THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLING

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLINGChristoph Köppchen, Manager Economics31 May 2012European Parliament, EMPL Hearing

ACI EUROPE MEMBERSHIP

REGULAR MEMBERS: 180

- Number of Airports operated: 405

- Countries: 46

WORLD BUSINESS PARTNERS: 155

National Airport Associations: 8

2

3

GROUND HANDLING – THE NEED FOR A GOOD QUALITY OF SERVICES WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS ‘GROUND HANDLING’?

> Passenger and baggage handling: check-in, baggage delivery

> Freight & Mail handling; Ramp handling (aircraft marshalling and loading)

> Fuel & Oil

> Cleaning, Catering, Aircraft maintenance, etc.

No Ground Handling: Security, PRM, Customs

WELL-PERFORMING GH OPERATIONS ARE KEY!> Complex and interdependent operations at airports

> Quality & costs of GH services = competitive advantage…or disadvantage!

Under-performance: Delays and inefficiencies in the whole network!

4

THE GROUND HANDLING MARKET TODAY

A COMPETITIVE MARKET AT EU AIRPORTS> Most GH categories: Fully opened at all EU airports above 2 mio. pax

> 4 categories (ramp, baggage, fuel, freight): Minimum number of 2 handlers at airports > 2 million pax Self-handling: Minimum number of 2 licences at airports > 1 mio. pax

Space, efficiency and safety considerations!

INDEPENDENT HANDLERS DOMINATE THE MARKET

Sources: European Commission, KPMG and ACI EUROPE.

5

GROUND HANDLING – THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE EXISTING DIRECTIVE 1996/67

GROUND HANDLING = LABOUR-INTENSIVE SEGMENT> 65-80% of GH costs are staff costs

> Competition on price = wages/social conditions

THE EFFECTS OF COMPETITION SINCE 1996> Prices of Ground Handling services: ca. -25%

> Low-margin business in a highly competitive environment

> Pressure on working conditions of staff & quality of service

COLLABORATION OF SOCIAL PARTNERS AT EU LEVEL> Joint Statement of three out of four Social Partners in April 2011

6

THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL: IMPACT ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS

FURTHER LIBERALISATION OF THE GH MARKET> Minimum number of three Ground Handlers at airports above 5 mio. pax

> Full opening of the self-handling market

Increased pressure on prices & working conditions

SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS IN THE PROPOSAL> Clarification on the possibility to have national laws on transfer of staff

> But: No obligation for a binding transfer of staff at national level

Insufficient social safeguards in the proposal

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF> Minimum training of 2 days for staff in Ground Handling

Progress, but one week would be preferable

7

THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL – OTHER KEY AREAS

MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS> Key to ensure efficient operations at the airport

> Regulation introduces right for airport to set standards

Important improvement, but need to ensure enforcement

COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE FOR AIRPORT HANDLERS> Legal separation of airport handlers/CI: Counter-productive

> No sub-contracting for airports, but allowed for all 3rd party handlers

Problematic: No level-playing field for GH services

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN> New procedures for Centralized Infrastructure & Reporting

Problematic and disproportionate, added value unclear

8

CONCLUSIONS: PRIORITIES FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

FOCUS ON QUALITY OF SERVICE OF GH SERVICES> Provide airports with tools to set minimum standards

NO DOGMATIC APPROACH TO MARKET LIBERALIZATION> Keep provisions of existing Directive: Decision at national level!

INTRODUCE STRONGER SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS> Introduce binding transfer of staff in Art.12

> Increase training requirements

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OPINION OF SOCIAL PARTNERS> Improvements to tender procedure, length of licence and social clause

THANK YOUwww.aci-europe.org

www.airportcarbonaccreditation.org