natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SEA besluttede endeligt i 2007 at fokusere på at skabe en innovativ »selv-hub«- eller »virtual hub«-model og bekræftede den strategiske beslutning om at fortsætte genopretningen og omstruktureringen af SEA Handling, idet koncernen understregede betydningen af ground handling-ydelserne for dens egne forretningsplaner lige som i den foregående model.
Among these, SEA cites the spread of SARS in 2002-2003; the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003 and the growing threat of international terrorism; intensified pressure to cut ground handling prices in 2006, following the arrival of new operators at Malpensa airport, particularly Aviapartner, which resulted in a downward revision of several contracts, including that with Alitalia (– 6 % of the unit price); the ‘de-hubbing’ of Milan Malpensa airport decided by Alitalia in 2007, the full effects of which were felt as of April 2008; and the ash cloud produced by the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull in 2010.
SEA's beslutning byggede på de allerede opnåede resultater i form af arbejdsproduktivitet og personalenedskæringer, på det forhold, at erfaringen viste, at det var muligt at genskabe rentabiliteten, og på den afvejning, at enhver anden løsning, herunder udlicitering, fortsat rummede de kontraindikationer, som var blevet undersøgt i 2003.
In light of the worsening in SEA Handling’s position in 2006-2007, and following the de-hubbing by Alitalia, SEA had to decide whether to maintain its commercial model, in which case it would have to adapt and update the programme for the relaunch of SEA Handling.
Dækningen af tabene var stadig berettiget, fordi anvendelsen af eksterne operatører til ubrudt levering af visse tjenesteydelser hverken var økonomisk tilrådelig (på grund af de højere omkostninger ved udliciteret service sammenlignet med de synergieffekter, som kunne opnås internt) eller gennemførlig (på grund af fraværet af en ekstern operatør, som kunne levere et fuldt sæt ground handling-ydelser, og den ringe pålidelighed og servicekvalitet, som operatører i Milanos lufthavne ved adskillige lejligheder havde udvist).
SEA finally decided in 2007 to focus on creating an innovative ‘self-hub’ or ‘virtual hub’ model, and confirmed the strategic decision to continue with the recovery and restructuring of SEA Handling, reiterating the importance of ground handling services to its own industrial plans, as in the previous model.
For så vidt angår gennemførligheden af tjenesteydelser leveret af eksterne operatører, hævder SEA for det første, at selv om visse eksterne leverandører havde opnået den nødvendige certificering til levering af alle ground handling-ydelser i Milanos lufthavne, f.eks. Aviapartner i 2006 og fremefter, var virkeligheden en ganske anden.
Its decision was based on the results already achieved in terms of labour productivity and staff cuts, on the fact that its past experience showed that a return to profitability was possible, and on the consideration that any other solution, including outsourcing, continued to raise the same counterindications that had been evaluated in 2003.
Den standardprocedure for certificering, som ENAC fulgte, var utilstrækkelig, fordi den ofte var baseret på, om ground handling-leverandøren som virksomhed opfyldte visse krav, frem for den faktiske kapacitet, som selskabet kunne garantere i en given lufthavn.
The coverage of losses was still justified, because the use of outside operators to provide certain continued service activities was neither economically advisable (given the higher cost of outsourced services compared to the synergies that could be achieved internally) nor practicable (given the absence of outside operators able to provide a comprehensive set of ground handling services, and the poor reliability and quality of services provided on numerous occasions by the operators working at the Milan airports).
Som koncessionshaver burde SEA have været inddraget i proceduren for certificering af leverandørerne af ground handling-ydelser, så SEA kunne undgå at blive ramt direkte af følgerne af manglende levering eller ineffektivitet fra eksterne operatørers side uden at have beføjelser til at pålægge dem sanktioner.
As regards the practicality of the services offered by outside operators, SEA contends, first, that while the certification necessary to provide all ground handling services at Milan airports was obtained by some outside providers, such as Aviapartner, in 2006 and thereafter, the real situation was quite different.
I henhold til de nye ENAC-regler af 19. januar 2011 skulle koncessionshaveren afgive en begrundet udtalelse om procedurens lovlighed og de standarder, som leverandørerne skulle opfylde.
The standardised certification procedure followed by ENAC was inadequate, because it was often based on whether the ground handling provider met certain requirements stated in terms of the group as a whole, rather than the actual capacity that the company was able to guarantee at a given airport.
For det andet hævder SEA, at ingen operatører faktisk kunne tilbyde det fulde spektrum af tjenesteydelser, eftersom deres kommercielle strategi bestod i at fokusere på de mest rentable ydelser.
As airport manager, SEA ought to have been involved in the ground handling service provider certification procedure, so that it did not have to suffer directly the consequences of service failures or inefficiencies on the part of outside operators, without having the power to penalise them.
For det tredje skyldte operatørerne i lufthavnene SEA Handling en betydelig sum penge, fordi SEA Handling ofte måtte gribe ind i nødstilfælde for at afhjælpe mangler og til sidst havde besluttet at gå rettens vej for at få sine tilgodehavender.
Under the new ENAC regulations of 19 January 2011, the airport manager was to give a reasoned opinion on the regularity of the procedure and on the standards for providers.
For det fjerde havde de aktuelt største konkurrenter i Milanos lufthavne ATA Handling og Aviapartner i modsætning til Kommissionens udtalelser ikke tjent penge.
Second, no outside operators were actually able to offer the complete set of services, since their commercial strategy consisted of focusing on the most profitable services.
ATA Handling havde i perioden 2003-2005 lidt tab, og ifølge SEA var disse større i Milanos lufthavne.
Third, the operators working at the airports owed a considerable amount of money to SEA Handling, which often had to intervene in emergencies to make up their shortcomings, and had finally decided to go through legal channels to recover its claims.
Aviapartner havde haft overskud i sit lufthavnsnetværk, men SEA fandt det sandsynligt, at selskabet havde haft tab på de tjenesteydelser, det leverede i Milanos lufthavne.
Fourth, contrary to the statements made by the Commission, the main competitors currently operating at the Milan airports, ATA Handling and Aviapartner, had not made profits.
For så vidt angår vurderingen af SEA Handlings finansielle resultater, som hævdedes at kunne have ført til en anden beslutning, understregede SEA, at virkningerne af forretningsbeslutninger i ground handling-sektoren kun kunne vurderes i det lange løb, og at SEA's beslutning derfor ikke med rimelighed kunne være blevet ændret efter blot nogle få år, især i lyset af de opmuntrende resultater i de første tre år, som havde haft positive virkninger, der kun blev kompromitteret af hændelser, der fandt sted sidenhen uden for SEA-koncernen.
ATA Handling had recorded losses between 2003 and 2005 which, according to SEA, were heavier at the Milan airports.
For så vidt angår resultatregnskabet, anførte SEA, at SEA Handlings resultater var opnået uden den subsidiering af ground handling-ydelserne, som kunne være sket ved at tildele datterselskabet opgaver til en mere rentabel fast pris frem for markedsprisen, sådan som andre europæiske operatører gør det.
Aviapartner had made profits across the network of airports in which it operated, but SEA considered it likely that the company had recorded losses on the services it provided at the Milan airports.
SEA Handling var også den eneste leverandør af ground handling-ydelser i Milanos lufthavne, som betalte koncessionshaveren et fast gebyr for brug af fælles faciliteter.
As regards the assessment of SEA Handling’s financial performance, which it had been argued might have led to a different decision, SEA stressed that in the ground handling sector the effects of business decisions could be evaluated only in the long term and that, consequently, SEA’s decision could not reasonably have been changed after just a few years, particularly in light of the encouraging results obtained in the initial three years, which had had positive effects that were compromised only by events that took place thereafter outside the SEA group.
Hvis SEA Handling i lighed med de øvrige operatører i Milanos lufthavne ikke skulle betale dette gebyr, ville dets regnskaber allerede være gået i sort (i 2011).
As regards the accounting arrangements, SEA stated that SEA Handling’s results did not receive the subsidy to ground handling services that could be given by assigning business to the subsidiary that was paid in accordance with a more profitable scale of rates, rather than at market prices, as was the case with other European operators.
Endelig påpegede SEA, at regnskaberne for ground handling-ydelser ikke omfattede indtægten fra forvaltningen af centraliseret infrastruktur, sådan som det var tilfældet med sammenlignelige operatører.
SEA Handling was also the only ground handling service provider in the Milan airports that regularly paid the airport manager the fee for the use of common facilities;
Inddragelsen af disse aktiviteter til faste satser i SEA Handlings regnskaber ville generere yderligere årlige indtægter på ca. 70 mio. EUR.
if, like other operators working at the Milan airports, it were not to pay this fee, SEA Handling’s accounts would already be in the black (in 2011).
SEA nævnte […] som eksempel på, hvordan man i sine ground handling-ydelsesregnskaber inddrager indtægter fra »forvaltning af centraliseret infrastruktur«, som er en post, der ikke fremgik af den udtømmende liste over ground handling-ydelser i bilag A til direktiv 96/67/EF eller i IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement.
Finally, the accounts for ground handling services did not include revenues deriving from the management of centralised infrastructure, as was the case with comparable operators.
Hvis SEA Handling havde gjort det samme i perioden 2005-2009, ville SEA have opnået en samlet bruttodriftsindtjening på mellem - 9 og + 8 mio. EUR (sammenlignet med den reelle sum på mellem - 42,5 og - 23,2 mio. EUR), hvilket ville have reduceret driftstabet med gennemsnitligt 100 %.
The inclusion of these activities at set rates in SEA Handling’s accounts would generate additional annual revenues of around EUR 70 million.
SEA anførte, at det inden 2012 endelig ville have vendt sine ground handling-ydelser til en rentabel forretning takket være den vedholdende indsats for at gennemføre omstruktureringsplanen, som havde vist sig at være fornuftig og i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
SEA cited the example of […], which included in its ground handling services accounts revenues deriving from ‘centralised infrastructure management’, an item which did not appear on the exhaustive list of ground handling services contained in Annex A to Directive 96/67/EC, nor in the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement.
SEA ville kunne genoptage sin søgning efter en strategisk ground handling-partner med det formål f.eks. at udvikle sin egen forretning i sektoren i Milanos lufthavne eller andre steder og potentielt også for at udvide sin forretning med specialydelser, som selskabet endnu ikke leverede.
If it had acted in the same way in the period 2005-2009 SEA would have achieved a total gross operating margin of between – EUR 9 million and + EUR 8 million (compared to an actual total of between – EUR 42,5 million and – EUR 23,2 million), which would have reduced the operating loss by an average of 100 %.
Mange koncessionshavere af en sammenlignelig forretningstype, herunder større virksomheder som […], havde udtrykkeligt udelukket enhver tanke om at trække sig tilbage fra ground handling-ydelserne, selv om de sommetider var blevet tilskyndet til det af finansanalytikere, og havde således bekræftet gyldigheden af deres forretningsmodel.
SEA stated that by 2012 it would have finally returned its ground handling services to profitability, thanks to its perseverance in implementing its restructuring plan, which had proved to be prudent and consistent with the conduct that could be expected of a private investor operating in a market economy.
[…] påpegede, at ground handling-branchen generelt tjente penge, selv om marginen var skrumpet.
SEA would be able to resume its search for a strategic ground handling partner, for example, in order to develop its own business in the sector, at the Milan airports and elsewhere, and potentially also in order to expand its business to specialist services that it did not yet provide.
Personaleomkostningerne udgjorde en betydelig del af hver operatørs udgifter, sandsynligvis mellem 60 og 70 % af indtjeningen, og det var derfor afgørende at føre nøje kontrol med driften ved hjælp af specifikke planlægningssystemer.
Many airport managers of a comparable business type, including larger undertakings such as […], had expressly ruled out any intention of withdrawing from ground handling services, even though they had sometimes been encouraged to do so by financial analysts, thus confirming the validity of this commercial model.
Der var stordriftsfordele i sektoren, idet omkostningen pr. passager faldt, når passagertallet steg.
[…] pointed out that the ground handling industry generally generated profits despite the reduced margins.
Det optimale omkostningsniveau pr. passager blev nået med et årligt handling niveau på 8-9 mio. passagerer, og SEA Handling oversteg rigeligt dette niveau med sine ca. 22 mio. passagerer i de to lufthavne svarende til en markedsandel på 70 % til hver en tid.
Staff costs made up a significant part of each operator’s outgoings, probably somewhere between 60 and 70 % of revenue, and it was therefore vital to keep close control of operations using specific planning systems.
[…] nævnte SAGAT Handling som et eksempel på et selskab på markedet, der var rentabelt med sine 2,5 mio. passagerer i 2009 og personaleomkostninger på ca. 55 % af omsætningen.
There were economies of scale in the sector: the cost per passenger fell as the number of passengers rose.
Man nævnte også Fraport Ground Services Austria, Swissport og Menzies.
The optimum level of cost per passenger was reached when 8-9 million passengers were being managed in a year, and SEA Handling comfortably surpassed this level, handling around 22 million passengers at the two airports with a market share that was constantly above 70 %.
Den primære årsag til SEA Handlings ringe rentabilitet var selskabets høje personaleomkostninger, som konstant oversteg 85 % af omsætningen i 2002-2008, hvilket var en byrde, som […] ikke fandt bæredygtig.
[…] cited SAGAT Handling as an example of an undertaking that was profitable on the market, managing around 2,5 million passengers in 2009 with a staff cost equivalent to around 55 % of its turnover.
[…] fandt dette særlig overraskende, idet SEA Handling syntes at have adgang til hjemsendelsesledighedsfonden.
It also cited Fraport Ground Services Austria, Swissport, and Menzies.
Den mulighed kunne ikke udelukkes, at SEA Handling måske havde fået hjælp under andre former.
The primary cause of SEA Handling’s poor profitability was its high staff costs, which consistently exceeded 85 % of its turnover between 2002 and 2008, a burden which […] saw as unsustainable.
[…] antydede, at SEA Handlings push-back-, towing-, afisnings- og shuttleservice blev leveret af SEA, mens SEA Handling solgte disse tjenesteydelser til sine kunder.
[…] found this particularly surprising in that SEA Handling seemed to have access to the cassa integrazione layoff fund.
[…] udtrykte tvivl om operationernes regeloverholdelse på grund af manglende åbenhed med hensyn til faktureringen af disse tjenester til SEA Handling.
The possibility could not be ruled out that SEA Handling might have received aid in other forms.
Ligeledes gav SEA måske SEA Handling yderligere støtte ved at stille sit eget personale til rådighed.
[…] suggested that SEA Handling’s push-back, tow-in, de-icing and bussing services were provided by SEA, while SEA Handling sold such services to its clients.
Uden korrekt fakturering kunne SEA Handling have fået ulovlig støtte.
[…] expressed doubts regarding the regularity of operations given the lack of transparency with regard to the billing of these services to SEA Handling.
SEA gav måske også SEA Handling støtte ved at afgive kombinerede tilbud til luftfartsselskaber med rabat baseret på leveringen af SEA Handlings ydelser.
Likewise, SEA might be giving further support to SEA Handling by providing its own staff.
[…] havde lagt mærke til i aviserne, at når SEA tiltrak et nyt luftfartsselskab, blev ground handling-ydelserne næsten altid leveret af SEA Handling.
Without proper billing SEA Handling might have been receiving unlawful aid.
Endelig […] overenskomst mellem leverandører af ground handling-ydelser og fagforeninger.
SEA might also be giving aid to SEA Handling by making combined offers to airlines proposing a discount based on the provision of SEA Handling services.
Denne aftale gjaldt alt personale hos leverandørerne af ground handling-ydelser.
From newspaper reports […] had observed that whenever SEA attracted a new airline the ground handling services were almost always provided by SEA Handling.
Kun SEA fortsatte med at anvende sin egen overenskomst, som var mindre gunstig for SEA, både økonomisk og juridisk og på både kort og langt sigt.
Finally, […] collective agreement between ground handling service providers and the trade unions.
Dette var et valg, som ikke var i overensstemmelse med den politik, der blev angivet at være rettet mod at reducere omkostningerne.
This agreement applied to all personnel of ground handling service providers.
DE ITALIENSKE MYNDIGHEDERS BEMÆRKNINGER TIL DE BERØRTE PARTERS BEMÆRKNINGER
Only SEA continued to apply its own collective agreement, which was less favourable to SEA both economically and legally and in both the short term and the long term:
De italienske myndigheder fremsendte deres egne bemærkninger som svar på bemærkningerne fra […].
this was a choice that was not consistent with policy that was stated to be focused on cutting costs.
De italienske myndigheder hævdede, at det første argument baseret på tanken om, at et ground handling-selskabs rentabilitet afhang af trafikmængden, den forvaltede, og dermed af antallet af passagerer, det betjente, var et forenklet argument baseret på en abstrakt vurdering, som ikke tog hensyn til det forhold, at SEA's beslutninger var styret af langsigtede økonomiske hensyn.
OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES
Denne stordriftsfordel var ikke en afgørende faktor i et ground handling-selskabs økonomiske resultater.
The Italian authorities submitted their own observations in response those put forward by […].
Mere specifikt var et sådant selskabs indtjening helt uafhængig af antallet af forvaltede passagerer, men afhang af antallet af betjente flyvninger og disses tonnage.
The Italian authorities contended that the first argument, based on the idea that the profitability of a ground handling company depended on the volume of traffic it managed and thus on the number of passengers it served, was a simplistic argument deriving from an abstract assessment that took no account of the fact that SEA’s decisions were guided by long-term economic considerations.
Med hensyn til princippet om den private investor var det primære spørgsmål ikke, om selskabet måske kunne have haft overskud, hvilket det uanset årsagen åbenbart ikke kunne, men om aktionærerne havde en sund økonomisk interesse i at investere i selskabet i håb om at få et afkast af deres investering, selv på længere sigt, eller endda i strategisk form frem for et rent finansielt afkast.
This economy of scale was not a decisive factor in a ground handling company’s economic performance.
Derfor var det forhold, at firmaet potentielt var i stand til at generere et overskud, tegn på, at det opfyldte dette princip.
More specifically, the revenue of such a company was entirely unrelated to the number of passengers managed, but depended on the number of flights served and their tonnage.
De italienske myndigheder hævdede også, at det for at få overskud ikke var tilstrækkeligt at håndtere store mængder trafik.
For purposes of the private investor test the main question was not whether the company might have been able to make profits which, for whatever reason, it had proved unable to achieve, but whether the shareholder had a sound economic interest in investing in the company in the hope of gaining a return on its investment, even in the long term, or even in strategic terms rather than purely financial terms.
De understregede betydningen af at drive virksomhed i et bredt netværk af lufthavne, hvilket de allerede havde gjort opmærksom på tidligere.
Accordingly, the fact that the firm was potentially in a position to generate profits suggested that it did satisfy this test.
En leverandør af ground handling-ydelser, som ikke var knyttet til en koncessionshaver, og som ikke havde en dominerende stilling på markedet i en given lufthavn, kunne forfølge en forretningsstrategi, som fokuserede alene på de tjenesteydelser, som vedkommende fandt rentable.
The Italian authorities also argued that in order to make a profit it was not sufficient to handle a large volume of traffic.
SEA Handling kunne ikke følge denne strategi.
They stressed the importance of operating over a broad network of airports, to which they had already drawn attention in the past.
Som datterselskab af koncessionshaveren og som følge af dennes forpligtelser over for tilsynsmyndigheden (ENAC) til at sikre ubrudt og effektiv levering af hele viften af ground handling-ydelser, som er angivet i den udtømmende liste i direktiv 96/67/EF i Linate og Malpensa, kunne det ikke vælge kun at levere de tjenesteydelser, som var de mest økonomisk fordelagtige, eller kun levere ydelser på visse tidspunkter af dagen.
A ground handling services provider which was not linked to an airport manager, and which did not hold a dominant market position at a given airport, could follow a commercial strategy that focused solely on the services it considered profitable.
De italienske myndigheder bestred det udsagn, at et stort antal europæiske ground handling-selskaber havde store indtjeningsmarginer.
SEA Handling could not follow such a strategy:
I 2009 havde de syv største operatører på det italienske marked tab (foruden SEA Handling var der tale om Aviohandling, Flightcare, ATA Handling, Aviapartner, Marconi Handling og SAGA).
as a subsidiary of the airport manager, given the airport manager’s obligations towards the regulatory authority (ENAC) to ensure continued and effective provision of the entire range of ground handling services exhaustively listed in Directive 96/67/EC at Linate and Malpensa airports, it could not choose to provide only the services that were the most economically advantageous, or to provide services only at certain times of the day.
Kun SAGAT Handling, hvis andel af det italienske ground handling-marked var meget lille, tjente penge, og indtjeningen var beskeden.
The Italian authorities disputed the statement that a large number of European ground handling undertakings had substantial profit margins.
Under alle omstændigheder kunne SEA Handlings økonomiske resultater ikke sammenlignes med operatørerne i sektoren i Italien eller i Europa, såsom SAGAT Handling, Fraport Ground Services Austria, Swissport eller Menzies.
In 2009, the seven biggest operators on the Italian market recorded losses (in addition to SEA Handling these were Aviohandling, Flightcare, ATA Handling, Aviapartner, Marconi Handling and SAGA).