Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges COM(2006) 820 final — 2007/0013 (COD)
Date: 2007-09-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: airport, charges for use of infrastructure, common transport policy, management, quasi-fiscal charge, transport regulations, transport user

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/35

health hazards, such as fine particles, which are now creating an
emergency situation in many European towns. The dissemina-
tion of best practices, such as not using carbon in printers, and
other initiatives, helps to raise awareness and create positive atti-
tudes towards sustainable policies.

ACP, Euromed and ENP programmes. International cooperation
is essential if we are to successfully achieve sustainable develop-
ment, and greater diplomatic endeavours must be made to
achieve a new, post-Kyoto international protocol by 2009 with
the conference which is to open this year in Bali.

4.8
The international dimension of the issue of increasing
energy intensity is firmly stressed by the Commission. The EESC
endorses the partnership proposals and the drawing-up of an
International Framework Agreement. As regards the planned
international conference on energy efficiency, the EESC warns
against underestimating the need to involve countries from the

Brussels, 27 September 2007.

4.9
European industry, which is developing major energy
saving technologies, can, through industrial cooperation, give
other countries considerable assistance in improving the quality
of
energy consumption and
resulting greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping to reduce
overall consumption.

electricity production,

their

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges’

COM(2006) 820 final — 2007/0013 (COD)

(2008/C 10/09)

On 1 March 2007, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 September 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr McDonogh.

At its 438th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September 2007), the
European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 143 votes to 2 with
2 abstentions.

1. Recommendations

assistance according to circumstances. Aid is quite common in
public transport.

1.1
The Commission should lay down design criteria for
various types of airport to ensure that they are practical, func-
tional and can be commercially justified where costs are recov-
ered through airport charges.

The State should pay for security at airports. This is a

1.2
national security problem.

The construction and operation of

regional airports
1.3
should be encouraged. They play a vital role in the economy of
the regions. They also relieve congestion at major airports and
often lend valuable assistance to Search and Rescue operations.

1.5
The Commission should lay down design criteria for
airport processors (e.g. Check In, Passenger Search) and then
consider the impact of regulation change on these key processor
dynamics and the associated impact on resource levels and costs
to operators to continue to achieve Service Level Agreements
and in particular airline turn around time criteria.

1.4
Airports have to be considered as a basic public utility
that do not necessarily make money and may need financial

The Commission should recognise the scale of charges
1.6
required to achieve compliance at the smallest airport where the
passenger volume may not support the economics of the busi-
ness.

C 10/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

1.7
Airports are required to maintain compliance with
specific regulatory requirements as a minimum. Pressures from
low-cost airlines, who ask for a lower service level and for
accordingly lower airport charges, can not always be accommo-
dated given the costs associated with regulatory compliance.
Therefore airports should be entitled to reflect and recover
airport costs in their charging structure regardless of the level of
service required by the airline.

Large state capital subventions to airports may distort

1.8
competition.

1.9

Proper facilities should be provided for cargo.

1.10
Biometric security should be introduced to enable
frequent travellers to be processed quickly. If necessary a charge
could be made for this.

1.11
In line with current European legislation on this area,
airports must ensure that available facilities and services are
suited to the particular needs of disabled and infirm passengers.

2. Introduction

2.1
The main task and commercial activity of airports is to
ensure the handling of aircraft, from landing to take-off, and of
passengers and cargo, so as to enable air carriers to provide
their air transport services. For this purpose, airports offer a
number of facilities and services related to the operation of
aircraft and the processing of passengers and cargo, the cost of
which they generally recover through airport charges.

2.2
It is necessary to establish a common framework regu-
lating the essential features of airport charges and the way they
are set, as in the absence of such framework, basic requirements
in the relationship between airport managing bodies and airport
service providers (i.e. Airlines, Handling Agents and other
service providers) may not be respected.

2.3
This Directive should apply to airports located in the
Community territory that are above the size of one million
passengers per year.

2.4
Airport charges
applies to services and suppliers.

should be non-discriminatory. This

2.6
Airports should inform airport service providers about
major infrastructure projects as these have significant impact on
the level of airport charges.

2.7
Due to the emergence of air carriers operating air
services at low costs, airports served by these carriers should be
enabled to apply charges corresponding to the infrastructure
and/or the level of service provided as air carriers have a legiti-
mate interest to require services from an airport that correspond
with the price/quality ratio. However, access to such reduced
level of infrastructure or services should be open to all carriers
that wish to avail of them on a non-discriminatory basis.

2.8
As the methods for establishing and levying the amounts
due for the coverage of security costs differ across the Com-
munity, the harmonisation of the basis for charging security
costs at Community airports where the costs of security are
reflected in the airport charges is necessary.

Airport

should be

service providers

entitled to a
2.9
minimum level of service in return for the charges they pay. To
ensure this, the service level should be the subject of agreement
between the airport managing body and the association(s) repre-
senting the airport service providers at
to be
concluded at regular intervals.

the airport,

The objectives of the action taken cannot be sufficiently
2.10
achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of
the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Com-
munity level.

2.11 Member States shall ensure that the airport managing
body consults with airport service providers before plans for
new infrastructure projects are finalised.

In order to ensure smooth and efficient operations at
2.12
an airport, Member States shall ensure that the airport mana-
ging body and the association or associations representing
airport service providers at the airport enter into negotiations
with a view to concluding a service level agreement with regard
to the quality of service provided at the airport terminal or
terminals. Such agreement shall be concluded at
least once
every two years and be notified to the independent regulatory
authority of each Member State.

2.5
An independent regulatory authority should be estab-
lished in every Member State so as to ensure the impartiality of
its decisions and the proper and effective application of this
Directive. It is vital for airport users to obtain from the airport
managing body, on a regular and transparent basis, information
on how and on what basis the airport charges are calculated.

2.13 Member States shall take the necessary measures to
allow the airport managing body to vary the quality and scope
of particular airport services, terminals or parts of terminals,
with the aim to provide tailored services or a dedicated terminal
or part of a terminal. The level of airport charges may be differ-
entiated according to the quality and scope of such services.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/37

2.14 Member States shall nominate or establish an indepen-
dent body as their national independent regulatory authority in
order to ensure the correct application of the measures taken to
comply with this Directive.

3.10
The regulator should ensure the prices charged in
airport retail outlets are not out of line with those charged in
nearby cities.

2.15 Member States shall guarantee the independence of the
independent regulatory authority by ensuring that it is legally
distinct from and functionally independent of any airport mana-
ging body and air carrier.

3.11
It will be difficult to establish the common framework
regulating the essential features of airport charges, the way they
are set, and deciding on a common framework when employ-
ment, construction, and infrastructure costs differ from State to
State. Planning policy and regulation also differ from State to
State.

3. General comments

It has to be welcomed that the Commission is going to
3.1
lay down basic rules and criteria for the management and
running of airports in the community.

3.12 Where it is suggested the Directive should apply to
local airports located in the Community territory that are above
a minimum size, the term ‘a minimum size’ needs to be clari-
fied.

It is important that there is clarity and transparency in
3.2
the charges laid down by airports since in many cases these are
monopolies.

3.13
Airports should be allowed to charge fees to make a
reasonable profit in order to reinvest in infrastructure and other
facilities.

The allocation of

3.3
terminal aircraft stands have to be
tackled on a rational and non-discriminatory basis if there is to
be a level playing field for all airlines. Non usage of valuable
terminal parking slots over a prolonged period should lead to
forfeiture of these rights.

If a vocal

3.14
to pay
anything to the airport, this makes it difficult to cover the cost
of compliance, safety etc. at the airport!

low-cost carrier does not want

3.4
Continuous bad performance relating to their aircraft
parking slots by airlines and regular delays, which can over time
lead to serious disruption of airport traffic flow, should be
tackled by fines and penalties.

3.15
In order to ensure smooth and efficient operations at
an airport, airlines should be required to sign a service level
agreement with the airport to guarantee a level of service to the
airport.

Grandfather rights at main airports should be abolished

3.5
and these slots should be auctioned every number of years.

3.6
All EU airports should employ where possible the same
formula for charging landing fees and parking fees etc. Landing
fees should always reflect the prime slots at sought after times
so as to encourage more even utilisation of the airport facilities.

In order to speed up traffic and increase capacity airports
3.7
should be encouraged to install the most modern navigation
facilities. Runways should aim in having the capacity target of
one landing or take off every 35 seconds. Improved efficiencies
in this regard will reduce holding times during peak periods and
therefore have a positive impact on emissions.

3.8
The national aviation regulators should be monitored
and audited by the Commission to see that they are carrying
out their duties in a firm and even handed manner.

3.9
Security changes and other costs reflected should be paid
for by the state as is the case of other transport like rail. These
should be closely monitored as the installation of sophisticated
equipment can be costly for small and medium sized airports. It
may not be economically justifiable.

3.16
The airport has a number of potential airline customers,
not all of whom are low cost. The mix in some cases is critical
in maintaining income streams which vary according to
passenger profile. These income streams are at risk with the
over dominance of a low cost carrier at the smaller airports.

Security equipment used in screening should be defined
3.17
and standardised. Public will
loose confidence in the security
system quickly if the systems are not standardised. You can pass
through the security screening in various airports while in some
the alarms will be set off. A company is operating a registered
traveller programme at a growing number of American airports.
For an annual fee of USD 99,95, it will issue a biometric iden-
tity card to people who pass government checks, entitling the
holders to use fast lanes at security checkpoints. This is an
example of how improvements
in technology could offer
enhancements to the passenger experience and reduce queue
times.

3.18
Land around and near airports because of its commer-
cial value should be designated to prevent and discourage land
speculation.

C 10/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

3.19 While security at airports seems to be rigid, there is still
a lot of pilfering from passenger's luggage. This should be
tackled as a matter of urgency.

4.5
Signage at airports is of paramount importance and at
the many European airports signage is confusing. These, where
possible, should be standardised.

3.20
The meaning of Tax free and Duty free in airport shops
should be clearly defined and displayed prominently to make
customers aware of what costs are involved.

Commission should set up a website to protect travel-
3.21
ling public so they can clearly see what the relevant charges that
apply to various airports are, like landing fees, etc which are
shown on tickets, and charged to the public.

4. Airport design

4.1
Airports should be user-friendly and should be designed
in consultation with the users that is the airlines and the passen-
gers.

4.2
criteria
The Commission should lay down some
regarding a minimum space to be provided for baggage retrieval,
security processing and passport control.

Design should ensure smooth movement of passengers

4.3
in and out of the airport and that the airport is user-friendly.

It is a good idea to provide more sophisticated facilities
4.4
for those airlines that wish to have them and are willing to pay
for them.

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

4.6
Adequate seating and waiting areas should be provided
for passengers. Access to terminals should be as user friendly as
possible, particularly for passengers with disabilities and special
needs, e.g. also passengers with small children.

4.7
Airport terminal design principals are based on design
hour passengers flows and as such design hour criteria for
critical passenger processes
check in and passenger
screening should be researched and then published as a baseline
for the industry.

like

4.8 Minimal operational criteria should be reinforced in
accordance with the relevant design standards. Situations where
requirements over and above the design standard are set by
airlines on the airport as their minimum criteria should be
avoided.

4.9
Airports must ensure that the facilities and services for
which they are responsible either in their own right or in
conjunction with air operators are suited to the particular needs
of disabled and infirm passengers. Following on from comments
made in an earlier opinion (TEN 215 — rights of persons with
reduced mobility when travelling by air, the Committee feels
that airports meet
these obligations in complying with the
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the
rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility
when travelling by air, particularly Article 9 and Annex 1.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS