COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air traffic, competition, market access, organisation of transport, provision of services

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1440 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 

on groundhandling services at Union airports and repealing Council Directive 96/67/EC

{COM(2011) 824 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1439 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

1.1. 

Context and identified problems 

Groundhandling  services  cover  all  ground-based  aviation-related  activities  carried  out  for 
airlines at airports and are a key function in the aviation chain. Even though groundhandling 
is not necessarily visible, the passenger experience at airports and in the air relies on quality 
groundhandling services, whether for example to ensure the proper reception of passengers at 
the airport, the material comfort in the plane, or the pre-conditions for safe and secure flights. 
The efficient provision of groundhandling services is therefore important for airport operators, 
airlines  and  passengers,  and  is  crucial  for  the  efficient  use  of  air  transport  infrastructure.  It 
also contributes significantly to the performance of the aviation system in general. 

Council  Directive  96/67/EC  (the  Directive)  was  adopted  in  1996  to  regulate  access  to  the 
groundhandling market, with a view to opening the market so as to lower the prices paid by 
airlines  and  increase  the  quality  of  these  services.  It  was  one  of  the  key  initiatives 
accompanying the single aviation market in the mid-1990s. 

The Directive defined 11 categories of groundhandling services: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

1 Ground administration and supervision; 

2 Passenger handling; 

3 Baggage handling; 

4 Freight and mail handling; 

5 Ramp handling; 

6 Aircraft services ; 

7 Fuel and oil handling; 

8 Aircraft maintenance; 

9 Flight operations and crew administration; 

10 Surface transport; 

11 Catering services. 

Among these, the following may be subject to restrictions (so-called "restricted services"): 

– 

– 

Baggage handling; 

Freight and mail handling, as regards the physical handling of freight and mail, 
whether incoming, outgoing or being transferred, between the air terminal and 
the aircraft; 

– 

Ramp handling; 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
– 

Fuel and oil handling. 

By 1 January 2001, the following legal framework was in place under the Directive: 

Airports open to 
commercial traffic 
under 2 million 
passengers or 50,000 
tons of freight per year 

Free access to the 
market for all 
categories* 

Self-
handling 

(handling 
by airlines' 
own 
account) 

Airports open to commercial traffic over 2 million passengers or 50,000 tons of freight per 
year 

All services except 
"restricted services" 

Free access to the 
market* 

Free access* 

OR 

"Restricted services" 

Restriction to at least 2 self-handling airlines per category of 
services (selected on the basis of relevant, objective, transparent 
and non-discriminatory criteria)* 

Third-party 
handling 

Not covered by the 
Directive 

Free access to the 
market* 

Free access* 

OR 

Restriction to 2 third-party handlers per category of services 
(selected on the basis of a tender procedure published in the 
OJEU). At least one third-party handler has to be independent 
from the airport and the dominant carrier. 

**possibility to restrict the number of third-party handlers on the 
basis of space/capacity limitations to 1 if request for exemption 
approved by EC. 

*Possibility to restrict the number of providers on the basis of space/capacity limitations (if request for exemption approved by EC). 

Since 1996, the Commission has closely monitored the application of the Directive, which has 
turned  up  a  number  of  implementation  and  enforcement  issues.  In  addition,  the  context  in 
which groundhandling services are provided has changed dramatically (36%1 increase in air 
traffic  and,  over  the  last  decade,  successive  crises  such  as  economic  downturn,  volcan 
eruption  and  massive  snowfall  etc.).  In  this  changing  environment,  consultations  and 
evaluations of the Directive have revealed the existence of two problems: 

1.1.1.  Problem 1: The provision of groundhandling services today is not efficient enough 

Airlines today do not enjoy cost-efficient groundhandling services at all EU airports, due to 
three root causes. 

Firstly, the possibility to restrict competition for certain services means that, at some airports, 
airlines  are  faced  with  a  limited  choice  between  two  providers,  for  each  of  the  "restricted 
services", and are not always authorised to self-handle. 

Secondly, Europe is characterised by a patchwork of administrative conditions for access to 
national markets. Each Member State can require its own 'approval', which leads to a diversity 
of local requirements, obliges groundhandling companies to adapt to each national market and 
contributes to increasing costs. 

Thirdly,  new  entrants  have  difficulties  entering  and  growing  operations  at  airport  level.  At 
some  airports,  some  local  conditions  hamper  new  entrants  from  competing  in  a  sustainable 
manner  with  incumbent  suppliers.  Such  local  conditions  include:  (i)  inappropriate  legal 

1 

Source: Eurocontrol Performance Review Commission. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
framework  for  the  management  of  centralised  infrastructures2  (CI);  (ii)  inappropriate  legal 
framework  for  the  separation  of  accounts  for  airport  operators  providing  groundhandling 
services; and (iii) unbalanced tendering procedures for independent handlers. 

1.1.2.  Problem  2:  The  overall  quality  of  groundhandling  services  at  airport  level  is  not 
keeping  pace  with  evolving  needs  in  terms  of  reliability,  resilience,  safety  and 
security and the environment 

Suboptimal  quality  at  airport  level  can  be  observed  with  regard  to  reliability  of  the  service 
(turnaround  delays  and  baggage  mishandling),  resilience  (crisis  management),  safety  and 
security (incidents and terrorism threats) and the environment (CO2 emissions and glycol). 

The insufficient overall quality of groundhandling services can be attributed to two main root 
causes:  (i)  insufficient  coordination  of  groundhandling  services  at  the  airport  (linked  to 
subcontracting  practices  that  affect  airport  space  and  operations,  the  absence  of  day-to-day 
supervision  of  operations,  and  the  lack  of  performance  monitoring/reporting);  and  (ii) 
unsatisfactory legal framework for training and transfer of personnel. 

1.2. 

Subsidiarity 

Groundhandling  is  essential  to  the  proper  functioning  of  air  transport,  in  line  with  the 
objective of Articles 58 and 90 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As 
the subsidiarity principle applies, EU action on groundhandling has to be justified. 

Firstly, the objectives of the proposed action could not be achieved sufficiently by Member 
States because, as already recognised in 1996, access to the groundhandling market, as part of 
the common air transport policy, should come within an EU framework. 

Secondly, the added-value of EU action stems from the need for airlines to operate in a single 
aviation  market.  As  their  direct  subcontractors,  groundhandling  companies  need  a  level-
playing field at EU level. 

2. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE EU INITIATIVE 

The  general  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to  enhance  the  efficiency  and  quality  of 
groundhandling services for users (airlines) and end-users (passengers/freight forwarders). 

The specific objectives (SO) are: 

SO1. Ensure that airlines have an increased choice of groundhandling solutions at 
EU airport. 

SO2.  Harmonise  and  clarify  national  administrative  conditions  for  market  entry 
(approvals). 

SO3. Ensure a level playing field at airport level between groundhandling companies 
operating under different regulatory regimes. 

2 

I.e.  infrastructures  "used  for  the  supply  of  groundhandling  services  whose  complexity,  cost  or 
environmental  impact  does  not  allow  of  division  or  duplication"  such  as  baggage  sorting,  de-icing, 
water purification or fuel distribution systems. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SO4. Increase coordination between groundhandling providers at the airport. 

SO5. Clarify the legal framework for personnel training and transfer. 

3. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The first possible action could consist in repealing the current Directive. Previous rounds of 
stakeholder consultations indicate no  desire  for this. In  view of the risk of fragmentation of 
the internal market and the complexity that would result from different national/local/airport 
requirements, this option is not pursued further. 

Another  alternative  could  consist  in  strict  implementation  of  the  existing,  unchanged 
Directive, coupled with guidance material. This option is not pursued further because at least 
one of the key root causes (possibility to restrict competition for certain services) cannot be 
addressed by strict implementation and guidance. 

Stakeholder  consultations  and  evaluations  have  identified  a  broad  set  of  measures  with  the 
potential  to  address  the  problem  areas  identified.  None  of  the  single  policy  measures 
identified could achieve all the specific objectives. 

To  solve  the  identified  problems,  four  distinct  policy  packages  are  proposed  besides  the 
baseline scenario. Each package tackles the five root causes of the problem. Three packages 
include measures with a similar intensity (low, medium and high, respectively) across the five 
areas  identified  (in  order  to  minimise  the  'efficiency/quality'  and  'efficiency/working 
conditions' conflicts). A fourth package presenting medium-intensity measures coupled with 
high-intensity measures for non-contentious areas is added. 

The first policy package (PP1) improves the current system by amending the Directive only as 
far  as  necessary  and  providing  guidance  wherever  possible.  It  contains  the  less  intense 
measures identified. 

The second package (PP2) seeks to improve the current system with a set of medium intensity 
measures and is therefore more ambitious than PP1. It takes the form of a Regulation. 

third  package  (PP3) 

The 
harmonisation of the groundhandling market framework, also in the form of a Regulation. 

incorporates  high-intensity  measures,  providing  for  full 

PP2´,  a  PP2  variant  incorporating  two  PP3  measures  (on  approvals  and  minimum  quality 
requirements) is the fourth package considered. 

The legal instrument chosen for PP2/PP2´ and PP3 is a Regulation. As most of the difficulties 
with  the  current  legal  framework  are  linked  to  divergent  implementations  among  Member 
States,  this  will  allow  EU-wide  rules  to  be  set  while  leaving  some  flexibility  for  Member 
States, but only where necessary. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
PP1 

PP2 

PP2´ 

PP3 

Legal instrument(cid:206) 

Root causes (cid:208) 

1: Possibility to 
restrict competition 
for certain 
groundhandling 
services 

Directive 
(+guidance) 

Full opening of the 
self-handling 
market 

Regulation 

Regulation 

Regulation 

Full opening of the 
self-handling and 
third-party 
handling markets 
(no more tenders) 

- Full opening of the 
self-handling market 

- At large airports, 
increase to three the 
minimum number of 
third party handling 
providers for the four 
categories of services 
that can be restricted. 

- Full opening of 
the self-handling 
market 

- At large airports, 
increase to three 
the minimum 
number of third 
party handling 
providers for the 
four categories of 
services that can be 
restricted. 

Guidance for 
Member States on 
approval 
requirements 

Mutual recognition of 
approvals with 
harmonised 
requirements 

Set-up an EU 
approval 

Set-up an EU 
approval 

2: Patchwork of 
administrative 
conditions for 
access to national 
markets (approvals) 

3: Difficulties for 
new entrant to enter 
and grow operations 
at airport level 

a) Clarified 
definitions in the 
Directive for 
centralised 
infrastructures 
(CIs) 

b) Clarified 
definitions in the 
Directive for 
separation of 
accounts 

a) Better 
management of 
centralised 
infrastructures, 

a) Better 
management of 
centralised 
infrastructures, 

a) Better 
management of 
centralised 
infrastructures; 

b) Legal separation of 
airport operators and 
their groundhandling 
subsidiaries 

b) Legal separation 
of airport operators 
and their 
groundhandling 
subsidiaries 

b) Suppression of 
the possibility for 
airport operators to 
control a 
groundhandling 
activity at their 
own airport 

( no c) : no tenders 
in PP3) 

c) Clarified Airport 
Users Committee 
role and definitions 
in the Directive 

c) Improved tender 
procedure (Airport 
Users Committee + 
duration tendered 
activities). 

c) Improved tender 
procedure (Airport 
Users Committee + 
duration tendered 
activities). 

4: Insufficient 
coordination of 
groundhandling 
services at airports 

a) Guidance on 
subcontracting 

a) Introduce clarified 
rules for 
subcontracting 

a) Introduce 
clarified rules for 
subcontracting 

a) Introduce 
clarified rules for 
subcontracting 

b) Harmonised 
criteria for tenders 

b) Harmonised 
criteria for tenders 

b) Harmonised 
criteria for tenders 

(no b) : no tender 
in PP3) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
c) Guidance on 
"rules of conduct" 

c) Role of the airport 
operator for ground 
operations 

c) Role of the 
airport operator for 
ground operations 

c) Role of the 
airport operator for 
ground operations 

At large airports, 
minimum quality 
requirements 
defined at EU level 

At large airports, 
minimum quality 
requirements 
defined at EU level 

At large airports, 
airport operator 
responsible for 
minimum quality 
requirements for 
groundhandlers' 
operations to be 
specified in a 
delegated act  

d) Reporting 
obligations on 
performance of 
operations to be 
specified in a 
delegated act (at large 
airports) 

d) Reporting 
obligations on 
performance of 
operations to be 
specified in a 
delegated act (at 
large airports) 

d) Reporting 
obligations on 
performance of 
operations to be 
specified in a 
delegated act (at 
large airports) 

5: Unsatisfactory 
legal framework for 
training and 
transfer of 
personnel 

a) Guidance on 
training 

a) Compulsory 
minimum training of 
staff 

a) Compulsory 
minimum training 
of staff 

b) Consultation of 
employees' 
representatives 
during tenders 

b) Allow Member 
States to impose a 
requirement to take 
over staff with 
similar conditions for 
services to which 
access is restricted. 

b) Allow Member 
States to impose a 
requirement to take 
over staff with 
similar conditions 
for services to 
which access is 
restricted. 

a) Introduce 
individual staff 
qualification 
(licensing) for key 
staff categories 

b) Full take-over of 
staff with similar 
conditions in cases 
of a (partial) loss of 
activity to a 
different provider, 
for all 
groundhandling 
services. 

4. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The impacts of the policy packages are summarized below: 

Impacts as compared to the Baseline 

PP1 

PP2 

PP2´ 

PP3 

Economic impacts  

VERY LOW 
POSITIVE 

HIGH 
POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE  MEDIUM POSITIVE 

the 
the 
market, 
and 
of 

on 

Impacts 
functioning  of 
internal 
competition 
competitiveness 
groundhandling 
services 

Impacts  on  operating 

ZERO 

NEUTRAL 

NEUTRAL 

MEDIUM 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impacts as compared to the Baseline 

PP1 

PP2 

PP2´ 

PP3 

NEGATIVE 

costs  and  conduct  of 
businesses 

Impacts  on  small  and 
medium enterprises 

ZERO 

LOW 
NEGATIVE 

LOW NEGATIVE 

MEDIUM 
NEGATIVE 

Impacts on consumers 

ZERO 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

  Businesses 

- 
administrative  burden 
(AB) after 5 years 

  Public  authorities 
AB after 5 years 

- 

ZERO 

- €0.61m 

- €0.61m 

- €0.61m 

LOW 
POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

ZERO 

- €0,185m 

- €0,185m 

- €0,185m 

Member States 

European 
Commission 

ZERO 

ZERO 

LOW 
POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

- €0.2M 

- €1.06m  

- €1.06m  

Negligible 

+ €0.86m  

+ €0.86m  

(+ €0.015m) 

  Third countries 

VERY LOW 
POSITIVE 

HIGH 
POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE  MEDIUM POSITIVE 

  EU budget 

ZERO 

ZERO 

€ 0.86m over 5 years 

€ 0.86m € over 5 

Social impacts 

  Employment  (number 

ZERO 

of jobs) 

- 450 jobs / 
year in 
groundhandling 

- 450 jobs / year in 
groundhandling 

years 

- 900 jobs/year in 
groundhandling but 
new jobs in 
organisations 
licensing 
groundhandling staff 

Job  quality,  workers' 
and 
health, 
dignity 

safety 

VERY LOW 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

VERY HIGH 
POSITIVE 

Environmental impacts 

VERY LOW 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

MEDIUM 
POSITIVE 

Impact  on  quality  of 
groundhandling 
services 

LOW 
POSITIVE 

HIGH 
POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

Impacts 

on  VERY LOW 

NEUTRAL 

NEUTRAL 

NEUTRAL 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impacts as compared to the Baseline 

PP1 

PP2 

PP2´ 

PP3 

simplification 
existing legislation 

of 

POSITIVE 

Transposition 
compliance aspects 

and 

LOW 
NEGATIVE 

MEDIUM 
NEGATIVE 

MEDIUM 
NEGATIVE 

HIGH NEGATIVE 

5. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

The  policy  packages  are  assessed  against  the  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence. 

From  an  effectiveness  point  of  view,  PP3  offers  the  highest  potential  achievement  of  all 
specific  goals,  while  PP2  offers  a  good  effectiveness  in  general.  PP1  meets  the  specific 
objectives only to a limited extent.  

In  terms  of  efficiency,  PP3,  the  most  costly,  is  less  efficient  than  PP2,  while  PP1  is  the 
cheapest and easiest to implement. 

In terms of coherence, the packages are similar. 

Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the policy packages 

PP1 

PP2 

PP2' 

PP3 

Limited 

Limited 

Good 

Good  

Good 

Good  

Very good 

Very good 

Very limited 

Very good  

Very good  

Very good 

Limited 

Very good 

Very good 

Excellent 

Limited 

Very good 

Very good 

Very good 

Limited 

Good 

Very good 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Very good 

Limited 

Limited  trade-
off 

Limited 
trade-off 

Limited trade-off 

Limited trade-off 

Effectiveness 

  SO1 

  SO2 

  SO3 

  SO4 

  SO5 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

PP1 is the least attractive as it does not solve the identified problems. 

PP2/PP2´ are preferred to PP3:  

The  differences  in  terms  of  effectiveness  (the  extent  to  which  problems  are 

• 
solved) between PP2/PP2´ and PP3 are limited. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 
The  differences  in  terms  of  impacts  are  significant:  for  nearly  all  criteria, 
PP2/PP2´ improve the situation or limit harmful impacts in a significantly better way 
than PP3. 

Compared  to  PP3,  PP2/PP2´  thus  present  a  better  trade-off  between 
• 
effectiveness and acceptable impacts: they achieve the objectives without involving 
too costly changes. 

PP2 and PP2´ are very close. Only the impacts of their two differing  measures differentiate 
between  them:  for  both  measures,  PP2  is  better  for  transposition/compliance  aspects  (with 
PP2´, more efforts are expected) while PP2´ is better for simplification purposes. Considering 
the key aspect of compliance/enforcement, PP2 is thus recommended. 

PP2  opens  the  groundhandling  market  moderately,  while  not  damaging  working  conditions 
(transfer of staff with similar conditions would be possible where further opening is imposed). 
PP2 would provide, at a reasonable cost, a more open, fairer groundhandling market, together 
with  better  quality  and  clarified  responsibilities  in  the  airport  context,  and  a  clarified 
framework for training and transfer of staff. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The Commission would evaluate the implementation of the new Regulation five years after its 
adoption. 

EN 

10 

   EN