Table of annexes annex I: Glossary 4
Download 1.47 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 3.India
USAIn the USA, the aviation industry was opened up in the late 1970s early 1980s allowing liberalisation of the groundhandling industry. Airport ownership in the USA is generally controlled by local public municipalities or bodies. However, specific terminals are often either owned or operated by airlines with significant or particularly hub operations there. Market structure Airports have a lot of control over ground handling matters. For instance, they decide how many ground handling companies operate in the airport, the rates they can charge and the subleasing they undertake. Airports also develop their own dispute resolution procedures. The majority of the ground handling work is carried out by “Fixed Base Operators” (FBO) which are privately owned or a department of the municipality the airport serves. Often only one FBO serves a particular airport. Only a small proportion of the ground handling operations are performed by independent companies. The total market increased significantly between 1995 and 2002, but after 9/11 legacy airlines cut capacity and this decreased ground handling substantially. Regulation There does not appear to be any specific legislation relating to ground handling at airports which would indicate that groundhandling is not regulated (apart from general competition and fair trade legislation), giving all powers in the hand of airports, on a case by case basis. Competition There have been issues raised about there being special relationships between the airport and the FBO and that this might create competition stifling preferential treatment, but if the relationship goes bad it can be the target of discriminatory treatment. Transportation Code, 49 USC section 47107 (a)(4) expressly prohibits exclusive relationships, but the FAA unofficially supports a protectionist policy for FBOs and other airport operators (Air Commerce Act 464). Congress has granted airports limited immunity from antitrust lawsuits only permitting awards of injunctive relief. Therefore the airports have so far been able to continue their special relationships with groundhandling and not have to allow competition and access to other ground handling operations. Conclusion about USA and Australia In Australia as in the USA, groundhandling is less regulated than in Europe. (…) In the USA, it appears that airports continue to control access to groundhandling activities, whereas in Australia where airports’ involvement in groundhandling was limited, very few airports are involved in providing groundhandling services. Generally, this means that Australia’s market structure is far simpler than that of Europe where airports are only infrastructure providers, not competitors or tender managers. Therefore Australia’s approach to groundhandling is to let airlines and their chosen groundhandlers work through their issues. In the USA the relationship between the airport operator and the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) who often provides the groundhandling services is a key determinant of the market and is at the discretion of each airport’s management. However, in some instances, Australia faces similar groundhandling issues that Europe faces, such as space allocation or social issues. In general solutions to these issues are coordinated at the local level, with limited federal intervention. In the USA the close relationship between the airport operator and FBO means space allocation is addressed through these relationships." (end of SDG, 2010 extract) 3.IndiaWhen it comes to India, the government has recently adopted a new legislation regarding the access to groundhandling services. The legislation (which was to be implemented by the 31st of December 2010) aims at limiting the number of providers for the 6 major airports of the country: Delhi, Mumbai-Bombay, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras) airports (all above 6 millions passengers a year and 50,000 tons of freight: see table below). According to the new legislation, the following groundhandlers will be allowed to operate at these airports:
Self-handling would not be authorised any more (except for some landside services and cargo handling at some airports).
Sources: Airport websites, except for Bangalore and Kolkotta (Airport Authority of India and: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/bangalore-airport-traffic22-y-o-y/379584/ ) Annex XVII: ISAGO: presentation of the ISAGO initiative IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO) aims to improve safety and cut airline costs by drastically reducing ground accidents and injuries. ISAGO is modelled on the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) program. The ISAGO program is an audit system conducted in a standardized manner, with the view to replace the redundant audits of each airline. To respond to the diversity of groundhandling services (covering a wide scope of activities as diverse as passenger and baggage handling, load control, cargo handling, etc.), ISAGO has been built upon a 'backbone' of audit standards applicable to all ground handling companies worldwide, coupled with a uniform set of standards relevant for the specific activities of any groundhandler. As a result, the ISAGO audit can be applied to multinational groundhandlers, as well as to smaller companies providing services at a single station. ISAGO benefits as presented by IATA to airlines, groundhandlers, regulatory and airport authorities are:
The following groundhandling services providers have been awarded an ISAGO label (the groundhandling categories covered are not available):
More information on ISAGO is available at: http://www.iata.org/ps/certification/isago/Pages/index.aspx?NRMODE=Unpublished. Annex XVIII: Screening of policy measures and pre-selection Directory: pub -> ECD ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Table of contents I instruments Error: Reference source not found ECD -> En commission of the european communities brussels, 12. 12. 2008 com(2008) 853 final annex annex II to VIII ECD -> Report from the commission to the european parliament and the council european community safa programme aggregated information report ECD -> Report from the commission european community safa programme ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Commission of the european communities brussels, 24 2008 ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions ECD -> Annex I iccat species Download 1.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|