Presentation on theme: "THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLING"— Presentation transcript:
1THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLING Christoph Köppchen, Manager Economics31 May European Parliament, EMPL Hearing
2ACI EUROPE MEMBERSHIP REGULAR MEMBERS: 180 - Number of Airports operated: 405- Countries:WORLD BUSINESS PARTNERS: 155National Airport Associations: 822
3GROUND HANDLING – THE NEED FOR A GOOD QUALITY OF SERVICES WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS ‘GROUND HANDLING’?Passenger and baggage handling: check-in, baggage deliveryFreight & Mail handling; Ramp handling (aircraft marshalling and loading)Fuel & OilCleaning, Catering, Aircraft maintenance, etc. No Ground Handling: Security, PRM, CustomsWELL-PERFORMING GH OPERATIONS ARE KEY!Complex and interdependent operations at airportsQuality & costs of GH services = competitive advantage…or disadvantage!Under-performance: Delays and inefficiencies in the whole network!
4THE GROUND HANDLING MARKET TODAY A COMPETITIVE MARKET AT EU AIRPORTSMost GH categories: Fully opened at all EU airports above 2 mio. pax4 categories (ramp, baggage, fuel, freight):Minimum number of 2 handlers at airports > 2 million paxSelf-handling: Minimum number of 2 licences at airports > 1 mio. paxSpace, efficiency and safety considerations!INDEPENDENT HANDLERS DOMINATE THE MARKETSources: European Commission, KPMG and ACI EUROPE.
5GROUND HANDLING – THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE EXISTING DIRECTIVE 1996/67 GROUND HANDLING = LABOUR-INTENSIVE SEGMENT65-80% of GH costs are staff costsCompetition on price = wages/social conditionsTHE EFFECTS OF COMPETITION SINCE 1996Prices of Ground Handling services: ca. -25%Low-margin business in a highly competitive environmentPressure on working conditions of staff & quality of serviceCOLLABORATION OF SOCIAL PARTNERS AT EU LEVELJoint Statement of three out of four Social Partners in April 2011
6THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL: IMPACT ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS FURTHER LIBERALISATION OF THE GH MARKETMinimum number of three Ground Handlers at airports above 5 mio. paxFull opening of the self-handling marketIncreased pressure on prices & working conditionsSOCIAL SAFEGUARDS IN THE PROPOSALClarification on the possibility to have national laws on transfer of staffBut: No obligation for a binding transfer of staff at national levelInsufficient social safeguards in the proposalTRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFFMinimum training of 2 days for staff in Ground HandlingProgress, but one week would be preferable
7THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL – OTHER KEY AREAS MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDSKey to ensure efficient operations at the airportRegulation introduces right for airport to set standardsImportant improvement, but need to ensure enforcementCOMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE FOR AIRPORT HANDLERSLegal separation of airport handlers/CI: Counter-productiveNo sub-contracting for airports, but allowed for all 3rd party handlersProblematic: No level-playing field for GH servicesADMINISTRATIVE BURDENNew procedures for Centralized Infrastructure & Reporting Problematic and disproportionate, added value unclear
8CONCLUSIONS: PRIORITIES FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOCUS ON QUALITY OF SERVICE OF GH SERVICESProvide airports with tools to set minimum standardsNO DOGMATIC APPROACH TO MARKET LIBERALIZATIONKeep provisions of existing Directive: Decision at national level!INTRODUCE STRONGER SOCIAL SAFEGUARDSIntroduce binding transfer of staff in Art.12Increase training requirementsTAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OPINION OF SOCIAL PARTNERSImprovements to tender procedure, length of licence and social clause