1. THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EU REGULATION ON GROUND HANDLING
Christoph Köppchen, Manager Economics
31 May European Parliament, EMPL Hearing

2. ACI EUROPE MEMBERSHIP REGULAR MEMBERS: 180
- Number of Airports operated: 405
- Countries:
WORLD BUSINESS PARTNERS: 155
National Airport Associations: 8 2 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