EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2004 2009
Session document
FINAL A6-0349/2007
27.9.2007
REPORT
on Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI))
Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Anne E. Jensen
RR\390495EN.doc PE390.495v03-00 EN EN PR_INI
CONTENTS
Page
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION...... 3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ...... 11
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS...... 16
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS ...... 20
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS ...... 24
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT...... 27
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE...... 30
PE390.495v03-00 2/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficiency policy (2007/2092(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission's communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe (COM(2006)0819),
– having regard to the Commission's report on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 (COM(2006)0821),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0349/2007),
A. whereas globalisation and rapid economic growth will result, in the EU, in a growth in demand for flights (traffic without airport constraints) averaging at least 4.3% per annum and most probably as much as 5.2% per annum;
B. whereas, by the year 2025, this would result in a growth in demand for flights 2.5 times higher than that of 2003;
C. whereas in 2025, with all new investments taken into account, more than 60 airports will be unable to handle the typical busy hourly demand without generating delays or unaccommodated demand (3.7 million flights a year would then be unaccommodated);
D. whereas, given that existing airports cannot expand as required, one of the ways to handle the large number of unaccommodated flights in 2025 could be the construction of relief airports in the vicinity of their congested counterparts,
E. whereas the shortage of capacity and the increase in demand for flights will probably lead to demand for new major airports (up to 10 according to a Eurocontrol study) and medium-sized airports (up to 15 according to Eurocontrol),
F. whereas those future developments in the European air transport sector highlight the need to to anticipate the necessary steps to be taken at EU level for the benefit of Union citizens and of the EU economy as a whole;
G. whereas efficient ground-handling services also play a part in improving the use of current airport capacity by accelerating throughput in airports;
H. whereas full implementation of Directive 96/67/EC on access to the ground handling
RR\390495EN.doc 3/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN market at Community airports1 and possible amendments thereto,in order to improve efficiency in the provision of those services, could also enhance the use of airport capacity;
I. whereas traditional airlines, low-cost airlines, charter companies, freight companies and business aircraft have different requirements in terms of airport services and slot allocation,
J. whereas adequate transport infrastructure to and from airports, particularly in the form of an integrated public transport system, is an essential part of airport infrastructure,
1. Welcomes the abovementioned Commission communication as a first step in addressing the issue of airport capacity, although the planning of new infrastructure remains within the competence of the Member States; calls at the same time on the Commission to accord air transport the attention it deserves as a central element of goods and passenger transport in Europe; further calls on the Commission to monitor, and present precise statistics relating to, the current situation in order to better tackle the problem of capacity;
2. Notes that adequate airport capacity and efficient groundhandling and use of capacity are vital to the European economy and must be ensured;
3. Welcomes the Commission's proposals and stresses the importance of air transport in ensuring territorial, economic and social cohesion in the Union, in particular with regard to remote, peripheral and island regions;
4. Considers that the 14 measures suggested by the Commission in its Communication represent a consistent approach for improving the use of current capacities; nevertheless requests the Commission to set more concrete deadlines for their implementation and insists on those deadlines being respected;
Building new capacities
5. Considers, however, that the Commission has not yet fully investigated the possibility of a global EU approach as regards the need for extra capacity, the constraints on future investments in additional capacity and the strategic axes that would not only allow the risks of a capacity crunch to be anticipated but also ensure that the EU becomes a cohesive and competitive air transport platform at global level;
6. Proposes to introduce a survey of actual demand for infrastructure, which would improve any futurecomprehensive European airport capacity plan and could become an accepted EU-wide air transport forecasting mechanism; highlights that such a mechanism could be used by airports as a planning framework for capacity improvement and thatthe advantage of a demand-based forecast is that it provides a realistic market picture for the development of air transport;
7. Notes that one of the biggest barriers to the liberalisation of groundhandling services and efficiency, as alluded to by many of the Community's airports, is a lack of space, but
1 OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p.36
PE390.495v03-00 4/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN considers that such a contention needs to be verified and, where necessary, resolved;
8. Stresses the need to develop common definitions and common analytical tools for airport capacity assessments as well as procedures for the involvement of all stakeholders in the mid-and long-term airport capacity needs of the EU; notes that this collaborative approach could be accompanied by an exchange of good practice on topics such as environmental impact and cost efficiency, pre-financing of new infrastructures, land use planning/management, integration of all transport modes, as well as modelling/simulation tools with a view to speeding-up the planning and building of new capacities; emphasises that these initiatives would serve to complement the SESAR programme and could be supplemented with new institutional tools that will help to increase airport capacity;
9. Requests the Commission to report to Parliament before 2009 on a master plan for enhanced airport capacity in Europe; stresses that such a report should lay down a cohesive approach for Member States in order to promote and coordinate any national and cross-border initiative for building new airport capacities dedicated to international trafficand make better use of existing capacities, as well for managing secondary airport capacity, without prejudice to Member States' and Community competences to allocate airport capacities; stresses that the hubs and the regional airports, through point-to-point journeys, can each in their own way and according to specific constraints of the various Member States respond to the environmental problems, to congestion problems and challenges facing accessibility, and that only the cohabitation of various airport models according to national specificities will enable the EU to fulfil its needs in this field; recalls in this respect that the accessibility to airports is of great importance and that their successful integration in the transport network is an essential condition for co modality.
10. Calls on the Member States and the regional and local authorities to ensure that airports, regardless of their governing bodies, are included in regional spatial development plans or taken into account in regional development strategies; points out that the extension and construction of major infrastructure, such as airports,must be subject to a territorial impact assessment;
11. Supports the Commission in its ambition to increase the internal logistical efficiency of airports but suggests that this should be limited to the tracking of baggage and cargo only;
12. Believes that, in order to increase capacity, pre-financing infrastructure development is a valid option for airports; highlights that this financing scheme benefits both the airlines and the airports by lowering overall financing costs of infrastructure, ensuring a smoother profile of prices for airlines and reducing the risk for airports as airlines begin to repay their investments earlier;
13. Stresses the economic importance of airports for job creation, particularly at regional level; points out that European airport operators, airlines, maintenance firms and caterers are in a position to create a significant number of jobs, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy objectives;
14. Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to take account of environmental factors when deciding where to locate airports, including noise, emissions,
RR\390495EN.doc 5/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN road traffic density in the vicinity of the airport, the proximity of fuel tanks, etc., and of meteorological factors;
Promoting environmentally-friendly growth
15. Notes that the improved performance of aviation engines has reduced their CO2 emissions by 70% per km in the last 40 years and that further reductions in emissions will continue in the future, stresses that the objective of the industry is to cut emissions by a further 50% by 2020;
16. Points out, nevertheless, that, despite this progress, the growth in air traffic, which has increased substantially in recent years, has resulted in a sharp increase in the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions produced by this sector (+100 % compared to 1990, according to estimates by the European Environment Agency), and that airport congestion is contributing significantly to this;
17. Recalls that the growth of air transport will have to be accompanied by technical and regulatory schemes limiting the external costs of this mode; welcomes, to this effect, the Commission initiative to incorporate aviation in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS); points out that the efficiency of measures designed to reduce the environmental impact of air transport also depends on the policies pursued by countries at global level and, with this in view, stresses the need to establish joint programmes with third countries;
18. Considers, however, that the issue of greenhouse gas emissions should, wherever possible, be tackled with more vigour at both European and international levels with a view to improving the competitiveness of a more sustainable EU air transport sector which is already threatened by the rapid development of major hubs in neighbouring non-EU regions of Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use all available means to reach an agreement on this issue at international level;
19. Particularly insists on the need to develop regulatory and financial schemes in order to encourage the retrofitting and renewal of fleets and promote the environmental performance of engines, the corollary of which is to render them quieter, more energy- efficient and less polluting;
Ensuring the correct implementation and adaptation of the regulatory framework
20. Considers that the increase in air traffic will require a fuller implementation of the legal framework applicable to air transport;
21. Requests the Commission to check the full implementation of Regulation 95/93, as amended by Regulation No 793/2004, on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports1 and to provide more guidance and clarification as regards the text; particularly insists on the need to ensure a better coordination of, and matching between, the allocation of slots by Air Traffic Flow Management (AFTM) and airport slots, notably in relation to the effectiveness of the slot coordination committees as regards departures
1 OJ L 14, 22.01.1993, p. 1.
PE390.495v03-00 6/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN and arrivals, and additionally insists on the need to harmonise the definitions, tolerances and the way airport and AFTM slots are awarded;
22. Recalls the need to introduce market-based mechanisms in the slot allocation process with a view to achieving the best possible use of scarce airport capacity; points out, however, that, according to Regulation (EC) No 95/93 as amended in 2004, the Commission had to submit a report to Parliament and to the Council on the operation of this Regulation by April 2007 at the latest, and that the introduction of a market-based mechanism should only be considered on the basis of such a report;
23. Notes, however, that recourse to market-based mechanisms, such as slot allocation in order to make better use of existing airport capacity, would not address infrastructure shortages, as such a mechanism would not create a single additional slot; believes, furthermore, that coherence between airport slots and ATFM slots has very limited benefits and will not solve the capacity problem as this problem will always exist;
24. Calls on the Council to lay down a time-frame and deadlines in order to enhance cooperation between civil aviation authorities of neighbouring Member States so as to guarantee a significant step forward before 2008 as regards the building of functional airspace blocks;
25. Emphasises the need for a precise time-frame for the implementation of the FABs and notes the positive steps taken in this regard by some Member States, particularly in Northern and Central Europe, for example the Northern Upper Area Control (NUAC) programme and the new FAB Europe Central projects;
26. Urges the Commission, if no significant progress has been made by Member States on this issue by 2008, to take a top-down approach in order to guarantee substantial improvements;
27. Stresses the importance of the Galileo project in optimising the use of existing and future air transport management capacity, and notes that the right lessons need to be learnt, in the interest of the implementation of the SESAR project, from the current financial difficulties with Galileo;
28. Is concerned that the rate of innovation and uptake of new technologies may be much slower than the growth rate of air travel; stresses, furthermore, that new internationally agreed noise stringency standards and a new approach to limit the number of people affected by noise, will be needed;
Enhancing cooperation on capacity between airport regions
29. Is of the opinion that an increase in airport capacity will not be possible without efficient and thorough collaboration between airport authorities and the relevant regional and local administrations; provided that any such collaboration does not contravene Community competition rules; 30. Welcomes any airport region initiative that would lead to a Europe-wide dialogue on the issues relating to the development of additional airport capacity, particularly on capacity
RR\390495EN.doc 7/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN coordination or integration, on the environmental consequences for neighbouring populations, on land-use planning and on growth and employment;
31. Calls on the Commission to urge Member States to strengthen their town-planning and building regulations so that noise and other pollution caused by airports to their surrounding areas can be prevented;
32. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the exchange of best practice concerning the public management of those airport regions and to financially support pilot projects and research programmes connected with the issue of the impact that airports have on surrounding territories and their residents;
33. Wishes to see 'regional development' airports in isolated, remote or ultra-peripheral regions continue to benefit from state aid proportionate to the tasks they perform in the general interest;
34. Believes that airline companies should provide adequate guarantees and assume responsibility when it comes to the redemption of the airport facilities that they require airport managers to provide, so as not to place the latter in difficulty in the event of unexpected withdrawal prior to full redemption;
Ground handling services
35. Takes note of the abovementioned Commission report on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC ;
36. Welcomes the positive impact that the Directive, as reported by the Commission, has had, but notes, firstly, that the positive assessment is based on the findings of the 2002 study which did not cover the whole of the enlarged Union; whereas it has been noticed that the implementation of the Directive is a matter of particular concern in the Member States that joined the EU after this date; and,second, that difficulties and uncertainties concerning its implementation remain, in particular as regards the criteria to be met by service providers that engage in competitive calls for tenders; invites the Commission to issue detailed guidance or, where appropriate, put forward new proposals to clarify the rules pertaining to calls for tender;
37. Invites the Commission to carry out a new impact analysis on the implementation of the Directive, its final benefits and/or disadvantages for users, employees and passengers, before making any proposal that would lead to further liberalisation;
38. Considers that, on the basis of this new impact assessment, the Commission could, if necessary, provide additional guidance on the interpretation of certain provisions that could leave airports with too wide a margin of interpretation, and which have the potential to lead to undesirable consequences in terms of the ability of ground handlers to enter the market ;
39. Considers, on the other hand, that some provisions need rapid clarification, such as those relating to the protection of workers in the event of a transfer of undertakings, and access
PE390.495v03-00 8/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN fees; urges the Commission, therefore, to provide guidance on the interpretation of those provisions as soon as possible;
40. Recommends that any new attempt to amend the Directive should first concentrate on the quality of ground handling services and on the quality of employment in ground handling; particularly invites the Commission to:
- examine the possibility of establishing minimum quality and social standards that should be taken into account in the selection procedure and inserted in contracts between the airline and the service provider,
- frame the use of subcontracting by ensuring a minimum level of safety/quality levels for providers in order to secure fair competition and require the prior identification of any subcontractors,
- defineand clearly establish, as far as possible, the conditions under which an airport can provide ground handling services, especially when a sufficient number of independent service suppliers is willing to provide these services,
- consider that the minimum number of service providers admitted at airports (currently two) should be reviewed by the Commission and be increased, where appropriate, particularly in the case of large airports, and that there should be no artificial limit on the number of third-party handlers,
- put in place a licensing procedure at Member State level in order to guarantee that a minimum level of quality and sustainability become mandatory for providers and that social laws and collective agreements are upheld; stresses that the granting of a licence could be governed by the principle of mutual recognition,
- ensure that providers guarantee an adequate level of training and social protection for their employees,
- ensure the appropriate level of security and safety for all users, passengers and cargo;
41. Points out that, for the selection of ground handlers supplying restricted services, the opinion of airline users is sometimes not thoroughly considered by airports, and recalls that there have been cases where ground handlers providing restricted services have been chosen against the quasi-unanimous opinion of the user committee;
42. Insists on the need for more transparency and for stricter user-oriented provisions concerning the choice of ground handlers for restricted services; insists, in particular, that the possibility of establishing additional rules for the Airport Users Committee be considered, consisting, for example, of the obligation to give reasons as to why the choice made by the airport does not follow the opinion of the Committee; notes that such a decision could also, in this case, be passed on to an authority independent of the airport's managing body; finally suggests to the Commission that it consider, in any future amendment to Directive 96/67/EC,whether airlines already operating ground handling services in the airport through third-party handlers should be excluded from voting as regards the selection of any new entrant;
RR\390495EN.doc 9/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 43. Notes that, since the adoption of Directive 96/67/EC, competition has noticeably intensified and that the prices for ground handling services have decreased in almost all ‘old’ EU Member States;
0 0 0
44. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
PE390.495v03-00 10/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Two topics are tackled in this Report: airport capacities (following Commission's communication: An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe) and Ground handling (following the Commission's report on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996).
1. Airport Capacities
The long-term increase in traffic demand
Following a 2004 Eurocontrol study, globalisation and rapid economic growth will result in a flight demand growth (traffic without airport constraints) averaging 4.3% p.a. By the year 2025, this scenario would result in a growth of 2.5 times the 2003 flight demand. The current actualisation of the study by Eurocontrol seems to demonstrate that the growth will be higher than expected in the most challenging 2004 scenario (a growth of 5,2 % p.a. in now the most credible figure). In 2025, with all new investments taken into account, more than 60 airports will be unable to handle the typical busy hour demand without generating delays or unaccommodated demand. (3.7 million flights a year would then be unaccommodated). However, it would be possible to find capacity for up to 2.6 of the 3.7 million unaccommodated flights by accepting less ideal times (push traffic of the peak hours) and places (push traffic to secondary airports). If the air transport market requires demand distribution patterns to remain as they are, and considering that existing airports cannot expand as required, the only alternative way to handle the mass of unaccommodated flights in 2025 would be the creation of reliever airports in the vicinity of their congested counterparts.
The Commission's suggestions on the optimisation of current capacities and traffic management
To address the issue and the safety related concerns it raises, the Communication is proposing an action plan structured around a series of five key actions:
1. Making better use of existing airport capacity; 2. Having a consistent approach to air safety operations at airports; 3. Promoting “co-modality”, the integration and collaboration of the transport modes (air-rail); 4. Improving the environmental capacity of airports and the planning framework for new airport infrastructure; 5. Developing and implementing cost efficient technological solutions.
All of these orientations are consistent and useful. The 14 actions suggested by the Commission in its communication to implement the strategy must hence be upheld.
However, the Commission does not fully investigate the fact that extra capacities will be needed and does not consider some issues that could accompany, in a more
RR\390495EN.doc 11/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN sustainable manner, the substantial growth in traffic.
The optimisation of existing capacities and traffic conditions is not enough to address the rise in demand
The general opinion of stakeholders is that the shortage of capacity and the increase in demand will necessarily open a market for new major airports (up to 10 following Eurocontrol study) and medium sized airports (up to 15 for Eurocontrol). The action plan on optimisation of current capacities suggested by the Commission is certainly necessary but it will not be enough to address the upcoming rise of traffic.
addressing the traffic growth by building new capacity can be environmentally friendly
- It would save unnecessary emissions due to en route or ramp congestion. - External costs will be smoothened by the improvement of the environmental performance of engines, by a regular renewal of the fleets and by the increase of use of the super sized jumbo jets such as the A-380 (which already consumes 20% less kerosene than its competitors). - But it would also need to be accompanied by suitable EU measures to limit the negative external effects of air traffic (GHG emissions, noises) such as ETS, taxation of kerosene, differentiation of airport charges according to environmental performance. . The necessity of a better internalisation of environmental (external) costs has been reaffirmed by the Parliament numerous times and a level playing field for transport should be set up by June 2008 following the Eurovignette Directive. One can imagine that Air transport will and should at some point also be impacted. However this process should take place though the evolution of rules at international level with a view of not hampering EU air transport competitiveness which is already threatened by the fast development of major hubs on neighbouring non EU regions of Europe.
What can be done at EU level to address the need for additional capacities?
- Organise a better coordination of efforts to build new capacities in Europe A first step could consist in providing tools to evaluate and identify the situation and future needs in capacity and the optimal use of new capacities for the competitiveness of EU air transport and the long term efficiency of traffic flows. Even if the need for extra capacity is not specifically stressed in the Communication from the Commission, it highlights the need to clearly identify existing capacities and to provide tools to assess future needs. Such an exercise is a minimum prerequisite that the EP should uphold. But this collaborative process could be extended to include the creation of a form of airport capacity planning at EU level organised by the Commission and associating Member States, the EP and the industry. Finally a regular assessment on airport capacity should be made available to the Parliament.
PE390.495v03-00 12/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN But more could be done:
- Building a more suitable Regulatory environment Even if the EU has no direct competence to decide on the building of new airport capacity, it can influence the shape of the regulatory environment that would properly accompany such an evolution and guarantee the efficiency and competitiveness of the sector vis-à-vis non EU competitors (non EU Hubs). The fields for regulatory action are among others:
- For Regulation 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports more guidance is needed from the Commission, clarification of the text is also necessary. The introduction of market based mechanisms in the slot allocation process should be accelerated
- A Slot coordination committee in each big "coordinated "airport has been established by Regulation 95/93 (modified in 2004) amongst other tasks to establish the method to monitor the use of slots by the airlines and to insure better coordination and matching between ATFM (Air Traffic Flow Management) and airports commercial slots. More generally, it seems that more could be done to prevent or correct misuses from Air carriers that intentionally operate air services at a time significantly different from the allocated slot.
- To speed up the creation of functional airspace blocks by if necessary preparing a top-down approach to guarantee substantial improvements before 2010
- Considering that the rate of innovation and uptake of new technologies are likely to be much slower than the rate of growth of air travel in the absence of new internationally agreed noise stringency standards before 2010, a new approach to limit the number of people affected by noise will be needed in the mid term and in any case before 2025. Such a new approach could be more restrictive and lead to a generalisation of noise charges and the reinforcement of operating restrictions at EU level.
II. Ground handling
The 1996 "ground handling" Directive The objective of the Directive is to enhance the competitive provision of ground handling services at European airports, in order to reduce airline costs, improve quality of service and provide airlines with a choice of handling agent. The Directive foresees that its provisions on third party handling apply in all airports with more than 2 million passengers or 50,000 tonnes of freight per annum; for the self handling aspects, the thresholds is 1 million passengers or 25,000 tonnes of freight per annum. With the exception of four categories of ground handling, the Directive requires that any organisation be allowed to provide ground handling services (subject to licensing for safety and financial fitness etc.), including airlines wishing to self-handle. However, for baggage, ramp, and freight and mail handling, and for fuelling, a Member State can limit the number of handlers, but to no less than two organisations. A further requirement is that at least one of the handlers has to be independent of both the airport operator and any airline(s) responsible for carrying more than 25% of the airport’s traffic.
RR\390495EN.doc 13/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN Assessment of 10 years implementation of the Directive In its report the Commission states , on the basis of a study dating from 2002 and without any new in depth analysis, that the introduction of competition at many airports which were previously closed or static markets has produced:
* Better value for money spent on ground-handling services; * Greater pressure on the prices for ground-handling services; * Dilatory actions in some instances on the part of competent authorities/airports in fully applying the Directive; * Some impact on employment conditions in the industry but no evidence of an overall reduction of jobs; * A modest shake-up in the market shares in ground handling at the economically most important EU airports. ("only" 23 new entrants in the last 7 years)
Possible issues for a future modification of Directive 96/67 The issue of the Revision of the Directive has been on the table for several years. A new draft Proposal was established by the Commission 2 years ago but its publication has been postponed because of a combination of different problems raised by some major stakeholders.
As a preamble, one should be mindful of the necessity to ensure a proper implementation of the current Directive, and not only in the new Member States. Indeed, it appears that in some Member States the Directive is not properly implemented in terms of opening up of the market, some breach procedures could be launched in order to at least ensure the correct implementation of the current provisions. It may also be that the provisions of the Directive could be made clearer in order not to leave to airports a too wide margin of interpretation.
Do we need further liberalisation?
As the Directive was conceived as a multiple step exercise we will have to examine if the market would benefit from a further opening of the ground handling market in order to gain more added value and to achieve the objectives of the text.
This could be done by increasing the number of third party suppliers vying for a restricted number of ground handling services. It would lead to the modification of the scope with extra rules for market opening in bigger airports (for example 10-20 million passengers) or for airports where there is a substantial contestable market (when the main airlines or the airport does not ensure the majority of the ground handling).
It would however be necessary to have a new independent impact analysis before entering in any further liberalisation.
How to guarantee that the users' (airlines) opinion/interests are preserved in the choice of the ground handler?
The choice of a new entrant for restricted services is made by the airport while the contract relating to the supply of services is concluded between the service providers and the airline. In order to have a more user-oriented policy for the
PE390.495v03-00 14/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN allocation of capacity for ground handlers new rules for the Airport Users Committee should be installed: for example, a special motivation could be required when the choice made by the airport does not follow the opinion of the Committee. The decision could also in this case be passed on to an authority independent from the managing body of the airport. Furthermore, the airlines already operating ground handling in the airport should not be part of the vote concerning its possible competitors. Finally the dissident opinion should be included in the minutes of the meeting on selection of candidates. A more radical suggestion could be that the decision be taken by a commission associating the airport and the users.
The need to guarantee good quality of services at competitive prices
If the reduction of prices is a fair objective for airlines and passengers, it has to be accompanied by the quality of services among which is the efficiency of the throughput with the best security/safety level. Parliament would benefit from having an in depth view of all those parameters on major EU airports based on a benchmarking exercise so as to compare the efficiency/cost ratio of ground handling on major EU airports following their organisational scheme for the provision of such (airport based, self handling based or third party based). Moreover a licensing process at EU Member State level to guarantee a minimum level of quality and sustainability of the provider should become mandatory. The attribution of a license could fall under the principle of mutual recognition. Finally, the Directive could foresee that any airport can establish minimum quality standards that should be taken into account in the selection procedure and inserted in the contract between the airline and the service provider.
Social issues
As staff turnover may have important safety implications and because this issue will probably prevent any further opening of the market, rules for taking on former employees of the ground handling services provider could be examined, taking the example of the Meijer Report and the possibility that national authorities could require the selected operator to grant staff previously taken on the rights to which they would have been entitled if there had been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/ on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings . The other important issue is the subcontracting of the provision of services to entities that are not identified when the main provider is chosen. This possibility of subcontracting should be subject to a minimum control on the safety/quality levels of the effective providers but also in order to secure a fair competition.
Finally, a reasonable level of training should be required for all employees of ground handlers, and not only on security. Apart from promoting quality of services, this would also consolidate the position of former employees when a new provider is taking over the market.
RR\390495EN.doc 15/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 12.7.2007
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
on airport capacity and groundhandling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI))
Draftsman: John Purvis
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Notes that adequate airport capacity and efficient groundhandling and use of capacity are vital to the European economy and must be ensured;
2. Considers that the 14 actions suggested by the Commission in its Communication entitled "An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe" (COM(2006)0819) represent a consistent approach to improving the use of current capacities, but calls on the Commission also to formulate a long-term strategy on airport capacity expansion; considers furthermore that a full review of the legislation should take place in order to further open Community airports to market liberalisation;
3. Recalls that under Regulations (EC) N° 1899/20061 and N° 1900/20062 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 amending Regulation (EEC) N° 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation3, airlines are directly liable for all groundhandling performed for their flights so that it is in their interests to ensure a high quality and speedy service;
4. Notes that one of the biggest barriers to groundhandling liberalisation and efficiency invoked by many of the Community's airports is lack of space, but considers that this contention needs to be tested and, where necessary, resolved;
5. Asks the Commission to carry out a survey on the need for new infrastructure at Europe's airports taking account of their particular geographic, economic, social, ecological and
1 OJ L 377, 27.12.2006, p. 1. 2 OJ L 377, 27.12.2006, p. 176. 3 OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.
PE390.495v03-00 16/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN meteorological characteristics, and then to report to the European Parliament before 2009 on a proposal for new airport capacity in Europe; considers that this report should present a cohesive approach for Member States in order to help coordinate any national initiatives for building new airport capacity;
6. Believes that airlines and other financial or relevant stakeholders, such as regional and local authorities, should be consulted on the financial, social and environmental implications when infrastructure developments to airports are being planned;
7. Suggests that, with the advent of quieter aircraft, it should be possible to ensure 24-hour operation at most airports in order to improve capital asset utilisation, efficiency and convenience; calls for information measures to be put in place in order to prevent possible opposition from inhabitants living in areas close to airports on the grounds of noise and environmental nuisance;
8. Notes that aircraft have reduced their CO2 emissions by 70% per aircraft over the past 40 years and that this reduction is ongoing, the objective of the industry being to achieve an additional cut of 50% per aircraft by 2020;
9. Notes, consistently with Community competition rules, the necessity of introducing a market-based mechanism in the slot valuation and allocation process with a view to achieving fair distribution and the best possible use of scarce airport capacity; in this regard considers a move away from grandfather rights to free auctioning of slots to be a desirable objective, with a defined proportion of slots at hub airports reserved for regional feeder services;
10. Is of the opinion that the extension of airport capacity will not be possible without an efficient and thorough collaboration between airports and regional and local authorities hosting them, provided that any such collaboration does not contravene Community competition rules;
11. Recommends that any further attempt to amend Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports1 should concentrate on further liberalisation, strengthening of users' rights and the quality of groundhandling services; particularly invites the Commission to:
– examine the possibility of establishing minimum quality standards that should be taken into account in the selection procedure and inserted in the contract between the airline and the service provider, with particular emphasis on the ability of ground handlers to achieve a fast turnaround of aircraft and so optimise the utilisation of airport capacity;
– consider the abolition of the maximum contract period (7 years) in order to allow airlines and groundhandling services to negotiate freely and plan for the longer term;
– strengthen the rights of users with regard to decisions affecting them taken by an airport or authority in all matters concerning ground handling;
1 OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36.
RR\390495EN.doc 17/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 12. Considers that the minimum number of service providers admitted at airports (currently 2) should be reviewed by the Commission and be increased, where appropriate, particularly in the case of large airports, and that there should be no artificial limit on the number of third-party handlers;
13. Invites the Commission to launch a new impact analysis on the implementation of the Directive 96/67/EC, its actual benefit for users and passengers and how further liberalisation would enhance the user/passenger experience;
14. Believes that central infrastructure (CI) should be more clearly defined, after consulting all relevant stakeholders, and that fees charged for CI should be transparent, justified, fair and in compliance with Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67/EC; considers that CI should also be reported as airport revenue in airport operators' accounts;
15.Takes note of the Commission's report on the application of Directive 96/67/EC (COM(2006)0821), but observes with regret that the Directive should have been reviewed by December 2001!
PE390.495v03-00 18/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN PROCEDURE
Title Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficientpolicy Procedure number 2007/2092(INI) Committee responsible TRAN Opinion by ECON Date announced in plenary 26.4.2007 Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary Drafts(wo)man John Purvis Date appointed 22.5.2007 Previous drafts(wo)man Discussed in committee 27.6.2007 12.7.2007 Date adopted 12.7.2007 Result of final vote +: 24 –: 8 0: Members present for the final vote Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, Elisa Ferreira, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Benoît Hamon, Gunnar Hökmark, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Andrea Losco, Gay Mitchell, Cristobal Montoro Romero, Joop Post, John Purvis, Eoin Ryan, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Manuel António dos Santos, Olle Schmidt, Ivo Strejček, Sahra Wagenknecht Substitute(s) present for the final vote Pilar del Castillo Vera, Ján Hudacký, Werner Langen, Alain Lipietz, Maria Petre, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Andreas Schwab, Donato Tommaso Veraldi Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote Comments (available in one language ... only)
RR\390495EN.doc 19/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 2.7.2007
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
on airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI))
Draftsman: Thomas Mann
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Agrees with the Commission’s judgement that the directive on ground handling services is in need of improvement, simplification and clarification; however, this must not without further study necessarily be linked to further opening of the market and liberalisation as indicated by the Commission;
2. Points out that the study commissioned by the Commission in 2002 on the quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU airports as a result of the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC provides evidence that the transposition of the directive into the legislation of the Member States did not always go smoothly1;
3. Criticises the Commission’s most recent report referring to the findings of the 2002 study, which bases its analysis of the impact of market liberalisation solely on the experience of the 15 ‘old’ EU Member States and obsolete data; calls on the Commission to include the 12 new Member States as well in its analyses and planning and to present up-to-date, empirical results;
4. Expresses disappointment at the fact that the Commission, in its recent communication entitled ‘An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe (COM(2006)0819)’, makes reference neither to working conditions in the field nor to any means of improving them; strongly recommends that ground handling services employees contribute decisively to the provision of better services as well to a higher level of security of flights;
1 The study by S&HE International Air Transport Consultancy (London) is available online at: www.ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm
PE390.495v03-00 20/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN 5. Therefore questions the Commission’s proposal to take further steps towards liberalisation and urges the Commission to evaluate the results of previous market liberalisation steps against the backdrop of job cuts, deteriorating working conditions and security risks by means of solid empirical research;
6. Notes that, since the adoption of Directive 96/67/EC, competition has become noticeably more acute and the prices for ground handling services have decreased in almost all ‘old’ EU Member States; makes the criticism that it is primarily airline companies that have forced ground handling service providers to cut costs and that to a lesser extent consumers, but above all airline companies, have profited from the lower prices; takes the view that there is a danger, as a result of the permanent pressure to adapt, that the quality of ground handling services and of working conditions will worsen; fears that the quality of ground handling services has been diminished, and may continue to fall in some Member States in future as a result of liberalisation and the permanent pressure to adapt; also fears that unnecessary security risks will develop, but recognises that experiences in Member States may differ;
7. Notes that ground handling is very labour-intensive and that approximately three-quarters of the total handling costs are personnel costs; shares the view of most Member States that ground handling service providers have problems finding and retaining skilled personnel; notes, however, that this fact is directly linked with the strategy of companies to implement a ‘minimum cost policy’ at the expense of workers and working conditions in order to be more competitive; criticises, consequently, the policy according to which established airline companies or service providers have dismissed part of their workforce, whilst recruitment by new market players is as a rule at lower rates of pay;
8. In this connection, is critical of the fact that the proportion of fixed-term employees and of employees with the status of subcontracted personnel has steadily increased, at the expense of regular jobs;
9. Takes the view that there should be specific retraining measures for airport services staff at regular intervals; stresses that staff involved in a serious incident or accident must receive compulsory retraining after the serious incident or accident, while staff employed on a seasonal basis must receive theoretical and practical training before taking up their duties;
10. Agrees with the view that, in some Member States, working relationships and conditions (affecting working hours, initial and further training as a guarantee of quality) have deteriorated and wage levels have been reduced by non-tariff agreements, which in many cases has resulted in a reduction in the quality of the services provided and loss of efficiency at airports (e.g. transfer processes, loss of and/or failure to load checked baggage, punctuality of flight movements); points out that the existing and threatened deterioration in working conditions runs directly counter to the Lisbon Strategy objectives; challenges the Commission’s view that air safety aspects are not affected by market liberalisation;
11. Criticises the Commission’s report for failing to carry out an adequate analysis of the social compatibility of market liberalisation; warns against further, premature liberalisation without a solid evaluation of steps already taken; consequently, calls on the Commission to commission a comprehensive study of the effectiveness and social
RR\390495EN.doc 21/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN compatibility of market liberalisation since 1996 in all 27 Member States, with particular reference to pay trends, safety at work, quality of work and protection from external dangers, and with special reference to the implementation of the provisions of Community directives on health and safety protection for workers at work;
12. Notes that major international airports (hubs) are exceptionally important for their regions’ economy and employment; welcomes efforts to increase their role in future by finding ways to optimise their use and improve transport infrastructure links, to place them in the best position in global competition as economic and employment centres.
PE390.495v03-00 22/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN PROCEDURE
Title Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy Procedure number 2007/2092(INI) Committee responsible TRAN Opinion by EMPL Date announced in plenary 26.4.2007 Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary Drafts(wo)man Thomas Mann Date appointed 21.3.2007 Previous drafts(wo)man Discussed in committee 7.6.2007 26.6.2007 Date adopted 27.6.2007 Result of final vote +: 32 –: 1 0: 1 Members present for the final vote Jan Andersson, Alexandru Athanasiu, Edit Bauer, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Emine Bozkurt, Iles Braghetto, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Derek Roland Clark, Luigi Cocilovo, Jean Louis Cottigny, Richard Falbr, Carlo Fatuzzo, Ilda Figueiredo, Roger Helmer, Karin Jöns, Ona Juknevičienė, Raymond Langendries, Elizabeth Lynne, Mary Lou McDonald, Thomas Mann, Jiří Maštálka, Maria Matsouka, Csaba Őry, Elisabeth Schroedter, José Albino Silva Peneda, Gabriele Stauner, Gabriele Zimmer Substitute(s) present for the final vote Rumiana Jeleva, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jamila Madeira, Anja Weisgerber, Glenis Willmott Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present Manolis Mavrommatis for the final vote Comments (available in one language only)
RR\390495EN.doc 23/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 20.7.2007
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
on airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI))
Draftsman: Philip Bradbourn
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Recalls that the promotion of freedom, human rights, justice and security and in this context the protection of personal data, is a key part of European Union's policy;
2. Stresses that the principle of proportionality is one of the guiding principles of the European Union;
3. Calls on the Commission to periodically reassess the appropriateness and effectiveness of intrusive and degrading airport security measures, particularly the requirement to remove items of clothing and the confiscation of liquids;
4. Supports the Commission in its ambition to increase the internal logistical efficiency of airports but suggests that this is limited to tracking of baggage and cargo only;
5. Considers, however, that by introducing Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) on boarding cards of individual passengers would be a breach of the proportionality principle as well as a potential breach of personal data privacy;
6. Is extremely concerned about the collection and storage of personal data and resolutely opposes the possibility of their being used in any way which could lead to "people profiling" and to the extension of the above to other areas of surveillance;
7. Calls on the Member States to ensure that bodies or organisations have access to these data or are permitted to store them for long periods of time only if they are authorised by law to do so, and considers that any forwarding of the data in excess of this should result
PE390.495v03-00 24/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN in prosecution;
8. Urges the Commission not to introduce measures which dramatically and directly affect work at European airports, such as restrictions on liquids, which airports do not have the capacity to enforce in a satisfactory manner;
9. Considers that the European Data Protection Supervisor should be consulted on measures relating to personal data;
10. Calls on the Commission to conduct a risk analysis and/or an impact assessment prior to taking any decision.
RR\390495EN.doc 25/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN PROCEDURE
Titel Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy Procedure number 2007/2092(INI) Committee responsible TRAN Opinion by LIBE Date announced in plenary 26.4.2007 Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary Drafts(wo)man Philip Bradbourn Date appointed 11.6.2007 Previous drafts(wo)man Discussed in committee 26.6.2007 17.7.2007 Date adopted 17.7.2007 Result of final vote +: 35 –: 0 0: 0 Members present for the final vote Alexander Alvaro, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Esther De Lange, Panayiotis Demetriou, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Roger Knapman, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Sarah Ludford, Dan Mihalache, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Athanasios Pafilis, Martine Roure, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Károly Ferenc Szabó, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber Substitute(s) present for the final vote Edit Bauer, Gérard Deprez, Iratxe García Pérez, Sophia in 't Veld, Jean Lambert, Marianne Mikko, Siiri Oviir Substitute(s) under Rule 178 (2) present for the final vote Comments (available in one language only)
PE390.495v03-00 26/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN 18.7.2007
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism on airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy (2007/2092(INI))
Draftsman: Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Regional Development calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Welcomes the Commission's proposals and underlines the importance of air transport in ensuring territorial, economic and social cohesion in the Union, in particular with regard to remote, peripheral and island regions;
2. Notes the importance of airports, which are sometimes the only 'window to the world', and calls on Member States, the Commission and regional authorities to take greater account of the fact that good internal and international air transport connections are often decisive with regard to the location of investment, the development of tourism and the rapid transportation of goods;
3. Taking account of the pace of air transport development, stresses that, with regard to regional communities, there should be an objective analysis of airports' air traffic capacity over at least the next 25 years, which will allow investment to be made in the construction of new airports and the modernisation of existing airports - including the conversion of former military airfields into civil airports - on a rational (and not solely ambitious) basis;
4. Calls on Member States and regional and local authorities to ensure that airports, regardless of their governing bodies, are included in regional spatial development plans or taken into account in regional development strategies; points out that the extension and construction of major infrastructure such as airports must be subject to a territorial impact assessment;
5. Underlines the need to ensure that the fastest possible transport links are provided between airports and town centres;
RR\390495EN.doc 27/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN 6. Stresses the importance of interregional, including cross-border, cooperation and considers it advisable to locate regional airports where they can most effectively serve neighbouring and border regions;
7. Considers it particularly useful to apply intermodal solutions where possible; takes the view that (high-speed) rail links between airports offer an ideal opportunity to ease the capacity problems of the airports concerned;
8. Stresses the economic importance of airports for job creation, particularly at regional level; points out that European airport operators, airlines, maintenance firms, caterers are in a position to create a significant number of jobs, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy;
9 Calls on Member States and regional and local authorities to take account of environmental factors when deciding where to locate airports, including noise, emissions, road traffic density in the vicinity of the airport, the proximity of fuel tanks, etc., and of meteorological factors;
10. Considers that the building and expansion of airport and related infrastructures should be adequately supported by national and regional authorities and receive appropriate financing under the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T), the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
PE390.495v03-00 28/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN PROCEDURE
Title Airport capacity and groundhandling: towards a more efficient policy Procedure number 2007/2092(INI) Committee responsible TRAN Opinion by REGI Date announced in plenary 26.4.2007 Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary Drafts(wo)man Mieczysław Edmund Janowski Date appointed 7.6.2007 Previous drafts(wo)man Discussed in committee 7.6.2007 Date adopted 17.7.2007 Result of final vote +: 40 –: 0 0: 2 Members present for the final vote Alfonso Andria, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Elspeth Attwooll, Tiberiu Bărbuleţiu, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Wolfgang Bulfon, Bairbre de Brún, Vasile Dîncu, Gerardo Galeote, Iratxe García Pérez, Pedro Guerreiro, Zita Gurmai, Marian Harkin, Jim Higgins, Filiz Hyusmenova, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Rumiana Jeleva, Evgeni Kirilov, Constanze Angela Krehl, Mario Mantovani, Sérgio Marques, James Nicholson, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Jan Olbrycht, Maria Petre, Markus Pieper, Pierre Pribetich, Wojciech Roszkowski, Elisabeth Schroedter, Grażyna Staniszewska, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Oldřich Vlasák Substitute(s) present for the final vote Jan Březina, Den Dover, Jill Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Christa Prets, Samuli Pohjamo, Károly Ferenc Szabó Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for Thomas Ulmer the final vote Comments (available in one language only)
RR\390495EN.doc 29/30 PE390.495v03-00 EN RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
Date adopted 11.9.2007 Result of final vote +: 39 –: 0 0: 0 Members present for the final vote Michael Cramer, Arūnas Degutis, Petr Duchoň, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Christine De Veyrac, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Mathieu Grosch, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Eva Lichtenberger, Bogusław Liberadzki, Robert Navarro, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle. Substitute(s) present for the final vote Zsolt László Becsey, Johannes Blokland, Philip Bradbourn, Zita Gurmai, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Anne E. Jensen, Antonio López- Istúriz White, Helmuth Markov, Willem Schuth, Catherine Stihler, Ari Vatanen. Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
PE390.495v03-00 30/30 RR\390495EN.doc EN