Report from the Commission on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996
Date: 2007-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, airport, application of EU law, consumer protection, management, market access, provision of services, report, transport infrastructure

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.1.2007 
COM(2006) 821 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 

INTRODUCTION 

On  15  October  1996  the  Council  adopted  Directive  96/67/EC  on  access  to  the 
groundhandling  market  at  Community  airports.  The  Directive  was  a  first  step 
towards the gradual opening-up of access to the groundhandling market so as to help 
reduce the operating costs of air carriers and improve the quality of service. Article 
22 of the Directive requires the Commission to draw up a report on the application of 
the  Directive.  This  Report  by  the  Commission  sets  out  to  comply  with  this 
requirement. 

At the request of the Commission, in 2002, a study ‘on the quality and efficiency of 
groundhandling services at EU airports as a result of the implementation of Council 
Directive 96/67/EC’ was carried out. The Commission has published this study on its 
website1  as  it  contains  valuable  information  on  the  economic  effects  the  Directive 
has had in the various Member States. 

It is recalled that the Directive makes an important distinction between two types of 
groundhandling services: (1) the categories of services to which, at airports reaching 
a  certain  threshold,  free  access  exists  for  suppliers  of  groundhandling  services  and 
for which airport users are free to perform self-handling; and (2) the limited number 
of specific categories of groundhandling services2, which may, at certain airports, be 
reserved for a limited number of groundhandling service suppliers and self-handling 
users respectively. The latter are generally also referred to as restricted services and 
this terminology is used in the text below. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 

Transposition of the Directive into national legislation 

Transposition  of  the  Directive  into  the  legislation  of  Member  States  has  in  most 
instances  been  a  relatively  smooth  process  even  if  with  many  Member  States  the 
Commission  has  had  to  engage  in  correspondence  and  consultations  in  order  to 
clarify  and  provide  information  and  assistance  on  how  to  transpose  the  Directive 
correctly.  Another  matter  was  the  rather  slow  speed  with  which  transposition  has 
been completed: most new national legislation was adopted before 1999 while four 
Member States were as late as 1999 to adopt legislation and one needed till as late as 
2000. 

www.ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm.  Study  carried  out  by  SH&E  International  Air 
Transport Consultancy, London. 
I.e.  baggage  handling,  ramp  handling,  fuel  and  oil  handling,  freight  and  mail  handling  as  regards  the 
physical handling of freight and mail between the air terminal and the aircraft. 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

2. 

4. 

1 

2 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

In two instances the Commission has disagreed with Member States on the way they 
transposed Article 18 of the Directive, which stipulates that Member States may take 
the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  protection  of  the  rights  of  workers.  The 
Commission  took  the  view  that  the  national  legislation  adopted  by  the  Member 
States  in  question  went  against  the  effective  application  of  the  Directive.  The 
European Court of Justice eventually ruled accordingly3 and one Member State has 
now  complied  with  the  Court  ruling.  The  Commission  is  considering  taking  legal 
action against the other Member State on the basis of Article 228 of the Treaty.  

6. 

Exemptions on the basis of Article 9 of the Directive 

Where at an airport specific constraints of available space or capacity exist, Member 
States may decide to restrict the number of handlers. Member States must notify the 
Commission  of  any  exemption  granted  by  them.  On  the  basis  of  Article  9  the 
Commission has received ten notifications. After examination, the Commission has 
granted  eight  exemptions  and  turned  down  two.  A  list  of  the  airports  concerned  is 
presented below. 

Airport 

Frankfurt 
Hamburg 
Stuttgart 
Berlin Tegel 
Düsseldorf 
Düsseldorf 
Paris CDG 
Funchal 

Date of Commission decision 
14 January 1998 
30 October 1998 
30 October 1998 
27 April 1999 
14 January 1998 
5 January 2000 
27 April 1999 
10 January 2000 

Exemption granted until 

1 January 2001 
31 December 2000 
31 December 2000 
31 December 2000 
31 December 2000 
31 December 2001 
31 December 2000 
31 December 2001 

Exemptions  requested  by  the  airports  of  Cologne/Bonn  on  30  October  1998  and 
Oporto on 10 January 2000 respectively were not granted. 

Annex  A  gives  a  general  picture  of  the  capacity  and  space  constraints  that  were 
encountered  by  airport  operators  after  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  This 
Annex  is  based  on  a  postal  survey  and  does  not  include  all  major  EU  airports4.  It 
appears that apart from the airports mentioned above, which had filed an exemption 
request that was upheld, after the entry into force of the Directive most airports did 
not  have  any  problems  to  accommodating  new  handlers  or  they  could  make 
arrangements to find a solution quickly. Their view is widely shared by the service 
suppliers. 

7. 

Application of the Directive 

Article 1(4) of the Directive requires the Commission to publish each year a list of 
Community  airports  at  which  the  groundhandling  market  must  be  opened  in 
conformity  with  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directive.  The  most  recent  list  was 
published  on  17  November  20065.  This  list  is  based  on  the  passenger  and  cargo 

3 

4 
5 

ECJ ruling of 9 December 2004, Case C-460/02 Commission v. Republic of Italy. ECJ ruling of 14 July 
2005, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case C-386/2003. 
The same applies to the Annexes E, F, G, H and I. 
OJ C 279, 17.11.2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
traffic statistics relating to the year 2005 and it is attached as Annex B. It follows that 
in that year there were 95 airports with more than 2 million passenger movements or 
50 000  tonnes  of  freight,  and  49  airports  were  below  that  threshold  but  had  annual 
traffic over 1 million passenger movements or 25 000 tonnes of freight. 

Of these 144 airports, only 13 airports in the Member States that acceded to the EU 
in  2004  meet  the  minimum  threshold  of  1  million  passenger  movements/25  000 
tonnes of freight6. 

The  effects  of  the  application  of  the  Directive  which  are  described  below,  are 
predominantly related to the airports in the 15 Member States as the airports of the 
‘new’ Member States have as yet limited experience with the Directive. 

8. 

The cost of groundhandling 

It  is  widely  acknowledged  that  the  prices  of  groundhandling  services  have  gone 
down  across  the  board  in  nearly  all  Member  States  since  the  adoption  of  the 
groundhandling  Directive  and  this  decrease  is  deemed  to  be  more  visible  in  those 
Member States which had handling monopolies or a highly regulated market before 
1996. It is thus recognised that the Directive has had a positive effect on competition, 
which may have led to this decrease, even though it is also argued that developments 
in  the  airline  industry  may  also  have  been  an  important  part  of  the  cause  of  the 
pressure  on  prices  as  cost-cutting  air  carriers  have  been  pressing  groundhandling 
service  suppliers  to  lower  them.  Annex C  demonstrates  the  price  developments  at  a 
number  of  EU  airports  that  have  taken  place  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive. The Annex illustrates the overall decrease of prices from the perspective 
of  the  respective  players  in  the  market  even  though  the  precise  percentages  differ. 
The perception of the exact decline in prices is not uniform therefore. 

9. 

The quality of groundhandling 

Following the adoption and implementation of the Directive, the changes in the level 
of  quality  seem  to  have  varied  at  the  different  airports.  Stakeholders  have  different 
views,  mostly  from  the  perspective  of  their  respective  competitive  positions  in  the 
market before and after the Directive became applicable, but the instances in which 
stakeholders,  across  the  board,  recognise  an  increase  in  quality  levels  far  outweigh 
the incidental cases where a deterioration is observed. Apart from these two options - 
higher or lower quality levels - there are instances where there is an absence of any 
change  in  quality  levels.  The  overall  perception  is  that  the  achievements  of  the 
increase in market access are a higher degree of competition, an increase in the free 
choice between service providers and a reduction in the costs of these services. The 
air  carriers  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  this  development  but  they  have  used  it 
mainly to play off the various suppliers against one another in order to get the best 
price, while putting less emphasis on the quality of service. 

The views on the subject tend to differ according to the perspective of suppliers of 
groundhandling  services,  airport  operators,  and  air  carriers  that  self-handle  or 
provide  handling  services  to  third  parties  (or  do  both)  respectively.  The  general 

Bratislava, Budapest, Larnaca, Ljubljana, Luqa-Malta, Paphos, Prague, Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Warsaw, 
Krakow and Katowice. 

10. 

6 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conclusion  is  that  air  carriers  have  had  more  leeway  to  pick  the  groundhandler  of 
their choice. Air carriers value this development as it implies in many cases that the 
traditional monopolies of the airports, which not only provide infrastructure but also 
act  as  groundhandling  service  providers,  have  been  altered  and  subjected  to 
competition. 

11. 

The airports feel that this effect has certain repercussions on the level of service and 
the management of the airport itself, as incidental lapses may disturb the efficiency 
of  the  airport  system  as  a  whole.  The  User  Committee  is  not  the  most  appropriate 
place to deal with the subject as national carriers, which in many instances perform 
self-handling and would thus be affected by any rule on quality, tend to have a strong 
say  in  this  Committee.  Airports  take  the  view  that  they  have  insufficient  tools  to 
address such situations. Annex D provides an overview of the development in quality 
levels  at  EU  airports  since  the  application  of  the  Directive.  The  views  on  this 
development  of  the  airport  operators,  the  Airport  Users  Committee  and  the 
groundhandler(s) at the airport in question have been taken into account. 

12. 

Competition 

13. 

The Directive has also had its effect on the degree of competition at EU airports as 
for almost all categories of groundhandling services the number of service suppliers 
in  the  market  has  gone  up.  Annex  E  presents  the  number  of  third  party  handlers 
present at EU airports both before and after the application of the Directive7. At the 
majority  of  airports  where  the  numbers  have  changed  there  has  been  an  increase. 
Only as regards the fuel and oil handling services have the numbers remained static 
overall. As to the number of self-handlers (second part of Annex E), they have either 
remained  the  same  or  decreased.  The  number  in  brackets  behind  each  category  of 
service  refers  to  the  number  of  the  category  of  service  listed  in  the  Annex  to  the 
Directive. 

that 

In  spite  of  these  higher  numbers,  which  indicate  a  clear  increase  in  competition  at 
airports, 
their 
independent  groundhandling  service  suppliers  consider 
commercial opportunities have remained limited in view of what they consider to be 
the relatively small ‘contestable market’ at notably the larger airports, i.e. the part of 
the  market  that  is  not  in  the  hands  of  the  incumbent  air  carrier  and/or  the  airport 
operator and that is therefore free to be captured by independent handlers. This can 
be explained by the many hub carriers that not only self-handle but that also, as third 
party  handlers,  provide  handling  services  for  their  alliance,  code-share  or  franchise 
partners on the basis of reciprocal handling arrangements between air carriers (‘if I 
handle you at my airport, you handle me at your airport’). Where at such airports the 
airport  operator  is  also  active  in  the  market,  the  remaining  market  share  to  be 
captured  by  independent  handlers  can  indeed  be  small.  This  appears  not  to  have 
changed  since  the  application  of  the  Directive.  The  independent  service  suppliers 
claim  that  because  of  this  situation  their  commercial  opportunities  and  profitability 
have  not  really  improved.  Yet,  this  does  not  seem  to  square  fully  with  the  higher 
numbers  mentioned  above:  if  the  facts  and  figures  were  really  as  moderate  for 
independent  handlers  as  they  claim,  then  not  as  many  would  have  stayed  in  the 
market as happens to be the case. 

7 

To complete the picture, the numbers of self-handling air carriers are also included. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
14. 

The selection procedure 

Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to take the necessary measures for 
the organisation of a selection procedure for suppliers that wish to be authorised to 
provide groundhandling services at airports where their number is limited. Where an 
airport  operator  is  not  directly  or  indirectly  involved  in  the  provision  of  similar 
services it can be made responsible for the selection by the public authorities. In this 
way,  the  entity  that  selects  the  handler  is  not  to  be  its  competitor  once  the  handler 
starts  offering  its  services.  But  in  practice  the  intended  distance  and  independence 
has not in all instances been assured. There are cases where Member States have a 
financial stake in an airport which not only provides air transport infrastructure but 
also groundhandling services. As a result of this direct interest by a Member State in 
the  profitability  of  the  airport  company,  the  authorities  concerned  are  not  always 
prepared to make the choice that is in the best interest of airport users. 

15. 

Article  11  also  states  that  suppliers  of  groundhandling  services  are  selected  for  a 
maximum  period  of  7  years.  This  period  is  perceived  by  service  suppliers  and  air 
carriers to be too short to allow them to recoup the considerable investments in staff 
and equipment, although this time constraint is not the only aspect: service suppliers 
also find it difficult to devise strategies for the longer term as air carriers are reluctant 
to agree on long-term contracts and commitments. A shorter period for a licence, as 
has  been  set  in  some  cases,  can  make  it  even  more  difficult,  for  new  entrants 
especially, to set up a new business and, as a result, it may prove a barrier to access. 

16. 

Participation of the airport operator in the groundhandling market 

In a good number of Member States (Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, 
Germany,  Italy,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal)  the  airport  operator  is  active  in  the 
groundhandling  market  by  providing  handling  services  and  is  thus  a  direct 
competitor  of  suppliers  of  groundhandling  services  and  air  carriers  which  provide 
these  services  for  third  parties.  The  reason  is  that  in  those  Member  States,  and  in 
some  others  as  well,  a  legal  obligation  for  airports  generally  exists  to  provide 
groundhandling  services.  The  justification  for  this  is  to  prevent  a  situation  where 
airports  would  exist  where  no  groundhandling  services  are  provided  at  all.  All  the 
same,  it  is  a  fact  that  at  many  larger  airports  where  a  sufficient  number  of  service 
suppliers are interested in offering their services or where airport users also provide 
third party handling, the management bodies of airports are active in the market by 
providing  handling  services.  At  many  such  airports  they  have  a  strong  position, 
which makes it difficult for a competitor or a new entrant to gain (additional) market 
share. 

17. 

Air carriers and handlers consider that at those airports where the management body 
runs  the  airport  but  at  the  same  time  acts  as  a  supplier  of  groundhandling  services 
competition is distorted, as the airport management body can pull too many strings, 
and  thus  influence  the  day  to  day  business  at  the  airport,  to  make  it  a  normal 
competitor.  In  other  words,  the  airport  operator  is  regulator,  landlord,  operator  of 
infrastructure and groundhandler at the same time and these roles are conflicting. The 
present  Directive  does  not  provide  strong  enough  tools  to  prevent  this  kind  of 
situation. On the other hand, the airports argue that independent service suppliers and 
air  carriers  enjoy  advantages  which  airport  operators  do  not  have,  as  large 
independent handlers and the incumbent air carriers operate at a global level and are 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
thereby in a position to benefit from economies of scale. The table in Annex F shows 
at  what  EU  airports  the  airport  operator  is  also  active  as  a  provider  of 
groundhandling  services.  This  table  is  not  exhaustive  as  not  all  airports  are 
mentioned. 

18. 

Centralised infrastructure 

the  centralised 

infrastructure  used  for 

Article 8 of the Directive allows Member States to reserve for the airport operator, 
the  supply  of 
the  management  of 
groundhandling  services  whose  complexity,  cost  or  environmental  impact  does  not 
allow  for  its  division  or  duplication.  The  airport  operator  may  make  it  compulsory 
for suppliers and self handling air carriers to use this infrastructure, and may impose 
charges  for  the  use  of  the  facilities.  This  provision  has  given  rise  to  uncertainty 
concerning the definition of what exactly is centralised infrastructure as well as the 
cost  of  using  it.  As  to  this  definition,  in  some  Member  States  airport  users  see  no 
need  for  the  public  authorities  to  interfere  in  this  respect,  while  in  other  Member 
States  users  are  in  favour  but  the  authorities  have  been  slow  to  react.  A  more 
pressing  point  is  the  way  airports  charge  air  carriers  for  the  use  of  the  centralised 
infrastructure:  this  varies  from  one  airport  to  another  and  is  not  transparent.  There 
may be an overlap with aeronautical charges but as the way of calculating the charge 
for the infrastructure lacks clarity, that is not certain. The airport management body 
may  also  give  a  discount  on  these  charges  to  its  own  handling  customers  and  this 
may  distort  competition.  By  way  of  example,  Annex  G  mentions  a  number  of  EU 
airports  and  states  whether  the  centralised  infrastructure  has  been  defined  or  not, 
what the charging base for the infrastructure is and whether any problems have been 
encountered. 

19. 

Access to installations 

Related  to  the  above  subject  is  the  provision  of  Article  16  of  the  Directive  which 
guarantees access to airport installations to service suppliers and self-handling airport 
users. It also stipulates that the space available for groundhandling at an airport must 
be divided among the various suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling 
airport users so as to allow fair competition. The managing body of the airport can 
place  conditions  upon  this  access  and  in  addition  collect  an  access  fee  which  has 
been further defined as a commercial fee, which has to be determined according to 
relevant,  objective,  transparent  and  non-discriminatory  criteria.  In  practice,  the 
possibility of levying the fee has not been taken up by all airports: some airports do 
not charge an access fee to handlers or air carriers, but other airports do. 

20. 

The exact nature of the access fee has been the subject of legal proceedings between 
Lufthansa and Hannover-Langenhagen Airport, the latter taking the position that the 
fee had to be seen as a fee due for providing air carriers with economic access to the 
market that is an airport. Lufthansa opposed this and took the view that the fee was a 
service-related one and that there had to be some relation with the service provided 
by the airport and the fee itself. On 16 October 2003, the European Court of Justice 
ruled  that  Article  16(3)  precludes  an  airport  operator  from  making  access  to  the 
groundhandling market in the airport subject to payment by a self-handling air carrier 
or a groundhandling service supplier of an access fee as consideration for the grant of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
a commercial opportunity in addition to the fee due by that self-handler or supplier 
for the  use  of  the  airport installations8.  The  fee  that  can  be  collected  for  the  use  of 
airport installations must be determined according to the criteria laid down in Article 
16(3). 

21. 

At  most  EU  airports,  the  managing  bodies  have  done  what  they  could  to 
accommodate new entrants to the market by allocating facilities to them even though 
there  have  been  limitations  due  to  peak  periods  such  as  summer  seasons  or  to 
existing  rent  agreements  to  be  honoured.  In  general,  there  has  been  no  unfair 
allocation or distribution of facilities and the occasions on which new entrants were 
deliberately allocated poor facilities are limited. This is valuable confirmation from a 
competition point of view, as air carriers acknowledge that the allocation of facilities 
to handlers influences their commercial choice of handler. 

22. 

Employment 

Groundhandling is labour-intensive: around three quarters of the total handling costs 
relate  to  employment  of  staff.  A  general  concern  in  the  Member  States  is  that  it  is 
difficult  for  suppliers  of  groundhandling  services  to  attract,  and  keep,  qualified 
handling staff as there seems to be a significant turnover of staff. Also, it is alleged 
that  the  increase  in  competition  as  a  result  of  the  Directive  has  led  to  incumbent 
carriers or service suppliers laying off a number of their staff while the new entrants 
have  acquired  new  workers  but  generally  at  lower  wages.  There  has  thus  been,  in 
some Member States, a degree of pressure on labour relationships, salary levels and 
working conditions and thus on workforce stability. It is said that the new entrants, 
and  thus  indirectly  the  introduction  of  competition,  may  be  the  cause  of  the 
deterioration in the qualification and training of staff and their labour conditions and 
that  thereby  the  quality  of  services  provided  has  suffered.  However,  no  recent  data 
are available and this makes it difficult to substantiate or verify the veracity of these 
assumptions. Annex H provides information as to what changes in social conditions 
have  taken  place  from  the  viewpoint  of  airport  operators,  the  Airport  Users 
Committees  and  service  suppliers  respectively.  It  must  be  noted  that  a  significant 
number  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  have  not  reacted  to  the  questions  on  this 
issue and this may indicate that it is not an item of contention or special concern for 
them.  Annex  I  provides  an  overview  of  the  opinions  of  unions  and  work  councils 
concerning the presumed negative impact of the Directive. 

23. 

Overall results of the Directive 

Annex J reflects the overall results of the Directive from the viewpoint of the airport 
operators,  the  Airport  User  Committees - which  consists  of  air  carriers -,  and  the 
groundhandling service suppliers. 

8 

Case C-363/01 Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH vs Deutsche Lufthansa AG. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

24. 

4. 

25. 

APPLICATION  IN  THE  TEN  MEMBER  STATES  SINCE  THEIR  ACCESSION  ON  1  MAY 
2004 

As a result of the thresholds established in the Directive, the latter applies to thirteen 
airports9 in nine Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 as the annual traffic 
of  those  airports  is  over  1  million  passenger  movements.  On  the  basis  of  the 
information received from the public authorities of the Member States concerned10, it 
appears that in the majority of these Member States the Directive is correctly applied 
and the Commission has not received indications from market players that contradict 
that  information.  In  one  Member  State,  the  situation  is  unsatisfactory  and  the 
Commission has addressed the public authorities of that Member State on the issue.  

The  Commission  underlines  that  in  all  cases  where  a  Member  State  does  not  fully 
and  correctly  apply  the  Directive,  the  Commission  will  unabatedly  continue  to 
actively endeavour to achieve the full application of all provisions of the Directive. 

GROUNDHANDLING AND SECURITY 

The Commission has started Community inspections in the field of aviation security 
only  after  the  entry  into  force  of  Directive  96/67/EC.  As  a  result,  no  evaluation  of 
potential  differences  in  the  implementation  of  security  measures  at  Community 
airports before and after the opening of the ground handling market could be carried 
out. 

On the basis of the results of the Commission’s inspections that have been conducted 
since February 2004, as well as on the basis of the contents of the Member States’ 
annual reports on national quality control in the field of aviation security, there are 
no  indications  suggesting  that  the  number  of  ground  handling  service  providers 
active at an airport, and which numbers differ significantly between Member States, 
has an actual impact on the quality and the enforceability of the implementation of 
security requirements. 

Access  to  certain  ground  handling  activities  like  aircraft  cleaning  and  catering  that 
can be considered as security sensitive as they take place on the ramp of an airport 
and in the aircraft itself, has not been restricted in the Directive. At many large EU 
airports,  the  number  of  suppliers  of  these  services  is  considerably  higher  than  two. 
Yet, their presence on the ramp has not given rise to security concerns. 

26. 

Detailed  security  requirements  for  staff  and  vehicles  entering  critical  parts  of  the 
security  restricted  area  of  airports  are  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  2320/2002 
establishing common rules in the field of aviation security, as well as in Commission 
Regulations (EC) No 622/2003 and (EC) No 1138/2004. These requirements apply to 
all  staff  working  in  such  areas  and  include  compulsory  background  checks  on  a 
person’s  identity  and  previous  experience,  including  any  criminal  history,  strict 
identity  control  and  physical  staff  screening  upon  entry  to  critical  parts  of  the 
security  restricted  area  and  completion  of  a  security  training  and  awareness 

9 
10 

See note 6 supra. 
With the exception of Cyprus. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
programme  for  every  staff  member  concerned.  These  common  requirements  have 
proven to be conducive to providing an adequate level of security, irrespective of the 
number of ground handling providers at an airport. 

5. 

27. 

28. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

In March 2003 the Commission services published a Consultation Paper on issues to 
be addressed in a revision of the Directive. Member States, the accession countries 
and  stakeholders  in  the  air  transport  industry  were  invited  to  give  their  views  and 
they  have  done  so  extensively.  At  a  hearing  that  was  held  on  6  April  2006,  the 
Commission once more consulted with all stakeholders on the various possibilities to 
devise a proposal for a revision of the Directive. 

A  large  number  of  stakeholders  recognised  the  need  for  an  improvement  of  the 
Directive  in  terms  of  bringing  about  a  simplification  of  the  Directive  as  well  as  a 
clarification  of  provisions  of  which  the  meaning  and  scope  has  been  subject  to 
different interpretations in the course of time after 1996. The Commission will define 
its course of action on the basis of the discussion of this report in the Council and the 
European Parliament. In addition to simplification and clarification of the Directive, 
a future proposal could aim to provide for further market opening and regulate issues 
which  have  become  relevant  since  the  application  of  the  Directive.  Such  issues  are 
the  definition  of  insurance  requirements  and  quality  standards  applicable  at  an 
airport, and an improvement of the procedure for the selection of service suppliers. In 
any  case,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  the  groundhandling 
market with a view to further assess its development. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

29. 

Council Directive 96/67/EC has led to: 

(a) 

the introduction of competition at many airports which were previously closed 
or static markets; 

(b)  better value for money spent on groundhandling services; 

(c) 

greater pressure on the prices for groundhandling services; 

(d)  dilatory actions in some instances on the part of competent authorities in fully 

applying the Directive; 

(e) 

(f) 

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 groundhandling at the economically 
most important EU airports. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Capacity and space problems - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX A 

Airport 

Did new entrants have 
any capacity or space 
constraints? 

Paris-Orly 

Marseille-
Provence 
Bâle-
Mulhouse 

Bordeaux-
Mérignac 
Strasbourg-
Entzheim 

Berlin-
Schönefeld 
Berlin-Tegel 
Hahn 
Dusseldorf 

Hannover-
Langenhagen 

Leipzig-Halle 

Airport operator: 
Yes, the space allocated 
to each handler is 
proportional to its 
volume of activity. 
Cariane: No 
Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Swissport: 
No comment 

Airport operator: 
Yes, space constraints 
Airport operator: No 

Have there been 
problems with 
suppliers already 
operating at the 
airport? 

Have you had 
problems allocating 
new handlers? 

Are there any 
hindrances for the 
access of suppliers 
to the market? 

Airport operator: No 
Cariane: No 

Airport operator: Yes 

Airport operator: No 
Cariane: No 

Are you aware of 
any preferential 
treatment of 
handling 
customers of the 
airport? 

Cariane: No 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Swissport: Yes, 
insufficient number 
of check-in counters 
Airport operator: Yes  Airport operator: Yes 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Swissport: No 

AUC: No 

Swissport: N/a 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: If 
new entrance, 
capacity or space 
constraints 

Airport operator: 
If new entrance, 
capacity or space 
constraints 

Airport operator: 
If new entrance, 
capacity or space 
constraints 

Airport operator: Yes 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: Yes  Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: Yes 
Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: 
No, space allocation at 
the apron for ramp 
handling is limited even 
if only one third party 
handler is operating 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: 
Yes, poor locations, 
sometimes obligation to 
take too much space at 
high cost 
Ground handler: 
Aviapartner: 
Yes, poor locations, 
sometimes obligation to 
take too much space at 
high cost 
Hannover Aviation 
Ground Service: Yes 
Airport operator: Yes 
AUC: No 
PortGround: 
Yes, regulations on use 
of airport 

Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: No 

Airport operator: Yes  Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: not 
really, concession 
contracts 

AUC: No 
Aviapartner: No 

Aviapartner: No 
Hannover Aviation 
Ground Service: Yes 

Aviapartner: not 
really, concession 
contracts 
Hannover Aviation 
Ground Service: N/a. 

Aviapartner: No 
Hannover Aviation 
Ground Service: 
No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
PortGround: No 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
PortGround: No 

AUC: No 
PortGround: No 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Köln-Bonn 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: 
Yes, poor locations, 
sometimes obligation to 
take too much space at 
high cost 

Shannon 

Airport operator: No 

Torino-Caselle  Sagat: No 
Porto-Sà 
Carneiro 
Alicante 

Aena: No 

Airport operator: Yes 

Airport operator: 
Yes, space for cargo 
handling limited- one 
supplier requires 
extension to 
premises. 
Sagat: No 

Bilbao 

Gran Canaria 

Aena: No 
Iberia: No 
Aena: Yes / subject to 
space availability 

Aena: No 
Iberia: No 
Aena: Yes 

AUC: No 
Aviapartner: No 

Airport operator: 
Yes, in 1998 the 
airport filed an 
exemption request 
caused by capacity 
constraints. The 
airport had to build 
up additional staging 
areas. 
Airport operator: 
Not yet 

Airport operator: 
Yes, due to the 
limitations according 
to BADV 
AUC: No 
Aviapartner: Not 
really, concession 
contracts 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: Yes 

Sagat: No 

Sagat: No 

Ibiza 

Lanzarote 
Malaga 

Sevilla 
Göteborg-
Landvetter 
London-
Gatwick 

London-
Stansted 

Luton 

Newcastle 

Aberdeen 

Aena: No 
Ineuropa: Yes 
Aena: No 
Aena: No 

Aena: No 
AUC: Yes, Servisair has 
insufficient premises 
Airport operator: No 
AUC: Yes, capacity and 
space constraints 
demand management 

Airport operator: 
Yes, cargo space 
restriction due to no new 
construction of space for 
new entrants initially. 
ASIG: 
Yes, facilities to operate 
from are indequate. 

Airport operator: Yes, 
shortage of space 
Airport operator: No 
Servisair: Yes 

Aena: Yes 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Aena: No 
Aena: No 

Aena: No 

Airport operator:Yes, 
these were managed 
through the transition 
period of introducing 
another handler 

Airport operator: 
Yes, in all areas with 
new handlers as 
initial entrants 

Aena: No 
Ineuropa: Yes 
Aena: No 
Aena: No 

Aena: No 
AUC: No 

Airport operator:Yes, 
reallocate facilities 
already used by 
existing handlers 
through the transition 
period. 
AUC:Yes, check-in 
and parking problems 
but have been 
resolved. 
Airport operator: 
Pre-Directive – No 
Post-Directive – Yes, 
due to space 
constraints 

Airport operator: No 

Airport operator: No 

Aena: No 
Iberia: N/a 
Aena: N/a 

Aena: No 
Ineuropa: N/a 
Aena: N/a 
Aena: N/a 

Aena: N/a 
AUC: N/a 

AUC: N/a 

Aena: No 
Iberia: No 
Aena: Yes / rules that 
handlers must 
comply with 
Aena: No 
Ineuropa: No 
Aena: No 
Aena: Yes /minimum 
requirements 
Aena: No 
AUC: No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: Yes, limitation 
on the number of 
airside handlers to 4. 

ASIG: No 

Servisair: BA 
seems to get 
priority. 
Servisair: N/a 

Airport operator: No 
other than 
accommodation 
ASIG: Yes, if into-
plane companies 
want to supply 
services to unhandle 
the into-wing price of 
fuel and will not 
supply fuel 
separately. 
Airport operator: No 

Servisair: Yes, a 
licence is required 

Airport operator: No 
Servisair: Yes, apron 
congestion for 
additional GSE. 

Airport operator: No 
Servisair: No 

Airport operator: No 
Servisair: No 

Airport operator: No 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edinburgh 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: No 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: No 

Glasgow 

Airport operator: No 
Airline Services: No 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: Not at start 
Execair: No 

Airport operator: No 
AUC: Yes 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: Yes, 
difficulties have been 
experienced with 
available property, 
equipment parking 
and staff car parking 
Airline Services: No 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: No 

Airport operator: 
Yes, airside 
accommodation 

AUC: N/a 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: No 

Airport operator: 
Yes, Space for 
equipment and 
accommodation 
airside 
AUC: No 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: No 

Airport operator: No 

Airline Services: No 
Aviance: No 
Servisair: No 

Airline Services: 
N/a 
Aviance: N/a 
Servisair: N/a 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX B 

concerning the procedure laid down by Article 1, para 4 of Council Directive 96/67/EC 

According  to  the  provisions  of  Article  1(4)  of  Council  Directive  96/67/EC  of  15 October 1996  on  access  to  the  groundhandling 
market  at  Community  airports11,  the  Commission  is  required  to  publish,  for  information,  a  list  of  the  airports  referred  to  in  the 
Directive. 

Airports whose annual traffic is 
more than 2 million passenger 
movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight 

Airports  whose  annual  traffic  is 
more  than  1  million  passenger 
movements or 25 000 tons of freight 

Other 
airports 
commercial traffic 

open 

to 

Austria 

Vienna 

Salzburg 

Graz, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Linz 

Belgium 

Brussels,  Charleroi,  Oostende,  Liège-
Bierset 

Antwerpen 

Cyprus 

Larnaca 

Paphos 

Czech 
Republic 

Prague 

Denmark 

Copenhagen Kastrup 

Billund 

Estonia 

Finland 

Helsinki-Vantaa 

France 

Nice-Côte 
Paris-Orly, 
Paris-CDG, 
d’Azur,  Marseille-Provence,  Lyon-Saint 
Exupéry, 
Bâle-
Toulouse-Blagnac, 
Mulhouse, Bordeaux-Mérignac 

Pointe-à-Pitre-Le  Raizet,  Nantes-
Atlantique, 
Montpellier-
Méditerranée,  Fort  de  France-Le 
Lamentin, Beauvais-Tille, Strasbourg  

Brno,  Karlovy-Vary,  Ostrava, 
Pardubice 

Aars,  Anholt,  Århus,  Aalborg, 
Karup, Odense, Esbjerg, Bornholm, 
Thisted, 
Sønderborg,  Vojens, 
Stauning, 
Roskilde, 
Skive, 
Hadsund,  Herning,  Kalundborg, 
Koster  Vig,  Laesoe,  Lemvig, 
Lolland-Falster,  Viborg,  Tønder, 
Sydfyn,  Sindal,  Padborg,  Ærø, 
Randers, 
Kolding, 
Ringsted, 
Spjald, Morso, Samso 

Tallinn, Kärdla, Kuressaare, Pärnu, 
Tartu  

Kittillä, 

Enontekiö,  Helsinki-Malmi,  Ivalo, 
Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kajaani, Kemi-
Tornio, 
Kruunupyy, 
Kuopio,  Kuusamo,  Lappeenranta, 
Maarianhamina,  Mikkeli,  Oulu, 
Savonlinna, 
Pori,  Rovaniemi, 
Seinäjoki,Tampere-Pirkkala, 
Turku, Vaasa, Varkaus 

Agen-La-Garenne,  Ajaccio-Campo 
dell’oro, 
Albi-Le-Sequestre, 
Angers-Marce,  Angoulème-Brie-
Annécy-Meythet, 
Champniers, 
Aurillac, 
Aubenas-Vals-Lanas, 
Avignon-
Auxerre-Branches, 
Caumont, Bastia-Poretta, Beauvoir-
cote-de-lumiere, 
Bergerac-
Roumanière,  Besancon-la  Veze, 

11 

OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Gatien, 

Catherine, 

Le 
Puy-Loudes, 

Béziers-Vias, 
Biarritz-Bayonne-
Anglet,  Blois-le  Breuil,  Bourges, 
Brest-Guipavas,  Brive-La  Roche, 
Caen-Carpiquet, 
Cahors-
Calais-Dunkerque, 
Lalbenque, 
Calvi-Ste 
Cannes-
Cannes-Palmbeach, 
Mandelieu, 
Carcassonne-Salvaza, 
Castres-
Mazamet,  Cayenne-Rochambeau, 
Chalon-Champforgeuil, 
Chalon-
Vatry,  Chambéry-Aix  les  Bains, 
Charleville-Mezières, Chateauroux-
Cherbourg-Maupertus, 
Deols, 
Clermont-
Cholet-Le-Pontreau, 
Ferrand-Aulnat, 
Cognac-
Chateaubernard,Colmar-Houssen, 
Courchevel,  Deauville-St  Gatien, 
Dieppe-Saint 
Dijon-
Dinnard-Pleurtuit-St 
Longvic, 
Malo, 
Epinal-
Dole-Tavaux, 
Mirecourt,  Figari-Sud  Corse,  Gap-
Tallard,  Granville,  Grenoble-St 
Geoirs,  Ile  d’Yeu-le-Grand  Phare, 
La  Baule-Escoublac,  La  Mole,  La 
Rochelle-Laleu, 
Lannion-Servel, 
La-Roche-sur-Yon-Les-Ajoncs, 
Lannion,  Laval-Entrammes,  Le 
Mans-
Havre-Octeville, 
Arnage,Le 
Le 
Touquet-Paris-Plage, 
Lille-
Limoges-Bellegarde, 
Lesquin, 
Lorient  Lann-Bihoue,  Lyon  Bron, 
Macon-Charnay, 
Metz-Nancy-
Lorraine,  Monbeliard-Courcelles, 
Montluçon-Gueret, 
Morlaix-
Ploujean,  Moulins-Montbeugny, 
Nevers-
Nancy-Essey, 
Fourchambault, 
Nîmes-
Garons,Niort-Souché, 
Ouessant,Pau-Pyrénnées, 
Perpignan-
Périgueux-Bassillac, 
Rivesaltes, 
Poitiers-Biard, 
Pontoise-Cormeilles, Port Grimaud, 
Reims-
Quimper-Pluguffan, 
Champagne, 
Rennes-St 
Jacques,Roanne-
Renaison,Rochefort-St 
Agnant, 
Rodez-Marcillac,  Rouen-Vallée  de 
la  Seine,  St  Brieux-Armor,  St 
Denis-Gillot.St  Etienne-Bouthéon, 
St  Nazaire-Montoir,  St  Tropez  La 
Mole,  Saint  Yan  ,  Samur  Saint 
Florent,  Tarbes-Oussun-Lourdes, 
Toulon-Hyères-Le-
Palyvestre,Tours-St.Symphorien, 
Valence-
Troyes-Barberey, 
Chabeuil,  Valenciennes-Denain, 
Vichy-Charmeil  

Germany 

Berlin-Tegel,  Hamburg,  Düsseldorf, 
Frankfurt/Main, 
Hannover-
Langenhagen, 
Leipzig-Halle,Stuttgart, 
München, Nürnberg, Köln-Bonn 

Hahn, 

Berlin-Schönefeld, 
Dortmund, 
Münster/Osnabrück, 
Lippstadt 

Bremen, 
Dresden, 
Paderborn-

EN 

15 

Augsburg, 
Altenburg-Nobitz, 
Barth, Bayreuth, Berlin-Tempelhof, 
Braunschweig, 
Bielefeld, 
Chemnitz-Jahnsdorf, 
Cottbus-
Cottbus-Neuhausen, 
Drewitz, 
Eisenach-Kindel, 
Egelsbach, 
Erfurt, 
Essen/Mühlheim, 
Friedrichshafen, Gera, Heringsdorf, 

   EN 

 
 
Greece 

Athinai, Iraklion, Thessaloniki, Rodos 

Chania, Kerkira, Kos 

Hungary 

Budapest Ferihegy 

Ireland 

Dublin, Shannon, Cork 

Italy 

Roma-Fiumicino, 
Roma-Ciampino 
Milano-Malpensa, Milano-Linate, Napoli, 
Bologna,  Catania,  Palermo,  Bergamo, 
Venezia, Torino, Verona, Cagliari, Pisa 

Olbia,  Firenze,  Bari,  Lamezia, 
Genova 

Hof-Plauen, 
Jena-Schöngleina, 
Karlsruhe/Baden-Baden,  Kassel, 
Kiel,  Lahr,  Lübeck-Blankensee, 
Magdeburg, 
Marl-Loemühle, 
Mönchengladbach, 
Meschede, 
Neubrandenburg, 
Niederrhein, 
Porta-
Passau-Vilshofen, 
Rothenburg/Görlitz, 
Westfalica, 
Rostock-Laage, 
Saarbrücken-
Ensheim,  Schönhagen,  Schwerin-
Speyer-
Parchim, 
Siegerland, 
Stendal-Borstel, 
Ludwigshafen, 
Strausberg, Welzow, Zweibrucken 

Alexandroupoulis, 
Araxos, 
Ioannina,  Kalamata,  Kastoria, 
Kavala,  Kozani,  Nea  Anchialos, 
Preveza,  Astypalaia,  Chios,  Ikaria, 
Karpathos,  Kasos,  Kastelorizo, 
Kefallonia, Kithira, Leros, Limnos, 
Mikonos,  Milos,  Mitilini,  Naxos, 
Paros,  Samos,  Santorini,  Siros, 
Sitia, Skiathos, Skiros, Zakinthos 

Balaton-West, Debrecen, Györ-Pér, 
Szeged 

Knock,  Kerry,  Galway,  Donegal, 
Sligo, Waterford 

Albenga, Alghero-Fertilia, Ancona-
Falconara,  Aosta,  Biella-Cerrione, 
Bolzano,  Brescia,  Brindisi-Papola 
Casale,  Crotone,  Cuneo-Levaldigi, 
Foggia-Gino  Lisa,  Forli,  Grosseto, 
Lampedusa,  Marina  di  Campo, 
Padova, 
Parma, 
Pantelleria, 
Pescara, 
Perugia-Sant’Egidio, 
Reggio Calabria, Rimini-Miramare, 
Siena-Ampugnano, 
Taranto-
Grottaglie,  Tortoli,  Trapani-Birgi, 
Treviso-Sant’Angelo, 
Trieste-
Ronchi dei Legionari, Vicenza 

Riga 

 Daugavpils, Liepaja, Ventspils 

Vilnius, Kaunas, Palanga, Siauliai 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Luqa-Malta 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Netherlands 

Amsterdam-Schiphol  

Maastricht-Aken , Rotterdam 

Poland 

Warszawa-Okecie 

Portugal 

Lisboa, Faro 

Funchal, Porto 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Ljubljana 

Barcelona, 

Bilbao, 
Alicante, 
Fuerteventura,  Gran  Canaria, 
Ibiza, 
Lanzarote,  Madrid,  Malaga,  Menorca, 
Palma  de  Mallorca,  Sevilla,  Tenerife 
Norte, Tenerife Sur, Valencia 

Jerez, Reus, Santiago, Vitoria 

Sweden 

Göteborg-Landvetter, Stockholm-Arlanda  Malmo-Sturup,  Stockholm/Bromma, 

Stockholm/Skavsta 

Eindhoven, 
Twente-Enschede 

Groningen-Eelde, 

Krakow, 

Bydgoszcz,  Gdansk,  Katowice-
Lódz-
Pyrzowice, 
Poznan-Lawice, 
Lublinek, 
Rzeszów-Jasionka, 
Szczytno-
Szczecin-Goleniów, 
Szymany, 
Wroclaw-Strachowice, 
Zielona-
Góra-Babimost 

Braga,  Chaves,  Coimbra,  Corvo, 
Evora,  Flores,  Horta,  Lages,  Porto 
Santo,  Santa  Maria,  Pico,  Saõ 
Jorge, Cascais/Tires, Graciosa, Vila 
Real,  Covilhã,  Viseu,  Bragança, 
Ponta  Delgada,  Portimao,  Sines, 
Vilar de Luz (Maia) 

Bratislava,  Kosice,  Nitra,  Piestany, 
Poprad-Tatry,  Prievidza,  Sliac, 
Zilina 

Ajdovscina,  Bovec,  Celje,  Lesce, 
Maribor, 
Sobota, 
Murska 
NovoMesto,  Portoroz,  Postojna, 
Ptuj, Slovenjgrodec, Valenje 

Asturias, 
Albacete,Almeria, 
Badajoz,  Cordoba,  El  Hierro, 
Gomera,  Granada,  La  Coruna,  La 
Palma,  Leon,  Madrid-C.Vientos, 
Pamplona, 
Melilla,  Murcia, 
Sebastian, 
San 
Salamanca, 
Santander, 
Vigo, 
Zaragoza 

Valladolid, 

Ängelholm,  Arvika,  Arvidsjaur, 
Borlänge,  Eskilstuna,  Falköping, 
Gällivare/Vassare, 
Gällivare, 
Ljungbyhed, 
Ljungby/Feringe, 
Gävle-Sandviken, 
Ludvika, 
Hagfors, 
Gothenburg-Säve, 
Halmstad, 
Hemavan, 
Helsingborg/Hamnen,  Hultsfred, 
Jokkmokk, 
Jönköping,  Kalmar, 
Karlskoga,  Karlstad,  Kiruna, 
Kramfors, 
Kiruna/Loussajärvi, 
Kristianstad, 
Lidköping; 
Linköping/Malmen, 
Linköping/SAAB, 
Lycksele, 
Norrköping/Kungsängen, 
Oskarshamn,  Pajala,  Ronneby, 
Skövde, 
Satenäs, 
Skellefteå, 
Stockholm/Västeras, 
Storuman, 
Stromstadt/Nasinge, 
Sundsvall/Härnösand, 
Söderhamn, 

Sveg, 
Torsby/Fryklanda, 

Luleå/Kallax, 
Mora/Siljan, 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United 
Kingdom 

Aberdeen,  Belfast-International,  Belfast-
City,  Birmingham,  Bristol,  Edinburgh, 
East-Midlands,  Glasgow,  Liverpool, 
London-Heathrow, 
London-Gatwick, 
London-Stansted,  Luton,  Manchester, 
Newcastle,  Leeds-Bradford,  Nottingham 
East Midlands, Prestwich. 

 Cardiff  Wales,  Kent  International, 
London City, Southampton 

Umeå, 
Trollhättan-Vänersborg, 
Uppsala/Viktoria, 
Uppsala, 
Vilhelmina, 
Växjö-
Visby, 
Kronoberg, Örebro, Örnsköldsvick, 
Östersund/Frösön 

Inverness,  Sumburgh, 
Teesside, 
Humberside, 
Bournemouth, 
Norwich,  Exeter,  St  Mary’s 
Plymouth, 
Penzance, 
(Scilly), 
Kirkwall, 
Stornway, 
Scatsta, 
of  Derry, 
City 
Blackpool, 
Sheffield, 
Tresco 
Benbecula, 
(Scilly),  Wick,  Cambridge,  Islay, 
Isle 
Dundee, 
Campbeltown,  Barra,  Biggin  Hill, 
Lerwick, 
Tiree, 
Battersea, 
Southend, 
Hawarden, 
Lydd, 
Coventry,  Gloucester,  Shoreham, 
Unst,  Carlisle,  Barrow,  Newquay, 
Fermanagh 

Man, 

of 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
Summary of price developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX C 

Airport 

Airport 
operator 

Vienna 

-15% 

Brussels 

Increase 

Copenhagen 

Decrease 

Helsinki 

No insight 

Airline 

AUC 

AOC 

Handler 

-5% 

-10% 

VAS: no insight 

Austrian 
Airlines: -5% 
Lufthansa: 
increase 

British Airways: 
no change 

No change 

-10 to -15% 

Stable 

BGS: no change 
Aviapartner: no change 
Novia: decreased 
SAS: frozen1 
GlobeGround: no major 
change 
Finnair: -30% to -40% 
Fortum: no change 
Aviapartner: -20% 
Servisair: -20% 

Swissport: lower 

Servisair: -20% 
Aviapartner: -20% 
Acciona Airport 
Services: decrease  

Checkpoint B: -15% to 
-20% 
Swissport and Menzies: 
-10% to  
-15% 
Aviapartner: -20% 

Aviapartner: -20% 

Servisair: airlines 
expected -25% 
Aerogate: decreased 
Swissport: -40% 
Goldair: large discounts 

Servisair:  
-5% to -7.5% 
Aviance: no insight 

EAS: -30% 

CSLux: frozen 
Luxair: frozen 
GlobeGround: 
Decrease2 
Portway: -25% 
TAP Handling: -15% 
Portway: -10% 

Lyon 

-50% 

Brit Air: no 
change 

Slight 
decrease 

Nice 

Paris-CDG 

-20% 

Toulouse 

Decrease 

Frankfurt 

-5% to -15% 

Air France: no 
change 
Lufthansa: +8% 

British Airways: 
significant 
decrease 

Slight 
decrease 
Slight 
decrease 
-10% 

No change 

Hamburg 

-5% to -15% 

No insight 

No insight 

British Airways: 
15% to -25% 
Eurowings:  
-15% 
Alitalia: 
no change 

Ryaniar: no 
insight 
Aer Lingus: 
+10% 

Alitalia: 
Decrease 
Cargolux: 
increased 
KLM: 
Decrease2 
Charter airlines: 
-10%  
Lufthansa: 
-20% 

Munich 

-15% 

Nuremberg 

Stuttgart 

-10% to 
-20% 
Decrease 

Athens 

Heraklion 
Dublin 

-30% to  
-40% 

No insight 

Milan-MXP 
Naples 
Rome-FCO 

-20% 
-25% 
-10 to –25% 

Luxembourg 

No change 

Amsterdam 

-5% to -10% 

Faro 

Lisbon 

Barcelona 

Decrease 

Significant 
reductions up 
to 50% 
Decrease 

Fuerteventura 
Madrid 

Decrease 
Decrease 

Frozen 

Frozen 

-15% to -20%  Decreased 

Decrease 

-15% 
No change 

No change 

Increase 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Iberia Handling: 
decrease 

Decrease 

Ineuropa and Iberia 

EN 

19 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Palma de 
Mallorca 
Tenerife Sur 
Stockholm 

Decrease 

Decrease 
-20% to 
-30% 

Belfast 

No insight 

Birmingham  

Decrease 

London-LHR 

No comment 

Manchester 

+10%3 

Skyways: -10 to 
-15% 

BMI: 
no insight 
Aer Lingus: 
frozen 
British Airways: 
slight increase 
American: 
-20% 
Malaysia 
Airlines:  
-10% to –40% 
Monarch: 
no change 

Decrease 

-20% 
No change 

Decrease 

No insight 

No insight 

Frozen 

Handling: decrease 
Ineuropa: -20% 

Air Cargo Center: slight 
decrease 
Novia: -20% to -30% 
Servisair: decrease  
Servisair: -10% 
Aviance: -5% 
Groundstar: no change 
Servsisair: no insight 
Aviance: frozen 

No comment 

No comment 

Swissport:  
-25% to -30% 

Aviance: -20% since 
1992 
Ringway: no change 
Servisair:  
-10% to -15% 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 

But off-peak prices are estimated to have decreased up to 35%. 
Price erosion started in 1993 with the entrance of Ogden. 
Decrease  in  prices  took  place  in  1992  when  market  was  opened,  but  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive, Manchester Airport estimates the prices have increased. 

Price developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

Airport 

Airport operator 

AUC 

Ground handler 

Paris-Orly 
Marseille-Provence 

Bordeaux-Mérignac 
Strasbourg-Entzheim 

No comment 
-15% 
(Industry) 
Lower 
Unknown 

Lower 
(Industry) 

Berlin-Schönefeld 

Hahn 

Dusseldorf 

Hannover-Langenhagen 

Leipzig-Halle 

Köln-Bonn 

Shannon 
Torino-Caselle 

Porto-Sà Carneiro 
Alicante 

Increase 
(Industry) 
Decrease 
(Industry) 
- 20% 
(Industry) 

-10% 
(Directive 
industry) 
-7% 
(Directive 
industry) 
No change 

-5% 
(Directive) 

No change 

and 

Decrease 
(Industry) 

and 

No comment 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive 
industry) 

and 

Cariane: Higher (Directive) 

Swissport: – 20% (Directive) 
Aviapartner: -20% 
(Directive and industry) 

-20% 

-20% 

(fear  of 

Aviapartner: 
Directive) 
Aviapartner: 
Directive) 
Hannover  Ground  Aviation 
Service: -20% to -30% (Industry) 
PortGround: decrease 

(fear  of 

Aviapartner: 
Directive) 

-20% 

(fear  of 

(Directive 

-15% 

Sagat: 
industry) 
PGA: increase (Directive) 

and 

EN 

20 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bilbao 

Gran Canaria 

Ibiza 

Lanzarote 

Malaga 

Sevilla 

-20% to -25% 
(Directive 
industry) 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive) 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive 
industry) 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive 
industry) 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive) 
-20% to -25% 
(Directive 
industry) 

and 

and 

and 

and 

Göteborg-Landvetter 

London-Gatwick 

No insight 

London-Stansted 

Decrease 
(Directive 
industry) 
No change 

and 

Luton 

Newcastle 

Aberdeen 

Bristol 
Edinburgh 

Glasgow 

and 

-10% 
(Directive 
industry) 
Decrease 
(Directive) 
No change 

N/C 
Decrease 
(Industry) 

No change 

Iberia: -20% (Industry) 

Ineuropa: -15% (Industry) 

Nordic: N/a 

Inflight Cleaning Services Ltd.: -
10% (Directive) 
Stansted  Airport  Limited:  -30% 
(Directive and industry) 
ASIG: 
-20% 
industry) 

(Directive  and 

Servisair: -15% (Industry) 

Servisair: decrease (Directive and 
industry) 

Aviance: -5% (Industry) 
Servisair:  -20%  (Directive  and 
industry) 
Airline Services Ltd.: 
Anticipated 
changes  due 
progress in service standards. 
Avance; no change 
Execair: +10% (Industry) 
Servisair: -25% (Industry) 

to 

EN 

21 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of quality developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX D 

Airline 

AUC 

AOC 

Handler 

Airport 

Airport 
operator 

Vienna 

No change 

Brussels 

Increase 

Copenhagen 
Helsinki 

Decrease 
No change 

Austrian 
Airlines: 
increase 
Lufthansa: 
no change 

No change 

British Airways: 
no change 

No change 

Lyon 

Decrease 

Brit 
increase 

Air: 

No change 

Nice 
Paris-CDG 
Toulouse 

Decrease 
Unstable 
Decrease 

Frankfurt 

No change 

No change 
No change 

British Airways: 
no change 

No change 

No change 

Hamburg 

No change 

No change 

No change 

Munich 

- 5% 

Nuremberg 

No change 

Stuttgart 

No change 

British Airways: 
no change 

Decrease/  
no change 
No change 

Alitalia: 
increase 

No change 

No change 

Athens 

Increase 

Increase 

Increase 

VAS: no insight 

BGS: increase 
Aviapartner: no change 
SAS: no change 
GlobeGround: increase 
Finnair: no change 
Fortum: increase 
Aviapartner: decrease 
Servisair: decrease 
Globeground: increase 
Swissport: increase 
Globeground: increase 
Aviapartner: decrease 
Servisair: decrease 
Acciona 
Services: no change 
Checkpoint B: 
no change 
AHS Handling: increase 
Swissport: no change 
Aviapartner:  
no change 
Aviapartner:  
no change 
Servisair: no change 
Aerogate: decrease 
Olympic  Handling  and 
Goldair: increase 

Airport 

Servisair: no change 
Aviance: increase 

EAS: increase 

CSLux: increase 
Luxair: increase 
GlobeGround: 
insight 

no 

Heraklion 
Dublin 

Increase 
Decrease 

Milan-MXP 
Naples 
Rome-FCO 

No change 
Increase 
No change 

Luxembourg 

No change 

Amsterdam 

Decrease 

Faro 

Increase 

Lisbon 

No change 

Barcelona 
Fuerteventura 
Madrid 
Palma 
Mallorca 
Tenerife Sur 
Stockholm 

de 

Belfast 

Decrease 
Increase 
Increase 
Increase 

Increase 
-10% to 
-20% 
No change 

Aer  Lingus:  no 
change 

Alitalia: 
increase 

Increase 
No change 

No change 
No change 
Increase 

KLM: 
No change 
Charter  airlines: 
increase 

SGUC: 
decrease 

Lufthansa: 
increase 

Skyways: 
decrease 
BMI:  
no change 

Increase 

No change 

22 

EN 

No change 

Increase 
during 
peak  
Increase  

Decrease 

off 

and 

Iberia  Handling 
Ineuropa: increase 
Ineuropa: increase 
Novia: no change 
Servisair: increase 
Servisair: +15% 
Aviance: no change 

No change 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increase 

No comment 

No comment 

Groundstar: increase 
Servisair: increase 
Swissport: no change 

Birmingham  

Decrease 

London-LHR 

No comment 

Aer Lingus: 
increase 
United: 
decrease 
Malaysian 
Airlines:  
-10% 
Singapore 
Airlines: 
increase 

Manchester 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Decrease 

Aviance: increase 
Ringway: increase 
Servisair: decrease 

Quality developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

Airport 

Airport operator

AUC 

Ground handler 

Paris-Orly 
Marseille-Provence 
Bordeaux-Mérignac 
Strasbourg-Entzheim 

Berlin-Schönefeld 
Hahn 
Dusseldorf 

No comment 
No change 
Decrease 
Increase 
(Industry) 

No change 
No change 
No change 

Hannover-Langenhagen 

Leipzig-Halle 
Köln-Bonn 
Shannon 

Torino-Caselle 
Porto-Sà Carneiro 

Alicante 

Bilbao 

Gran Canaria 

Ibiza 

Lanzarote 

Malaga 

Sevilla 

No change 
No change 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 

Increase 
(Directive) 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 
Increase 
(Directive) 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 
Increase 
(Directive) 
Increase 
(Directive and industry) 

No change 

Cariane: increase (Directive) 

Swissport: decrease (Directive) 
Aviapartner: decrease 
(Directive and industry) 

+10% 
(Directive 
industry) 

and 

Aviapartner: no change 

Aviapartner: no change 
Hannover Ground Aviation Service: 
decrease (Industry) 
Aviapartner: no change 
Aviapartner: no change 

No change 
No change 

Sagat: no change 
PGA: no change 

Iberia: +10% (Industry) 

Ineuropa: Increase 

Nordic: N/a 

Göteborg-Landvetter 

London-Gatwick 

No change 

Decrease 
(Industry) 
No comment 

London-Stansted 

Luton 

Newcastle 
Aberdeen 
Bristol 

Decrease 
(Directive and industry) 
+10% 
(Industry) 
No change 
No change 
No comment 

Inflight Cleaning Services: 
-10% (Directive) 
ASIG: no change 

Servisair: no change 
Servisair: increase (Industry) 

EN 

23 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edinburgh 

Glasgow 

No change 

Increase 
(Industry) 

Aviance: -10% (Industry) 
Servisair: increase (Industry) 
Airline Services: increase 
(Industry) 
Aviance: +10% (Industry) 
Servisair: +25% (Industry) 

EN 

24 

   EN

 
 
 
Number of handlers - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX E 

Passenger 
handling (2) 

Before 
2 
3 
2 
3 
5 
2 
2 
2 
3 
N/a 
8 
3 
4 
1 
1 
4 
3 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
N/a 
2 

2 
3 
1 
4 
12 
5 

After 
8 
5 
3 
3 
5 
3 
8 
6 
6 
5 
7 
4 
5 
4 
3 
7 
4 
2 
4 
1 
4 
2 
8 
8 
6 
11 
6 

6 
4 
2 
5 
12 
5 

de

Country 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 
Italy 

Airport 
Vienna 
Brussels 
Copenhagen 
Helsinki 
Lyon 
Nice 
Paris-CDG 
Toulouse 
Frankfurt 
Hamburg 
Munich 
Nuremberg 
Stuttgart 
Athens2 
Heraklion 
Dublin 
Milan-MXP 
Naples 
Rome-FCO 

Luxembourg  Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 

Amsterdam 
Faro 
Lisbon 
Barcelona 
Fuerteventura 
Madrid 
Palma 
Mallorca 
Tenerife Sur 
Stockholm 
Belfast 
Birmingham  
London-LHR 
Manchester 

Spain 

Sweden 
UK 

(1) 
(2) 

Number of third party handlers1 
Freight and mail 
handling (4) 

Baggage 
handling (3) 

Before 
1 
2 
2 
2 
4 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 

2 
3 
1 
2 
8 
5 

After 
2 
2 
3 
2 
7 
3 
5 
7 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
3 
5 
2 
2 
3 
1 
4 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

2 
5 
2 
4 
11 
5 

Before 
3 
5 
2 
3 
4 
2 
3 
3 
22 
1 
2 
3 
14 
1 
1 
3 
3 
1 
1 
1 
5 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 

2 
2 
1 
2 
11 
5 

After 
6 
5 
3 
5 
5 
3 
4 
4 
22 
2 
3 
3 
15 
3 
2 
6 
2 
1 
3 
2 
6 
2 
2 
5 
2 
8 
3 

2 
3 
2 
4 
12 
5 

Ramp 
handling (5.4) 
Before 
1 
2 
2 
3 
7 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 

After 
2 
2 
3 
3 
10 
3 
5 
7 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
5 
2 
2 
3 
2 
5 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

2 
3 
1 
5 
8 
5 

2 
4 
2 
5 
13 
5 

Fuel and oil 
handling (7) 

Before 
3 
2 
1 
3 
2 
6 
2 
1 
9 
2 
2 
1 
4 
1 
1 
4 
3 
1 
3 
1 
2 
4 
4 
1 
1 
N/a 
1 

2 
2 
1 
3 
4 
1 

After 
3 
2 
1 
3 
2 
7 
2 
1 
9 
2 
2 
1 
4 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
2 
1 
2 
1 

2 
2 
1 
3 
4 
1 

‘N/a’ means the airport operator has not been able to provide SH&E with the information. 
Before  refers  to  Athens-Hellenikon  airport,  while  after  refers  to  the  new  Athens  International  Airport  “Eleftherios 
Venizelos”. 

Passenger 
handling (2) 

Baggage 
handling (3) 

Number of self handlers1 
Freight and mail 
handling (4) 

Country 

Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 

Germany 

Airport 

Vienna 
Brussels 
Copenhagen 
Helsinki 
Lyon 
Nice 
Paris-CDG 
Toulouse 
Frankfurt 
Hamburg 
Munich 
Nuremberg 
Stuttgart 

Before 
5 
5 
2 
2 
7 
3 
2 
2 
12 
N/a 
4 
2 
3 

After 
4 
5 
2 
2 
5 
2 
11 
2 
12 
3 
4 
2 
3 

After 
0 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Before 
7 
2 
2 
3 
4 
1 
3 
5 
6 
0 
1 
3 
0 

After 
1 
2 
2 
3 
4 
1 
1 
5 
6 
1 
1 
3 
0 

Before 
0 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

25 

EN 

Ramp 
handling (5.4) 
Before 
0 
2 
2 
1 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

After 
0 
2 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Fuel and oil 
handling (7) 

Before 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

After 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Greece 

Ireland 
Italy 

Athens2 
Heraklion 
Dublin 
Milan-MXP 
Naples 
Rome-FCO3 
Luxembourg  Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 
UK 

Amsterdam 
Faro 
Lisbon 
Barcelona 
Fuerteventura 
Madrid 
Palma 
Mallorca 
Tenerife Sur 
Stockholm 
Belfast 
Birmingham  
London-LHR 
Manchester 

de 

8 
1 
4 
5 
1 
6 
1 
3 
9 
8 
9 
8 
10 

1 

N/a 
7 
6 
1 
18 
1 

4 
2 
2 
3 
1 
6 
1 
2 
3 
8 
3 
8 
7 

2 

9 
3 
4 
1 
18 
1 

1 
1 
3 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
3 
4 

1 

5 
4 
4 
1 
7 
1 

2 
2 
2 
0 
0 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 

2 

4 
4 
3 
1 
5 
1 

1 
1 
7 
1 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
8 

1 

N/a 
4 
4 
1 
7 
1 

2 
1 
3 
1 
0 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
6 

1 

8 
8 
4 
1 
7 
1 

1 
1 
6 
1 
1 
0 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
3 
4 

1 

5 
4 
4 
1 
7 
0 

2 
2 
8 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 

2 

4 
5 
4 
1 
6 
0 

1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

0 
1 
8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

(1) 
(2) 

(3) 

‘N/a’ means the airport operator has not been able to provide SH&E with the information. 
Before  refers  to  Athens-Hellenikon  airport,  while  after  refers  to  the  new  Athens  International  Airport  “Eleftherios 
Venizelos”. 
Self-handlers include service providers owned or controlled by the airline. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Airport operator’s involvement in groundhandling - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX F 

Does the 
airport 
operator 
provide 
handling 
services? 
Yes 

Does this distort 
competition? 

Is there a 
separate 
entity to offer 
handling 
services? 

Yes 

Do you think 
there is any 
form of cross 
subsidisation? 

How is the separation of accounts 
safeguarded (according to airport 
operator)? 

ADP separated its accounts before the 
Directive  came 
force.  ADP 
accountants  are  responsible  for  the 
separation of accounts. 

into 

CAA  responsible  for  checking  the 
separation of accounts. 

Meeting of shareholders and board of 
directors 
Use of certified accountant 
Own  profit  centre  and  separation  of 
revenue  and  costs.  Safeguarded  by 
finance  department  and  controlling 
system, also checked by the AUC. 

By CAA 

and 

revenues 

Separate investment 
Separate  business  unit  (profit  centre), 
checked by independent accountant 
Direct 
are 
allocated  to  the  individual  business 
area.  Indirect  costs  are  apportioned 
the  outputs  of  a  cost 
based  on 
attribution  model.  Checked 
by 
external auditors. 
Different companies 

costs 

Aviapartner: Yes 

AUC:  Yes,  high 
market  share  and 
long term contracts 

Hannover 
ground 
aviation service: No 

PortGround: No 

AUC: Yes 

Sagat: No 

PGA: Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

AUC: Yes, 
suggestion 

Hannover 
Ground 
Aviation 
Service: No 
ProtGround: No 

AUC: Unknown 

PGA: Probably 

Airport 

Paris-Orly 

Marseille-
Provence 
Bordeaux-
Mérignac 
Strasbourg-
Entzheim 
Berlin-
Schönefeld 
Berlin-Tegel 

Hahn 
Dusseldorf 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Hannover-
Langenhagen 

Yes 

Leipzig-Halle 
Köln-Bonn 

Shannon 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

Torino-Caselle  Yes 
Porto-Sà 
Carneiro 
Alicante 
Bilbao 
Gran Canaria 
Ibiza 
Lanzarote 
Malaga 
Menorca 
Sevilla 
Göteborg-
Landvetter 
London-
Gatwick 
London-
Stansted 
Luton 
Newcastle 
Aberdeen 
Bristol 
Edinburgh 
Glasgow 

No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

No 

No 

No 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Centralised infrastructure - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

ANNEX G 

Airport 

CI 
defined 

Charging Base 

Users 
consulted? 

Problems 

Paris-Orly 
Marseille-Provence 
Bâle-Mulhouse 
Strasbourg-Entzheim 
Berlin-Schönefeld 

Berlin-Tegel 

Hahn 
Dusseldorf 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Cost related 
Number of passengers and usage 
No separate charges 
Covered by passenger security charge 
Based on number of passengers, MTOW or 
usage 
Parts  are  covered  by  aeronautical  charges 
and the access fee, other elements based on 
number of passengers and MTOW 
Cost related 
Cost related 

Hannover-Langenhagen 

Yes 

Usage related 

Leipzig-Halle 

Yes 

Cost related 

Köln-Bonn 

Yes 

Based on aircraft type 

Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Shannon 
Torino-Caselle 
Porto-Sà Carneiro 
Alicante 
Bilbao 
Gran Canaria 
Ibiza 
Lanzarote 
Malaga 
Sevilla 
Göteborg-Landvetter 

London-Gatwick 
London-Stansted 

Luton 
Newcastle 
Aberdeen 
Edinburgh 
Glasgow 

No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

No 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 

No charges 
Based on number of passengers and ATMs  Yes 
No charges 
No 
Movement basis 
No 
Movement basis 
No 
Movement basis 
No 
Movement basis 
No 
Movement basis 
No 
Movement basis 
Movement basis 
No 
Based on number of passengers and ATMs  No 

No charges 
Parts  are  covered  by  aeronautical  charges 
and other elements are cost related 

Yes 

No set formula at present 
Depending on usage 
No charges 
No charges 
No charges 

Yes 
Yes 

No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

Yes 

No 
Yes,  Aviapartner  notes  the 
airport  has  put  as  much 
price to CI (see Section 4) 
Yes,  Aviapartner  notes  the 
airport  has  put  as  much 
price to CI (see Section 4) 
Hannover  ground  aviation 
service: No 
Yes,  AUC  noted  there  is 
insufficient 
information 
about CI 
Yes,  Aviapartner  notes  the 
airport  has  put  as  much 
price to CI (see Section 4) 

No 

Yes,  according to  the  AUC 
there  were  problems  with 
regard  to  the  definition  of 
Ground  Power  Unit  and 
remote parking 

own 

Yes,  according  to  ASIG  at 
other  airports  where  oil 
companies 
the 
facilities,  there  is  difficulty 
for  other  fuel  suppliers  to 
gain  access  to  the  final 
storage facility. 
No 
Yes 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX H 

Changes in social aspects and training - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

Airport 

Airport operator 

AUC 

Ground handler 

Change in 
social 
aspects? 

Change in 
social 
aspects? 

Change in 
training 
standards/
education 
level? 

Change in 
training 
standards/ 
education 
level? 

Change in social 
aspects? 

Change in training 
standards/ 
education level? 

Difficult to 
evaluate 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Paris-Orly 

Yes 

Marseille-Provence 

No 

Bâle-Mulhouse 

Bordeaux-Mérignac 
Strasbourg-Entzheim 

Yes, Strikes 
No 

Yes 
N/a 
No 
Yes, more 
flexible 
working time, 
lower wages 

Yes, new 
labour contract 

Yes, fewer full 
time jobs, 
lower entrance 
salary 
No 

Berlin-Schönefeld 
Berlin-Tegel 
Hahn 
Dusseldorf 

Hannover-
Langenhagen 

Leipzig-Halle 

Köln-Bonn 

Shannon 

Torino-Caselle 

No 

No 

Yes 
No 

Yes 
N/a 
No 
No 

No 

No 

Yes, more 
input by 
airport 
authority in 
terms of 
audit/review 
of training 

Porto-Sà Carneiro 

No comment 

Yes, more 
training 

Alicante 
Bilbao 

Gran Canaria 
Ibiza 

Cariane: 
No 

Cariane: 
No 

Swissport: 
Yes, very 
restrictive salary 
increases 

Aviapartner: 
Yes, frozen 
salaries 

Aviapartner: 
Yes, gain in 
productivity 

Aviapartner: 
Yes, gain in 
productivity 
Hannover 
Aviation Ground 
Service: Yes 
PortGround: 
Yes, new labour 
contract 
Aviapartner: 
Yes, gain in 
productivity 

Swissport: 
Yes, training reduced 
to minimum 

Avipartner: 
No 

Aviapartner: 
No 

Aviapartner: 
No 
Hannover Aviation 
Ground Service: No 

PortGround: 
No 

Aviapartner: 
No 

Sagat: 
Yes, increase of 
temporary and 
part-time 
contracts, decrease 
in salaries 
PGA: 
Unkonwn 

Iberia: 
No 

Sagat: 
No 

PGA: 
Unkonwn 

Iberia: 
No 

Ineuropa: 
Yes, improved 

Ineuropa: 
Yes, improved 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lanzarote 

Göteborg-Landvetter 

London-Gatwick 
London-Stansted 

No evidence 
None 

Nordic: 
N/A 

Nordic: N/A 

Yes, more 
staff on 
temporary 
contracts 

No evidence  No 
Yes, 
incorrect use 
of equipment 

Yes, due to 
external rules 
and regulations 

No 

ASIG: 
No 

ASIG: 
Yes, airport company 
showing greater 
focus and actively 
encouraging 
operators to work 
with them 

Luton 

Newcastle 

Aberdeen 

Bristol 

Edinburgh 

Yes, 
movement of 
labour 
No 

Yes, high 
employee 
turnover rate 

Yes, job 
security 
Yes, more 
temporary 
employee 
contracts 

Yes, 
continuity of 
standards 
No 

Yes, 
improved 
due to joint 
training 
initiatives on 
the ramp 

Yes, more 
structured 
training and 
manuals 

Yes 

Yes 

Glasgow 

Yes, better 

Servisair: 
No 
Servisair: 
Yes, lower salaries 
to compete in 
market 

Servisair: 
Yes, better 
Servisair: 
Yes, market 
requirements 

Aviance: 
No 
Servisair: 
Yes, ability to 
attract calibre of 
staff required 
diminished against 
inability to pay 
appriate salaries 

Airline Services: 
No 
Aviance: 
No 
Servisair: 
Yes, salaries kept 
low in order to 
compete in market 
Execair: 
No 

Aviance: 
Yes, more demands 
of hasher training 
from airlines 
Servisair: 
Yes, NVQs to attract 
employees against 
competitive market – 
more multi-
functional training to 
reduce cost 
Airline Services: 
No 
Aviance: 
Yes, setting up of a 
training department 
Servisair: 
Yes, more multi-
functional training 
Execair: 
Nol 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Negative impact of Directive according to unions/work councils – (Source: SH&E Limited, October 
2002) 

ANNEX I 

Lower salaries. 
Deteriorating  work  and  security  conditions  for  workers  and 
customers. 

Lower quality levels. 
More  safety  and  security  issues;  also  as  a  result  of  higher 
turnover of employees due to lower salaries. 

Deteriorating working conditions: more pressure on staff due to 
increases 
in 
workload / productivity  is  equivalent  of  15%  less  salary  in 
Germany). 

productivity 

increase 

(e.g. 

the 

in 

Insufficient conditions for the take over of staff in German law. 
No  participation  of  work  councils  in  AUC  to  get  information 
from first hand (not from the workers) and to come up for social 
items. 
No social aspects in the tender process. 
Increase in activity on the ramp can lead to congestion and thus 
longer  working  hours  for  employees  (this  will  become  worse 
with more handlers). 
With  the  contracts  between  handler  and  airlines  becoming 
shorter, there is less job security as job contracts become shorter 
as well and increase of the prospective risk for losing a job; shift 
to more flexible contracts for employees. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
ANNEX J 
Results of Directive - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002) 

Positive results 

Negative results 

Airport operator 

More competition 

More choice for handlers 

Stimulated new economic impetus 
Better customer orientation 

Cost-reducing pressures lead to lower prices 

Quality programmes to ensure service levels 

Formal procedures to be followed by handling 
companies  have  been  beneficial  in  terms  of 
safety and security 

Airport 
Committee 

Users’ 

Better handling products 

Lower prices 

Groundhandlers 

Higher productivity 
More choice for handlers 
Less monopolistic behaviour 
Efficiency improvement programmes 
Lower prices for airlines 
More choices for airlines 
More choices for employees 
Opened  access  to  closed  markets  for  third 
party  handlers,  removed  airport  monopoly 
activities 
Approached  market  conditions  within  Europe 
standard of services. 
Started a focus on the abuses in the industry 
Groundhandlers  are  being 
consulted on airport procedures 

respected  and 

Have  a  sense  of  security  in  the  industry  and 
therefore being a better employer. 

Space problems: too many handlers in limited space 
Management of the apron more inflexible, resource allocation is 
more restricted 
Dominance in AUC by national carrier  

Decrease of service level (not covered by the Directive) 
Dilution of profit and performance 
Obligation  of  airport  operator  to  guarantee  the  running  of 
operation restricts competition with third party handlers 

Tendencies 
limitation, difficult to make a good evaluation of the suppliers 

toward  uncontrolled  market  access,  with  no 

Difficulties  in  case  of  separately  ordered  service  parts  to  meet 
the logistic requirements 
Additional staff training and supervision needed 
Process to limit handlers is very stringent. 
Handlers  have  been  disincentivised  from  making  long-term 
investments  or  devising  long-term  strategies  due  to  short-term 
airline contracts and commitments. 
Extra  demand  for  access  to  airside  has  security  and  space 
implications  as  well  as  the  allocation  of  scarce  resources  to 
satisfy all handlers. 
Additional  administration  and  supervisory  work 
managing body. 
Handlers  are  constantly  seeking  ways  to  reduce  costs  and 
sometimes these measures have an impact on service standards. 
Self-handling  operators  make  use  of  infrastructure  or  resources 
that could have a greater utilisation from third party handlers. 
If  several  agents  provide  different  services  to  same  carrier  (i.e. 
representation,  passenger,  baggage/ramp,  etc.)  a  great  deal  of 
coordination is required to ensure acceptable standards 
Directive  required  airport  operators  to  put  a  large  amount  of 
management resources into ensuring compliance without seeing 
any specific benefits. 
Limited capacity at airport 
Some  handlers  have  bought  market  shares  and  then  failed  to 
deliver either a fully healthy product or a viable alternative. 

load  for 

Market rates driven down by competition 
Lower profitability for both airports and handlers 
Less attractive employment conditions 
Not one single handler has economies of scale 
Strong  competition  may  endanger  the  quality  of  services  and 
create safety and security problems 

High expenditure for tender procedure 

Additional expenditure for separation of accounts 
In  some  countries  the  national  legislation  protects  only  airports 
and staff, not the new entrants. 
Airlines are able to undercut third party handlers by at least the 
level  of  the  access  fee,  which  airport  companies  are  unable  to 
resolve on level playing field. 
Directive open to too much interpretation, leading to inconsistent 
application of the intended principles of the directive. 
Airport  operators  still  required  to  maintain  their  profit  margins 
and therefore to increase ancillary charges to compensate 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

33 

   EN