4 JUNE 2008 GHI icnodmumsetnrty Charming the public is nowadays a prime concern of the European Commission in view of the June 2009 European Parliament elections and the appointment of a new College of Commissioners afterwards. Two recent initiatives addressed to air travellers underpin this. “It is unacceptable that one in three consumers going to book a plane ticket online is being ripped off or misled and confused,” said EU Consumer Commissioner Mrs. Kuneva. If there are no improvements to clean up these sales and marketing practices by May 1, 2009, “we will be left with no choice but to intervene.”1 The second initiative is of more direct relevance to ground handling. The commission withdrew plans to impose by law across the EU a maximum permitted size of cabin baggage of 56 x 45 x 25 centimetres. Studies concluded that the infl uence of baggage size on overall perfomance of security staff at airports was far less signifi cant than other factors. “This measure does not justify the additional costs and inconvenience to airline passengers,” stated Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot.2 IATA still recommends this limit to its members. Does the Commission imply that it is more consumer-friendly than the industry? Ground handling remains less fancy, but may be accused unfairly of passenger inconvenience for which others should be held liable. A good illustration is lost baggage. Take the Heathrow Terminal 5 chaos which is clearly not due to failures in the supply of ground handling services. IAHA Europe, the new regional group of the International Aviation Handlers’ Association, is concerned that the new Commission study on the impact of ground handling liberalisation in the 27 Member States – undertaken by German consultancy Airport Research Centre (Aachen) – may draw hasty and wrong conclusions because ground handling is compared before and after liberalisation without duly considering the dramatic evolution of the framework conditions. The trade association of the independent handlers used the Terminal 5 argument and also warned the Commission that: “increased pressure on the workforce results, for instance, from shorter turnaround times imposed by low cost carriers. The questions relating to passenger convenience essentially concern airport infrastructure and other external constraints (such as congested airports with delayed fl ights, long walking distances to the gates, fewer check-in counters by airlines, security checks following 9/11 and so on). IAHA Europe suggests that stakeholders should answer a general question: Which air transport and airport developments condition today’s supply of ground handling services within EU airports?” The new market study, requested by the European Parliament and stakeholders, should update the results of the 2002 SH&E study but adds many new questions relating to staff and traveller safety, quality of passenger service, security at airports and employment conditions for ground handling staff. One may gain the impression that the Commission wishes to obtain arguments for not amending the present limited market liberalisation. An interim report should be available by the summer holidays. For IAHA Europe, “the key questions for independent handlers relate to the widening or not of the contestable market as opposed to captive markets held by airport and/ or airline self- or third party handlers. Both the Commission report and European Parliament resolution on the functioning of Directive 96/67/EC regretted that the contestable market, open to undistorted competition between handlers, has remained too small...” To fi nish, the EU discussions concerning the hot issue of airport charges may provide some indications for the future treatment of the ground handling sector. The present attempt to harmonise to a certain extent the way in which airports set their charges excludes ground handling services. Two amendments, adopted by the European Parliament, may impact indirectly on handling. Despite airline opposition, Parliament voted in favour of allowing airports to pre-fi nance new infrastructure projects by increasing airport charges under certain conditions. Needless to recall that the EU Court of Justice confi rmed that access fees for handling may not be used for such fi nancing, but only to pay for the actual use of airport installations. The vote on airport charges will not modify this, but may give comfort to those airports which are still reluctant to establish accountable, costrelated handling fees. And so to my last point: Parliament wishes the EU rules on airport charges to apply only to airports with a minimum of 5m passengers per year. Will this threshold also guide any future revision of Directive 96/67/EC? A new study of the airport and handling sectors may not necessarily help the liberalisation of the industry, reckons Bob Schmitz in Brussels. Handling the change Footnotes: [1] Commission press release IP/08/722, 8 May 2008 [2] Commission press release IP/08/683, 5 May 2008

Swissport International Ltd. Ground Handling, Cargo, Aircraft Maintenance, Fueling, Executive Aviation, Aviation Security www.swissport.com Professional ground handling is not a matter of chance. When it comes to ground handling, we hold all the right cards. For eight consecutive years, the ITM has honored Swissport with its top award for excellence in airport services. It commends our flexibility, innovative spirit, single-source partnership philosophy, and uncompromising dedication to each customer’s individual requirements. We owe this distinction to your ratings. It proves that our quest for constant improvement, our strong roots in ground handling, and the energy we invest in delivering quality services are bearing fruit. On behalf of 30,000 committed women and men who look after your needs at 187 airports around the world, we thank you for your invaluable support and your continued loyalty to Swissport. It is a privilege to serve you. Swissport was just named once more Global Aviation Ground Services Company 2008 by the Institute of Transport Management. In its deliberations to choose the winners of various accolades in the Aviation sector, the Institute canvassed and polled: : 46 National and International Airlines : 8 International Airport General Managers/Directors : 22 Regional Airport General Managers/Directors : 2,450 Passengers : 72 Suppliers to the Aviation Industry