12. 9. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/9 
Additional opinion (^ on the draft Commission Regulation (EEC) on the application of 
Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted 
practices concerning ground handling services (2) 
(88/C 237/03) 
On 22 March 1988 the bureau of the Economic and Social Committee decided, under the 
third paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure, to draw up an Opinion on the 
abovementioned matter. 
The Section for Transport and Communications was instructed to prepare Committee's work 
on the matter. The rapporteur was Mr Velasco. 
Since the Commission intended to adopt the Regulation at an early date, Mr Velasco was 
subsequently appointed rapporteur-general with the task of preparing a draft Opinion. 
At its 257th plenary session (meeting of 6 July 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion: 
1. Background 
1.1. Among the air transport measures adopted by 
the Council in December 1987, Regulation (EEC) 
No 3976/87 empowers the Commission to apply 
Article 85 (3) of the Treaty by Regulation to certain 
categories of agreements, decisions and concerted prac­
tices. 
1.2. The present Regulation covers agreements con­
cerning ground handling services provided either by air 
carriers or specialized enterprises, such as technical and 
operational ground handling, handling of passengers, 
mail, freight and baggage, and services for the provision 
of in-flight catering. 
1.3. The Commission recognizes that, in certain cir­
cumstances, such agreements, decisions and concerted 
practices may produce economic benefits and ensure 
services of a high standard at reasonable cost. 
2. General Comments 
The Committee endorses the general objective of the 
proposal. This Regulation is necessary to establish the 
basic parameters for competition in the air transport 
sector in the context of completion of the internal 
market by 1992. 
It also approves the fact that the relevant agreements, 
decisions and concerted practices are to be subject to 
(') ESC Opinion (OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986, p. 27). 
(2) OJ No C 138, 28. 5. 1988, p. 9, and Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3976/87, 14 deccmber 1987 (OJ No 1. 374, 31. 12. 1987, 
p. 9). certain conditions designed to ensure optimal provision 
of the services in question, thus guaranteeing the ben­
efits expected of such agreements. 
The Committee would stress that the following funda­
mental aspects need to be taken into account, indepen­
dently of the establishment of proper competition rules 
for the activities in question: 
2.1. Safety 
This should be understood in its broadest sense since 
ground handling services have a direct impact on: 
— Technical airport safety: not only through the 
checks by the personnel involved in the operations, 
• but also through the necessary coordination of 
activities on the apron. This aspect should be given 
priority in deciding what services are best suited to 
a particular airport. 
— Technical operational safety: it is also necessary to 
bear in mind that the operational safety of aircraft 
depends on the provision of adequate services in 
such areas as aircraft maintenance, load distri­
bution, adequate technical flight information, etc. 
2.2. Technology 
Some ground handling services require the use of very 
advanced technologies, not only because they have a 
bearing on operational safety, but also because of com­
mercial considerations of importance to the company 
using the services. 
No C 237/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
2.3. Airport infrastructure 3. Specific comments 
Most Community countries have designed their own 
airport infrastructure with certain ideas as to such 
services as passenger, freight and mail handling, and 
the movement and parking of equipment. The Committee considers that the draft Regulation 
could incorporate the following points, which would 
undoubtedly help to achieve its objectives. 
This limitation on space should be borne in mind when 
fixing the most suitable number of service undertakings. 
2.4. Airport size 3.1. Preamble, recital 1 
The inclusion of the word 'indirectly' may lead to 
confusion as to the correct interpretation of this recital. 
Practically all ground handling services are connected 
with air transport services; hence it is recommended 
that the word 'indirectly' be deleted. 
The problem of ground handling services in major 
(category 1) airports is, of course, completely different 
from that in regional airports, where the traffic is 
insufficient to make it worthwhile for several companies 
to invest heavily in equipment and staff. 
2.5. Seasonal traffic 
The traffic at some airports varies considerably accord­
ing to season, making it very difficult to match staffing 
and equipment to services. The indiscriminate prolifer­
ation of service undertakings would exacerbate the 
serious congestion problems currently encountered at 
many airports during peak periods, while there would 
be more unused capacity during periods of low activity. 3.2. Preamble, recital 5 
This recital could be made clearer by deleting the word 
'exclusively' as this is redundant, adding nothing to the 
idea that an airline is to be free to choose the supplier 
which best meets its needs. 
3.3. Preamble, recital 8 
This recital is superfluous and does not clarify those 
cases where doubt exists over agreements. The Com­
mission recognizes that those agreements, decisions and 
concerted practices which c6mply with the Regulation 
are automatically exempted, and it will be its task to 
detect and correct any anomalies which may arise in 
the contractual relations covered by this Regulation. 
2.6. Heavy investment in services 
The provision of ground handling services entails com­
plex organization of personnel and equipment. Staff 
training, wages and the necessary technical equipment 
require a considerable outlay, which has to be taken 
into account. An inadequate policy in this area could 
have an adverse effect on the creation and preservation 
of jobs and thus result in additional social costs. 
The Committee is concerned that a disorderly prolifer­
ation of service undertakings may give rise to the 
abovementioned problems at airports; for this reason 
some local control, as is customary throughout the 
world, will always be necessary to avoid potentially 
highly serious risks. 
The Committee would also point out that the aim of 
this Regulation is to define those aspects which have 
to be taken into account when two parties sign an 
agreement for the provision of services, and not to 
stipulate the number of undertakings offering such ser­
vices at a given airport. 3.4. Preamble, recital 10 (new recital) 
'The present Regulation does not prejudice the right 
of the owners of an airport to determine the best 
way of operating the airport and to decide to run 
it themselves or to approve arrangements whereby 
its operation is entrusted to whomsoever they deem 
fit.' 
3.5. Article 2 
This Article covers almost all the relevant services. 
Nevertheless, in the interests of greater clarity on one 
of the most important aspects of these services, specific 
mention should be made in a new paragraph of main­
tenance services, which are of vital importance in the 
day-to-day operation of airlines, and of the repair of 
faults and technical problems arising either during the 
inward flight, during ground operations or simply dur­
ing routine inspection of the aircraft by a technician to 
check its airworthiness. This paragraph could read: 
'4. Services connected with the technical inspection 
of aircraft, such as maintenance and the repair of 
faults during the stopover period.' 
12. 9. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/11 
3.6. Article 3 (4) 
This paragraph is not completely clear as no definition 
is provided of unfair tariffs and conditions. Who decides 
what is unfair? The Committee understands and en­
dorses what the Commission is trying to achieve in 
this paragraph, but considers that the wording needs 
improving. 
3.7. Article 3 (6) 
As regards the time required to withdraw from an 
agreement without penalty, the Commission has stated 
that it wishes to retain the current provisions of the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA) agree­
ment. This paragraph should therefore read as follows: 
'Unless otherwise agreed, such Agreements shall 
remain in force until one of the two parties 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1988. 
1. Background 
1.1. As part of the agreement in December 1987 on 
air transport the Council asked the Commission to 
(J) ESC Opinion (OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986, p. 27). 
(2) JO No C 138, 28. 5. 1988, p. 6, and Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3976/87, 14 december 1987 (OJ No L 374, 31. 12. 1987, 
p. 9). denounces it, giving the other party sixty days' 
notice. Notification of the termination of all or 
some of the services provided at a particular place 
must be given by one of the two parties sixty days 
beforehand, unless otherwise specified.' 
Note 
The Committee wishes to express its concern over the 
differences between the English, French and Spanish 
versions. It does not know if the same applies to the 
other languages, but at all events recommends that the 
versions be aligned so as to prevent the Regulation from 
being interpreted in different ways. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
provide a block exemption to joint ventures between 
airlines on computer reservation systems (CRS). In 
practice the proposed block exemption will apply to 
two groups currently establishing a CRS: Amadeus (the 
principal members being Lufthansa, Air France, SAS, 
Iberia) and Galileo (principal members being British 
Airways, Alitalia, KLM, Swissair, Sabena, TAP, 
Olympic, Aer Lingus and Covia). Additional Opinion (!) on the draft Commission Regulation (EEC) on the application of 
Article 85 (3) to certain categories of agreements between undertakings relating to computer 
reservation systems for air transport services (2) 
(88/C 237/04) 
On 22 March 1988 the bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third 
paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure, decided to prepare an Opinion on the 
abovementioned matter. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject. The rapporteur was Mr Moreland. 
Since the Commission intended to adopt the Regulation in question at an early date, 
Mr Moreland was subsequently appointed rapporteur-general with the task of preparing a 
draft Opinion. 
At the 257th plenary session (meeting of 6 July 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously.