation there has never
been a tender process.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 47

 • Sub-contracting: Within sub-contracting the sub-contractor needs to get a licence
from the CAA. The responsibility for the sub-contractor is imposed on the full service
supplier.

Denmark:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1997

• Responsible authority: Danish Civil Aviation Administration.

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Copenhagen Kastrup and Billund

• Type of liberalisation: Fully liberalised access to ground handling markets.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No tender process as the

market is open. Every ground handler approved by the CAA can apply and gets a
concession contract from the airport. However, the airport verifies if the ground
handling applicant has a proper business plan. All other (financial) negotiations are
made between airline and ground handler.

Once the ground handler has a general handling licence it needs to meet the airport
rules. If there are violations of those rules the ground handler will be interviewed and
the airport can apply sanctions like return of airport access pass, direct control of
employees, ask for additional (mandatory) training.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting for security control staff is not allowed (which is not
part of the ground handling). Regarding other activities, CPH only approves the sub-
contractor in regards of safety and security.

Estonia:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 18 July

2000 by Government of the Republic Regulation No. 240

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Administration

• Airport with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
None in 2007

• Type of liberalisation: The number of suppliers of the specified services shall not be
limited to fewer than two for each category of ground handling service if the annual
traffic volume is not less than two million passengers.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 48

 • Decisive criteria in the tender process: There has never been a tender process in Es-
tonia.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting does exist (e.g. at Tallinn airport).

• Specifics: No Estonian airport has more than 2 Mio. Passengers (e.g. TLL only had
1,8 Mio. Pax in 2007)

Finland:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1997

• Responsible authority: Finnish Civil Aviation Authority (FCAA).

• Airport with more than 2 Mio passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Helsinki-Vantaa airport

• Type of liberalisation: Fully liberalised access to ground handling markets.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: None; there are no licenses for
the ramp issued by the FCAA. The airport operator may organise ramp traffic rule
courses and issues ID-cards. The airport operator at Helsinki airport thinks about
setting minimum service levels for ground handling at the airport, but there is no
decision about it yet.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting is generally allowed at Finnish airports. At Helsinki

airport for example some subcontractors are providing services to more than one
company. The handler must report the sub-contracting activities to the airport once a
year. A decrease of sub-contracting activities at Helsinki airport can be noticed.

France:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1998

• Responsible authority: Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC).

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight :
Paris-CDG, Paris-Orly, Nice-Côte d’Azur, Lyon-Saint Exupéry, Marseille-Provence,
Toulouse-Blagnac, Bâle-Mulhouse, Bordeaux-Mérignac, Nantes-Atlantique, Beau-
vais-Tille

• Type of liberalisation: All airports are fully liberalised, except Paris-CDG, Paris-ORY
and Nice. Three licences for third party handling and self-handling per terminal for
each of the airside categories at CDG airport.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 49

 • General requirements for ground handling operations: A licence to provide services of
non restricted categories is given to any company with sufficient insurance and
financial soundness.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Performance in safety, security and environ-
mental fields; economic guarantees; human resources and available equipment; so-
cial policy; internal procedures for quality control.

• Sub-contracting: Cascade sub-contracting possible, sub-contracting was not indi-

cated in the tender procedure.

• Specifics: Explicit, the French legislation foresees the possibility to restrict the access
to ground handling markets in case of capacity and space constraints as well as for
safety reasons.

Germany:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1997

• Responsible authority: Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Affairs.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight :
Berlin-Tegel, Berlin-Schoenefeld, Hamburg, Dortmund, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt/Main,
Frankfurt Hahn, Hanover-Langenhagen, Leipzig-Halle, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg,
Cologne-Bonn

• Type of liberalisation: The market access is limited due to German legalisation for
ground handling categories number 3, 4, 5 and 7. Limitation to 2 suppliers each self-
handling and third party handling per category.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Quality of services and finance
reliability.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Experience, quality of services, business plan
based on flight schedule, prices; offering of several handling activities.

• Sub-contracting: Not indicated in the tender process, cascade sub-contracting is pos-

sible.

• Specifics: Due to historic reasons, all operators of German airports with more than
two million passengers are involved in ground handling. Due to specifics in national
legislation, not only the baggage handling system but also the service at baggage
handling installations is defined as centralised at many airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 50

Greece:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1998

• Responsible authority: Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Athens, Thessalonica, Rhodes, Corfu and Heraklion

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access for airports with more 2 million passen-
gers per year (Athens, Thessalonica, Rhodes, Corfu and Heraklion) for ground han-
dling categories number 3, 4, 5 and 7. At airports with less than 2 Mio. passengers
per year, the national flag carrier (Olympic Airways) has a monopole, self-handling is
permitted at these airports, but no third party handling licence is admitted. However
certain categories such as 1, 7, or 11 have always been liberalised.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: safety management, security,

organisation of applicant, training of personnel, financial status, environmental protec-
tion, and quality.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Equipment, experience, quality, organisation.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting is prohibited by the Authority.

Hungary:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2002

• Responsible authority: National Transport Authority Directorate for Air Transport.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Budapest Ferihegy airport

• Type of liberalisation: Limited Market access at all Hungarian airports. 3 self-handling

and 5 third party handling at BUD. All other airports are not over the threshold of 2
Mio PAX.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Complete qualified ground

handling staff, infrastructure, equipments and documentation of procedure.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No information available.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting exists in PRM assistance and security services.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 51

Ireland:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1998

• Responsible authority: Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR).

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Dublin, Shannon, Cork (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised market access at all airports.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender.

• Sub-contracting: Yes, to a minor degree.

Italy:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1999

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC).

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Roma-Fiumicino, Milano-Malpensa, Milano-Linate, Venezia, Catania Fontanorossa,
Napoli Capodichino, Bergamo, Roma-Ciampino, Palermo, Bologna, Pisa San Giustio,
Verona, Torino, Cagliari, Bari Palese (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Some airports as Roma-FCO provide fully liberalised access to

ground handling markets. No detailed information about other airports available.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender of third party handling licences.

• Sub-contracting: At the time of the tender processes in FCO sub-contracting was not
allowed. On 19th December 2006 the Italian Civil Aviation Authority issued a regula-
tion enabling sub-contracting at Italian airports.

Latvia:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2007

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Riga International (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access. Ramp handling is performed solely by

the airport ground handling company at RIX. The access to the GH market / airside

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 52

 will be liberalized in 2008. The tender for the 2nd ramp handling license (valid for a 7
years period) will be organized by the ministry of transport by the end of 2008.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender has taken place yet.

• Sub-contracting: In case of any advantages sub-contracting will be possible between

licensed main contractors and the sub-contractor (only one stage sub-contracting).
Requirement for sub-contracting: Certification of the CAA due to safety, security etc.

• Specifics: At Riga airport no tender has taken place but will be prepared in near fu-
ture.

Lithuania:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2002

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport and Communications.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
none.

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised market access for Airports with more than 1 mil-
lion passengers per year (Vilnius).

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: There has never been a tender.

• Sub-contracting: No information available.

Luxembourg:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1999

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Luxembourg airport (traffic 2007) (due to freight)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access. Before the Directive came into force,
the only handler at Luxembourg was Luxair, providing full range of handling services.
The airport operator is not involved in ground handling activities. There was a tender
process by the end of 2008. (Swissport won a 7 years license.)

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No information available.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 53

 • Sub-contracting: No information available.

Malta:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: S.L.232.15

enacted on February 18th 2003, amended on February 17th 2004

• Responsible authority: Department of Civil Aviation.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50 000 tons of freight:
Luqa-Malta (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access at Luqa-Malta airport, due to small vol-
ume of traffic and therefore a small handling volume which·does not justify too many
handlers. Civil Aviation Act (CAP. 232) ensures “free access for not more than two
suppliers for each category of airside service. and at least one of the authorised
suppliers may not be directly or indirectly controlled by: (a) the managing body of the
airport, (b) any airport user who has carried more than 25% of the passengers or
freight recorded at the airport during the year preceding that in which those suppliers
were selected, (c) a body controlling or controlled directly or indirectly by the
managing body or any such user.”

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No information available.

• Sub-contracting: Limited. Sub-contractor needs an approval by the airport operator.

Netherlands:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1998

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Amsterdam-Schiphol, Maastricht-Aachen (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised market access at all airports.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: General requirements to get

approved by the CAA.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Due to the national legislation there has never
been a tender.

• Sub-contracting: No information available.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 54

 • Specifics: When the Directive was issued, competition was already in place for a
long time in ground handling at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

Poland:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: General

Provisions were implemented in April 2004 by the amendment to Polish Air Law, the
detailed proceedings were adopted by the Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure
on 21st of June 2005.

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Office.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Warszawa-Okecie, Kraków-Balice (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: The number of licences is generally limited at all airports in Po-
land. The legislation foresees for Warsaw-Okęcie Airport and Kraków-Balice Airport a
limitation of Categories 3-5 and 7 to four handlers. At all other airports limitation is not
subject to execution. The market access is limited according to the Art. 6 and 7 of Di-
rective. No tender until 2007. But in respect to the Directive the first tender will be
prepared for the near future.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Entrepreneurs have to meet

general requirements from Air Law: Obtaining certification and fulfill the financial, se-
curity, good reputation.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No tender has taken place yet.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting is limited to the first level due to safety / security

reasons (cascade sub-contracting is not practised).

• Specifics: There has never been a tender process at Polish airports.

Portugal:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1999

• Responsible authority: Portuguese Civil Aviation Administration (INAC).

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Lisbon (Portela), Faro e Porto (Sá Cameiro), Funchal e Porto (Sá Cameiro) (traffic
2006)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access. In Lisbon, Oporto and Faro, the ser-
vices related to category 3, 4, 5. are restricted to two suppliers through specific legis-
lation –Orders 18 068/99 and 18 069/99, published in the National Official Journal of

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 55

 17th September of 1999 and Order 18 118/99 published on the18th September 1999.
Liberalised market at other airports.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Checks of ground handling

staff and their equipment, analysis and monitoring of the financial situation. Overall, a
strong focus on security and safety issues.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Conditions and technical specifications for the
tender process are set by the managing body of the airport after consultation with the
AUC and confirmation of the Portuguese Civil Aviation Administration (INAC).

The Selection of suppliers of ground handling services is done by INAC, after consul-
tation with the AUC, whenever the airport operator controls a ground handler, provid-
ing services similar to the services included in the tender process.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting is common at LIS airport.

Romania:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2004

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Henri Coanda – Bucuresti airport

• Type of liberalisation: No information available.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No information available.

• Sub-contracting: No information available.

Slovakia:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1st of Janu-
ary, 2006.

• Responsible authority: General Directorate of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Transport,

Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Bratislava (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised market access at airports with more than 2 mil-
lion passengers per year (Bratislava). There are two handlers active at Bratislava air-
port since 1994.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 56

 • General requirements for ground handling operations: Criteria are specified by CAA
of the Slovak Republic.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: There has never been a tender since 2004,
since Bratislava airport only reached 2 Mio. Pax in 2007.

• Sub-contracting: It generally exists at BTS airport, whereas cascade Sub-contracting

is not performed

Slovenia:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2001

• Responsible authority: Ministry of Transport.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passengers traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
None

• General requirements for ground handling operations: Fulfillment of standard condi-

tions and technical specifications. There has to be preliminary consultations between
the Managing Body of the Airport and the Airport Users’ Committee (AUC) (Except, if
the Ministry of Transport is involved.)

• Decisive Criteria in the tender process: Not applicable. A call for tenders has not been
realised yet.

• Sub-contracting: Generally sub-contracting exists at LJU airport.

• Specifics: At the smaller airports in the Republic of Slovenia, there is no interest in

ground handling services (for third parties and self-handling). Therefore ground han-
dling services are provided only by the airport operator.

Spain:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1999

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Administration

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Fuerteventura, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Lanzarote,
Madrid, Málaga, Menorca, Murcia/San Javier, Palma de Mallorca, Santiago, Sevilla,
Tenerife North, Tenerife South, Valencia (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Limited market access at airports with more than 2 million pas-
sengers per year (Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Fuerteventura, Girona, Gran Canaria,
Ibiza, Lanzarote, Madrid, Málaga, Menorca, Palma de Mallorca, Sevilla, Tenerife
North, Tenerife South, Valencia). National law establishes second ramp operator at

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 57

 airports with more than 1 million passengers or 25.000 tons of cargo. (Royal Decree
1161/1999).
AENA may propose a higher number if the volume of traffic and the airport conditions
call for it.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: No information available.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: Beside others quality level, human and
technical resources, environmental care, PRM (passengers with reduced mobility)
assistance, economic operational and quality improvements.

• Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting ramp services are not allowed. It is also not allowed
to sub-contract self-handling services. However, for specializations and economies of
scale, cleaning services are usually sub-contracted.

Cascade subcontracting is not practiced: There is a concern of negative effects on

safety, security, quality, environment, training, equipment.

Sweden:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 2002

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Authority.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Gothenborg-Landvetter, Stockholm-Arlanda (traffic 2006)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised access at airports with more than 2 million pas-
sengers per year (Gothenburg-Landvatter, Stockholm-Arlanda).

• General requirements for ground handling operations: All ground handling operators
need a license agreement with the airport before operations can commence. This
agreement stipulates in a general way how to behave and operate at the airport.

Additionally there was an auditing process implemented in 2004/2005: It consists of

an audit before the ground handling company starts its operations at the airport in
regard to safety, security and environment. This is repeated every 2 years.

Additionally a reporting system exists where it is mandatory for all companies to

report. There is no punishment if a case is not reported, but rather an encouragement
to report (but no incentives).

Mandatory education in safety and security is required (CBT) before entering service.
This applies to all personal. Every two year this education must be renewed (CBT).

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: No information available.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 58

 • Sub-contracting: Sub-contracting is allowed and exists to fulfill contractual obligations.
But at Arlanda Airport the sub-contractor also needs a license, which is connected to
a fee the sub-contractor has to pay to operate. Therewith LFV tries to reduce subcon-
tracting.

• Specifics: At other small Swedish airports the local airport authority has a monopoly
on ramp handling.

United Kingdom:

• Date of implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC into national legislation: 1997

• Responsible authority: Civil Aviation Authority.

• Airports with more than 2 Mio. passenger traffic or more than 50.000 tons of freight:
Aberdeen, Belfast-International, Belfast-City, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff Wales, Ed-
inburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, London-Stansted,
London City, Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Nottingham East Mid-
lands, Prestwick (traffic 2007)

• Type of liberalisation: Full liberalised access at airports with more than 2 million pas-
sengers per year; the number of licenses is not limited by the CAA.

• General requirements for ground handling operations: There is no national licensing

system for ground handlers in the UK.

• Decisive criteria in the tender process: not applicable.

• Sub-contracting: The handling license at LHR does not permit any sub-contracting.

From a summary of the last chapter it can be noted that the legislation for ground handling
differs in the various countries.

The variations will be highlighted in the following chapters by evaluating the answers of the
interviews and the internet survey. The chapters are categorized in the same way the ques-
tionnaire was structured. For more detailed information about the questionnaire please see
the Annex.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 59

4.2 Analyses on competition of ground handling markets
In this section the central findings of the competition analysis of ground handling markets are
shown. According to the methodological approach the analysis is based on the data and in-
formation received from the on-site interviews and the internet survey. A number and airport
of on-site interviews were chosen to represent the whole European Union, whereby the data
can be seen as representative for the developments in the whole Union.

As previously defined the results for the EU-15 airports are presented for the years 1996,
2002 until 2007, while the findings for New Member States airports are shown for the period
2004 until 2007.

If there was no data available the airport is marked with a star in the following figures. The
number in brackets indicates the year of the missing data. In all other cases where no graph
is shown, the handler count is zero.

The following chapters focus on the categories which are defined as limitable by the Direc-
tive 96/67/EC (baggage, freight and mail, ramp and fuel and oil handling). Indeed, it was
considered that ground handling categories which are totally liberalised according to the Di-
rective (such as passenger handling, ground administration…) are less interesting to study
regarding competition issues.

For restricted categories, the developments in the number of self- (airlines) and third party
handlers (airport ground handling subsidiary, independent ground handlers, third party han-
dling airlines) are summarized. Finally the developments of stakeholder specific market
shares are shown.

Generally chapter 4.2.1 to 4.14 are regionally separated. The first section considers airports
in the EU-15, the second airports in the New Member States. At the beginning of each sec-
tion an overview of several airport specific developments is given. Two conclusions for each
of the two different regions follow. One considers all airport data received by on-site inter-
views and the internet survey. The second conclusion is only based on the interview data,
since it reflects a representative data sample in contrast to the whole study data sample,
which over represents the developments at German and Spanish airports. To draw a data
consistent picture of the developments this conclusion could only consider airports providing
data for all three requested years.

Following the analysis of stakeholder or airport specific developments some opinions stated
by stakeholders are shown. These statements engage only the authors’ positions and
should not be seen in any way as EC opinions.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 60

The following definition applies for the whole report:

• Since almost all airlines which are self-handling suppliers also provide third party
handling for other airlines (exceptions are e.g. DHL or Pegasus Airlines) they are
named handling airlines. They are separately examined from other third party han-
dling parties as airports or independent ground handling companies in the following
figures.

• Ground handling companies which are partly owned by an airline (more than 50% of
the shares belong to an airline) are counted as handling airlines.

Resulting from these definitions slight differences can be discovered by comparison with the
data in the SH&E report. Furthermore the following data is only derived from the mentioned
interviews and internet survey, and could not be completed by SH&E data due to the men-
tioned definition differences.

4.2.1 Baggage handling (category 3)

The definition of baggage handling as given by the Directive is as follows " handling baggage
in the sorting area, sorting it, preparing it for departure, loading it on to and unloading it from
the devices designed to move it from the aircraft to the sorting area and vice versa, as well
as transporting baggage from the sorting area to the reclaim area."

The outcomes of the analysis on the number of baggage handling providers are presented in
the Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 below.

In general, the market is dominated by third party handling providers, while a few handling
airlines, especially network carriers at their home bases (e.g. Air France at Paris-CDG), pro-
vide baggage handling.

Developments at EU-15 airports

In the following chart some German airports such as MUC and NUE and also ATH and VIE
airports are marked because they define the baggage handling system including the service
at the system, as Centralized Infrastructure. Therefore all handling providers need to make
use of this service. This implies that only the airport operator is allowed to handle the bag-
gage at the system and then hands it over to the handling provider at a defined interface
(e.g. the terminal edge). From this point on, the handling agent is responsible for the trans-
portation of baggage to the aircraft and the loading/unloading.

By analysing Figure 4-4 it is conspicuous that there are always two handlers active at Ger-
man airports. As already mentioned in chapter 4.1 this is due to German legislation which
foresees two handling licences for third party handling providers as well as handling airlines
for each of the limitable categories.

Regarding the situation in Spain AENA decides individually for every airport about the num-
ber of handling licences by considering the airport and traffic structure. This leads to the

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 61

situation that at those airports there are two third party handling providers (except BCN)
whereas a high number of handling airlines are active. At MAD, AGP and ALC airport the
number of handling airlines has increased extensively since 2002.

This is contrary to the situation in Germany, where no handling airline is active except some
cargo airlines at HAM, LEJ, MUC.

At the majority of airports where data was given, there are two third party baggage handling
providers active. At some airports additionally handling airlines handle their own baggage.
Handling airlines however, only count for one third of all handling providers.

At airports, such as AMS, ARN or MAN, which have already been liberalised before 1996,
the number of handlers seemed to be more or less stable since the implementation of the Di-
rective.

Considering all airports, which participated in the study, the number of third party handling
providers increased by 44 handlers, which means that the number more than doubled in the
time between 1996 and 2007. Comparing those developments with the change in the num-
ber of handling airlines, it can be concluded that there was a smaller increase of 24% during
the same time.

Considering the representative sample (visited airports), the biggest growth in the number of
third party handlers can be seen in the time between 1996 and 2002. There were an addi-
tional 12 handlers, which counts for a growth of 57%. In the following period up until 2007 the
number increased only by 24% to 41 third party handlers in 2007.

For handling airlines the development was not as extensive: in the first period (1996-2002)
there was only a slight increase of three airlines (25%), which resulted in 15 airlines being
active in 2002. Up until 2007 the number increased only by one at the visited airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 62

 Number of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at EU-15 airports
handling providers at EU-15 airports - Baggage handling -
- Baggage handling -
Interview Sample Interview Sample
AM S AM S
ARN ARN
ATH ATH
BR U B RU
C DG CDG
C GN CGN
CP H CP H *
F CO F CO

F RA F RA
HEL HEL
LHR LHR
** **
LIS LIS
M AD M AD

M AN M AN

VIE VIE

Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample

AGP AGP
ALC ALC

B CN BCN
**
DUB DUB
** **
DUS DUS

F AO F AO

F MO F MO

HAJ HAJ

HAM HAM

IB Z IBZ

LEJ LEJ

LGW LGW
** **
M AH
M AH
M UC
MUC
NUE NUE
OP O
OP O
ORK
OR K **
** ORY
OR Y
Airport and independent P MI
P MI ground handling - 2007 Handling airlines -
S NN 2007
S NN **
** Airport and independent S TN Handling airlines -
S TN ** (1996, 2002)
** ground handling - 2002 2002
S TR
S TR
Airport and independent SXF
Handling airlines -
S XF 1996
ground handling - 1996
TXL
TXL * (1996)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available
Airport with centralised baggage handling system including service at the syst em

Figure 4-4: Number of baggage handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 63

Developments at New Member States airports

Figure 4-5 below shows the developments in the number of baggage handling providers in
the New Member States between 2004 and 2007. Since OTP airport did not submit any data,
no results can be shown.

Compared to the EU-15 airports, there is less growth intensity at airports in the New Member
States. Considering the data from all airports participating in the study, the number of third
party handling providers increased from 17 to 20 handlers (+17%). However, the growth of
handling airlines was 50%, even higher than the growth of handling airlines in the EU-15.

Since some of the participating airports are not above the threshold of 2 Mio. Pax or 25.000 t
cargo yet, such as TLL or LJU airport, it is possible that handling monopolies still exist at air-
ports participating in the study.

Num ber of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at NMS airports
handling providers at NMS airports - Baggage handling -
- Baggage handling -

Interview Sample Interview Sample

BTS BTS

BUD BUD

LCA LCA

OTP ** OTP
**

PRG PRG

RIX RIX

SOF SOF

WAW WAW

Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample

LJU LJU

MLA MLA
Airport and independent Handling airlines -
TLL ground handling - 2007 TLL 2007
Airport and independent Handling airlines -
VNO ground handling - 2004 VNO * (2004) 2004

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available
Airport with centralised baggage handling system including service at the system

Figure 4-5: Number of baggage handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member States

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 64

Another factor why the change in the number of third party handling providers was less in-
tensive, is the time since the opening of the market. Since most of the States just entered the
European Union in 2004 or even in 2007, the Directive was only implemented three years
prior to this study at the earliest. Therefore some airports could not organize a tender proce-
dure yet. But even if those factors may have influenced the developments at the airports and
may be responsible for parts of the differences between the EU-15 and the New Member
States, there were a lot more factors (historical background, political systems etc.) which
could have played a role in the developments. Therefore a direct comparison of the two geo-
graphic regions is not possible.

As already mentioned in the section about the EU-15 airports, baggage handling system in-
cluding the service is also defined as Centralized Infrastructure at some airports in the New
Member States. Therefore at those airports only one handler (the airport operator) can han-
dle baggage at the system.

In summarizing data of the representative sample of interviewed airports, it can be concluded

that the number of third party handling providers increased by two agents to 14 (16%) in
2007, the number of handling airlines grew by one to 5 airlines (25%).

Conclusions about baggage handling competition

• The number of baggage handling providers has generally increased at European air-
ports following the introduction of the Directive, in the EU-15 airports as well as in
NMS airports.

• An average growth of 95% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of
third party handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 33% in the
same time. (Due to the representativeness, results are only derived from the data of
interviewed airports.)

• The growth of third party handling agents in the New Member States accounted for
17% between 2004 and 2002, the growth of handling airlines 25%.

• It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number third party handling par-
ties in the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to the
change in the number of handling airlines.

• With the exception of two airports the change (at MLA and BUD airport two handling
airlines entered the market) in the number of handlers per airport did not exceed one
handler.

• The absolute change in the number of third party handling suppliers per airport was
higher in the EU-15 Member States than in the New Member States with the excep-
tion of German and Spanish airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 65

4.2.2 Freight and mail handling (category 4)

The definition of freight and mail handling as given by the Directive is:

• "for freight: physical handling of export, transfer and import freight, handling of re-
lated documents, customs procedures and implementation of any security procedure
agreed between the parties or required by the circumstances;

• for mail: physical handling of incoming and outgoing mail, handling of related docu-
ments and implementation of any security procedure agreed between the parties or
required by the circumstances.”

As the warehouse handling of freight and mail at most airports is fully liberalised, respectively
not limited, the analysis focuses on the number of ground handling suppliers, providing
transportation and loading services on the apron. Considering this clarification, changes in
the number of freight and mail handling providers are presented in the Figure 4-6 and Figure
4-7 below.

Developments at EU-15 airports

Considering EU-15 airports the development shows a similar pattern as already described for
baggage handling. This follows from the fact that most of the third party handling providers
and handling airlines perform the three categories baggage, freight and mail and ramp han-
dling.

More precisely the number of third party handlers at all airports providing data rose from 32
to 52 (63%) until 2002 and again by eight handlers (15%) until 2007. This stands for a growth
of 86% between 1996 and 2007

The number of handling airlines in contrast decreased between 1996 and 2002 by 6 airlines
(26%), but increased by eight airlines until 2007 again. Summarized, this implies a moderate
growth of 9% between 1996 and 2007.

The difference between third party handling providers and handling airlines results mostly
from the fact that there was and is no airline active at German airports (except NUE, LEJ and
HAM, where DHL handles its own cargo).

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 66

 Num ber of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at EU-15 airports
handling providers at EU-15 airports - Freight and Mail handling -
- Freight and Mail handling -
Interview Sample AR N Interview Sample
AM S ATH
AR N
BRU
ATH
C DG
BRU
C GN
C DG
CP H
C GN
FCO
CP H
FRA *
FCO
HEL
FRA
LHR
HEL
LIS
LHR
** M AD
LIS **
M AD
* M AN
***
M AN VIE
**
VIE
AGP
Internet Survey Sample
AGP ** (1996, 2002) ALC Internet Survey Sample
ALC ** (1996, 2002) BCN
**
BCN ** (1996, 2002) DUB
**
DUB DUS
** **
DUS F AO
** **
F AO FMO ***
FMO HAM
HAM
IB Z
IB Z
LEJ
LEJ
LGW
LGW
** M AH
M AH
M UC
M UC **
NUE
NUE
OP O
OP O
OR K
OR K
** OR Y
OR Y
Airport and independent Handling airlines -
P MI
P MI ground handling - 2007 **
S NN 2007
S NN
** Airport and independent Handling airlines -
S TN S TN
** ground handling - 2002 2002
S TR S TR
Airport and independent ** Handling airlines -
S XF S XF
** ground handling - 1996 ** 1996
TXL TXL
*** **
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available
*** Data for three years not available

Figure 4-6: Number of freight and mail handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15

By analysing the representative sample (on-site interviews) and therefore excluding the over
representation of some country specifics, the development shows a more homogeneous pic-
ture: the number of third party freight and mail handling providers as well as handling airlines
grew between 1996 and 2007 by 60%. However, the development within those years differs:
until 2002 third party handlers increased by 33% whereas the number of handling airlines

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 67

decreased by 10%. In the following period until 2007 the number of third party handlers in-
creased by 21% due to the limited number of airlines, which in contrast increased by 77%.

Today there are in average 2,8 (for comparison 1996: 1,8) third party handling providers ac-
tive at each airport out of the representative sample of EU-15 airports and 1,3 (1996: 0,8)
handling airlines.

Developments at New Member States airports

Generally, the development of freight and mail handling providers does not differ extremely
from the developments in baggage handling: at the majority of airports the number of han-
dlers increased since 2004. However, it can be seen, that only at a minority of airports a mo-
nopoly existed before the opening of the market in 2004. Mostly there were at least one third
party handling provider plus one handling airline active.

Analysing the changes of suppliers at all participating airports in the New Member States the
number of freight and mail handling providers (transport and loading on the apron) increased
by 41% (2004: 17; 2007: 24) and handling airlines increased by 33% (2004: 6; 2007: 8).

Comparing it with the growth of the representative sample it is similar but slightly higher. At
the visited airports the number of third party handling providers increased from 13 to 18 han-
dlers (38%) whereas the number of handling airlines increased from 5 to 6 (20%) in the time
between 2004 and 2007.

Today there are in average 2,6 (2004: 1,9) third party handling providers active at each air-
port from the representative sample of NMS airports and one (2004: 0,8) handling airline.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 68

 Num ber of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at NMS airports
handling providers at NMS airports - Freight and Mail handling -
- Freight and Mail handling -

Interview Sample Interview Sample

BTS BTS

BUD BUD

LCA LCA

OTP OTP
** **
PRG PRG

RIX RIX

SOF SOF

WAW WAW

Internet Survey Sample

Airport and Internet Survey Sample
LJU independent ground
LJU
handling - 2007
MLA Airport and MLA
independent ground Handling airlines -
TLL handling - 2004 2007
** TLL **
Handling airlines -
VNO VNO 2004
** (2004)
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available

Figure 4-7: Number of freight and mail handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member
States

Conclusions about freight and mail handling competition

• Following the introduction of the Directive, the number of freight and mail handling
providers has generally increased at European airports (in the EU-15 airports as well
as in NMS airports).

• An average growth of 62% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of
third party handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 60% in the
same time. (Due to the representation given, results are only derived from the data of
interviewed airports.)

• The growth of third party handling agents in the New Member States accounted for
39% between 2004 and 2002, the growth of handling airlines 20%.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 69

 • It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number of third party handling
providers in the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to
the change in the number of handling airlines.

• With the exception of one airport the change (at BUD airport two handling airlines as
well as two third party handling agents entered the market) in the number of handlers
per airport did not exceed one handler.

4.2.3 Ramp handling (category 5.4)

The definition of ramp handling as given by the Directive comprises:

• " marshalling the aircraft on the ground at arrival and departure;

• assistance to aircraft packing and provision of suitable devices;

• communication between the aircraft and the air-side supplier of services;

• the loading and unloading of the aircraft, including the provision and operation of suit-
able means, the transport of crew and passengers between the aircraft and the ter-
minal, as well as baggage transport between the aircraft and the terminal;

• the provision and operation of appropriate units for engine starting;

• the moving of the aircraft at arrival and departure, as well as the provision and opera-
tion of suitable devices;

• the transport, loading on to and unloading from the aircraft of food and beverages.”

Changes in the number of handling airlines and third party suppliers providing ramp handling
are presented in the Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 below.

Developments at EU-15 airports

Considering the time before the opening of the market a monopolistic situation can be found
at many airports across the EU-15 Member States. Only a few of them had a fully open ramp
handling market such as AMS, ARN, MAN, PMI or HEL airport. At those there were in sum at
least four handlers (including handling airlines) active.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 70

 Num be r of airport and inde pe nde nt ground Num be r of handling airline s at EU-15 airports
handling provide rs at EU-15 airports - Ramp handling -
- Ramp handling -

Interview Sample Interview Sample

AM S AM S
AR N AR N
A TH A TH
BRU BRU
C DG C DG
C GN C GN
CP H CP H
*
FCO FCO
FRA FRA
HEL H EL

LH R LH R
** **
LIS LIS
* M AD
M AD
M AN M AN
VIE VIE

Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample

AG P AGP

ALC A LC
BCN BCN
D UB D UB
** **
DUS D US
F AO F AO
FMO FMO
HA J HAJ
H AM H AM
IB Z IB Z
LEJ LEJ
LGW LG W
** **
M AH M AH
M UC M UC
NUE N UE

OP O OP O
OR K OR K
** **
OR Y OR Y
Handling airlines -
P MI Airport and independent P MI
2007
S NN
ground handling - 2007 S NN
** ** Handling airlines -
S TN Airport and independent S TN ** (1996, 2002)
** 2002
ground handling - 2002 S TR
S TR
Airport and independent Handling airlines -
S XF S XF
ground handling - 1996 1996
TXL TXL * (1996)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available

Figure 4-8: Number of ramp handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15

The situation changed in the period between 1996 and 2002: regarding the data of all air-
ports participating in the study the number of third party handling providers almost doubled
from 37 to 71 (92%). Handling airlines instead had only a moderate growth of 9% from 34 to
37 airlines in this time frame. In the following period between 2002 and 2007, handling air-
lines also expanded their activities by 30%. The number of third party providers increased
with less intensity by 13% from 71 to 79 handlers.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 71

Regarding the results of the representative sample and therefore the more general trends in
the European Union, the growth showed a different pattern: the number of third party

handlers grew less in the first period (43%), but more in the second phase (27%) than com-
pared to the data from all airports.

This results in a constant growth of one handler at airports from the internet sample whereas
in the representative sample some of the airports were already liberalised before 1996 (AMS,
ARN, MAN) and showed a zero growth or even a decrease in the number of third party han-
dlers between 1996 and 2002.

Concerning handling airlines, the number grew within the representative sample by two air-
lines in both periods of time instead of being stable respectively growing by seven airlines
when considering all airport data.

Developments at New Member States airports

Analysing the findings, shown in Figure 4-9 below, the number of third party ramp handling
providers at all participating airports in the New Member States increased by seven compa-
nies (27%) and the number of handling airlines grew by four airlines (40%).

It can also be seen that the number of additional companies only rose by one at each airport
or remained stable between 2004 and 2007. This means that there were rather less intense
changes in the market structure at those airports. This may result from the size of the airports
and their traffic volume, which is relatively small in comparison to airports in the EU-15 (like
ORY, CPH or CDG), where more handling companies started their operations after the open-
ing of the market.

A higher growth can be seen in the number of handling airlines. At LCA and SOF airport one
new airline entered the ramp handling market, at BUD and MLA airport even two airlines
started their operations since the opening of the market.

The development within the representative sample (visited airports) in the New Member
States shows a very similar pattern as the described development at all participating airports:
there was a general increase of third party and handling providers. More precisely, the num-
ber of third party handlers increased by 27% (three companies) while handling airlines in-
creased by 40% (two airlines).

This implies an average number of third party handling providers at each airport of 1,6 in the
year 2004 and of 2,0 in 2007. The average of handling airlines is less. It counts for 0,8 air-
lines in 2004 and 1,2 in 2007 at the representative sample of airports in the New Member
States.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 72

 Num ber of airport and independent ground Number of handling airlines at NMS airports
handling providers at NMS airports - Ramp Handling -
- Ramp Handling -

Interview Sample Interview Sample

BTS BTS

BUD BUD

LCA LCA

OTP OTP **
**
PRG PRG

RIX RIX

SOF SOF

WAW WAW

Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample

LJU Airport and independent LJU

ground handling - 2007 Handling airlines -
MLA MLA
Airport and independent 2007

TLL ground handling - 2004 TLL Handling airlines -

2004
VNO VNO * (2004)

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available

Figure 4-9: Number of ramp handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member States

Conclusions about ramp handling competition

• The number of ramp handling providers has generally increased at European airports
following the introduction of the Directive, in the EU-15 airports as well as in NMS air-
ports.

• An average growth of 81% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of
third party handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 27% in the
same time. (Due to representation given, results are only derived from the data of in-
terviewed airports.)

• Between 2004 and 2007 the growth of third party handling agents in the New Member
States accounted for 27%, the growth of handling airlines 40%.

• It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number of third party handling
providers in the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to
the change in the number of handling airlines.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 73

 • With the exception of two airports the change (at MLA and BUD airport two handling
airlines entered the market) in the number of handlers per airport did not exceed one
handler.

• The absolute change in the number of third party handling suppliers per airport was
higher in the EU-15 Member States than in the New Member States with the excep-
tion of German and Spanish airports.

4.2.4 Fuel and oil handling (category 7)

The definition of fuel and oil handling as given by the Directive comprises:

• "the organization and execution of fuelling and defuelling operations, including the
storage of fuel and the control of the quality and quantity of fuel deliveries;

• the replenishing of oil and other fluids."

Changes in the number of handling airlines and ground handling suppliers providing fuel and
oil services are presented in the Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11 below. As the market for fuel
and oil handling seems to be dominated by petroleum companies only a very limited number
of handling airlines operates in this market. This is also the reason for many participating
ground handling companies not knowing details about the number of fuel and oil handling
providers. No stakeholder of airports in the EU-15 having participated in the study provides
fuel and oil handling himself. Only a few handlers in the New Member States are active.

Developments at EU-15 airports

Considering all airports in the EU-15 providing data the number of third party providers as
well as the number of handling airlines remained stable. Compared to 1996 the quantity of
self-handlers in 2002 increased by one, while the number of third party handlers increased
by two. In the following period until 2007 the number of handling airlines stayed on the same
level while the number of third party handlers increased by one.

By only taking the representative sample into account the developments seem to be almost
identical. While the number of handling airlines remained stable in the whole period of time,
the number of third party handlers increased by one in each time frame.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 74

 Num ber of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at EU-15 airports
handling providers at EU-15 airports - Fuel and Oil handling -
- Fuel and Oil handling -

Interview Sample Interview Sample

AM S AM S
A RN A RN
A TH A TH
B RU B RU
CDG CDG
CGN CGN
CP H CP H
** ** (1996, 2002)
FCO FCO ** (1996, 2002)
FRA FRA
HEL HEL ** (1996, 2002)
**
LHR LHR ** (1996, 2002)
**
LIS LIS
** *
M AD *** M AD ***
M AN M AN
VIE VIE
Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample
A GP *** A GP ***
A LC *** A LC
***
B CN *** B CN
***
DUB DUB ** (1996, 2002)
**
DUS ** (1996, 2002) DUS ** (1996, 2002)
FA O FA O
* (2007)
FM O FM O
HA J *** HA J ***
HA M HA M
IB Z *** IB Z
LEJ LEJ
M AH M AH
***
M UC M UC
NUE NUE
OP O OP O
** * (1996)
ORK ORK
** Airport and independent ** (1996, 2002) Handling airlines -
ORY ground handling - 2007 ORY 2007
PM I *** PM I ***
Airport and independent Handling airlines -
SNN ground handling - 2002 SNN ** (1996, 2002) 2002
**
STR STR Handling airlines -
Airport and independent
SXF *** ground handling - 1996 SXF *** 1996
TXL *** TXL ***
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available
*** Data for three years not available

Figure 4-10: Number of fuel and oil handling providers in 1996, 2002 and 2007 – EU-15

Developments at New Member States airports

In regard to the findings of the airports in the New Member States the number of fuel and oil
handling third party suppliers as well as the number of handling airlines remained stable.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 75

 Num ber of airport and independent ground Num ber of handling airlines at NMS airports
handling providers at NMS airports - Fuel and Oil handling -
- Fuel and Oil handling -

Interview Sample Airport and independent Handling airlines -

ground handling - 2007 Interview Sample
2007
BTS Airport and independent BTS Handling airlines -
ground handling - 2004 2004
BUD BUD

LCA LCA

OTP OTP **
**
PRG PRG

RIX RIX

SOF SOF

WAW WAW

Internet Survey Sample Internet Survey Sample

LJU LJU

MLA MLA

TLL TLL

VNO VNO
* (2004)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

* Data for one year not available

** Data for two years not available

Figure 4-11: Number of fuel and oil handling providers in 2004 and 2007 – New Member
States

Conclusions about fuel and oil handling competition

• In contrast to category 3,4 and 5 the number of fuel and oil handling companies did
not homogeneously increase at the interviewed airports. Only the number of third
party handling providers in the EU-15 could post an increase.

• An average growth of 8% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of third
party handling companies. Handling airlines did not show a change in the same time.
(Due to the representation given, results are only derived from the data of interviewed
airports.)

• In the New Member States no change could be seen in the number of third party pro-
viders as well as handling airlines.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 76

Conclusions about ground handling competition

The following elements can be pointed out regarding the development in competition ground
handling:

Table 4-1 gives an overview of the developments at the airports of the representative sample
(Note: the data could only be considered if it was available for all three requested years). It
can be concluded that the number of third party handling provider increased in each of the
limitable categories whereas the growth between 1996 and 2002 was higher than in the pe-
riod between 2002 and 2007.

The number of handling airlines increased as well, with a slight exception in the freight and
mail handling category between 1996 and 2002, where one handler left the market; and in
the fuel and oil handling category, where one airline left the market in the second period.

EU-15 (Representative Sample)

Third Party Handling Self Handling
1996 2002 2007 1996 2002 2007
Baggage handling 21 33 41 Baggage handling 12 15 16
Freight&mail handling 21 28 34 Freight&mail handling 10 9 16
Ramp Handling 21 30 38 Ramp Handling 15 17 19
Fuel&Oil Handling 26 27 28 Fuel&Oil Handling 1 1 1

Table 4-1: Overview of developments in the number of handlers in the EU-15

New Member States (Representative Sample)

Third Party Handling Self Handling
2004 2007 2004 2007
Baggage handling 12 14 Baggage handling 4 5
Freight&mail handling 13 18 Freight&mail handling 5 6
Ramp Handling 11 14 Ramp Handling 5 7
Fuel&Oil Handling 12 12 Fuel&Oil Handling 2 2

Table 4-2: Overview of developments in the number of handlers in the New Member States

4.2.5 Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling

In coherence with the analysis of the number of ground handling parties, developments and
structural changes of the stakeholder specific market presence in terms of market shares are
assessed.

Since all participating handling companies are active in ramp handling but not in all of the
other three limitable categories, the following chapters are based on the received data on
ramp handling (market shares in handled aircrafts). As already done in the chapter before,
the results are presented for the EU-15 and New Member States ground handling markets
separately.

Even though we did not receive reliable data, on the development of the stakeholder specific
market shares in ramp handling (based on volume aircraft handled) from the 22 visited air-
ports, some trends and tendencies might become clear.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 77

EU-15 Member States

Generally, since the opening of the ground handling markets in the EU-15 countries the mar-
ket shares of the independent ground handling providers increased while the market shares
of the airport ground handling subsidiaries remained stable or decreased. The shares of
handling airlines stagnated or decreased. The developments seem to be reasonable, since
some airport operators (e.g. airport operators at several German airports) respectively air-
lines (Olympic Airways at Athens Airport), lost their ground handling monopolies and new in-
dependent ground handling providers entered the market. Additionally, some airport opera-
tors decided to sell their handling subsidiary (e.g. Roma-Fiumicino Airport) to independent
ground handling providers. Another development has taken place at Portuguese airports LIS,
OPO and FAO, where the airport operator set up its own handling subsidiary in 2000 and
gained market shares while the handling subsidiary of the main carrier lost shares.

Furthermore, it can be highlighted that the substantial changes in the EU-15 have taken
place in the first period between 1996 and 2002. The following developments where not as
much about companies leaving or entering the market, but more about already active com-
panies gaining or loosing parts of their market shares.

A change of -100% in market share for an airline means that, the airline lost all of its market
shares between 1996 and 2002 e.g. at LIS airport, and therefore the airport ground handlers
and independent ground handling companies gained in total 100% of the airport ground han-
dling market.

The findings related to the EU-15 ground handling markets are presented in Figure 4-12 and
Figure 4-13.

Development of stakeholder specific market shares in the EU-15 1996-2002

100
Airport GH
Changes of market shares in percentage point

80
Airline GH
60 Independent GH
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
40
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

AGP no data
ALC no data

DUB no data

IBZ no data

MAH no data

NUE no data

ORK no data

PMI no data

SNN no data
no data

no data

no data

BCN no data

FMO no data
HAJ no data

LGW no data

ORY no data
no data

STN no data

SXF no data

20

0
TXL
ATH

STR
LIS

VIE

LEJ
HEL
ARN

BRU

CGN
CPH

LHR

MAD
MAN

MUC
CDG

FCO

FAO

OPO
HAM
AMS

FRA

DUS

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

Figure 4-12: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling between
1996 and 2002 – EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 78

 Development of stakeholder specific market shares in the EU-15 2002-2007

100
Airport GH
Changes of market shares in percentage point

80
Airline GH
60 Independent GH
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
40
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data

no data
no data

no data
no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
20

TXL
IBZ

SXF
ATH

STN
STR
PMI
LIS

VIE

HAJ

LEJ
ARN

BRU

CGN
CPH

LHR

MAD
MAN

ALC
BCN

MAH
MUC

SNN
HEL
CDG

FCO

FAO
FMO

OPO
HAM
AMS

FRA

AGP

DUB
DUS

NUE

ORK
ORY
LGW
-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

Figure 4-13: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling between
2002 and 2007 – EU-15

New Member States

Since the opening of the ground handling markets in the New Member States, the stake-
holder specific market shares in ramp handling changed similar to the developments in the
EU-15. Generally, the market shares of independent ground handling providers increased
more or less significantly, while market shares of airport ground handling subsidiaries and
handling airlines decreased. The findings seem to be reasonable since ground handling mo-
nopolies were opened (e.g. Sofia Airport) and ground handling subsidiaries of airports sold
(e.g. Budapest Airport) as well as new independent ground handling providers entered the
markets. The results of the analysis are summarised in the figure below.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 79

 Development of stakeholder specific market shares in the NMS 2004-
2007

100
Changes of market shares in percentage

80

60
40 no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
20
*
point

0 *
OTP

PRG

RIX
BUD

LJU
SOF
BTS

TLL

VNO
LCA

MLA
WAW
-20

-40
Airport GH
-60 Airline GH
-80 Independent GH

-100

* Data only available for one stakeholder

Figure 4-14: Performance of stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling between
2004 and 2007 – New Member States

Conclusion about stakeholder specific market shares in ground handling

The main results are the following:

• In terms of market shares, the main changes can be observed in airports where the
airport operator was previously in monopoly, and where the market was opened fol-
lowing the introduction of the Directive. Due to the implementation of the Directive
monopolies do not exist any more.

• As a general rule, the market shares of independent ground handling providers in-
creased while market shares of airport ground handling subsidiaries and handling air-
lines decreased.

• The most important changes in the development of the market shares have taken
place in the period from 1996 to 2002 when the markets were opened, new handling
agents entered the market and competition started to increase.

• Developments in the EU-15 and the New Member States are similar.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 80

4.3 Contestable markets
Preliminary remark

At many airports, airlines self-handle and provide handling services for other airlines. Espe-
cially at major hub airports like Madrid-Barajas or Paris-CDG, where the dominant air carriers
operate the majority of the total handling volume via self-handling and third party handling for
alliance partners. Since the self-handled traffic volume is not open for third party handling
providers, the engagement of handling airlines limits the contestable market for competitors
as well as largely influencing the cost structures due to economies of scale.

For the underlying approach the contestable market is defined as the market open to third
party ground handling providers. The contestable market therefore excludes the handling
volume, which is self-handled by airlines. Vice versa the third party handling volume that an
airline operates for other airlines (e.g. provided for alliance partners) is considered as con-
testable.

However, it should be noted that some independent ground handling companies also stated
that the handling volume, which is provided for other airlines, is not contestable either. But
this objection is not included in the definition, which is underlying in this report.

Considering this definition, the stakeholders were asked to estimate the size of the contest-
able market for ramp handling at the airports and to indicate its development since the intro-
duction of the Directive. The contestable market gives a more realistic picture on the situation
at the airports and the chances for new handling companies to gain market shares.

In the following figures an estimation of the contestable market given by two different stake-
holders is shown. If the airport is marked with a star then only one stakeholder has provided
an answer. If there is a star and no bar shown then the estimate of the stakeholder who an-
swered is zero (e.g. FMO and LEJ). Two stars point out that no answer was provided (e.g.
LEJ and TXL for the year 1996). Not more than two different answers were given.

EU-15 Member States

Figure 4-15 to Figure 4-16 present the findings of EU-15 airports and give an overview of the
estimates different stakeholders have given.

A 100% contestable market means that no handling airline is active at the airport and there-
fore the whole market is contestable for other ground handling companies. Vice versa a con-
testable market share of 0% describes a situation where only handling airlines are active at
the airport.

The results show that the stakeholders’ estimates vary extremely in some cases. This is
mainly due to the fact that the stakeholders have different opinions about the power of a
main carrier and therefore the contestability of its market share.

In general airport operators and airlines tend towards higher estimates, while independent
ground handling providers indicate smaller portions of the contestable markets. Therewith

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 81

those stakeholders expressed their view, that due to long-term contracts the total portion of
the contestable market is not accessible under a short and medium term perspective.

This can for example be seen at Frankfurt airport: one stakeholder rates the share of Luf-
thansa as contestable since the airline is not self-handling but handled by Fraport, which
makes the whole market at FRA airport contestable. The other stakeholder however has a
different view: he rates the market share for 50%. Due to the fact that Lufthansa has a high
traffic volume at this airport it is operationally not possible for a new market entrant or a small
handling company to operate such a high volume. Therefore the market share of Lufthansa
can not be seen as contestable. Therefore, the same situation can be seen differently at the
same airport. The same situation can also be noticed at Vienna airport.

Beside the differences between the stakeholders’ estimates, the figures show that the size of
the contestable markets changed over time at airports where the contestable market was
relatively small by the time of the opening of the market. This is due to the fact that handling
airlines left the market or lost parts of their market shares. This can be seen at BRU airport
where Sabena left the market in 2001 and therefore the contestable market reached 100% in
2002.

On the contrary there are also airports at which the handling airline remained powerful over
the whole period of time as well. This can be seen at HEL airport, where the stakeholder es-
timates the size of the contestable market for 20% of the whole market due to the high mar-
ket volume of Finnair which is handled by Finnair’s ground handling subsidiary Northport.
The same situation can be observed at AMS airport where KLM has a high traffic volume,
which reduces the share of the contestable market to approximately 30%.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 82

 Estimates on the contestable markets at EU-15 airports -
Representative Sample
1996 Stakeholder 1
ARN AMS

2002 *
2007 * Stakeholder 2
1996 *
2002
2007
1996
ATH

2002
2007 *
1996
CPH CGN CDG BRU

2002
2007
1996
2002
2007
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002 No data
2007
1996
FCO

2002
2007
1996 *
FRA

2002
2007
1996 *
HEL

2002 *
2007
1996
LHR

2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
LIS

2002 No data
2007
1996
MAN MAD

2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 **
VIE

2002
2007

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage
* Data of second stakeholder not available

Figure 4-15: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at EU-15 airports - Representa-
tive Sample

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 83

 Estimates on the contestable markets at EU-15 airports -
Internet survey data
1996
IBZ HAM HAJ FMO FAO DUS DUB BCN ALC AGP

2002 No data
2007 Stakeholder 1
1996 Stakeholder 2
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996 *
2002
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996 *
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002
2007
1996
2002 *
2007
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
**
TXL SXF STR STN SNN PMI ORY ORK OPO NUE MUC MAH LGW LEJ

2002 *
2007 *
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002
2007
1996
2002
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002 No data
2007
1996
2002 *
2007 *
1996 *
2002
2007
1996 *
2002
2007
1996 **
2002
2007 *
*
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage

Figure 4-16: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at EU-15 airports – Internet
survey data

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 84

If we analyze the results obtained from the internet survey, we can conclude that they do not
differ from the developments within the representative sample.

At German airports such as DUS, HAM, MUC, HAJ and NUE, stakeholders estimated the
contestable market in 1996 to be zero even though there was no handling airline active. Re-
garding the underlying definition those answers may be misleading. These statements how-
ever may result from the fact that the markets were not contestable at all in 1996 not be-
cause of the presence of handling airlines, but because of airport operators having a monop-
oly in handling activities. This changed with the opening of the market as it became fully con-
testable. (This development is described more closely in chapter 4.2.5.)

PMI and IBZ airport results reflect the decreasing market share of handling airline and there-
fore an increasing share of the contestable market.

Estimates on contestable markets at NMS airports -

Representative sample
2004
BTS

*
2007
2004
BUD

*
2007
2004
LCA

*
2007
2004
OTP

No data
2007
2004
PRG

2007
2004
RIX

*
2007 *
2004
WAW SOF

*
2007
* Stakeholder 1
2004 **
2007 Stakeholder 2
*

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
*Data of second stakeholder not available
** Data for both stakeholders not available

Figure 4-17: Contestable market estimates for ramp handling at airports in the New Member
States – Representative Sample

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 85

New Member States

At New Member States airports the contestable market in 2007 is estimated to be more than
50% in average, which means that the market share of handling airlines active at those air-
ports comprise less than 50% of the whole market.

Nevertheless, the developments seem to be heterogeneous: at some airports such as BTS

the contestable market decreased since the implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC. This
may be due to an increasing market volume of handling airlines at those airports. However,
this can only be noticed at a minority of airports and is in contrast to the findings of the chap-
ter before: The market share of handling airlines mostly decreased since the opening of the
market, as it can be seen at RIX or BUD airport.

Further general positions to the contestable market are summarised below:

• Changes of the contestable markets are largely influenced by the performance of the
main carriers. At many airports the contestable market increased, since the network
carriers lost market shares in competition with the low cost carriers (e.g. Olympic Air-
lines ceased self-handling at Athens airport and switched to an independent ground
handling provider).

• As the definition of ‘contestable market’ considers the handling volume available for
third party handling activities and in opposition to the self-handling volume, it should
be noted, that due to long term contracts, complexity and size, the handling volume of
the main carrier, in most cases, is not accessible in practice either (e.g. Handling vol-
ume of Austrian Airlines at Vienna airport).

• Some of the airport operators at limited markets mentioned that the size of the con-
testable market is used to define the optimum number of handling licences before
tender.

Conclusion about ground handling contestable markets

The following conclusions can be drawn about the contestable markets at airports:

• In general, the ground handling market at airports is considered by stakeholders as

open to third party handling following the introduction of the Directive.

• However, some elements are viewed as limiting the opening of the market:

o the high volume handled by the main carriers is hampering small companies
to enter the market

o the share of ground handling volume, which the airlines operates itself is not
contestable for ground handling companies

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 86

 • However, as the share of handling airlines is decreasing over time, i.e. the contest-
able market becomes bigger;

• For New Member States, opening of the market at certain airports is still on-going (or
future);

• Market opening is cyclical at airports with limited markets (i.e. with licensed ground
handling activities): the market can be seen as closed between two renewals of the
contracts.

4.4 Changes in handling prices

In this section the central findings on price developments for ground handling services are
summarised. Based on the interviews, we asked the stakeholders to estimate the price de-
velopments for ground handling services in general, i.e. the development of the amount of
money asked to the airline for the same activity within the reference periods. If no detailed
information was available stakeholders, were supposed to estimate qualitatively the direction
of the development. The general price changes in ground handling markets are shown in
Figure 4-18 until Figure 4-20.

EU-15 Member States

At the majority of airports, in the period between 1996 and 2002, prices decreased inten-
sively an average of approximately 12%. The changes seem to be more or less identical
within the representative data and the internet survey data.

In contrast to this development at HEL airport prices increased between 1996 and 2002
mainly due to increasing traffic volume with a healthy number of handlers active. During this
time the number of handlers remained stable which allowed the handlers to increase the
prices for handling services. The situation changed between 2002 and 2007 when competi-
tion increased (two handling providers entered the market) and handlers needed to react with
price reductions to gain customers. According to the information provided by an independent
ground handling company prices decreased even more than they have increased between
1996 and 2002.

A similar situation was given at CGN airport: in the first period the airport operator invested in
infrastructure and therefore also increased the prices for handling services. This however
could not be retained when a new handler started operations at CGN and therefore in-
creased competition. But in contrast to the development at HEL airport prices remained sta-
ble at CGN airport.

At LEJ airport, Portground is apart from DHL (which just handles its own cargo aircraft) the
only handling provider, since LEJ is not over the threshold of 2 Mio. PAX yet. This implies a
more or less monopolistic situation whereby Portground could increase the prices in both

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 87

periods according to the increasing costs the company faced during that time due to increas-
ing fuel costs and investments in GSE equipment.

Changes in handling prices 1996 - 2002

30
Airport
no change (qualitative estimate)
Airlines

20 Independent GH
Change in percentage points

Interview Data Internet Survey Data

10

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data
no data
0
AMS

HAM
MAD
MAN

MAH

SXF
PMI
FAO
FMO
FRA

VIE

AGP

ORY
HAJ

TXL
ARN
ATH

ALC

MUC
CDG

FCO

OPO
IBZ

LGW
LEJ
LIS

DUB
DUS

NUE

ORK
BRU

CGN
CPH

LHR

BCN

SNN
STN
STR
HEL

-10

-20

-30

Figure 4-18: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between 1996 un-
til 2002 - airports in the EU-15

Between 2002 and 2007 prices decreased at most airports. 75% of participating stakeholders
at EU-15 airports stated a decrease of prices and only 22% saw an increase. Stakeholders
even mentioned that prices decreased with a higher intensity than in the previous period:
prices changed on average approximately by 15%. At airports with increasing prices they
had a change with an intensity of 7%.

It seems as if stakeholders noticed different price changes at the same airport. This can be
seen at MAN or VIE airport where the airport operator stated a decrease and the independ-
ent ground handling provider stated an increase. This might be due to different price base
levels. Airport operators might be on a higher price level since they had had a handling mo-
nopoly before the opening of the market and therefore higher price levels. Independent
ground handling providers however need to have a lower price level for entering a new mar-
ket.

At FRA, FCO or ATH airport stakeholders had the same view on the price developments
whereas the intensity of changes differs.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 88

At FCO airport competition increased since 2005 when the market was fully opened. Compe-
tition was mainly on prices even if the airport tries to compete on quality and on the creation
of broad and individually costumer adjusted handling packages. The handling airline also
sees increasing competition as reason for decreasing prices. The airline however also
pointed out that they try to balance the costs due to high oil prices by lowering handling
prices. (The handling airline remunerates to its own handling department.)

With focus on the visited EU-15 airports it might be stated, that at airports with a former
handling monopoly (e.g. Vienna airport) prices decreased with a higher intensity than at
airports, which have already had open markets. Since the ADR (Aeroporti di Roma) sold its
ground handling subsidiary at Roma-Fiumicino airport in 2005 and grants unlimited access to
the market, handling prices decreased on a larger scale.

Changes in handling prices 2002 - 2007

30
Airport
(qualitative estimate)
no change Airlines
20 Independent GH
Change in percentage points

Interview Data Internet Survey

10 Data
CPH no data

no data

no data
LHR no data

no data

no data
no data
no data

no data

STN no data
0

TXL
IBZ

SXF
ATH

STR
LIS

VIE

PMI
HAJ

LEJ
ARN

BRU

CGN

MAD
MAN

ALC
BCN

MAH
MUC

SNN
HEL
CDG

FCO

FAO
FMO

OPO
HAM
AMS

FRA

AGP

DUB
DUS

NUE

ORK
ORY
LGW

-10

-20

-30

Figure 4-19: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between 2002 un-
til 2007 - airports in the EU-15

Although the perception on price changes differs between the airports, it can be concluded,
that since the introduction of the Directive, prices in ground handling markets decreased, and
that the Directive and increasing competition are not the single driver of the developments.

Other drivers which have contributed to the decrease, but at a minor scale, are :

• higher pressure from the airlines which resulted in higher productivity and process
improvements by the handling company which could then reduce the prices.

• the economies of scale due to increasing traffic volume and a stable number of
handlers.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 89

New Member States

Changes in handling prices 2004 - 2007

30
Airport
no change (qualitative estimate)
Airlines
20 Independent GH
Change in percentage points

Interview data Internet survey data

10
no data

no data

no data

no data
RIX no data

no data
0

LJU

TLL
BTS

OTP
BUD

PRG

VNO
SOF
LCA

MLA
WAW
-10

-20

-30

Figure 4-20: Stakeholder specific estimates on changes in handling prices between 2004 un-
til 2007 - airports in the New Member States

Considering the findings for the ground handling markets in the New Member States it could
be concluded, that prices for ground handling services decreased since the introduction of
the Directive 96/67/EC. Prague airport stakeholders indicated an increase of handling prices
due to an increase of the exchange rate of Czech Crowns to the Euro, even though the level
of competition increased.

At LJU and TLL airport the prices did not change. Since these airports are not over the
threshold of 2 Mio. PAX yet, competition did not start either. This could be the reason for the
stable prices and would vice versa explain why prices decreased at airports with an
increasing number of handlers and thereby more competition.

At BTS airport, stakeholders have the same view on the developments, but for different
reasons: The airport stated decreasing prices mainly due to increasing pressure caused by
the airlines. However, the handling airline itself saw decreasing prices due to developments
in the financial market and hence resulting in a more powerful Slovak Crown compared to the
EUR.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 90

Stakeholder specific positions about price developments

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport operators:

• In accordance with the increase of competition prices for ground handling services
decreased.

• Since the start of the Directive, the competition has been more on prices than on
quality, in many cases.

• The decreases of handling prices are largely affected by the pricing pressure of
airlines.

• Price developments are market specific and vary from airport to airport.

• At some airports ground handling prices increased due to inflation, currency

exchange rates and increased wages (e.g. collective labour agreements) as well as
to higher costs for the use of infrastructure even though the intensity of competition
increased.

Airlines:

• In addition to the liberalisation of European aviation markets, the liberalisation of

ground handling markets, increasing competition affects prices and quality.

• Due to market consolidation and increasing costs for ground handling operation air-
lines could face increasing prices for ground handling services in the future.

• Since some ground handling markets are limited, further decreases of handling prices
could be realised by an increase of the required minimum number of suppliers.

• On the contrary, many airports have fully liberalised their access to ground handling
markets without negative effects on quality.

Independent ground handling providers:

• Prices for ground handling services decreased due to:

o Increasing competition since the introduction of the Directive

o Process improvements and increasing efficiency

o Investment in more efficient ground support equipment.

• In many cases decreasing prices are compensated by increasing productivity.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 91

 • At some stations, ground handling prices increased due to inflation, currency
exchange rates and increased wages as well as due to higher costs for the use of
infrastructure, even though the intensity of competition increased.

• Since prices for ground handling services decreased while operational costs
increased, making operations unprofitable, some independent ground handling
companies would favour the definition of minimum handling prices to ensure healthy
competition and social standards.

Conclusion about changes in handling prices

• In general, the ground handling prices at airports decreased following the introduction
of the Directive and the subsequent increase in competition.

• At EU-15 airports, the prices continued to decrease between 2002 and 2007. This
tends to prove that competition still exists in the European ground handling market
(due to the renewal of licences for restricted markets and the continuous pressure of
market openness for others).

• For New Member States it can be concluded that prices decreased since the opening
of the markets. However at some airports competition did not start yet whereby prices
did not change either.

• Therefore prices will still decrease in the future at New Member States airports.

• The trend of decrease in prices is maintained thanks to competition pressure at air-

ports covered by the Directive; however the extent to which prices decreased was in-
fluenced by other factors such as improvements in ground handling technology (for
instance, GH today relies less on manpower than in the past for the same activity
thanks to GSE developments) or competition between airports to serve as hubs for
airlines (GH are in competition even if they are not at the same airport).

4.5 Changes in Quality Levels

In the following analysis the central findings on changes in quality levels for ground handling
services are summarised. Based on the interviews, we asked the stakeholders to indicate the
changes in quality level for passenger and for airline convenience in the reference periods
(The following possible answers were given: Improvement, deterioration or no change).
Since the majority of stakeholders could not rate the passenger convenience the results
shown in Table 4-3 until Table 4-5 are based on the general development of ‘quality for air-
line convenience’. It is not differentiated between the four limitable categories in order to
have enough results in term of representation.

EU-15 Member States

Taking the first period between 1996 and 2002 into account changes in quality differ from
airport to airport in the EU-15. The answers given by different stakeholders at the same air-

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 92

port are consistent even though they are not identical in all cases (improvement – no change
e.g. at FRA or VIE airport).

For the second period more stakeholders indicated the developments. In this period stake-
holders more often even had contrary opinions on the developments as it can be seen at
ARN, FCO, VIE or HAM airport.

To give an insight on the reasons for those contrary opinions some airports are analyzed
more closely in the following section:

Quality seems to be driven by several different factors which are often airport specific: some
stakeholders saw deteriorating quality due to old handling infrastructure or due to capacity
constraints at the centralized infrastructure such as the baggage handling system. This was
the case at FCO airport where some stakeholders mentioned a lack of investments as a
cause for difficulties in operations, additionally intensified by an increasing number of han-
dling companies.

At ARN airport however the airport operator stated that investments in new infrastructure in
baggage handling systems, investments in new cargo facilities and new physical areas for
cargo handling, expansion of airport hydrant system, De-icing facilities etc. resulted in quality
improvements. The handling airline however saw deteriorating quality levels even though the
investments were done. This was due to the company needing to concentrate on cost reduc-
tion and thus could not keep quality on the existing level anymore.

At HEL airport three stakeholders had totally different opinions: as already mentioned at the
previous airports the ground handling provider stated that there was no change in service
levels but airport facilities are still limited. The airport operator saw a deterioration not due to
infrastructure reasons but due to the changes since 9/11, when the airline industry came un-
der heavy pressure. Since then there is deterioration recognisable, in the lack of staff and
supervision of staff and additionally also untrained staff. The airline in contrast stated that
through EU-Ops regulations the quality of ground handling improved. But security require-
ments made life harder for all parties operating at airports around the world.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 93

 Benchmark: Development of quality between 1996 and 2002
Airport Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
AMS Deterioration No change ---
ARN Improvement Improvement ---
ATH --- --- No change
BRU No change Deterioration ---
CDG --- --- ---
CGN Deterioration --- ---
CPH --- --- ---
FCO --- --- ---
FRA No change --- Improvement
HEL No change --- No change
LHR --- Deterioration ---
LIS --- --- ---
MAD Improvement --- ---
MAN No change --- No change
VIE --- No change Improvement
Internet Survey Data
AGP Improvement --- ---
ALC Improvement --- ---
BCN Improvement --- ---
DUB --- --- ---
DUS --- --- ---
FAO --- --- ---
FMO No change --- ---
HAJ --- --- ---
HAM Deterioration --- Improvement
IBZ --- --- Improvement
LEJ --- --- No change
LGW --- --- ---
MAH --- --- Improvement
MUC No change No change ---
NUE Improvement --- ---
OPO --- --- ---
ORK --- --- ---
ORY --- --- ---
PMI Improvement --- Improvement
SNN --- --- ---
STN --- --- ---
STR No change --- ---
SXF --- --- Improvement
TXL --- --- Improvement

Table 4-3: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 1996 - 2002 – EU-15

Another example for contrary views on quality developments is VIE airport. The airline states
a general deterioration of quality, irrespective of the airport but depending on the Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) between the airline and the ground handling company. The ground
handling provider mentioned that as a result of increasing competition the focus is more on

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 94

quality and performance issues which lead to a positive trend in quality development. The
airport operator did not rate the quality changes since he did not see any relation between
the quality and the Directive 96/67/EC. Other factors like the weather or infrastructure specif-
ics had more influence on quality.

At ATH airport this development is mainly due to the opening of the new airport in 2002.
Therefore the situation between 1996 and 2002 can not be compared. Since the opening of
the airport, quality improvements continue due to the aim of ground handling companies to
attract customers, but also due to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the airline and
the ground handling provider. Additionally safety and quality meetings are held by the AUC
and the ground handlers, where operational issues are discussed, to improve the quality.

The airport operator at MAN airport expresses that quality levels increased because handling
agents had to improve both their quality levels and health and safety records in order to
compete effectively for airline business. Airline contracts became tighter in regard to both
matters and airlines became more willing to exercise penalty clauses for failures in either
matter. A ground handling provider at MAN airport expressed that the quality increased due
to operational changes and higher investments in safety.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 95

 Benchmark: Development of quality between 2002 and 2007
Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
AMS Deterioration --- ---
ARN Improvement Deterioration ---
ATH Improvement Improvement Improvement
BRU No change Deterioration Improvement / No change
CDG --- --- ---
CGN Improvement --- ---
CPH Improvement --- ---
FCO --- Improvement Deterioration
FRA Improvement No change Improvement
HEL Deterioration Improvement No change
LHR --- Deterioration ---
LIS No change --- ---
MAD Improvement --- ---
MAN Improvement --- Improvement
VIE --- Deterioration Improvement
Internet Survey Data
AGP Improvement --- ---
ALC Improvement --- ---
BCN Improvement --- ---
DUB --- --- ---
DUS Deterioration --- ---
FAO --- --- ---
FMO No change --- ---
HAJ --- --- ---
HAM Deterioration --- Improvement
IBZ --- --- No change
LEJ --- --- No change
LGW --- --- ---
MAH --- --- No change
MUC Deterioration No change ---
NUE Improvement --- ---
OPO --- --- ---
ORK --- --- ---
ORY --- --- ---
PMI Improvement --- No change
SNN --- --- ---
STN --- --- ---
STR No change --- ---
SXF --- --- Improvement
TXL --- --- Improvement

Table 4-4: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 2002 - 2007 – EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 96

New Member States

Considering the findings for the ground handling markets in the New Member States, the
majority of airports indicated changes in quality levels. Thereof most of them mentioned, that
quality levels for ground handling services increased in the period between 2004 and 2007.
However, at BUD airport the views differ between the stakeholders: The airport operators
describes the situation as solid in comparison with the international market average level of
quality, which did not change since the implementation of the Dierctive. The independent
ground handling company however rates the standards at BUD as low (below the average).
However, since 2006 the quality level is increasing within the company. Generally, the
ground handling company sees the reason in decreasing quality within the increasing price
competition.

The deterioration at RIX airport is mainly due to capacity constraints in regard to the
infrastructure while the passenger count increased for more than 400% over the last years.

Benchmark: Development of quality between 2004 and 2007

Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
BTS No change No change ---
BUD No change Deterioration Improvement
LCA --- --- Deterioration
OTP --- --- ---
PRG Improvement Improvement Improvement
RIX Deterioration --- ---
SOF Improvement --- ---
WAW Improvement --- ---
Internet Survey Data
LJU Improvement --- ---
MLA Improvement --- ---
TLL --- Improvement ---
VNO --- --- ---

Table 4-5: Changes in quality levels for ground handling services 2004 - 2007 – New Mem-
ber States

In the following figures the airport specific changes are summarized. Due to data consistancy
reasons, stakeholders could only be considered if data was given for both periods of time.
Comparing Graph 1 and 3 in Figure 4-21 it can be seen that the quality changed differently in
the two periods. Between 1996 and 2002 only 29% of stakeholders out of the EU-15
interview data saw improving quality levels whereas 24% stated deterioration. Most of the
stakeholders however did not express changes at all. In the following period most of them
(53%) stated an improvement; however, a share of 29% mentioned decreasing quality.

Within the internet data the results differ from the picture just drawn from the interview data:
In the first period most stakeholders expressed an improvement in quality and only 6% stated

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 97

a deterioration whereas 29% did not see a change. In the following period a lot more
stakeholders did not realise a change and the statements about deteriorating quality levels
increased as well. Improvements in contrast were not expressed that often any more.

Quality Development 1996-2002 - Interview Data Quality Development 1996-2002 - Internet Survey Data
EU-15 EU-15
1 2

Improvement Deterioration No change Improvement Deterioration No change

Quality development 2002-2007 - Interview Data Quality development 2002-2007 - Internet Survey Data
EU-15 EU-15

3 4

Figure 4-21: Summary of answers on quality development - EU-15 airports

Quality development 2004-2007 - Interview Data

NMS

Improvement Deterioration No change

Figure 4-22: Summary of answers on quality development - NMS airports

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 98

Stakeholder specific positions about quality developments

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

• Reasons for decreasing quality levels:

o Airport operators mentioned, that increasing competition and pricing pressure

from airlines on ground handling providers affected decreasing quality levels.

o Decreasing quality levels affected decreasing punctuality, increasing delays

and therewith the total airport performance.

o the result from insufficient training of staff employed and cost cuts in ground
handling markets, quality levels of ground handling services dropped at
airports.

o Airport operators consider to set up their own ground handling subsidiaries to

ensure required quality levels.

o With the introduction of difficult operational security procedures the quality

performance at airports was negatively affected.

o Capacity and space constraints as well as construction works induced

decreasing quality levels at airports.

• Reasons for increasing quality levels:

o Airport operators stated, that with the introduction of the Directive 96/67/EC
and the increase of competition quality levels raised.

o By defining minimum quality requirements in the handling licence for self-

handling airlines and ground handling providers some airport operators indi-
cated positive changes in quality levels (e.g. AENA handling licences).

o At some airports, investments in new airport facilities and capacities enabled

significant increases in quality levels (e.g. Stockholm Arlanda airport inaugu-
rated a new baggage handling system and cargo facilities and could therefore
increase the quality in ground handling services).

o At airports, increasing quality levels were achieved by the introduction of qual-

ity management systems, certifications and self-audit processes.

• Regarding the revision of the Directive 96/67/EC against the background of

decreasing quality levels at some airports, airport operators like the BAA (British
Airports Authority) proposed to introduce minimum quality standards. They would be
defined in consultation with the Airport Users’ Committee and be applied by

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 99

 self-handling airlines and third party providers (e.g. baggage delivery time), including
quality monitoring and ex-post gradual measures in case of non fulfilment.

Airlines:

• Reasons for decreasing quality levels:

o Some airlines mentioned, that with the intensification of competition and

pressure on prices, quality levels decreased.

o In the opinion of some airlines the insufficient capacity and quality of airport
facilities decreased the level of quality and foreclosed improvements at some
stations.

o Construction works induced decreasing quality levels at many airports.

• Reasons for increasing quality levels:

o From a costumer perspective, many airlines stated, that the introduction of

competition in ground handling markets increased quality levels at markets
significantly.

o Beside the impacts of the increasing competition quality levels raised with the
increase of requirements implemented in Service Level Agreements.

o Furthermore the increase in the number of handlers increased the choice for
airlines to negotiate Service Level Agreements with higher quality require-
ments for decreasing prices and therewith strengthened the position of airlines
in their very competitive environment.

o For some airlines the increase of quality levels is related to increasing re-
quirements within the Service Levels Agreements with ground handling sup-
pliers.

o In addition some airlines mentioned, that competition has a positive effect on

safety and security: competition on quality leads the companies to invest in
quality and therewith in safety, security and training methods.

• Regarding the revision of the Directive 96/67/EC airlines do not agree to define the
obligatory minimum of quality requirements since quality levels are negotiated and
implemented in Service Level Agreements with the supplier. Quality requirements do
not need to be placed, since airlines are directly affected and interested in securing
adequate quality standards themselves.

• Quality requirements must not be abused as market access barriers. Airlines are
directly affected by any quality deficiency, so they have self-motivated interest to
ensure quality standards – no need for prescribed quality requirements on EU level.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 100

Independent ground handling providers

• Reasons for decreasing quality levels:

o Independent ground handling companies experienced, that insufficient capac-

ity and quality of airport facilities decreased the level of quality and foreclosed
improvements at some stations.

o Construction works induced decreasing quality levels at many airports.

o Some handlers mentioned, that in coherance with the intensification of
competition and the increasing pressure on prices quality levels decreased.

• Reasons for increasing quality levels:

o Independent ground handling companies increased quality levels of ground

handling services by process improvements and investments in more efficient
ground support equipment even though they were operating in a low margin
and very competitive environment with decreasing price levels.

o Even though the prices for ground handling services declined quality levels in-
creased by increasing the operational efficiency.

o With the intensification of training and improvements of training methods

ground handling companies realised increasing quality levels.

o As the result of the introduction of Quality Management Systems, certification

and self-audit processes, independent ground handling companies increased
the quality levels of ground handling services.

Regarding the revision of the Directive 96/67/EC independent ground handling companies do
not agree to define obligatory minimum quality requirements since quality levels are
negotiated and implemented in Service Level Agreements with the customer.

Unions

• At many airports the increasing pressure on working conditions of ground handling

effected decreasing quality levels.

• In regard to the revision of the Directive 96/67/EC unions propose to introduce, in

consultation with the Airport Users’ Committees, minimum quality standards to be
applied by self-handling airlines and third party providers (e.g. baggage delivery
time), including quality monitoring and ex post gradual measures in case of non
fulfilment.

• Ensuring minimum quality standards will have a direct impact on safety and security
at the airport.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 101

Conclusion about changes in quality

• At most airports changes in quality have taken place since 1996.

• However, it is difficult to find any trend at the European level or any trend according to
the airports in the impacts of the Directive on quality, because other drivers which are
varying at airports are influencing significantly quality levels. .

• Generally, the performance of quality levels is influenced by:

o The individual ground handling provider,

o The Service Level Agreements between the ground handling provider and the
airline,

o The infrastructure at airports (e.g. construction works could reduce quality

levels while the initiation of new facilities could lift the level of provided ground
handling services).

4.6 Participation of Airport operators in ground handling markets

EU-15 Member States

Due to historical and strategic reasons, many airports provide ground handling services in
competition to handling airlines and third party handling companies. With focus on the EU-15
Member States the number of interviewed airports, actively involved in ground handling mar-
kets did not change significantly in the time between 1996 and 2007. Mainly because the op-
erators of Lisbon and Helsinki airport set up new handling subsidiaries, the number of air-
ports providing ground handling services increased to 8 until the year 2002. Finally, the num-
ber of airports, participating in ground handling markets decreased to 7 in the time until 2007,
because ADR (Aeroporti di Roma) sold its handling company in Roma-Fiumicino. This im-
plies that within the interview data approximately 50% of airports, the airport operator is ac-
tive in ground handling.

With focus on ramp handling at local ground handling markets, most airports controlling their
own ground handling subsidiaries respectively departments comprise strong positions and
high market shares, even if the market shares (based on handled aircrafts in ramp handling)
decreased since the introduction of the Directive in 1996.

Within the internet survey data almost the same share of airport operators are involved in
ground handling. In 1996 10 out of 24 airport operators provided ground handling services. In
2002 two more were active since ANA set up its own ground handling subsidy Portway A.S.
at OPO and FAO airport.

The handling volume decreased in most cases between 1996 and 2007 even though the air-
port operator still comprises a high market share. This can be observed at all German

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 102

airports as DUS, MUC, HAM, SXF, TXL. Only Portway at the previously mentioned airports
could increase its market share between 2002 and 2007.

The situation in the internet survey as well as at the interviewed airports is presented and
summarized in Table 4-6 below.

Participation of Airport Operator in ground handling markets

1996 2002 2007

Airport
Airport GH Airport GH Airport GH
Market Share Market Share Market Share
subsidiary subsidiary subsidiary
in % (Ramp) in % (Ramp) in % (Ramp)
/department /department /department
Interview Data
AMS -- -- --
ARN -- -- --
ATH -- -- --
BRU -- -- --
CDG X 35 X 30 X 12
CGN X 100 X 96 X 95
CPH X no data -- --
FCO X no data X no data --
FRA X 97 X 91 X 85
HEL -- X 0 X 1
LHR -- -- --
LIS -- X 9 X 13
MAD -- -- --
MAN X no data X no data X no data
VIE X 100 X 93 X 89
Internet Survey Data
AGP -- -- --
ALC -- -- --
BCN -- -- --
DUB no data no data --
DUS X 100 X 97 X 88
FAO -- X 21 X 46
FMO X no data X no data X no data
HAJ X no data X no data X no data
HAM X 100 X 87 X 81
IBZ -- -- --
LEJ X 100 X 100 X 100
LGW -- -- --
MAH -- -- --
MUC X 100 X 97 X 87
NUE X 100 X 100 X 100
OPO -- X 14 X 27
ORK no data no data --
ORY no data no data no data
PMI -- -- --
SNN no data no data --
STN -- -- --
STR X 100 X 100 X 85
SXF X no data X no data X 91
TXL X 100 X 86 X 84

Table 4-6: Participation of airport operators in ground handling markets – EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 103

New Member States

Traditionally, most of the airports in the New Member States have provided ground handling
services. Focusing on the sample of visited airports, the number of airports participating in
ground handling markets decreased, since the operators of Budapest and Larnaca airport
decided to sell their ground handling activities. Generally, the market shares decreased as
already seen at airports in the EU-15, even at some airports such as Sofia and Bratislava on
a high level. The developments are indicated and summarized below in Table 4-7.

Participation of Airport Operator in ground handling market

2004 2007
Airport Airport GH Airport GH
Market Share Market Share
subsidiary subsidiary
in % (Ramp) in % (Ramp)
/department /department
Interview Data
BTS X 94 X 85
BUD X 20 --
LCA -- --
OTP no information no information
PRG X 16 X 13
RIX X no data X 100
SOF X 100 X 70
WAW X no data X no data
Internet Survey Data
LJU x 100 x 100
MLA -- --
TLL x 28 x 36
VNO x no data x no data

Table 4-7: Participation of airport operators in ground handling markets – New Member
States

Summarizing the results, it might be seen, that beside other drivers, the Directive 96/67/EC
has an impact on the performance and participation of airport operators in ground handling
markets. Generally, market shares decreased and several airport operators decided to sell
their ground handling activities due to the increase of competition and to focus on their role
as provider of the infrastructure (e.g. BUD and FCO airport), even though others decided to
set up new subsidiaries (e.g. LIS and HEL airport).

In Finland, Finavia set up its own subsidiary (Airpro) since no ground handling company
could be found to operate at small Finish airports. As airport operator of those airports,
Finavia needed to provide those services. In 2002 Airpro also started operations at HEL
airport but only comprises a small share of handling volume.

Between airports, airlines and independent ground handling providers the engagement of
airport operators in ground handling markets is controversially discussed. In those cases the
airport operator acts as a provider of the (centralised) infrastructure and competes at the
same time with airlines and independent ground handling companies in ground handling

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 104

markets. As the airport charges the competitors for the use of the infrastructure and obtains a
strong role within tender processes, airlines and independent ground handlers argue that,
handling airports would be able to distort competition in ground handling markets. To ensure
fair competition and, objective and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure, the
Directive foresees the separation of accounts between the ground handling and all other
airport activities (Article 4). The separation of accounts needs to be safeguarded by an
independent institution.

Stakeholder specific positions about the airport operators participation in ground handling

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport operators:

• In compliance with the Directive, the separation of accounts prevents any cross
subsidiation from other activities and ensures a fair level of competition. With focus
on anti-competitive behaviour independent ground handling companies are able to
cross-subsidize their activities throughout Europe and from other business branches.
Since airports need to separate their accounts they are not able to cross finance their
ground handling services.

• Due to the increasing competition and high operational costs some airport operators
have outsourced or sold their ground handling activities.

• Some airport operators not actively involved in ground handling favour the separation
between the responsibility for infrastructure and the provision of ground handling
services.

• Advantages of active engagement of airport operators in ground handling markets:

o Safeguarding of hub function and transfer processes (e.g. MCT -minimum

connecting time-, punctuality).

o Safeguarding and control of provided quality levels (customer convenience,

optimized process flows).

o Provision of (selected) ground handling services at some airports, where no

other supplier is willing to provide (selected) ground handling services.

o Strong influence on safety and security.

• Disadvantages of active engagement of airport operators in ground handling markets:

o High operational costs.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 105

Airlines:

Airlines mentioned advantages and disadvantages of the participation of airport operators in

ground handling markets:

• Advantages of active engagement of airport operators in ground handling markets:

o Safeguarding of hub function and transfer processes (e.g. MCT, Punctuality).

o Provision of (selected) ground handling services at some airports, where no

other supplier is willing to provide (selected) ground handling services.

• Disadvantages of active engagement of airport operators in ground handling markets:

o The current Directive leaves room for interpretation and enables cross
synergies between the airport as an infrastructure provider and airport ground
handling subsidiary.

o Discrimination of competitors (e.g. the airport operator can decide about the
location and the size of the ground handling storage area of his competitors).

o Distortion of competition.

o Continuously financial cross subsidiation of some airport ground handling

subsidiaries.

o Separation of accounts seems to be insufficient. Airports should be obliged to

separate their accounts legally.

o The active role of airport operators in ground handling markets could influence
the choice of independent suppliers, selected in tender procedures.

• Airports should establish a separate legal entity and act under the same conditions as
the other stakeholders.

Independent ground handling providers:

Generally, independent ground handling companies rate the active involvement of airport
operators in ground handling markets as negative:

• Disadvantages of active engagement of airport operators in ground handling markets:

o Cross synergies between the airport as an infrastructure provider and airport

ground handling subsidiary.

o Discrimination of competitors (e.g. the airport operator can decide about the
location and the size of the ground handling storage area of his competitors).

o No profit requirements for airport ground handling activities.

o In some cases the separation of accounts is complex and not transparent.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 106

 o The active role of airport operators in ground handling markets could influence
the choice of independent suppliers, selected in tender procedures.

Conclusion about the airport operators participation in ground handling

• The Directive 96/67/EC has an impact on the performance and participation of airport
operators in ground handling markets.

• With focus on the EU-15 Member States the number of airports actively involved in
ground handling markets did not change significantly in the time between 1996 and
2007. Market shares of airport handling companies decreased since the opening of
the market but remained on a high level.

• Traditionally, most of the airports in the New Member States provide ground handling
services. In 2007, at NMS airports, the airports ground handlers held the majority of
market shares in average.

• Generally, market shares decreased and as a result airport operators decided to sell
their ground handling activities due to the increase of competition and to focus on
their role as infrastructure provider.

4.7 Involvement of airlines in ground handling markets

Preliminary remark

In discussions with stakeholders many airline ground handling subsidiaries stated, that they
define themselves as independent providers. However, in this report the handling
subsidiaries will be treated as part of the airline company if the majority of shares is held by
an airline.

According to the Directive, self-handling is defined as a situation in which an airport user

directly provides ground handling services for himself and concludes no contract with any
third handling party for the provision of such services.

Airlines participate in ground handling markets as customers as well as self-handlers and

third party suppliers. Due to economies of scale most self-handling airlines provide ground
handling services to other airlines. Therefore on a reciprocal basis some network carriers
provide ground handling services for their alliance partners, while other network airlines
select other suppliers. If the third party handling volume of airlines is more or less
contestable for other handling parties, the self-handling volume is on contrary captive and not
contestable for others. However it was not possible to differentiate between the self-handling
and the third party handling volume of an airline. Therefore the market share given in the
following table comprises both volumes.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 107

The stakeholders were asked to indicate the market shares comprised by self-handling
activities and requested to rate the airlines involvement in ground handling markets. The
results are summarised in Table 4-8 to Table 4-10.

EU-15 Member States

Interview Data EU-15
Number of
Captive Market: Position to handling and airlines' involvement in ground handling
handling Total market
Market Shares (in
Airport airlines volume: ATM
percent) comprised by
(Ramp) in in 1000 Independent ground handling
self-handling activities Airport Operator Airlines
2007 companies
AMS 1 436 70
ARN 1 216 35 LFV does not see any problems
ATH 2 205 no data No advantage or disadvantage
Advantage: synergy effect. Disadvantage: staff
Generally: huge investments for the
under airline contract is more expensive. More
BRU 1 264 0 airline - would only become
globally: ground handling is no core business for
interesting with a huge operation
airlines
Self-handling should be limited to
the own airline but it should not be
CDG 2 544 no data
allowed to provide services to other
airlines or alliance partners
CGN 0 134 0
CPH 2 288 no data
More flexible, timely, complete and
customized service. Might be lack of The service can be tailored better
FCO 2 335 48 No direct impact on the airport right now scale economies and in the but no leverage in case of poor
foreseeable distrust towards airlines quality results
not belonging to the same alliance

Direct control on ground handling Airport in general will act closer to

No appropriate experiences are available,
operations independent from the airlines interests (compared to
FRA 0 493 0 because no airline has made use of a self-
framework conditions set by the independent GH), so equal
handling license
airport. High investment needs treatment might be doubtful
Airlines must have a critical mass
(economy of scale) of traffic which
Strong links to the mother company may in
they can self-handle and can that
HEL 3 178 80 some cases be a drawback in selling services to Less open market available
way operate profitable. But a
airlines in some other alliance
problem occurs and risk is coming
higher when traffic decreases
LHR 8 476 no data
ANA has nothing against airline's involvement in
ground handling services. Advantages and
LIS 3 140 no data disadvantages of that involvement might depend
on the clients policy as well as the ground
handling market.
The AUC is dominated by the dominant carrier:
effects on the position, short listening of
applicant during tender
- Quality and price control
MAD 4 483 60*
- Impacts on the size of the contestable market
- Impacts on the efficient use of the
infrastructure
- Problems due to space constraints
MAN 0 230 no data
VIE 0 255 0
* Data from desk research

Table 4-8: Market presence of handling airlines at visited airports in the EU-15

At the majority of the 15 visited airports in the EU-15 airlines are operating as self- and
mostly third party supplier. While at some airports such as FRA, MAN or VIE no airline is
operating as a ground handler on the ramp, at other airports like London-Heathrow eight
airlines are self-handling and providing ground handling services to other airlines. The size of
the captive market therefore differs from airport to airport, depending on the engagement and
market presence of self-handlers, and vice versa effects the size of the contestable market
(see chapter 4.3).

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 108

 Survey EU-15
Number of Captive Market:
handling Total market Market Shares (in Position to handling and airlines' involvement in ground handling
Airport airlines volume: ATM percent)
(Ramp) in in 1000 comprised by self- Independent ground handling
Airport Operator Airlines
2007 handling activities companies
AENA: The AUC is dominated by the dominant
carrier: effects on the position, short listening of
applicant during tender
- Quality and price control for self-handling
Airlines within their supply chain
AGP 5 130* no data
- Impacts on the size of the contestable market
- Impacts on the efficient use of the infrastructure
--> Problems due to space constraints

ALC 4 80 no data Same position as AENA (AGP)

BCN 1 352 no data Same position as AENA (AGP)
DUB 2 212 no data
AUC DUS: Advantages:
- Direct regulation and control of the
relevant sub processes for the landside
air traffic
- Independency from the goodwill of the
airports and the general conditions, if
DUS 0 222 0
there is not a sufficient number of service
providers or there is no competition
Disadvantages:
- High investment needs (equipment /
employees)

FAO 0 40 no data - No experiences

- Advantages: Concerning Ramp services:
FMO 1 39 no data allways up to date informations, more safety, 4-
eyes-principle
HAJ 0 88 0 Same position as AUC DUS
Remark: Third party handling from the Airlines is Acciona: Airport in general will
only allowed in the range of the unlimited act closer to the airlines interests
services. This is not possible in the range of the (compared to independent GH),
HAM 0 151 0 limited services, because of the definition of “self- so equal treatment might be
handling” (§ 2 Ziffer 6 BADV / Artikel 2 Buchstabe doubtful
f BAD-RL 96/67/EG), which prohibits that

Acciona:
Only Disadvantages: market
distortion for following reasons:
- no limit for licence duration
IBZ 5 58* 35 - third party activity as an
extension of self-handling
- croos subsidisation, being
usually the dominat player, and
former monopolist

LEJ 1 51 no data
LGW 1 261* no data
MAH 5 34* 42 Same position as Acciona IBZ
MUC 0 410 0
NUE 0 81 0 Same position as AUC DUS
OPO 0 51 no data - No experiences
ORK 2 71 no data
ORY 0 233 0
PMI 7 197 35 Same position as AENA (AGP) Same position as Acciona IBZ
SNN 2 48 no data
STN 0 182* 0
STR 0 165 0 Same position as AUC DUS
Same position as AUC DUS Same position as Acciona HAM
SXF 0 66 0
Same position as Acciona HAM
TXL 0 151 0
* Data from desk research

Table 4-9: Market presence of handling airlines at internet survey airports in the EU-15

It can be examined that no correlation exists between the size of an airport and its handling
volume and the number of self-handling airlines. LIS and HEL airport, which are fairly small
compared to the other interviewed airports in the EU-15 have three handling airlines each.
But bigger airports do not automatically have more handling airlines as it can be seen at
FRA, FCO or CDG airport where not even three airlines are providing handling services.

This result can also be inferred from the internet survey data: at the Spanish airports such as
ALC, IBZ or MAH, which are even smaller than e.g. LIS airport, there are at least four

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 109

handling airlines active. A simular situation can be seen at the Irish airports SNN and ORK
with two airlines active at each airport.

Therefore it can be concluded that the size of an airport is not the decisive factor for the
airline activity in ground handling. It can be assumed that the size of the airline’s market and
therefore its potential handling volume is more important. This can be supported by the fact
that Air France is handling at its hub CDG and that Iberia is handling in MAD, the main hub in
Spain. However, no result can be given about the market shares of those airlines since data
was not available.

Airlines stated that it is important for them to be active in handling at their hubs to assure
necessary quality levels, particularly the Minimum Connecting Time.

New Member States

Number of Position to handling and airlines' involvement in ground handling
Captive Market:
handling Total market
Market Shares (in
Airport airlines volume: ATM Independent ground handling
percent) comprised by Airport Operator Airlines
(Ramp) in in 1000 companies
self-handling activities
2007
Interview Data
BTS 1 22 15
Reduction of the contestable
Enables the airline to control the
market. Through codeshares and
BUD 2 124 46 the supply chain and ensure the
bilateral agreements contestable
Minimum Connecting Time
market decreased significantly
LCA 0 no data 0
OTP no data 71 no data
Strong position within same alliance
members and code sharing partners
PRG 1 175 16 of CSA/ Sky Team. Effect on the
contestable market, limited
contractability for competitors
RIX 0 47 0
SOF 1 43 no data
Negative: Self-handling reduces the
WAW 1 133 no data
contestable market
Internet Survey Data
Disadvantage: handling is not the
LJU 0 27 0
core business of an airline.
Flexibility, manpower, and full
MLA 3 27 no data awareness of the business and
airline concerns
Staff in the airlines uniform for
TLL 1 39* no data the public eye; ensure quality as
per your own standards
VNO 0 33 0
* Data from desk research

Table 4-10: Market presence of handling airlines at airports in the NMS

Generally, the number of airlines active in ground handling in the New Member states is on
average not as high as in the EU-15. MLA airport has the highest number of three airlines
being active in handling. At most airports there is however only one airline handling its
aircraft.

The market share at BTS and PRG airport is with 15-16% of the market share relatively small
compared to airports in the EU-15 such as AMS, HEL or MAD, where the airline comprises
on average 70% of the market share.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 110

Stakeholder specific positions about airline participation in ground handling

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

• In most cases, airport operators do not see remarkable advantages or disadvantages

from the engagement of airlines in ground handling markets.

• With the increase of self-handlers, the availablity of space and capacity might be
limited.

• Airlines are able to cross subsidise their handling activities within their networks.
Airports operating generally at local level are in contrast bound to separate their
accounts. This could lead to competitive advantages for handling airlines and to
market distortions.

• Airlines are in favour to extend the definition of self-handling in order to circumvent

the objective and rules of the selection procedure which apply to third party handling.

Airlines:

• As advantage, self-handling enables full control on ground handling services and

provides a customized solution. On the other side airlines face high operational costs,
due to high investments and potential lack of economies of scale.

• Airlines have the right to handle their passengers and aircrafts; therefore the defini-
tion of self-handling should be extended to franchise flights. Furthermore, no artificial
barriers should be introduced; every handler should have the right to sub-contract.

• As other airlines integrators need a self-handling licence to handle their aircrafts and
a third party needs a handling licence for the handling of other carriers. As integrators
use a mix of commercial airlines capacity, wet leased, chartered or own fleet, they
should be free to handle any aircraft carrying shipments under an express operators
airway bill.

Independent ground handling providers:

• The definition of self-handling should not be extended. The inclusion of self-handling

for alliance partners and reciprocal handling would reduce the contestable market
and the level of competition at airports.

• The engagement of airlines in ground handling could lead to market distortions, since
their handling licences are not limited and they do not need to depreciate their
investments in a short and medium term.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 111

 • As many network carriers handle themselves on a reciprocal basis, those agreements
are rarely contestable for third party suppliers and limit the competition in ground
handling markets.

Conclusion about the airline participation in ground handling

• The number of selfhandling airlines at an airport is independent from the size of the
airport.

• Airlines are traditionally active at their hub airports to ensure the necessary quality.
Since they state that the investments for ground handling are huge at the beginning, it
can be concluded that the majority of airlines would not start a new business at
additional airports.

• Contestable market share for ground handing providers is limited due to the
involvement of airlines in ground handling especially when the airline also provides
handling services to other airlines such as alliance partners. Therefore some
stakeholders expressed that handling provided by an airline should be limited to the
volume of the own airline’s volume.

4.8 Centralised Infrastructure (CI) / Access to installations

According to Article 8 of the Directive, Member States are authorised to reserve the man-
agement of defined infrastructure elements used for the supply of ground handling services
for the airport operator or other management bodies, if costs or environmental impact does
not allow the division or duplication. As centralised infrastructure, the following facilities are
explicitly mentioned in the Directive:

• Baggage Handling System,

• De-Icing facilities,

• Passenger Bridges,

• Fixed Power Installations,

• Fuel and Oil Stations,

• Toilet Service (facilities: fresh water supply and waste disposal),

• and Check- In desks.

Consequently the use of the defined centralised infrastructure elements could be compulsory
for self-handlers and suppliers of ground handling services and charges levied. Depending
on the situation at the airport, additional facilities or services could be defined as centralised
infrastructure. The Member State shall ensure, that the management of the centralised

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 112

infrastructure is transparent and objective as well as the access is non discriminatory for all
airport users and ground handling providers.

Referring to Article 16 in absence of the centralised infrastructure the available space for
ground handling activities (e.g. for storage of equipment) must be divided among the han-
dling parties under consideration of fair competition and relevant, objective, transparent and
non discriminatory criteria. Where the access to airport installations gives raise for a fee, the
same criteria must be considered.

Table 4-11 to Table 4-13 provide an overview on the defined centralised infrastructure and
charges for the access to airport installations at airports participating in the study.

EU-15 Member States

Centralized Facilities EU-15
Interview Data Charges for
the access of
Airport Baggage Passenger
De- Fixed Power Fuel&Oil Toilet Check-In Marshalli airport
Handling Boarding Others installations
Icing Installation Station Servicing Desks ng
System Bridges

AMS not explicitly defined No

VIP Services , Bustransport on airside,

ARN √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Airport switchboard, CUSS machines

ATH √ --- √ √ √ √ √ --- BRS √

Sewerage farm, Baggage and

passenger screening machines,
BRU √ --- √ √ √ --- √ √ Decompression chamber, Truncking √
system, CUTE, Docking guiding
systems, FOD, CUSS.

CDG √ √ √ --- √ √ √ √ no information ---

CGN --- √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Traffic Operations, Water supply (Facility) √

CPH √ √ √ √ --- --- √ √ Bus transportation √

Centralised sewage waters and aircraft,

Solid waste treatment systems, CUTE
FCO √ --- √ √ √ √ √ √ System, General voice an uncements, √
Information to the public, left baggage
office
Gate baggage facilities for outbound
baggage, Bulky baggage facilities,
Central baggage system for inbound
baggage, Central baggage security
facilities, Facilities for fresh water
FRA --- √ √ √ √ √ --- --- supply, CUTE network, Customs √
baggage warehouse, Conveyor belt for
misdirected baggage, Servicing of rush
baggage as well as servicing of
mistagged baggage and Baggage
tracing

HEL √ √ √ √ --- --- √ √ Bus transfer on the apron, CUSS √

LHR --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- no information

LIS √ --- √ √ --- --- √ √ --- √

PRM - services, Fixed fuel and oil

MAD √ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- supply, Engine test pad, Airplane √
washing area, Portable water supply

MAN √ --- √ √ --- --- √ --- --- √

Container Storage (Facility); Waste

VIE √ √ √ √ √ --- √ √ √
Disposal (Facility)

Table 4-11: Centralised infrastructure at visited airports in the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 113

 Centralized Facilities EU-15
Internet Survey Data Charges for
the access of
Airport Baggage Passenger Fixed
De- Fuel&Oil Toilet Check-In airport
Handling Boarding Power Marshalling Others installations
Icing Station Servicing Desks
System Bridges Installation

PRM - services, Fixed fuel and oil supply,

AGP √ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- Engine test pad, Airplane washing area, √
Portable water supply

PRM - services, Fixed fuel and oil supply,

ALC √ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- Engine test pad, Airplane washing area, √
Portable water supply
PRM - services, Fixed fuel and oil supply,
BCN √ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- Engine test pad, Airplane washing area, √
Portable water supply
DUB Dublin Airport has no centralized infrastructure no information
Aircraft positions, parking space, bulk and
equipment storage, Air traffic management,
Central office for traffic/apron
supervision,Traffic management,
DUS --- √ √ √ --- --- √ --- Disposition, Airport information system, √
Communication networks, CUTE, CUSS
kiosks, Feces disposal facility, Fresh water
supply station, Central waste
disposal/recycling yard
FAO no information --- √
FMO √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ --- √
IBZ no information √
HAJ --- √ √ √ --- --- √ √ no information √
Handling positions, Facilities for waste
HAM √ --- √ √ --- √ --- √ √
disposal, Facilities for fresh water supply

LGW no information --- no information

Aircraft positions, waste disposal facilities,

LEJ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- √ ---
fresh water facilities
Flight Informations system, Noise Protection
hangar for test runs of aircraft, aircraft
MUC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ --- √
handling positions, including facilities for
guiding
MAH no information √
NUE √ √ √ √ --- √ --- √ Apron and Central waste disposal √
OPO no information --- √
ORK no information
ORY √ --- √ √ √ --- √ --- Fuel system (hydrant) and De-icing liquid √
PRM - services, Fixed fuel and oil supply,
PMI √ √ √ √ √ --- √ --- Engine test pad, Airplane washing area, √
Portable water supply
SNN no information
STN √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ --- no information
Apron, Container Area, Lavatory
STR √ √ √ √ √ √ --- √ no information
Waterfacilities
SXF √ √ --- √ --- √ √ --- no information √
TXL √ √ --- √ --- √ √ --- no information √

Table 4-12: Centralised infrastructure at internet survey airports in the EU-15

The centralised facilities supposed by the Directive are at most of the interviewed airports in
the EU-15 defined as centralised in reality. More in detail the baggage handling system, pas-
senger boarding bridges, fixed power installations, fuel and oil stations and check-in desks
can be identified as a core set of centralised infrastructure at a majority of visited airports.
Only a minority of airports did not see a benefit to declare several elements as Centralised
Infrastructure (e.g. AMS airport). Furthermore, by approval of the authorities in charge many
airports declared other infrastructure elements and services on airport specific reasons as
centralised infrastructure. The number of those facilities differs amongst the airports. At ATH
airport only the Baggage reconciliation system is centralised whereas at other airports such
as BRU, FRA, FCO or MAD way more facilities are centralised.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 114

It can be seen that some facilities such as the CUTE system is centralised at many airports,
but not defined by the Directive.

The airport operator at some airports also provides bus transportation on the airside. Due to
the stakeholders at those airports such as HEL or CPH it is operationally not possible for
each handling agent to provide this service since the investment costs are high, the utilisa-
tion rate however is low in many cases. This is even more significant when the airport in sum
has a small handling volume.

With EU Regulation 1107/2006 the PRM services are defined as centralised by the European
Commission. Since then “Managing bodies of airports may provide the assistance to dis-
abled persons and persons with reduced mobility themselves. Alternatively, in view of the
positive role played in the past by certain operators and air carriers, managing bodies may
contract with third parties for the supply of this assistance, without prejudice to the applica-
tion of relevant rules of Community law, including those on public procurement.” (Official
Journal of the European Union). Therefore the stakeholders mostly mentioned this service to
be centralised as well.

Additionally the stakeholders were asked about the problems related to the Centralised Infra-
structure. 62,1% of stakeholders who have provided answers did not see problems relating
to the use of the Centralised Infrastructure whereas 37,9% stated the contrary.

Problems were mainly seen in the quality of the Centralised Infrastructure due to capacity
constraints and missing investments done by the airport operator who is responsible for the
operations of the CI. The congestion is generated by fast growing traffic volumes over the
last years.

Other problems were mentioned regarding space for equipment. Since all ground handling
agents have their own equipment storage areas are not enough. Due to the expansion of the
terminal facilities at some airports additional space has been lost.

According to the provided information, generally, the charges for the provision of the central-
ised infrastructure are imposed on the airlines, even if some exemptions exist (e.g. Flightcare
at BRU airport is charged for the use of the check-in desks while other charges for the use of
Centralised Infrastructure elements are in common directly imposed on the airlines and not
on the ground handling companies).

Additionally, many airports imposed fees on ground handling providers and airport users for
the access and use of airports installations as common airport infrastructure such as roads,
gates, parking stands, space dedicated for the storage of ground handling equipment, of-
fices, de-Icing coordination.

Generally, the fees and charging bases vary from airport to airport and are related to the use
of infrastructure elements.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 115

New Member States

At the New Member States the situation is similar to the EU-15 airports. It can only be noted
that they define less facilities given by the Directive as centralised and also the additionally
defined facilities are not as many.

The transportation on the apron, however, is mentioned more often as centralised than at the
EU-15 airports.

Centralized Facilities NMS Charges for

the access of
Airport Baggage Passenger
De- Fixed Power Fuel&Oil Toilet Check-In Marshalli airport
Handling Boarding Others
Icing Installation Station Servicing Desks ng installations
System Bridges
Interview Data
BTS √ √ --- --- √ --- √ √ Apron transportation ---
BUD √ --- √ √ --- --- √ √ no information ---
CUTE System, Flight Information
LCA √ --- --- --- √ --- √ --- √
Display System
OTP no information
PRG √ --- √ √ √ --- √ √ Bus transportation, BRS ---
RIX --- √ √ √ --- --- √ --- Bus transfer on the apron, CUSS √
SOF no information
WAW √ --- √ √ √ --- √ √ no information no information
Internet Survey Data
LJU √ √ √ √ --- √ √ √ no information ---
MLA √ --- --- √ --- √ √ --- no information ---
TLL √ --- √ --- --- --- √ --- Cute System at check-in desks/gates √
VNO √ --- √ --- √ --- √ --- --- ---

Table 4-13: Centralised infrastructure airports in the New Member States

Stakeholder specific positions about the Centralised Infrastructure

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

Only 10 percent of the airports reported, that due to the centralised infrastructure problems or
difficulties existed. Under consideration of the position papers of airport associations the fol-
lowing is stated:

• Airport operators focus on the effective and efficient use of the Centralised Infra-
structure.

• Space constraints and space availability are, in some cases, reason for the limita-
tion of handling licences.

• Space constraints and highly frequented Centralised Infrastructure are caused by

strong traffic growth.

• In many cases self-handlers and suppliers of ground handling services use the
Centralised Infrastructure as well as airport installations in an inefficient manner
and cause space and capacity constraints.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 116

 • In order to provide the Centralised Infrastructure as well as other airport installa-
tions and services, the airport needs to charge the airport users and ground han-
dling providers. The charges are cost related, transparent and non-discriminatory.

• The right for the airport to collect a commercial fee according Article 16 should be
expressed more clearly.

• A more precise definition of Centralised Infrastructure would not allow the neces-
sary flexibility at local level from airport to airport and would not take into account
any future developments.

Airlines:

Approximately 50 percent of the consulted airlines reported, that due to the Centralised Infra-
structure problems or difficulties existed. Under consideration of the position papers of air-
lines associations the following is stated:

• The costs for the use of infrastructures are high, even though the provided quality
is insufficient.

• At some stations the insufficient conditions of the Centralised Infrastructure as

well as capacity and space constraints affected the quality of ground handling
negatively.

• The dual function of some airports as provider of the infrastructure and ground
handler could lead to:

o Conflict of interests,

o Cross subsidisation,

o Discrimination of competitors (e.g. space availablity).

• In some cases the charges for the provision of the Centralised Infrastructure and
the access to airport installation did not comply with the criteria of transparency
and non-discrimination. For the revision of the Directive the criteria regarding
charges common standards should be introduced and the provisions of Article 8
and 15 clarified.

• The definition of the Centralised Infrastructure should be clarified and more re-
strictive, since airports are allowed to retain handling monopolies in several ser-
vices and restrict the access for self-handling airlines and ground handling suppli-
ers.

• Fees for the Centralised Infrastructure and the access to airport installation should
be treated similarly to airport charges and included into regulation.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 117

Independent ground handling providers

Approximately 25 percent of the independent ground handling suppliers reported, that due to
the Centralised Infrastructure problems or difficulties existed. Under consideration of the po-
sition papers of ground handling associations the following is stated:

• Not enough space for equipment. All ground handlers have their own equipment,
which results in congested storage areas. Due to insurance issues another
ground handler is not allowed to move the equipment of the other ground handler.

• Market discriminations.

• Insufficient quality of the provided centralised infrastructure / capacity constraints.

Conclusion about the Centralised Infrastructure

• Most airports defined the facilities described within the Directive as centralised. At
most airports additional facilities were added by the approval of the responsible
authority

• The problems, which encountered mostly for independent ground handling com-
panies, are due to capacity and space constraints at the airport and the quality of
the facilities. Furthermore users of the Centralised Infrastructure as independent
ground handling companies or handling airlines criticised high costs for the CI.

• Some stakeholders stated that the charging mechanism seems not to be trans-
parent and should be clarified within the Directive.

• Views about the CI are very heterogeneous amongst the different stakeholders
due to their stakeholder specific interest: airports do not want a further definition
within the Directive to keep the flexibility to react to airport specifics. The other
stakeholders, however, would prefer a more precise definition to secure a trans-
parent and non-discriminatory use of the CI.

4.9 Airport Users’ Committee

Corresponding to the provisions of Article 5 Member States shall ensure, that at airports a
committee of representatives of airport users (in the following Airport Users’ Committee) is
set up. Every airport user (airlines are defined as airport users) shall have the right to partici-
pate in the Airport Users’ Committee (AUC) or to be represented by an appointed organisa-
tion.

In relation to ground handling the AUC should be consulted on application of the Directive
and possible exemptions from the provided provisions. Regarding the tender process the

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 118

authority needs to consult the AUC concerning the selection criteria, which shall be relevant,
objective, transparent and non-discriminatory for its final decision.

Since there is no difference in the role of the AUC between the EU-15 and the New Member
States the two geographical regions are analysed together in the following section:

At every airport an Airport Users’ Committee was established up since the implementation of
the Directive. Since then it is a consultative body, which is contacted in regard to the tender
process. The influence on the decisions in the tender process differs from airport to airport.

It can also be noticed that the stakeholders have a different view on the role of the AUC: The
airports and the independent ground handling providers do not see a problem and even state
that the AUC has some influence on decisions. It is also stated that the AUC is consulted
about other topics apart from the tender process:

• Charges / Costs for the Centralised Infrastructure

• Ground handling issues such as de-icing procedures

• Definition of the Centralised Infrastructure

• Terminal expansion plans

The final decision about airport related topics is however made by the airport operator or the
responsible authority.

The airlines in contrast state the influence as very limited and would like to see the Airport
Users’ Committee to have more influence, mainly within the tender procedures. They justify
this position through the fact that airlines are the costumers of handling agents and that they
would like to choose the new entrant in the selection procedure. If an airline is however ac-
tive in handling it would choose its own competitor. Airport operators expressed that this
would cause a conflict of interest, which is the reason why airlines should not have a vote in
the tender procedure.

Table 4-14 provides an overview on the AUC at visited airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 119

 Does the AUC have some influence on decisions?
Interview Data - EU-15
Airport AUC Established
Independent ground handling
Airport Operator Airlines
provider
No, AUC consulted on any changes in the
AMS √ 1998 --- ---
ground handling market

No, AUC has just a consultation role, but until

now it has so far agreed with LFVs decisions
and plans. Since the airport does not carry out
ARN √ 1996 No ---
any ground handling service it is not regarded
as a competitor. Therefore there is no
problem with the limited influence of the AUC

Yes. Since users shall

No. The AUC is consulted and its position is implement the decisions,
ATH √ 2001 ---
taken into consideration timing and operational details
are mutually agreed
BRU √ 2000 Advisory role only --- ---

Yes. Position is taken into account. The final

CDG √ 1998 decision in tender procedures is taken by the --- ---
Civil Aviation Authority

Yes. In the tender the vote of the AUC has

CGN √ 1997 influence on the final licensing of new 3rd --- ---
handling party
CPH √ 2004 Consultative body --- ---

No. The AUC is not

representative its role is only
Yes. Although not binding, the opinion of the Yes.It may influence the
consultative. ENAC takes its
FCO √ 1999 AUC is taken into consideration by the airport operational decisions but too
decisions without even
managing company weak when costs are involved
providing the reasons why it
disregards the AUC advice

No, as the AUC has only the

Yes. The AUC is always involved and
status as consultative body. Yes, one of three votes in
FRA √ 1997 consulted on all major questions regarding
The airport operator does not tender process
ground handling
consider votings of the AUC

No. The airport wants to

Yes. E.g. discussions on the de-icing receive the opinion of the
HEL √ 1998 coordination charge resulted in a charging airlines but has not so far ---
basis that was suggested by the users really taken them into
account
LHR √ before 2000 Yes, through discussions and votes --- ---
LIS √ 1999 Consultative body --- ---
Consultative body, consultation for the tender
MAD √ no data --- ---
process
Yes, by expressing views on new schemes,
MAN √ 1996 --- ---
charges etc.

No, only consultation with the

VIE √ 1998 Consultative body ---
CAA and the airport operator

Table 4-14: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees at visited airports in the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 120

 Does the AUC have some influence on decisions?
Internet Survey Data - EU-15
Airport AUC Established
Airport Operator Airlines Independent ground handling provider

AENA: No, the position of the AUC is not

AGP √ no data --- ---
decisive for the selection of suppliers

ALC √ no data Same answer as AENA AGP --- ---

BCN √ no data Same answer as AENA AGP --- ---
DAA: The airport authority holds
consultation meetings in a fair,
transparent and non-discriminatory basis
DUB √ 1999 and believes that its meetings with the --- ---
Shannon Airport AUC are productive and
lead to user views being taken into
account
AUC DUS: No, as the AUC has
only the status as consultative
DUS √ 1998 The AUC has a right of co determination ---
body. The airport operator does
not consider votings of the AUC

No, the AUC must be consulted,

FAO √ 1999 although its written opinion is not binding --- ---
upon the airports
FMO √ 1997 No --- ---
HAJ √ 1998 --- Same answer as AUC DUS ---
Yes, definition of CI, consulting in tender Yes, one of three votes in tender
HAM √ 1997 ---
process process
Acciona IBZ: Limited influence, a lot of
airlines have seasonal traffic, not
having senior management at these
IBZ √ 2005 --- --- airports. The airport usually does not
receive adequate feed back to "
complex " questions affecting airport
infrastructure, services etc.

Recommendations for choice of handling

service provider (license), adaption of
LEJ √ 1997 --- ---
infrastructure charges, implementation of
new services/charges (e.g. PRM)

LGW √ no information

MAH √ 2005 --- --- Same answer as Acciona IBZ

MUC √ 1997 Partly yes, for instance pricing policy Same answer as AUC DUS ---
NUE √ 1998 --- Same answer as AUC DUS ---
No; The AUC must be consulted,
OPO √ 2001 although its written opinion is not binding --- ---
upon the airports
ORK √ 1999 Same answer as DAA DUB --- ---
Yes. Position is taken into account. The
ORY √ 1998 final decision in tender procedures is --- ---
taken by the Civil Aviation Authority
PMI √ 2005 Same answer as AENA AGP --- Same answer as Acciona IBZ

SNN √ 1999 Same answer as DAA DUB --- ---

STN √ no information
Yes, for example change in centralised
STR √ 1999 infrastructure charging system based on Same answer as AUC DUS ---
AUC-initiative
Yes, one of three votes in tender
SXF √ 2000 --- Same answer as AUC DUS
process
Yes, one of three votes in tender
TXL √ 1999 --- ---
process

Table 4-15: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees at internet survey airports in the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 121

 NMS - Does the AUC have some influence on decisions?
Airport AUC Established
Independent ground
Airport Operator Airlines
handling provider
Interview Data
BTS √ 2005 No No ---
Yes. Influence on
BUD √ no data Yes ---
some issues
LCA √ 2007 No --- No
OTP no data no data no data
Strong role of the AOC: all topics concerning
Deleguated infrastructure, charges and the relationship
PRG --- --- ---
to AOC between the users and airport discussed
within the AOC.
RIX --- 2008 Consultative body --- ---
SOF √ 2007 No decisive votes possible --- ---
WAW √ no data no data
Internet Survey Data
LJU √ 2004 Yes. Blocks some decisions --- ---
A general consensus approach is always
MLA √ 2004 --- ---
reached.
Yes, some influence on
TLL √ 1994 --- ---
airport charges.
Yes. Development plans are coordinated with
VNO √ 2006 --- ---
AUC.

Table 4-16: Overview of Airport Users’ Committees airports in the New Member States

Stakeholder specific positions about the Centralised Infrastructure

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

• According to the Directive 96/67/EC the AUC is defined as consultative body. The
AUC has no decisive vote.

• Airports do not see the necessity to change the role and competence of the AUC.

• Airports consider the AUC as a forum for consultations, discussions and exchange of
information.

• At some airports there is a low participation rate at AUC meetings.

• In some cases the AUC is dominated by the home base carrier and does not reflect
representatively the vote and position of the airline community.

• Conflict of interests: Self-handling and third party handling airlines will not vote for
strong competitors.

• A set of guidelines at the EU-level should be defined, which sets minimum require-
ments for the internal functioning of the AUC. This would guarantee, that the AUC

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 122

 would not be dominated by certain carriers. Additionally, airlines, which are operating
in ground handling, should not be entitled to select their competitors.

Airlines:

• As customers of the ground handling services, the airlines see the necessity to
strengthen the role of the AUC.

• Representing the customers of ground handling services, the AUC should have deci-
sive votes in the tender process and on the decision, from which ground handling
companies will be approved and licensed.

• In some cases the AUC was informed by the authority respectively the managing
body of the airport. In final decisions, especially tender procedures, the positions of
the AUC were not considered.

• Since the voting rules for the AUC are not clearly defined, a set of guidelines should
be given.

Independent ground handling providers:

• Even though independent ground handling providers are not part of the AUC, they
plead for a stronger role of the AUC to ensure the application of the criteria of rele-
vance, objectivity, non-discrimination and transparency in the tender process.

• Regarding operational questions, the AUC and involved AOC have some influence on
decisions.

Conclusion about the Airport Users’ Committee

• According to the provided data, almost all airports set up the AUC. One airport dele-
gated the functions of the AUC to the Airport Operators Committee (AOC).

• Based on the analysed questionnaires at almost all airports the AUC is consulted on
topics related to ground handling, charges and tender procedures.

• The influence of the AUC on decisions vary. Even though the AUC votings are not
decisive at all airports, at some airports, especially with focus on operational
questions, the positions of the AUC might be stronger than at other airports.

• The presence and role of groundhandling airlines within AUC is controversial as they
can be both customers and providers of groundhandling.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 123

4.10 Tender process
Preliminary remark

In compliance with the provisions laid down in Article 6 and 7 of the Directive, Member States
shall ensure free market access for third party providers and self-handling airlines estab-
lished in the European Union. For the service categories such as baggage handling, freight
and mail handling, ramp handling and fuel and oil handling, Member States may limit the
number to no fewer than two self-handling airlines at airports with more than one million pas-
sengers respectively 25.000 tonnes of cargo. For airports with more than two million passen-
gers respectively 50.000 tonnes of cargo the number of third party suppliers may be limited
to no fewer than two handling licences, while one third party supplier must be independent
from the airport and airport users’ who carried out more than 25 percent of passengers or
freight recorded in the year preceding that in which those suppliers were selected. Under
consideration are the specific constraints of space or capacity, with approval from the Com-
mission temporarily exemptions could be admitted (Article 9, compare Table 3-1).

If the number of self-handling and/or third party handling licences for selected or all limitable
categories is restricted, the suppliers will be selected in a tender process. The procedures,
criteria and conditions are laid down in the Directive, Article 11 and Article 14.

Independently from the tender, Member States are able to introduce an obligatory approval
for airport users and ground handling providers to ensure minimum standards in regard to a
sound financial situation, sufficient insurance cover, security, safety of installations, aircraft
and equipment, environmental protection and social legislation. The criteria for the approval
must comply with the principles of relevance, objectivity, transparency and non-dis-
crimination.

In addition, for the tender process Member States can introduce standard conditions and
technical specifications to be met by the suppliers, which should be subject to consultations
between the airport operator, authority and the AUC. The selection criteria must comply with
the principles of relevance, objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination. Based on the
submitted tender documents and under consideration of the selection criteria, the airport
management body selects the suppliers for a maximum period of seven years and consults
the AUC on its decision. Where the airport operator is engaged in ground handling an inde-
pendent authority selects the suppliers. Referring to this the airport ground handling
subsidiary must not be subject to the tender procedure.

Summarising the provisions of the Directive, it can be concluded that the legal licensing is
done by the airport operator respectively the authority while the commercial contract is nego-
tiated between airlines and ground handling suppliers.

Figure 4-23 provides a synopsis on self and third party handling, limitable categories and the
tender procedure.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 124

 Airports All Airports Airports
> 2 million passengers > 1 million passengers
respectively 50.000t of cargo respectively 25.000t of cargo

Third party Self handling

handling

Baggage, Baggage,
freight/mail, freight/mail,
Other services ramp, fuel/oil ramp, fuel/oil Other services
handling handling

Restricted market access Restricted market access

Definition number of Definition number of

third party handling self handling licences
licences (minimum 2 licences)
Free market access (minimum 2 licences)
Free market access
Pre-selection / Pre-selection /
Pre-qualification Pre-qualification

Tender process Tender process

Selection of Selection of
suppliers suppliers

Figure 4-23: Functional overview on market forms and tender process

EU-15 Member States

In regard to visited airports in the EU-15, Table 4-17 presents an overview on chosen market
forms and tender procedures. It shows how many tender procedures have taken place since
the opening of the market and for which category of ground handling. Generally each tender
comprises all stated categories. If data was available the year of the tender process is also
mentioned.

Within the sample of the visited airports in the EU-15, 6 airports or 40% of all airports are
fully liberalised, i.e. every handling agent can obtain a licence to operate at the airport. In
those cases, no tender needs to be arranged.

The other 60% of airports are limited to a certain number of handling licences for the catego-
ries mentioned in Table 4-17. Mostly category 3, 4 and 5 are limited whereas category 7 (fuel
and oil handling) is liberalised at almost all airports. At CDG, MAD and VIE only third party
handling is limited; freedom of self-handling is safeguarded for all categories.

Mostly the licences are limited to two or to three handlers for self-handling and for third party
handling each. For those limited airports tenders needed to be organised in compliance with
the provisions laid down in Article 11 and 14 of the Directive.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 125

 Interview Data EU-15

Number of tender processes Valid number of Who can vote

AUC length of
Airport since introduction of the Directive tendered licences on the tender Decisive criteria
consulted? licence
(Ramp Handling) (incl. Airport GH) process?

AMS Liberalised market - no tender

ARN Liberalised market - no tender
Self handling: 3 (cat. 3, 5) Self handling: 2 Authority/ Operational concept and
ATH √ 7 years
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5) Third party: 3 Ministry business plan
Cost basis, use of airport
Self handling: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5) Self handling: 2 infrastructure,
BRU √ Airport/ AUC 7 years
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5) Third party: 2 operational plan and
business plan
Safety, security and
environment regulations,
financial capacity,
1
Third party: 5 resources (Human and
Airport /
CDG (cat. 3, 5 ;1999/ 2000/ 2001/ Third party: 3
1
√ materials), social policy 3 years
Authority
2006/ 2007) 2 (cat. 4) in terms of social
legislation, Internal
procedures regarding
quality controls
the votes of the AUC,
workers council, airport;
the willingness to take
over airport staff; a
Self handling: 1 (cat. 4, 5; 2007) AUC, Workers
Self handling: 2 quality management
CGN Third party: 2 (cat. 4, 5; √ council, Airport, 5 years
Third party: 2 system, a sample
1999/2004) Authority
calculation according to
a sample flight plan;
experience and
references
CPH Liberalised market - no tender
FCO Liberalised market - no tender

Self handling: 1 (cat. 3, 4, 5; AUC, workers

Self handling: 2
FRA 1998) Third √ council, Airport, experience, reliability 5 years
Third party: 2
party: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5; 1998/2005) Authority
HEL Limited market - no tender realised
LHR Liberalised market - no tender
LIS Limited market - no tender realised
Quality levels, human
and technical resources,
Airport
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; environmental care,
MAD Third party: 3 √ Operator / 7 years
1996/2005), 1 (cat. 4; 2005) economic operational
Authority
and quality
improvements
MAN Liberalised market - no tender
vote AUC, operational
AUC / Airport / concept, business plan,
VIE Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5) Third party: 2 √ 7 years
Authority experience, price,
reliability
1
: At CDG handling licences are dedicated to Terminals

Table 4-17: Overview of market forms and tender process at interviewed airports in the EU-
15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 126

At four airports the length of the licence complies with the suggestion of the Directive of 7
years. This implies that the airports needed to arrange for two tender procedures since the
opening of the market. At the other airports, the time is shorter than the seven years: in CDG
the licences is valid for three years, in CGN and in FRA for five years.

HEL airport is generally also liberalised but limited with particular services. For those a ten-
der process will be organised in the near future.

As already mentioned in chapter 4.9, the Airport Users’ Committee was consulted at each of
the airports in regard to the tender process. In some cases such as BRU, CGN, FRA or VIE it
also had a vote, which was however not considered in the final selection. Also at FRA and
CGN the workers council can vote for candidates. According to the provided data those two
airports are however the only airports where workers are consulted as well.

According to the Directive, the selection decision is made by the responsible authority if the
airport operator is involved in ground handling activities. In this case the airport operator of-
ten conducts the tender procedure, whereas the authority finally decides about the new mar-
ket entrant. Otherwise the airport operator is responsible for the decision himself.

The decisive criteria within the tender process have identical parts at several airports such as
the business plan and the operational concept. Apart from those, quality levels as well as se-
curity and safety regulation play a role. Only at CGN airport the willingness to take over staff
is mentioned as criteria within the tender process.

At airports participating in the internet survey only minor differences can be assessed: Com-
pared to the representative sample of EU-15 airports, the majority of airports, more precisely
79%, is limited to a certain number of licences. Only the Irish and the British airports are fully
liberalised, which allows every handler to be active at those airports.

The number of tender processes does not differ from the airports in the representative sam-
ple: the majority of airports have already organised two tenders since the opening of the
market in 1996. The number of licences tendered is at most airports limited to two self-
handling and third party handling each. Only at the Spanish airports like AGP, ALC and BCN
and at ORY three licences were granted. 47% of airports can ensure the freedom of self-
handling whereby in the past only a tender for third party handling licences needed to take
place. The tendered licences are valid for seven years with the exception of SXF airport.
However this limitation of the licence duration was only implemented due to the closing of
SXF in 2011 and the opening of the New Berlin Brandenburg International airport.

Within this tender procedure the AUC was consulted at each of the airports with the excep-
tion of FMO airport, whereas FMO is not over the threshold of 2 Mio. PAX yet and therefore
does not need to open the market yet.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 127

Since not many stakeholders provided data about the decisive criteria within the tender proc-
ess (only AENA and MUC airport), it can only be assumed that they do not differ widely from
the criteria mentioned within the representative sample. AENA also stated the quality levels
as well as economic operations.
Internet Survey Data EU-15

Number of tender processes Valid number of Who can vote on

length of
Airport since introduction of the tendered licences AUC consulted? the tender Decisive criteria
licence
Directive (incl. Airport GH) process?

Quality levels, human and technical resources,

Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
AGP Third party: 3 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1996/2005), 1 (cat. 4; 2005) Authority
quality improvements
Quality levels, human and technical resources,
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
ALC Third party: 3 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1996/2005), 1 (cat. 4; 2005) Authority
quality improvements
Quality levels, human and technical resources,
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
BCN Third party: 3 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1996/2005), 1 (cat. 4; 2005) Authority
quality improvements

DUB Liberalised market - no tender

Self handling: 2
DUS no data no data Authority no data no data
Third party: 2
FAO no data Third party: 2 no data no data no data 7 years
Self handling: 1 (cat. 5) Third
Self handling 2:
FMO party: 1 (cat. 5, 7) --- Authority no data no data
Third party: 2
Self handling: 2
HAJ Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5) no data Authority no data 7 years
Third party: 2
Self handling: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5)
Self handling: 2
HAM Third party: 2 √ Authority no data 7 years
Third party: 2
(cat. 3, 4, 5; 2000/2006)
Quality levels, human and technical resources,
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
IBZ Third party: 2 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1997/2005) Authority
quality improvements
Self handling 2:
LEJ Third party: 1 (cat. 5, 7) √ Authority no data 7 years
Third party: 2
LGW Liberalised market - no tender
Quality levels, human and technical resources,
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
MAH Third party: 2 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1996/2006) Authority
quality improvements
Criteria for bid acceptance: charge levels based
on a sample calculation that the service
provider demands of the user. Plausibility and
traceability of sample calculation. Verification of
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 4, 5; Self handling: 2
MUC √ Authority quality in rendering ground handling services 7 years
1998/2002) Third party: 2
(experience/references in the field of rendering
handling services at international airports,
quality of available staff, organisation/structure
of handling operations)
Self handling: 1 (cat. 5) Third Self handling: 2
NUE √ Authority price and quality system 7 years
party: 1 (cat. 5) Third party: 2
OPO no data Third party: 2 no data no data no data 7 years

ORK Liberalised market - no tender

ORY no data Third party: 31 no data Authority no data 7 years

Quality levels, human and technical resources,
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Airport Operator /
PMI Third party: 2 √ environmental care, economic operational and 7 years
1996/2006) Authority
quality improvements
SNN Liberalised market - no tender

STN Liberalised market - no tender

Third party: 2 (cat.3, 4, 5; Self handling: 2

STR √ Authority no data 7 years
1998/ 2001) Third party: 2
Third party: 2
Self handling: 2
SXF (cat. 3, 4, 5; 2000/2008), 1 √ Authority no data 4 years
Third party: 2
(cat. 7; 2001)
Third party: 2 (cat. 3, 5; Self handling: 2
TXL √ Authority no data no data
2000/2007) Third party: 2
1
: At ORY handling licences are dedicated to Terminals

Table 4-18: Overview of market forms and tender process at internet survey airports in the
EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 128

New Member States

As Table 4-19 shows, airports within the New Member States do not comply with the Direc-
tive yet, except PRG airport which is fully liberalised. Some airports are just shortly above the
threshold of 2 Mio. PAX or 50.000 tonnes of freight whereby they could not arrange a tender
yet. This will change in the near future at BTS, BUD, RIX and SOF. It can be assumed that
all of the airports of the New Member States participating in the study will be limited to a cer-
tain number of handlers. This implies that New Member States airports are still in the imple-
menting phase of the Directive 96/67/EC and the developments is not finalised yet.

At LCA and MLA, it was already indicated that there are two licences for self and third party
handling. However at MLA airport the freedom of self-handling is safeguarded.

New Member States

Number of tender processes Valid number of Who can vote

AUC length of
Airport since introduction of the Directive tendered licences on the tender Decisive criteria
consulted? licence
(Ramp Handling) (incl. Airport GH) process?

Sample Interview
BTS Due to strong traffic growth BTS under the Directive since 2007. Limited market - no tender realised.
Since 2006 the market access limited to independent third party suppliers - no tender realised - full compliance with the
BUD
Directive soon
Self handling: 2
LCA no data √ no data 7 years
Third party: 2
OTP no data

PRG Liberalised market - no tender

Due to strong traffic growth RIX under the Directive since 2006. Limited market - no tender realised (Preparation for a tender
RIX
in 2008)
Liberalised market - no tender (Strong role of the CAA: beside the airport since 2007 one independent ground handling
SOF
supplier operating)

WAW Limited market - no tender realised

Sample Internet Survey
LJU no tender Pax volume did not reach 2 Mio. yet
MLA no data Third party: 2 no data Authority no data no data
TLL no data
VNO Liberalised market - no tender

Table 4-19: Overview of market forms and tender process at airports in the NMS

Stakeholder specific positions about the Tender Process

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

• Generally, airport operators oppose uniform selection criteria at EU level, as local

conditions need to be considered in the tender process. Moreover, all ground han-
dling suppliers should be licensed under this condition.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 129

 • The criteria for the tender process should be clear and objective. For the two stage
tender process, including pre-qualification and actual selection, the authority or the
airport operator should make clear distinction between the criteria for the pre-
selection and the selection phase.

• A commercial allocation mechanism system for licences may constitute an interesting

solution for ensuring, from a legal perspective, a fair and equitable selection of
ground handlers, however this measure needs to be properly assessed.

• Airports support the introduction of minimum requirements in the pre-selection to en-

sure quality, safety, social conditions and security aspects.

• With the revision of the Directive, guidelines or minimum requirements on insurance

cover for full suppliers and sub-contractors should be introduced.

• Maximum licence period could be extended to 10 years for concession contracts of

service suppliers, which enhances stability of the market and avoid the airport opera-
tor respectively the authority to multiply the heavy procedure of the selection process.
On the other side too long periods would lead to oligopolies, avoid competition and
therefore would be contrary to the objectives of the Directive.

• Within the tender process the transfer of staff between companies is not regulated.
To avoid uncertainties for handlers and staff, some guidelines should be introduced.

• The AUC should have an advisory role and should be consulted in the tender proc-
ess. Giving the AUC decision making power could give the main carrier complete
control on the ground handling market and would contradict the objectives of the Di-
rective. Furthermore, airlines acting as ground handling suppliers would be in a con-
flict of interest, since they would select their prospective competitors.

• As many airports have capacity constraints and focus on the efficient use of infra-
structure, the authority respectively the airport operator should made the decisions on
the number of handling licences.

Airlines:

• Generally, airlines suggest the full opening of ground handling markets. At least the
thresholds should foresee a minimum of four suppliers at large airports and a mini-
mum of three at smaller airports.

• Many airports fully liberalised their access to ground handling markets with positive
effects on quality.

• Airlines stated that they have no or only limited influence on the selection of suppliers,
even though they are customers of ground handling services. It is proposed, that the
AUC should be able to vote in the final selection of the supplier, (in some tender

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 130

 processes the final choice differs significantly from the preferences of the AUC).
Stakeholders suggested that airports and authorities should be involved in the phase
of pre-selection to ensure the general framework, while airlines should make the final
decision.

• Airlines reported, that in some selections the final decision did not reflect the view and
expectations of the AUC and seemed to be politically inspired. Moreover, the final de-
cision was not properly motivated.

• Since some Member States hold shares of airports actively involved in ground han-
dling, the decision of the authority might not be independent. In some cases there
may be a conflict of interest during the selection process, if airports providing ground
handling services, select their competitors.

• At the island airports with handling monopolies of a dominant airline, the monopolistic
supplier misuses his position by imposing higher handling prices on airlines, which
were not customers at other airports with more than two million passengers.

• Prevention of artificial market access barriers and ensuring fair and equal market
conditions: quality requirements must not be set in the tender, since airlines are di-
rectly affected and have self-motivated interest to secure adequate quality standards.

• Some airlines stated that due to investments and depreciation the validity of tendered
handling licences for seven years in maximum is justified, while others prefer short-
term licences to consider the fast evolving market preferences.

Independent ground handling providers:

• At some airports the access to ground handling markets is still limited and no tender,
which complies with the provisions of the Directive, has taken place.

• In some Member States the ability to take over staff from the airport and social condi-
tions offered was highly weighted as selection criteria in tender procedures. This
practice reduces the competitiveness of independent ground handling suppliers (cost
structure, obligation to take staff selected by the competitor) and rather contradicts
the objectives of the Directive.

• Even though independent ground handling providers are not part of the AUC, they
plead for a stronger role to ensure the application of the criteria of relevance, objectiv-
ity, non-discrimination and transparency in the tender process.

• As the provisions on tender process leave room for interpretations, the procedure
should be clarified in the Directive. For the two stage tender process, including pre-
qualification and actual selection, for both stages relevant, objective, transparent and

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 131

 non-discriminatory criteria should be defined and introduced. Furthermore both
stages of the tender should be separated properly.

• Since in some tender procedures the final selection seems not to be comprehensible
and in some cases politically inspired,

o The actual weight of every selection criteria should be clarified and published,

o The vote of the AUC considered and endorsed,

o The final choice should be properly motivated.

• Many ground handlers stated, that due to investments in equipment and staff, the va-
lidity of the handling licences should exceed the current maximum of seven years. Li-
cences with duration of less than seven years affect the cost structures due to higher
depreciation (compared to competitors) and does not enable medium and long-term
strategies and contracts.

Unions:

• Within the tender process the transfer of staff between companies is not regulated.
Based on legal framework conditions and the implementation of the Directive, staff of
the previous handling company needs to be dismissed while the new selected ground
handling company employs rather young and less paid staff. Strong effect on job se-
curity and social conditions, affected by the implementation of the Directive and the
lack of regulation transfer of staff. In regard to the transfer of staff the Directive should
provide some guidelines (e.g. Spanish model) or regulation on European level.

• Regarding the provisions on the tender process social aspects as well as the manda-
tory involvement of work councils should be introduced.

• Maximum licence period could be extended to ten years to enhance stability of the
jobs.

Conclusion about the Tender Process

• The implementation of the Directive regarding the chosen market forms and the ten-
der process vary between the visited airports.

• At six airports in the EU-15, self-handling airlines and ground handling suppliers could
enter the ground handling markets and provide services as baggage handling, freight
and mail handling, ramp handling and, fuel and oil handling only with the approval of
the airport and/or the authority without tender procedures. (free access to the market)

• Beside the general approval, nine airport operators respective authorities decided to
limit the market access and set up tender procedures. Therefore at most airports two

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 132

 licences are tendered and at some even three. The duration of licence validity and
the tender procedure differ significantly.

• With an emphasis on the New Member States, at another six airports the access to
ground handling is limited. However no tender process, which complies with the pro-
visions of the Directive, has taken place yet since the airports are still in the imple-
mentation phase.

• Many stakeholders mentioned that the transfer of staff is not enough specified and
regulated within the Directive and should be part of the tender process.

4.11 Sub-contracting
Preliminary remark

The Directive 96/67/EC does not provide any definitions, provisions or guidelines on sub-
contracting in ground handling markets. Sub-contracting is implicitly considered in Article 2,
which defined self-handling as the situation where an airport user provides itself exclusively
with ground handling services without any operational participation of third party (respective
sub-contracting suppliers). Chapter 4.7 is dedicated to self-handling and discusses questions
positions on sub-contracting related to self-handling.

EU-15 Member States

Table 4-20 to Table 4-22 outline the existence of airside related sub-contracting, respective
cascade sub-contracting, and presents an overview on possible sub-contracting related prob-
lems.

Regarding the representative sample of EU-15 airports, it can be concluded that sub-
contracting is at almost all airports practised except at ATH airport where sub-contracting is
not permitted and LHR where no data is available.

Cascade sub-contracting (i.e. where the sub-contracted company does not perform the ser-
vice but sub-contracts it to another company), is however not practised. Only ARN, CDG and
FRA airport stated that cascade sub-contracting is realised at those airports.

Within the tender process, sub-contracting did not play a role at the interviewed airports with
the exception of BRU airport. This could explain why a ground handling provider can provide
ground handling services cheaper than its competitor by sub-contracting parts of the han-
dling services e.g. to a specialised company.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 133

 Interview Data EU-15
Did problems encounter due to sub-contracting or cascade sub-
Does sub- Does Cascade contracting?
Sub-contracting indicated
Airport contracting sub-contracting Independent
during tender?
exists? exists? Airport Operator Airlines ground handling
provider
Liberalised market - no
AMS √ no no no ---
tender

Northport (now aquired by

Menzies) sub-contracted to
fulfill contractaual
Liberalised market - no
ARN √ √ obligations. This led to no ---
tender
difficulties in reaching core
decision-makers within
Northport
ATH not permitted
Some airlines tried to sub-
contract to third parting
BRU √ no √ handling companies, that did no no
not have a license from the
airport
CDG √ √ no no data
CGN √ no no no --- ---
Liberalised market - no
CPH √ no data no --- ---
tender
Liberalised market - no
FCO √ --- no √ no
tender
Insufficent insurance
coverage, lack of quality, use
FRA √ √ no no no
of temporary
workers agencies
Since the sub-contractors
are working for more than
one company at the airport
Staff problems.
the staff does not
Risk of
necessarily know for whom
accidents/incide
Liberalised market - no they are working.
HEL √ no nts due to ---
tender It is questionable how a
insufficient
handling company
training staff
communicates all
rotation
safety/security requirements
if they also do not know
about their staff.
LHR √ no data
Limited market - no tender
LIS √ no data no --- ---
realised
Cascade sub-contracting is
not practiced: Concern:
negative effects on safety,
MAD √ no no data --- ---
security, quality,
environment, training,
equipement
MAN √ no no data no --- ---
VIE √ no no no no no

Table 4-20: Sub-contracting at interviewed airports in the EU-15

Problems resulting from sub-contracting are mainly seen by airport operators. In HEL the air-
port operator stated that it is not easy to communicate with the handling companies if the
services are sub-contracted to other companies whereas the main service provider is not
available at the airport anymore. Airport operators fear that sub-contracting has negative ef-
fects on security and safety requirements even if no problems regarding safety and security
could be detected yet.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 134

The airport operator at FRA mentioned that workers of sub-contracted companies or tempo-
rary workers agencies have a lack of quality since they are only temporarily employed at the
airport and therefore do not get adequate trainings in advance. This can have a negative im-
pact on the safety as well.

Regarding the internet survey, airports within the EU-15 sub-contracting exists at the majority
of airports. Only 21% noted that sub-contracting is not practised at the airport. For these lat-
ter airports, the absence of subcontracting practice implies that cascade sub-contracting is
not realised.

At the other 79% of airports, sub-contracting could be observed whereas even cascade sub-
contracting existed at 33% of all airports. This is more than in the representative sample of
EU-15 airports. This is due to the high number of German airports where sub-contractors
contract another company for selected ground handling services. Only at NUE airport cas-
cade sub-contracting is not practised.

At DUS and HAM as well as IBZ, MAH, PMI and ORY, sub-contracting was even already in-
dicated during tender procedures. At all other airports it was either not indicated or no tender
had taken place since the airport is fully liberalised.

In contrast to the representative sample, stakeholders did not see any problems in regard to
sub-contracting.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 135

 Internet Survey Data EU-15
Did problems encounter due to sub-contracting or cascade sub-
Does
Does sub- Sub-contracting contracting?
Cascade sub-
Airport contracting indicated during
contracting
exists? tender? Independent ground
exists? Airport Operator Airlines
handling provider

AGP √ no no data no --- ---

ALC √ no no data no --- ---

BCN √ no no data no --- ---

Liberalised
DUB no no market - no no --- ---
tender
DUS √ no √ no no ---

FAO √ no data no no --- ---

FMO no no no no --- ---

HAJ √ √ no --- no ---

HAM √ √ √ no --- no

IBZ √ no √ --- --- no

LEJ √ √ no no --- ---

LGW no no no data

MAH √ no √ --- --- no

MUC √ √ no no no ---

NUE √ no no no no ---

OPO √ no data no no --- ---

Liberalised
ORK no no market - no no --- ---
tender
ORY √ √ √ no --- ---

PMI √ no √ no --- no
Liberalised
SNN √ no data market - no no data
tender

STN no no no data

STR √ √ no no no ---

SXF √ √ no --- no no

TXL √ √ no --- --- no

Table 4-21: Sub-contracting at internet survey airports in the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 136

New Member States

At New Member States airports sub-contracting seems to be part of the ground handling in-
dustry since only at three airports (LCA, RIX and VNO) sub-contracting is not practised. In
contrast to the internet survey airports within the EU-15, where cascade sub-contracting can
be observed, within companies in the New Member States cascade sub-contracting is not
common. Only at MAL airport, stakeholders mentioned it to be used.

Since at many New Member States airports no tender procedure has taken place yet (see
also chapter 4.10) or the market is fully liberalised (no need for a tender), sub-contracting
could not be indicated within this process.

The only opinion that stakeholders in the New Member States stated was against cascade
sub-contracting. PRA airport operator mentioned that cascade sub-contracting could have a
negative effect on quality, price and safety and is therefore not permitted.
New Member States
Does Did problems encounter due to sub-contracting or cascade sub-
Does sub- contracting?
Cascade sub- Sub-contracting indicated
Airport contracting
contracting during tender? Independent ground
exists? Airport Operator Airlines
exists? handling provider
Interview Data
Limited market - no tender
BTS √ no no --- ---
realised
Limited market - no tender
BUD √ no no --- no
realised
LCA no no √ no --- no
OTP no data

no cascade sub-contracting in
PRG √ no Liberalised market - no tender PRG: possible effects on no no
quality, price and safety

Limited market - no tender

RIX no no no --- ---
realised
SOF √ no Liberalised market - no tender no --- ---
Limited market - no tender
WAW √ no no --- ---
realised
Internet Survey Data
LJU √ no no no --- ---
MLA √ √ √ no --- ---
TLL √ no data Liberalised market - no tender no data
VNO no no Liberalised market - no tender no data

Table 4-22: Sub-contracting at airports in the NMS

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 137

Stakeholder specific positions about Sub-contracting

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport Operators:

• With the increase of sub-contracting, the demand for space increases and might lead
to congestions and capacity constraints.

• With the increase of sub-contracting, the number of ground handling staff at the air-
side increases and transparency, safety, security and working conditions might be af-
fected negatively.

• At some airports sub-contracting practices undermine objectives, selection criteria

and requirements defined in the tender process. Therefore in tender procedures
obligatory sub-contracting should be indicated.

• Generally, sub-contracting should be permitted even though an approval obligation

for any sub-contracting party with the same licensing conditions, provided for the
main contractors, should be introduced. Cascade sub-contracting should be limited
respectively or prohibited.

Airlines:

• All market participants should have the right to sub-contract, but the main contractor
needs to guarantee safety and quality standards.

• Airlines and ground handling companies are responsible for the sub-contractors, staff
and service, and ensure in their own interest quality, safety and efficiency. Hence, no
further regulation is necessary.

Independent ground handling providers:

• All market participants should have the right to sub-contract, but the main contractor
needs to guarantee safety and quality standards.

• With increasing specialisation, sub-contracting respectively, cascade sub-contracting

enables competitive advantages regarding quality and price aspects. Therefore sub-
contracting should not be limited.

• Ground handling companies are responsible for the sub-contractors, staff and service
and ensure in their own interest the quality, safety and efficiency. Hence, no further
regulation is necessary.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 138

 • Since sub-contractors need to be approved by the authority and/or the airport man-
agement body their compliance with minimum standards is safeguarded and from a
regulatory point of view their existence is legitimate.

Unions:

• Self-handling airlines and ground handling suppliers are licensed as full service pro-
viders. There is no need to sub-contract several sub services.

• With the increase of sub-contracting and cascade sub-contracting, transparency,

safety, security and working conditions are negatively affected.

• Sub-contracting and cascade sub-contracting is practiced to minimize wages and to

increase working time especially over time. Collective labour agreements and com-
pany agreements are undermined.

• Regarding the revision of the Directive, sub-contracting and cascade sub-contracting

should be limited.

Conclusion about Sub-contracting

• Except from one airport, at most airports sub-contracting is part of the ground
handling industry.

• For three airports, stakeholders indicated the existence of cascade sub-

contracting. In conclusion, at most airports cascade sub-contracting was not
implemented. Some stakeholders stated safety and security concerns as rea-
son for the non-existence.

• With focus on airports with limited market access in the EU-15 sub-contracting
was not indicated at three airports while at one airport applicants for ground
handling licences pointed out sub-contracting components within the tender
process.

• At some visited airports with restricted market access in the NMS, no tender
has taken place and therefore sub-contracting could not be indicated.

• Generally, most of the airlines and independent ground handling providers did
not report any difficulties due to sub-contracting practices while some airports
reported problems.

• Considering the comments stated in the questionnaires, at most airports the

(cascade) sub-contracting parties need to be approved by the authority or the
airport management body to operate at the airport.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 139

4.12 Employment
Preliminary remarks

According to Article 18, for the application of the Directive, Member States may take the nec-
essary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers and respect for the environ-
ment. Since the implementation of the Directive the legal framework conditions differ. There-
fore, also the employment related developments in ground handling markets vary between
the Member States and airports significantly, as well. Hence, a broad variety of influencing
variables (social protection, collective labour agreements, specifications) affected social- and
employment conditions in ground handling at national level, the impact of the Directive on
working conditions is difficult to identify.

Even if all job categories within the ground handling industry differ we decided to take the fol-
lowing two into account: ramp agents and loaders. They are supposed to show tendencies in
the development within the employment conditions, even though all categories of ground
handling employees are different.

Independently from the Directive and its impacts, ground handling is a very labour intensive
business. As stakeholders reported, 70 to 80% of the total costs of ground handling compa-
nies correspond to labour costs.

However, in order to identify some trends and tendencies, the stakeholders were requested
to indicate changes in the number of staff, employed in ground handling, changes of income
levels, general working and social conditions, and developments on the type of contract.
Since many stakeholders did not submit information on this topic, arguing they had already
participated in the ECORYS study (see also chapter 3.5), the findings are very limited. Fur-
thermore, they stated that the Directive did not influence working conditions or other em-
ployment related topics whereas they did not see it a necessity to provide data.

According to the very limited data, submitted by four airport ground handling divisions, one
airline and five independent ground handling companies (station based), the total number of
staff increased, while the number of staff employed at airport ground handling subsidiaries
slightly decreased. Employment at handling airlines decreased while the number of staff,
employed at independent ground handling companies increased from 1996 at EU-15 air-
ports.

Based on the data from two airports, two airlines and two independent ground handling com-
panies, airport ground handling and independent ground handling companies recorded an
increase of the number of staff, while the jobs provided by handling airlines decreased be-
tween 2004 and 2007 at airports in the New Member States.

Corresponding to the stakeholders, generally, the income levels increased. More in detail, in
the EU-15 Member States the average income of a typical ramp agent increased between
1.0 and 3.0% per year between 1996 and 2002. From the year 2002 the income

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 140

development is even more heterogeneous and varies between –2.0 and 7.0% increase per
year. Figure 4-25 provides an overview.

4.12.1 Changes of average income levels

EU-15 Member States

Stakeholders were asked to provide data about the average yearly salary of loaders as well
as ramp agents within their company. Generally, it can be concluded from the provided data
that there are differences in the level of income between the different job categories. This
may be due to economical differences between the Member States of the EU and addition-
ally due to company specifics such as an affiliation to collective labour agreements. How-
ever, this is not remarkable since ramp agents have more responsibility than loaders.

Concerning the changes in the salary of loaders between 1996 and 2002 eight stakeholders
in the EU-15 provided data. Changes, however, differ widely between airports and stake-
holders whereby it can only be concluded that salaries increased at most of the airports.

In the following period, growth levels were higher at some airports, but results still differ
widely. A tendency can be seen in increasing income levels. Only within one airline, income
for loaders decreased. It is however difficult to identify the reason for the decrease.

Since data is limited to a few stakeholders a stakeholder comparison is not possible.

Development of loaders' yearly income between 1996 and 2002

6
Airport
Airline
4
Interview Data Internet Survey Data Independent GH
Changes in percentage points

2
BRU no data
CDG no data

no data
VIE no data

BCN no data
DUB no data

DUS no data
no data
AMS no data
ARN no data
ATH no data

CPH no data
FCO no data

LHR no data
LIS no data
MAD no data

AGP no data
no data

HAJ no data

no data

OPO no data
ORK no data

STN no data

SXF no data
TXL no data
ORY no data
PMI no data
SNN no data

0
NUE
CGN

MUC
FMO
HEL

STR
LEJ
LGW
FRA

HAM
MAN

MAH
IBZ
FAO
ALC

-2

-4

-6

Figure 4-24: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between 1996
and 2002 according to the type of stakeholders

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 141

 Development of loaders' yearly income between 2002 and 2007
8
Airport
6 Airline
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
Independent GH
Changes in percentage points

no data

no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data
2

NUE
CGN
CPH

MUC

PMI
CDG

FCO

FMO

OPO
DUB
DUS

ORK
HEL
BRU

LHR

BCN

SNN
STN
STR
LEJ
FRA

LIS

VIE

AGP

ORY
LGW

TXL
HAM
ARN
ATH

MAD
MAN

IBZ

MAH

SXF
HAJ
FAO
AMS

ALC
-2

-4

-6

-8

Figure 4-25: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between 2002
and 2007 according to the type of stakeholders

Regarding the growth of the salary for ramp agents, differences can be seen: for the time be-
tween 1996 and 2002 however, only five stakeholders provided data on the changes for
ramp agents. At four of those the salary slightly increased and at one airport (FMO) the sal-
ary decreased. For the following period up until 2007, eight companies provided data and it
can be concluded that the salaries for ramp agents increased on a higher level than previ-
ously with the exception of an airline at FCO airport where salary for ramp agents decreased.
Growth levels however differ widely at the eight airports: at HEL, ATH and ARN the growth
was between 5 and 7% whereas at the other airports it was between 1 and 2%.

Development of ramp agents' yearly income between 1996 and 2002

4

3
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
2
Changes in percentage points

no data
no data

no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data

no data
no data
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data
no data
no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data

0
NUE

PMI
CGN
CPH

MUC
CDG

FCO

FMO

OPO
DUB
DUS

ORK
HEL
BRU

LHR

BCN

SNN
STN
STR
LEJ
FRA

LIS

VIE

AGP

ORY
LGW

TXL
ARN
ATH

MAD
MAN

HAM

MAH
FMO

IBZ

SXF
HAJ
AMS

FAO
ALC

-1

-2

-3
Airport
-4
Airline
-5 Independent GH

-6

Figure 4-26: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between
1996 and 2002 according to the type of stakeholders

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 142

 Development of ramp agents' yearly income between 2002 and 2007
8

Airport
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
6 Airline
Changes in percentage points

Independent GH
4

2
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data

no data
no data

no data

no data
no data
no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
no data

no data

no data
no data

no data
no data
no data

no data
no data
no data
no data
0

NUE

PMI
CG N
CPH

MUC
CDG

FCO

FMO

O PO
DUB
DUS

O RK
HEL
BRU

LHR

BCN

SNN
STN
STR
LEJ
FRA

LIS

VIE

AG P

O RY

TXL
LG W
HAM
ARN
ATH

MAD
MAN

MAH
IBZ

SXF
HAJ
FAO
AMS

ALC
-2

-4

Figure 4-27: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the EU-15 between
2002 and 2007

New Member States

The income developments in the New Member States seem to be more similar to the EU-15
companies: salaries for ramp agents as well as for loaders increased between 2004 and
2007. However, the level of growth differs between the stakeholders as well as the airports.
Furthermore, there is a difference between the two occupational groups.

Development of loaders' yearly income between 2004 and 2007

16
Airport
14
Changes in percentage points

Airline
12
Independent GH
10
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
8

4
no data

no data
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

0
BTS BUD LCA OTP PRG RIX SOF WAW LJU MLA TLL VNO

Figure 4-28: Development of loaders’ income levels at airports in the NMS between 2004 and
2007

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 143

 Development of
Development of ramp
yearlyagents‘
income between 2004 and
yearly income 2007 2004
between
and 2007
16
Airport
14
Airline
Changes in percentage points

12 Independent GH

10
Interview Data Internet Survey Data
8

4
no data

no data
no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data
2

0
BTS BUD LCA OTP PRG RIX SOF WAW LJU MLA TLL VNO

Figure 4-29: Development of ramp agents’ income levels at airports in the NMS between 2004
and 2007

4.12.2 General Working conditions

EU-15 Member States

Stakeholders were asked to submit information about the general working conditions and if
changes could be noticed between 1996 and 2002 and between 2002 and 2007. However
information was only available for the second period of time.

General working conditions are defined as an overview or summary of all types of working
conditions such as the operational pressure, health and security, number of working hours,
number of holidays and rest time between shifts etc.

At interviewed airports, only eleven stakeholders submitted information on the developments

of general working conditions within the internet survey of EU-15 airports in addition to nine
companies (only German companies). Due to the limited number of stakeholders providing
answers only tendencies on changes can be highlighted.

Some stakeholders, who submitted information, indicated that the general working conditions
between 2002 and 2007 improved. Only at BRU and VIE airport, the independent ground
handling companies stated that there were no changes. The airport operators of VIE and
FRA airport, however, stated that the working conditions deteriorated. The example of FRA is
in the contrast to the ground handling companies’ opinion.

This is the result of different developments within the above mentioned parts of the working
conditions. Therefore the stakeholders’ opinions differ. For example, in one company the
number of working hours increased and the rest time between shifts decreased which

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 144

influenced the working conditions negatively. In the other company, however, there was no
change seen in those two categories. This implies that the working conditions are company
specific and cannot be compared. Apart from this it can also be concluded that the Directive
cannot be the only factor which influences the working conditions since the opinions differ
between airports and stakeholders. Otherwise there should have been a correlation between
the same stakeholder group and the direction of changes of working conditions.

By analysing the working conditions more closely, it can be concluded that the improvements
mainly results from increasing influence of employees on their shifts and improving health
and security for the employees. Apart from the fact that operational pressure is increasing in
almost every company most of the other factors such as the number of holidays or the rest
time during shifts did not change between 2002 and 2007.

Interview Data EU-15

Benchmark: Development of working conditions between 2002 and 2007
Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
AMS --- --- ---
ARN --- Improvement ---
ATH --- --- Improvement
BRU --- --- No change
CDG --- --- ---
CGN Improvement --- ---
CPH --- --- ---
FCO --- --- ---
FRA Deterioation --- Improvement
HEL --- --- Improvement
LHR --- --- ---
LIS --- --- ---
MAD --- --- ---
MAN Improvement --- Improvement
VIE Deterioation --- No change

Table 4-23: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working condi-
tions between 2002 and 2007 at interviewed airports in the EU-15

The same pattern can be seen within the airports from the internet survey airports as within
the interviewed airports: The majority of stakeholders rated the developments as improving,
however, also two airport operators (MUC and STR) estimated the changes as deteriorating.

Operational pressure also increased at most airports. The development of working hours and
the number of holidays, however, varies between the different stakeholders.

The comparison between different stakeholders at the same airport can only be made at
HAM airport where the airport operator and the independent ground handling agent provided

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 145

information. In contrast to the comparison within the interview sample, stakeholders in HAM
had the same view - an improvement - on the topic.

Internet Survey Data EU-15

Benchmark: Development of working conditions between 2002 and 2007

Airport
Independent ground handling
Airport Airline
provider

AGP --- --- ---

ALC --- --- ---
BCN --- --- ---
DUB --- --- ---
DUS No change --- ---
FAO --- --- ---
FMO --- --- ---
HAJ --- --- ---
HAM Improvement --- Improvement
IBZ --- --- ---
LEJ --- --- Improvement
LGW --- --- ---
MAH --- --- ---
MUC Deterioation --- ---
NUE Improvement --- ---
OPO --- --- ---
ORK --- --- ---
ORY --- --- ---
PMI --- --- ---
SNN --- --- ---
STN --- --- ---
STR Deterioation --- ---
SXF --- --- Improvement
TXL --- --- Improvement

Table 4-24: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working condi-
tions between 2002 and 2007 at internet survey airports in the EU-15

New Member States

With a few exceptions like the airport operator in RIX and SOF and the participating airline at
PRG airport, stakeholders rated the developments of working conditions as improving.

As already mentioned, within the New Member States, most stakeholders have also seen in-
creasing operational pressure. Within the other parts such as the number of working hours,
number of holidays, and rest time between shifts, most companies saw no change between
2004 and 2007. For the variables such as professional health and security, rest time during

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 146

shifts and influence of employees on their shifts, the opinions of the stakeholders differ
widely.

New Member States

Benchmark: Development of working conditions between 2004 and 2007

Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
BTS Improvement Improvement ---
BUD --- --- No change
LCA --- --- Improvement
OTP --- --- ---
PRG Improvement No change Improvement
RIX Deterioration --- ---
SOF No Change --- ---
WAW --- --- ---
Internet Survey Data
LJU Improvement --- ---
MLA Improvement --- ---
TLL --- Improvement ---
VNO Improvement --- ---

Table 4-25: Stakeholder specific benchmark on the general development of working condi-
tions between 2004 and 2007 at airports in the New Member States

4.12.3 Development in the type of contract

Stakeholders were asked to provide data about the type of contracts employees within their
company hold and if the type of contract changed between 2002 and 2007.

EU-15 Member States

Interviewed Airports:

Within the airport operators at interviewed airports only three companies provided answers
about the development in the type of contract. Within those companies no tendency can be
seen due to the limited data. It can only be seen that VIE airport as well as the independent
ground handling company at ATH and LHR airport do not employ workers via temp agencies.

Among the airlines only a tendency can be seen in the increase of employees via temp
agencies. Other than that, no consistent picture can be drawn apart from the fact that only
two airlines provided data.

By analysing the answers of independent ground handling companies it can only be high-
lighted that the changes seem to vary from company to company and therefore influenced by
more factors beside the Directive 96/67/EC.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 147

Apart from the type of contract, regarding its duration, companies were also asked to com-
ment on the development of contracts in regard of the working time. More precisely, stake-
holders were asked to provide information about full time, part time and seasonal contracts.

Three of the four answering airport operators stated a decrease in full time contracts
whereas all three had a different view on the changes in fixed-term contracts as well as the
seasonal contracts.

Airlines seem to be as heterogeneous as airport operators within their opinions about the
change of contracts. No trend can be seen.

The six independent ground handling companies which provided answers seem to have dif-
ferent opinions about the contracts, even though a trend towards an increasing or stable
number of fixed-term contracts, as well as employees, via temp agencies can be noticed.
EU-15 Interview
Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts hold by employees between 2002 - 2007
Unlimited contracts Fixed-term contract Via temp agencies
Airport
Independent Independent Independent
Airport Airline Airport Airline Airport Airline
GH GH GH
AMS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
ARN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
ATH --- --- No change --- --- No change --- --- ---
BRU --- --- Decrease --- --- Increase --- --- Increase
CDG --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
CGN Decrease --- --- Increase --- --- Increase --- ---
CPH --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
FCO -- Increase --- --- Decrease --- --- Increase ---
FRA Decrease --- Increase No change --- Decrease Increase --- Increase
HEL --- --- No change --- --- No change --- --- No change
LHR --- No change Decrease --- No change Increase --- Increase ---
LIS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MAD --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MAN --- --- No change --- --- --- --- --- ---
VIE No change --- No change No change --- No change --- --- No change
Full Time Contracts Part Time Contracts Seasonal Contract
Airport Independent Independent Independent
Airport Airline Airport Airline Airport Airline
GH GH GH
AMS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
ARN --- Decrease --- --- Increase --- --- No Change ---
ATH --- --- Increase --- --- Increase --- --- Increase
BRU --- --- Decrease --- --- Increase --- --- Increase
CDG --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
CGN Decrease --- --- Increase --- --- Increase --- ---
CPH --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
FCO --- Increase --- --- Increase --- --- Decrease ---
FRA Decrease --- No change Decrease --- Increase --- --- No change
HEL --- --- No change --- --- No change --- --- No change
LHR --- No change --- --- No change --- --- No Change ---
LIS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MAD --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MAN Decrease --- Increase --- --- No change Increase --- Decrease
VIE No change --- No change No change --- No change No change --- No change

Table 4-26: Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts hold by
employees – at visited EU-15 airports

Internet Survey Airports

Since only German airports answered in the internet survey within the EU-15 Member States
no table is shown with the developments. It, however, can be summarised that most airports
stated that the number of employees holding unlimited contracts decreased. Meanwhile the

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 148

number of fixed term contracts as well as the number of employees having a contract with a
temp agency increased. Only the airport operator at NUE airport stated that all types of con-
tracts increased. Within the DUS airport operator, unlimited contracts did not change in the
time frame while fixed term contracts as well as employees via temp agencies increased.

Airlines did not provide answers since there is no handling airline active at German airports.

Within the ground handling companies no consistent picture can be drawn regarding the de-
velopment in the change of contracts. The only consistent development can be seen in the
increase of fixed term contracts.

In regard to contracts with different durations within the sample of airport operators no con-
sistent view about the change of the number of full time contracts can be observed. It seems
to be company specific, how the contracts are developed. Regarding part time contracts the
number increased with the exception of MUC airport. Since most airports do not have sea-
sonal employees at all, only two airports operator provided information about the changes.

Concerning the independent ground handling companies the results vary between the com-
panies. A consistent picture can only be drawn on part time contracts, which increased in all
companies, which answered the questionnaire.

Summarising the results within the internet survey data of EU-15 Member States it can be
concluded that companies need to be operationally more flexible. This development explains
why fixed term contracts as well as part time contracts tend to increase.

New Member States

Due to very limited information from stakeholders within the New Member States at inter-
viewed airports as well as stakeholders participating in the internet survey the only trend,
which can be analyzed, is the increase in fixed-term contracts. Besides there might be an in-
crease in seasonal contracts. Some companies, however, also stated that no change was
seen within the mentioned contract types.

The stakeholder specific answers are provided in the following table.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 149

 Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts hold by employees between 2004 - 2007
Unlimited contracts Fixed-term contract Via temp agencies
Airport
Independent Independent Independent
Airport Airline Airport Airline Airport Airline
GH GH GH
BTS No change No change --- Increase No change --- No change --- ---
BUD --- --- Increase --- --- Increase --- --- Increase
LCA --- --- No change --- --- No change --- --- No change
OTP no data
PRG Increase --- Increase Increase --- Increase No change --- ---
RIX no data
SOF No change --- --- no data
WAW no data
Full Time Contracts Part Time Contracts Seasonal Contract
Airport Independent Independent Independent
Airport Airline Airport Airline Airport Airline
GH GH GH
BTS No change No change --- Decrease No change --- Increase --- ---
BUD --- --- Increase --- --- Increase --- --- Increase
LCA --- --- No change --- --- No change --- --- No change
OTP no data
PRG Increase --- Increase Increase --- --- No change --- Increase
RIX no data
SOF No change --- --- no data
WAW no data

Table 4-27: Stakeholder specific benchmarks on changes in the type of contracts hold by
employees at visited airports in the New Member States

4.12.4 Number and quality of training

Finally, the stakeholders were asked about changes in the number and the quality of training.
Only a limited minority of parties provided information on training issues and the answers are
very heterogenous.

The absolute duration of training provided to the employees before the start of work differs
between the stakeholders, within the EU-15 and the NMS. The duration however increased
or remained stable within the majority of companies between 1996 and 2007.

According to the report of Ecorys on the social development in the EU air transport sector,
the opening of markets has changed the framework conditions for stakeholders and their
employees due to more flexibility. However, the opinions about the development of employ-
ment conditions and qualification levels diverge between the stakeholders. The specific
views are summarized below:

Stakeholder specific positions about Employment

(These statements engage only the authors’ positions and should not be seen in any way as
EC opinions.)

Airport operators:

• Since the liberalisation, the number of jobs in ground handling markets increased.

• At some airports the implementation of the Directive led to negative impacts, such as
lower salaries, deteriorating work and security conditions, lower quality levels and dif-
ficulties in implementing the transfer process.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 150

 • Within the tender process the transfer of staff between companies is not regulated.
Depending on the national legal framework and implementation of the Directive staff
of the existing ground handling company needs to be dismissed while the new se-
lected ground handling company employs new staff. This might affect job security,
social conditions, safety and social conditions.

• There is a need at EU level for clarifying the real meaning of Article 18 of the Direc-
tive by imposing clear guidelines.

Airlines:

• From many airlines’ point of view, the Directive does not affect working conditions,
training and qualification. Therefore, only a very limited number submitted information
on this topic.

• An erosion of working conditions is not ascertainable. Generally, the prices de-

creased without effects on working conditions.

• The liberalisation of the aviation sector has led to an increasing number of jobs.

Independent ground handling suppliers:

• Many ground handling companies stated that the Directive does not affect working
conditions, training and qualification. Therefore only a very limited number submitted
information on this topic.

• The liberalisation of the aviation sector has led to an increasing number of jobs. In
this regard at some stations there is a lack of manpower. Therefore working condi-
tions improved to attract staff.

• Since the licences of independent ground handling companies are limited and the
transfer of staff is not clear, they are not able to guarantee unlimited contracts.

• In ground handling markets, independent ground handling suppliers compete on

prices and quality. In their own interest well qualified, trained and motivated staff is
absolutely necessary.

Unions:

• The Directive is implemented into the national legal framework. The impacts on em-
ployment vary between the EU Member States, depending on the link to social pro-
tection and the degree of the liberalisation.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 151

• The growth of air traffic exceeded the growth of jobs within the ground handling sec-
tor in the EU. Therefore, the pressure on staff increased.

• Generally, in more liberalised ground handling markets the competition is just on

prices and in turn on wages. That is the reason why wages decreased below the av-
erage within the country.

• Unions would propose a limitation in the number of handlers at each airport to stop
the downward trend of wages.

• Generally, with the increase of competition, staff was reduced and due to efficiency
the pressure on working conditions increased. More flexible working contracts in-
creased working pressure.

• To realize efficient cost structures, ground handling companies replaced experienced

and senior staff with young and less paid staff.

• In regard to the modification of the Directive, it should comply with the common Euro-
pean social standards and requirements (Directive), which protect wages, and em-
ployees and ensure acceptable working conditions (min. social requirements).

• Within the tender process the transfer of staff between companies is not regulated.
Depending on the national legal framework and implementation of the Directive staff
of the existing ground handling company needs to be dismissed while the new se-
lected ground handling company employs new, rather young and less paid staff.
There is a strong effect on job security and social conditions, affected by the imple-
mentation of the Directive and the lack of regulation of staff transfer. The transfer of
staff between companies should be considered in the tender procedure and regulated
on national level (e.g. sectoral agreement in Spain) or regulated on a European level.

• Since the licences of independent ground handling companies are limited, the num-
ber of more limited, flexible contracts increased and job security decreased. There-
fore, quality of ground handling decreased and security and safety issues have risen.

• While it takes some time to build up strong bonds in unions within companies, a ten-
der, and with this the change of ground handling companies, destroys the possible
bond and influence of the unions.

• New labour agreements with new companies tend to cover just the minimum, in con-
trast to previous agreements which were a powerful way to get a wage increase.

• Due to increasing competition ground handling companies limit the training and quali-
fication measures to the minimum.

• Some workers councils plead for the introduction of common standards of

qualification for ground handling staff due to improvements in quality, efficiency,

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 152

 safety and security, training and the efficient use of infrastructure as well as to comply
with future challenges, namely the enormous growth of traffic in the EU.

Conclusion about Employment

• In general, employment conditions are heavily driven by company specifications, col-

lective labour agreements and national social protection systems. The Directive ef-
fects are therefore difficult to isolate.

However, the following trends have emerged in the study:

• Development of Average Income

o Within the EU-Member States, tendencies can be seen in that the income
level increased since 1996. However, it needs to be noted that the growth var-
ies between the airports.

o Within the New Member States income for employees within all companies,
which answered the questionnaire increased.

• General working conditions

o The majority of stakeholders, who submitted information, indicated that the

general working conditions improved.

o The improvements stated by some stakeholders mainly result from increasing

influence of employees on their shifts and improving health and security for
the employees. Apart from the fact that operational pressure is increasing in
almost every company, most of the other factors such as the number of holi-
days or the rest time during shifts did not change between 2002 and 2007.

o Stakeholders in the New Member States saw mainly improvements of working

conditions. The increasing operational pressure was highlighted by almost all
stakeholders in the New Member States.

• Type of contract

o Through the analysis of the changes in the type of contract, it can be con-
cluded that not all of the stakeholders employ workers via temp agencies.

o However, the number of employees via temp agencies increases within the
companies using this type of contract.

o The contracts in regard of working time tend to change to more fixed-term

contracts and less unlimited contracts. Companies need to be more flexible to
react on unforeseen market changes in time.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 153

 • Training

o The duration of training provided to the employees before the start of work dif-
fers between the stakeholders, within the EU-15 and the NMS.

o The duration however increased or remained stable within the majority of

companies between 1996 and 2007.

4.13 Staff Safety

Preliminary remark

As specified in Article 17 of the Directive 96/67/EC ("the provisions of this Directive affect in
no way the rights and obligations of the Member States in respect to law and order, safety
and security at airports"), the Directive was conceived with the ambition not to create any im-
pacts on safety and security at airports. However, ten years after its publication, it is worth-
while assessing if the Directive could have had indirectly an impact on airport safety.

The following segment provides an overview on changes in safety related events, focussing
on staff safety (notably accidents and incidents occurring to staff).

According to the provided information and in compliance with ICAO annexes and documents
(notably ICAO annex 14 "Aerodromes" and ICAO Doc. 9859 "Safety Management Manual"),
the vast majority of airport operators and stakeholders have implemented and upgraded
safety management systems during the last years. "Safety Management Systems" track the
safety events (i.e. incidents, nearly incidents and accidents).

However, those SMS have only been implemented recently (for instance ICAO annex 14
only made it compulsory for Member States in 2005 to require airport operators to have a
SMS). As a consequence, there is currently no reliable data covering our study period which
could allow quantifying the safety evolution at airports and therefore, the only way to assess
the impact of the Directive on safety is to rely on stakeholders’ views.

At visited airports, the stakeholders indicated their appreciation of changes in safety issues
for the reference periods during the interviews. The results are shown in the following tables.

One could expect results showing a consistent view on safety issues, as at most of the vis-
ited airports, safety issues are regularly discussed between stakeholders. Indeed, at many
airports there are safety committees where all companies operating at the airport meet to
promote actions for the reduction of incidents. Even at airports where safety committees do
not exist officially, most stakeholders stated that the different operators at the airport worked
together to enhance the safety level.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 154

 Airport Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 1996 and 2002
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
AMS Decrease Increase ---
ARN Increase Increase ---
ATH --- --- ---
BRU --- --- ---
CDG --- --- ---
CGN --- --- ---
CPH --- --- ---
FCO --- --- ---
FRA Decrease --- Increase
HEL --- Increase No change
LHR --- --- ---
LIS --- --- ---
MAD Increase --- ---
MAN --- --- Increase
VIE Decrease --- Increase
Internet Survey Data
AGP Increase --- ---
ALC Increase --- ---
BCN Increase --- ---
DUB Increase --- ---
DUS --- --- ---
FAO --- --- ---
FMO No change --- ---
HAJ --- --- ---
HAM Decrease --- ---
IBZ --- --- ---
LEJ No change --- ---
LGW --- --- ---
MAH --- --- ---
MUC Increase --- ---
NUE --- --- ---
OPO --- --- ---
ORK Increase --- ---
ORY --- --- ---
PMI Increase --- Decrease
SNN Increase --- ---
STN --- --- ---
STR --- --- ---
SXF --- --- ---
TXL --- --- ---

Table 4-28: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 1996 and 2002 at airports in
the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 155

 Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 2002 and 2007
Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
AMS Decrease Increase ---
ARN Increase Increase ---
ATH Decrease --- ---
BRU Increase --- Decrease
CDG --- --- ---
CGN Increase --- ---
CPH Increase --- ---
FCO --- --- ---
FRA Decrease --- Increase
HEL --- Increase No change
LHR --- --- Decrease
LIS --- --- ---
MAD Increase --- ---
MAN --- --- Decrease
VIE Increase --- Increase
Internet Survey Data
AGP Increase --- ---
ALC Increase --- ---
BCN Increase --- ---
DUB Increase --- ---
DUS Increase --- ---
FAO --- --- ---
FMO No change --- ---
HAJ --- --- ---
HAM No change --- ---
IBZ --- --- ---
LEJ Increase --- ---
LGW --- --- ---
MAH --- --- ---
MUC Increase --- ---
NUE Increase --- ---
OPO --- --- ---
ORK Increase --- ---
ORY --- --- ---
PMI Increase --- No change
SNN Increase --- ---
STN --- --- ---
STR --- --- ---
SXF --- --- No change
TXL --- --- ---

Table 4-29: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 2002 and 2007 at airports in
the EU-15

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 156

 Benchmark: Development of safety issues in the NMS between 2004 and 2007
Airport
Independent ground
Airport Airline
handling provider
Interview Data
BTS Increase Increase ---
BUD --- --- No change
LCA No change --- No change
OTP --- --- ---
PRG Increase Increase ---
RIX Increase --- ---
SOF --- --- ---
WAW Increase --- ---
Internet Survey Data
MLA Decrease --- ---
VNO No change --- ---
TLL --- --- ---
LJU Decrease --- ---

Table 4-30: Benchmark: Development of safety issues between 2004 and 2007 at airports in
the New Member States

However, as shown in the tables above the perception of changes in safety issues varies
widely between airports and stakeholders. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that a promi-
nent number of stakeholders did not rate the developments of safety related events. Further
investigations with those stakeholders revealed that they wanted to express that the changes
in the number of safety events did not relate to the Directive 96/67/EC. Since they were
afraid of misinterpretations of the data once it was admitted, they did not provide data at all.

The inconsistencies in these results can be analysed taking into account the following points:

• Many stakeholders denoted a decreasing number of safety issues, highlighting the

importance of the introduction of safety management systems, safety monitoring,
safety committees and improved general cooperation on safety topics.

• On the contrary, some stakeholders highlighted that safety related events increased
through the implementation of the Safety Management System and the necessity to
report all events, which was not mandatory before the implementation.

Additionally, many stakeholders admitted that it was not easy for them to identify clearly the
actual input of the Directive in safety issues, in the absence of reliable data:

• Other drivers, which are completely independent from the Directive, can affect sig-
nificantly safety levels at airports: the growth in air traffic or the introduction of a more
systematic approach to safety through SMS. These as well as the implementation of
new regulations (local, national or European) at airports since 1996 make it particu-
larly difficult to isolate the effects of the Directive at airports.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 157

 • Even for effects directly coming from the implementation of the Directive which can
be qualitatively assessed (for instance multiplication of groundhandlers airside, sub-
contracting practices…), the impact of these effects on safety is difficult to assess in
the absence of data.

Considering the heterogeneous results as well as the high number of stakeholders which did
not rate any safety related developments, the present study cannot draw any clear conclu-
sion on possible impacts of the Directive on safety events, except that the link between
safety events and the Directive is not obvious.

Generally, all stakeholders have a similar perception of factors influencing the level of safety:

• The traffic volume and therefore the operational pressure,

• Capacity and space constraints,

• Single events such as construction works or weather conditions,

• The training and qualification of staff,

• The number of staff and quantity of equipment at ground handling areas and

• Safety management systems, safety monitoring, and safety committees and the
mandatory need to report and as well as more attention on safety issues.

Stakeholder specific positions about Safety Developments

(The stakeholders’ hereafter positions engage only their authors and should not be seen in
any way as EC opinions)

Airport Operators:

• With the introduction of safety management systems, safety monitoring and safety
committees, and improved cooperation on safety at many airports the number of
safety related incidents and accidents could be reduced.

• In coherence with the absolute increase of traffic the number of safety events in-
creased, even though the number of events remained relatively stable or de-
creased.

• Airports mentioned that the increasing operational pressure (e.g. minimized turn
around times, fees) and growing traffic effected raising numbers of incidents and
accidents in ground handling operations, even though this cannot statistically be
proven.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 158

 • Safety issues increased due to the fact that it has become mandatory to report.
Therefore the findings cannot be compared with the results from the previous pe-
riods.

• The increase of staff on the apron, lack of professional trainings and low qualifica-
tion standards lead to an increasing number of safety and security concerns.

Airlines:

• Many airlines did not rate safety developments since they do not see any relations
to the Directive.

• With the introduction of safety management systems, safety monitoring and safety
committees and improved cooperation on safety at many airports the number of
safety related incidents and accidents could be reduced.

• Generally safety issues increased due to the increasing number of staff, equip-
ment and aircrafts on the apron.

• From an airline perspective, safety and working conditions are sufficiently

regulated on national level. Since airlines are responsible and strongly affected by
safety issues (e.g. aircraft damages) they are very aware of safety performance in
ground handling.

Independent ground handling providers:

• Many independent ground handlers did not rate safety developments since they
do not see any relation to the Directive.

• Since safety is paramount and essential for ground handling business

independent handlers are very aware of safety performance in ground handling.

Unions:

• The increasing operational pressure (e.g. minimized turn around times, fees) and
growing traffic affected increasing numbers of incidents and accidents in ground
handling operations, even though this cannot statistically be proven.

• An increased turnover in staff has led to lower wages, which could have important
safety implications.

• In regard to the Safety Management- and Reporting Systems the actual number
of incidents could be twice as that on the published data, because many employ-
ees do not report incidents.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 159

 • The handling operators shall be subject to compulsory approval procedures by
Member States.

Conclusion about Safety Developments

• Many of the stakeholders did not see any direct relationship between the Directive
and safety issues.

• However some concerns were raised about the ground handling staff safety in gen-
eral, independently from the Directive. Some factors such as air traffic increase, ca-
pacity constraints, training of staff, number of staff and equipments etc. could lead to
a deterioration of safety levels at airports. Further inquiries on these issues could be
useful.

• The introduction of reporting practices through the implementation of SMSs should

give access in the near future to reliable safety events statistics in that respect.

4.14 Security
The impacts on security of the Directive were also addressed in the framework of this study.
The authorities in charge were asked to provide us with data on staff security related events
in ground handling. According to the submitted and fulfilled questionnaires and due to inter-
national recommendation all responding authorities monitored security related events but did
not provide us with any data. Actually, most of airport security data is confidential informa-
tion, making it difficult to provide it for public presentations.

Moreover, after September 2001, security at airports has been hugely reinforced, notably
with the introduction of security regulations at EU level. As a consequence, it is difficult for
EU-15 countries to assess the impact of the Directive (which was implemented from 1996)
on security, considering that the whole context changed from 2001. Regarding New Member
States (NMS), the security regulations and the Directive entered into force simultaneously,
making it also difficult to isolate the Directive effects.

Conclusion on security

The current study based on stakeholders’ views did not result in any conclusions about secu-
rity impacts of the Directive, due to a lack of data.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 160

5 Summary of the results

5.1 Introduction
With the adoption of the Directive 96/67/EC in October 1996, the liberalisation of ground
handling markets at Community airports was initialised. Between 1997 and 2000 the EU-15
Member States transposed the opening of ground handling markets by implementing the Di-
rective into the national legal framework. The 12 New Member States applied for and respec-
tively prepared the application of the Directive since their entrance into the European Union
between 2004 and 2007.

In accordance with the liberalisation of the air transport market in the European Union, the
Directive 96/67/EC focuses on the strengthening of competition, implicating

• an increase in efficiency within the ground handling sector,

• a decrease of the average handling prices,

• an increase in the quality levels of service,

• an enhancement in the choice for airlines.

In 2001 the European Commission appointed SH&E International Air Transport Consultancy
to undertake an impact study on the quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU
airports as a result of the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC. The report was pub-
lished in 2002. The main findings are:

• a decrease in terms of price for ground handling services,

• no conclusions on developments regarding quality are drawn since the perception of

the stakeholders varies significantly,

• an increase of competition by an increasing number of independent third party han-

dling companies and stagnation in the number of self-handling airlines.

Since 2002, ground handling markets experienced a very dynamic phase of development
and growth. Additionally, with the entrance of the New Member States to the European
Union, the European air transport market changed significantly. In preparation for a possible
revision of the Directive the European Commission assigned the Airport Research Center, in
cooperation with MVV Consult, to carry out this review on the impacts of the Directive
96/67/EC on the ground handling markets at Community airports.

According to the methodical approach the study is based on on-site interviews at selected
airports and in addition on an internet survey for the remaining airports and their
stakeholders under the Directive. With focus on the airports in the EU-15, the analyses con-
sider the years 1996, 2002 and 2007 to ensure compatibility with the SH&E report as well as

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 161

to cover the years since the introduction of the Directive. With regard to the airports in the
New Member States, analyses were carried out for the periods 2004 and 2007.

5.2 Results of the study

5.2.1 General conditions and specifics of national legislation in the EU Member

States

In compliance with the provisions of the Directive 96/67/EC, the Member States introduced
various types of liberalisation. While in some Member States the access to ground handling
markets is fully liberalised (i.e. every handling provider is allowed to be active at the airport
without attending a tender procedure), in other countries the access is limited. In accordance
with the Directive in those countries, handling licences for all or some limitable categories of
ground handling such as baggage handling, freight and mail handling, ramp handling and
fuel and oil handling, are tendered and granted for seven years in maximum. Other countries
liberalised the access at selected airports.

In general it was difficult to obtain information from the stakeholders: Some companies stated
that data is confidential and therefore could not be provided for the study. This concerned
mostly the security and safety chapters of the report. Additionally some stakeholders could
not highlight developments since the implementation of the Directive due to their recent mar-
ket entrance. Other stakeholders, however, who have been active since 1996, could not ac-
cess older data any more.

Therefore in some cases only tendencies about the impact of the Directive 96/67/EC and the
development of the ground handling sector could be highlighted

5.2.2 Analyses of competition of ground handling markets

Generally, the number of self-handling airlines and third party handling companies has in-
creased since the introduction of the Directive. However, the findings vary between the air-
ports significantly. At airports with former handling monopolies the number of third party han-
dlers increased more than at airports, which were already liberalised before the introduction
of the Directive. While the number of self-handling airlines remained stable or increased
slightly, the number of third party handlers increased more significantly.

Conclusions about baggage handling competition

The number of baggage handling providers has generally increased at European airports fol-
lowing the introduction of the Directive, in the EU-15 airports as well as in NMS airports. An
average growth of 95% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of third party
handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 33% in the same time. (Due to
the representation, results are only derived from the data of interviewed airports.)

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 162

The growth of third party handling agents in the New Member States accounted for 17% be-
tween 2004 and 2002, the growth of handling airlines 25%.

It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number of third party handling parties in
the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to the change in the
number of handling airlines. The absolute change in the number of third party handling sup-
pliers per airport was higher in the EU-15 Member States than in the New Member States
with the exception of German and Spanish airports.

Conclusions about freight and mail handling competition

The number of freight and mail handling providers has generally increased at European air-
ports following the introduction of the Directive, in the EU-15 airports as well as in NMS air-
ports.

An average growth of 62% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of third party
handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 60% in the same time.

The growth of third party handling agents in the New Member States accounted for 39% be-
tween 2004 and 2002, the growth of handling airlines 20%.

It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number of third party handling parties in
the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to the change in the
number of handling airlines.

Conclusions about ramp handling competition

The number of ramp handling providers has generally increased at European airports follow-
ing the introduction of the Directive, in the EU-15 airports as well as in NMS airports.

An average growth of 81% between 1996 and 2007 can be seen in the number of third party
handling companies. Handling airlines could post a growth of 27% in the same time.

The growth of third party handling agents in the New Member States accounted for 27% be-
tween 2004 and 2002, the growth of handling airlines 40%.

It needs to be noted that the absolute change in the number of third party handling parties in
the New Member States as well as in the EU-15 was higher compared to the change in the
number of handling airlines.

With the exception of two airports, the change (at MLA and BUD airport two handling airlines
entered the market) in the number of handlers per airport did not exceed one handler.

Conclusions about fuel and oil handling competition

In contrast to category 3, 4 and 5 the number of fuel and oil handling companies did not ho-
mogeneously increase at the interviewed airports. Only the number of third party handling
providers in the EU-15 could post an increase. An average growth of 8% between 1996 and
2007 can be seen in the number of third party handling companies. Handling airlines did not
show a change in the same time.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 163

In the New Member States no change could be seen in the number of third party providers
and handling airlines.

5.2.3 Stakeholder specific Market Shares

The main changes in terms of market shares can be observed for airports where the airport
operator was in monopoly previously, and where the market was opened following the intro-
duction of the Directive.

As a general rule, the market shares of independent ground handling providers increased,
while market shares of airport ground handling subsidiaries and handling airlines decreased.
The shares of handling airlines stagnated or decreased as well. The most important changes
in the development of the market shares have taken place in the period from 1996 to 2002
when the markets were opened, new handling agents entered the market and competition
started to increase.

5.2.4 Contestable market

In general, the ground handling market at airports is considered by stakeholders to be open

to third party handling following the introduction of the Directive. Market opening is however,
cyclical at airports with limited markets (i.e. with licensed ground handling activities): The
market can be seen as closed between 2 renewals of the contracts.

The stakeholders were requested to estimate the size of the contestable ramp handling vol-
ume. The estimated size and structure of the contestable markets vary largely between the
analysed airports.

Some elements are viewed as limiting the opening of the market:

o the high volume handled by the main carriers is hampering small companies
to enter the market

o the share of ground handling volume, which the airlines handles itself is not
contestable for ground handling companies

The share of handling airlines however is decreasing over time, i.e. the contestable market
becomes bigger.

For New Member States, opening of the market at certain airports is still on-going (or future):
it seems that the implementation of the Directive in the New Member States is still to be en-
hanced.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 164

5.2.5 Changes in handling prices

Although the perception of price changes differs between the stakeholders, since the
introduction of the Directive, prices and the subsequent increase in competition in the ground
handling markets price have decreased, even though the Directive is not the single driver of
the developments.

With focus on the EU-15, prices decreased with a higher intensity at airports with a former
handling monopoly than at airports, which already have had open markets.

At EU-15 airports, the prices continued to decrease between 2002 and 2007. This proves
that competition still exists in the European ground handling market (due to the renewal of
licences for restricted markets and the continuous pressure for market openness for others).

Considering the findings for the ground handling markets in the New Member States, in
general prices for ground handling services decreased since the introduction of the Directive.
However, at some airports where competition had not started yet, prices did not change.
Therefore prices could decrease in the future at New Member States airports

The trend in the decrease of prices is maintained, thanks to competition pressure at airports
covered by the Directive; however the extent to which prices decreased was influenced by
other factors such as improvements in ground handling technology

5.2.6 Changes in Quality Levels

Stakeholders were requested to indicate changes in quality levels. The analysis showed that
the perceptions vary signifincantly between airports and stakeholders.

According to the analysis of the views of EU-15 based on stakeholders which rated the
changes in quality levels, at most airports changes in quality have taken place since 1996.
Developments were heterogeneous amongst the airports but also amongst the stakeholders
at the same airport.

The opinions about influencing factors differ amongst the stakeholders (e.g. some
stakeholders view the improvement in quality is due to the increasing level of competition
(i.e. competition with regards to quality) other stakeholders, however see it as a factor which
contributes to the decreasing quality since decreasing prices can only be achieved by
decreasing quality).

Generally, the performance of quality levels is influenced by:

o The individual ground handling provider,

o The Service Level Agreements between the ground handling provider and the
airline,

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 165

 o The infrastructure at airports (e.g. construction works could reduce quality
levels while the initiation of new facilities could lift the level of provided ground
handling services).

5.2.7 Participation of Airport operators in ground handling markets

Due to historical and strategic reasons many airports provide ground handling services in
competition with handling airlines and independent third party handling companies. With a
focus on the EU-15 Member States the number of airports, actively involved in ground han-
dling markets did not change significantly between 1996 and 2007.

Summarizing the results, market shares decreased and several airport operators decided to
sell their ground handling activities due to the increase of competition and to focus on their
role as a provider of the infrastructure. At airports where the airport operator stayed active
the market shares of airport handling companies decreased as well but retained a high
quality.

Most of the airports in the New Member States provide ground handling services. Generally,
market shares decreased and a few airport operators decided to sell their ground handling
activities due to the increase of competition and to focus on their role as a infrastructure
provider.

Between airports, airlines and independent ground handling providers the engagement of
airport operators in ground handling markets is controversially discussed. In these cases the
airport operator acts as a provider of the (centralised) infrastructure and competes at the
same time with airlines and independent ground handling companies in ground handling
markets. The airport charges the competitors for the use of the infrastructure and obtains a
strong role within tender processes, airlines and independent ground handlers argue that,
handling airports would be able to distort competition in ground handling markets. To ensure
fair competition, objective and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure, the Directive
foresees the separation of accounts between the ground handling and all other airport
activities.

5.2.8 Involvement of airlines in ground handling markets

Airlines participate in ground handling markets as customers as well as self-handlers and

third party suppliers. Due to economies of scale, most self-handling airlines provide ground
handling services to other airlines. On a reciprocal basis some network carriers provide
ground handling services for their alliance partners, while other network airlines select other
suppliers. Since the third party handling volume of airlines is more or less contestable for
other handling parties, the self-handling volume is captive and not contestable for others.

Furthermore, airlines are traditionally active at their hub airports to ensure the necessary
quality. Since they state that the investments for ground handling are huge at the beginning,

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 166

it can be concluded that the majority of airlines would not start a new business at additional
airports.

The size of the captive market differs from airport to airport, depending on the engagement
and market presence of self-handlers, and vice versa effects the size of the contestable

market. This indicates that the contestable market share for ground handing providers is lim-
ited due to the involvement of airlines in ground handling especially when the airline also
provides handling services to other airlines such as alliance partners. Therefore some
stakeholders expressed that handling provided by an airline should be limited to the volume
of the own airline.

5.2.9 Centralized Infrastructure / Access to installations

According to Article 8 of the Directive, Member States are authorised to reserve the man-
agement of defined infrastructure elements used for the supply of ground handling services
for the airport operator or other management bodies, in case that costs or environmental im-
pacts do not allow division or duplication.

Referring to Article 16 in absence of the centralised infrastructure the available space for
ground handling activities (e.g. for storage of equipment) must be divided among the han-
dling parties with the consideration of fair competition and relevant, objective, transparent
and non-discriminatory criteria. Where the access to airport installations gives raise for a fee,
the same criteria must be considered.

At most of the airports centralised facilities are defined, while a minority did not see a benefit
to declare several elements as centralised infrastructure even though those are provided by
the airport operator. More in detail the baggage handling system, passenger boarding
bridges, fixed power installations, fuel and oil stations and check-in desks can be identified
as a core set of centralised infrastructure at a majority of visited airports. Furthermore, by
approval of the authorities in charge, many airports declared other infrastructure elements
and services on airport specific reasons as centralised infrastructure. The marshalling ser-
vice at the facilities is hardly ever centralised.

The problems, which were encountered, are mostly due to capacity and space constraints at
the airport and the quality of the facilities. Furthermore users of the centralised Infrastructure
as independent ground handling companies or handling airlines criticised high costs for the
CI.

Some stakeholders even stated that charging mechanism seem to be non transparent and
should be clarified within the Directive. However, views about the CI are very heterogeneous
amongst the different stakeholders due to their stakeholder specific interest: Airports do not
want a further definition within the Directive to keep the flexibility to react to airport specifics.
The other stakeholders, however, would prefer a more precise definition to secure a trans-
parent and non-discriminatory use of the CI.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 167

5.2.10 Airport Users’ Committee (AUC)

In compliance with the Directive almost all airports set up an AUC. One airport delegated the
funtions of the AUC to the Airport Operators Committee (AOC). Based on the analysed
questionnaires, at almost all airports the AUC is consulted on topics related to ground
handling, charges and tender procedures. The influence of the AUC on decisions vary. The
AUC votings at all airport are not decisive, but at some airports, where the focus is especially
on operational questions, the positions of the AUC might be stronger than at other airports.

5.2.11 Tender process

The implementation of the Directive regarding the chosen market forms and the tender proc-
ess varies significantly between the airports.

At six airports in the EU-15, self-handling airlines and ground handling suppliers could enter
the ground handling markets and provide services such as baggage, freight and mail, ramp,
fuel and oil handling only with the approval of the airport and/or the authority without tender
procedures.

Besides the general approval, nine airport operators’ respective authorities decided to limit
the market access and set up tender procedures. Therefore at most airports two licences are
tendered and at others even three. The duration of licence validity and the tender procedure
differ significantly.

With an emphasis on the New Member States, at another six airports the access to ground
handling is limited. However, the tender process, which complies with the provisions of the
Directive, has not taken place yet since the airports are still in the implementation phase.

Many stakeholders mentioned that the transfer of staff is not specified enough and regulated
within the Directive. Unions e.g. ask for a clearer regulation, as they see a replacement of
older for younger staff linked to the change in handling companies when entering a new mar-
ket after a tender was won.

5.2.12 Sub-contracting

At most airports, sub-contracting is part of the ground handling industry. With the exemption
of three major airports, cascade sub-contracting was not practiced at visited airports. In con-
clusion, at most airports, cascade sub-contracting was not implemented.

With a focus on airports with limited market access, sub-contracting was not indicated at four
airports, while at one airport, applicants for ground handling licences pointed out sub-
contracting components within the tender process.

At some visited airports in the New Member States with restricted market access, no tender
has taken place and sub-contracting could not be indicated.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 168

Generally, most of the airlines and independent ground handling providers did not report any
difficulties due to sub-contracting practices while some airports reported some problems.

Considering the comments stated in the questionnaires, at most airports the (cascade) sub-
contracting parties need to be approved by the authority or the airport management body to
operate at the airport. Therefore those companies are obliged to prove the fulfilment of mini-
mum requirements such as safety and security.

5.2.13 Employment

According to Article 18 Member States may take the necessary measures to ensure protec-
tion of the rights of workers and respect for the environment. Since the implementation of the
Directive as well as the legal framework conditions differ, the employment related develop-
ments in ground handling markets vary between the Member States and airports signifi-
cantly. Therefore a broad variety of influencing variables (social protection, collective labour
agreements, specifications) affected social- and employment conditions in ground handling
at national level, for which reason the impact of the Directive are difficult to isolate

Stakeholders were asked about several aspects of employment and the development of
those. More precisely they were asked to provide information about the development of av-
erage income, working conditions, and the type of contract and trainings.

The results of this chapter were limited since most stakeholders did not see the correlation
between the Directive and changes in employment and therefore did not provide any infor-
mation. For this reason the following results can only be seen as tendencies within the
ground handling industry.

In general, employment conditions are heavily driven by company specifications, collective

labour agreements and national social protection systems. The Directive effects are therefore
difficult to isolate.

However, the following trends have emerged in the study:

• Development of Average Income

o Within the EU-Member States tendencies can be seen that the income level
increased since 1996. However it needs to be noted that the growth varies be-
tween the airports

o Within the New Member States, income for employees within all answering
companies increased.

• General working conditions

o The majority of stakeholders, who submitted information, indicated, that the

general working conditions improved.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 169

 o The improvements stated by some stakeholders mainly resulted from increas-
ing influence of employees on their shifts and improving health and security
for the employees. Apart from the fact that operational pressure is increasing
in almost every company, most of the other factors such as the number of
holidays or the rest time during shifts did not change between 2002 and 2007.

o Stakeholders in the New Member States saw mainly improvements of working

conditions, the increasing operational pressure was highlighted by almost all
stakeholders in the New Member States

• Type of contract

o Through the analysis of the changes in the type of contract, it can be con-
cluded that not all of the stakeholders employ workers via temp agencies.

o However the number of employees via temp agencies increases within the
companies using this type of contract.

o The contracts in regard of working time tend to change to more fixed-term

contracts and less unlimited contracts. Companies need to be more flexible to
react on unforeseen market changes in time.

• Training

o The duration of training provided to the employees before the start of work dif-
fers between the stakeholders, within the EU-15 and the NMS.

o The duration however increased or remained stable within the majority of

companies between 1996 and 2007.

• Security

o Due to the absence of data provided by stakeholders, no analysis of the secu-

rity impacts of the Directive could have been carried out in the framework of
this study.

5.2.14 Staff Safety

According to the analysis of the submitted benchmarks, a majority indicated increasing or

stable levels of safety issues since the introduction of the Directive, although it needs to be
considered that many stakeholders did not rate the developments of safety related events.

In both periods, 67% of stakeholders out of the EU-15 interviewed airports, saw an increase
of safety issues. They rated that this development could be due to the implementation of the
safety management system, which could have led to an increase in more events being re-
ported. But it could also have been due to the increasing traffic volume at airports. Another
25% of stakeholders saw the contrary, namely a decrease of safety issues and only 8%
stated that there was no change.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 170

The opinion of stakeholders in the New Member States out of the representative sample is
similar to the perceptions of stakeholders in the EU-15, even though there was no decrease
seen in the New Member States. 67% rated the safety events as increasing, 33% have not
seen a change.

Considering the remarks of those stakeholders who did not rate safety developments in
ground handling, it needs to be mentioned that many denoted a decreasing number of safety
issues, due to by the introduction of safety management systems, safety monitoring, safety
committees and improved general cooperation on safety topics.

Generally, all stakeholders have a similar perception of factors influencing the level of safety:

• The traffic volume and therefore the operational pressure,

• Capacity and space constraints,

• Single events such as construction works or weather conditions,

• The training and qualification of staff,

• The number of staff and quantity of equipment at ground handling areas,

• Safety management systems, safety monitoring and safety committees and the
mandatory need to report and more attention for safety issues.

5.3 Final remarks

Besides the regulatory framework the European ground handling markets are subject to a
wide range of influencing variables, which affect growth, competition and structural changes.
As the ground handling market is a very dynamic sector, it changes frequently and gathered
information could change its validity very fast. Furthermore, deviating legal frameworks and
provisions at national levels affect the impacts of the Directive. Considering these limiting
factors; changes, developments, trends and tendencies were highlighted.

Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 171