Transcript Christoph Köppchen - ACI Europe
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLING
Christoph Köppchen, Manager Economics 31 May 2012 European Parliament, EMPL Hearing
ACI EUROPE MEMBERSHIP
- Number of Airports operated: - Countries:
WORLD BUSINESS PARTNERS:
National Airport Associations: 180 405 46 155 8 2
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!
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
GROUND HANDLING – THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE EXISTING DIRECTIVE 1996/67
GROUND HANDLING = LABOUR-INTENSIVE SEGMENT
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
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
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
> New procedures for Centralized Infrastructure & Reporting
Problematic and disproportionate, added value unclear
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