Lower salaries.
|
Insufficient conditions for the take over of staff in German law.
|
Deteriorating work and security conditions for workers and customers.
|
No participation of work councils in AUC to get information from first hand (not from the workers) and to come up for social items.
|
Lower quality levels.
|
No social aspects in the tender process.
|
More safety and security issues; also as a result of higher turnover of employees due to lower salaries.
|
Increase in activity on the ramp can lead to congestion and thus longer working hours for employees (this will become worse with more handlers).
|
Deteriorating working conditions: more pressure on staff due to increases in productivity (e.g. the increase in workload / productivity is equivalent of 15% less salary in Germany).
|
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.
|
|
Positive results
|
Negative results
|
Airport operator
|
More competition
|
Space problems: too many handlers in limited space
|
More choice for handlers
|
Management of the apron more inflexible, resource allocation is more restricted
|
Stimulated new economic impetus
|
Dominance in AUC by national carrier
|
Better customer orientation
|
|
|
Decrease of service level (not covered by the Directive)
|
Cost-reducing pressures lead to lower prices
|
Dilution of profit and performance
|
Quality programmes to ensure service levels
|
Obligation of airport operator to guarantee the running of operation restricts competition with third party handlers
|
Formal procedures to be followed by handling companies have been beneficial in terms of safety and security
|
Tendencies toward uncontrolled market access, with no limitation, difficult to make a good evaluation of the suppliers
|
|
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 load for 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.
|
Airport Users’ Committee
|
Better handling products
|
Limited capacity at airport
|
Lower prices
|
Some handlers have bought market shares and then failed to deliver either a fully healthy product or a viable alternative.
|
Higher productivity
|
|
More choice for handlers
|
|
Less monopolistic behaviour
|
|
Groundhandlers
|
Efficiency improvement programmes
|
Market rates driven down by competition
|
Lower prices for airlines
|
Lower profitability for both airports and handlers
|
More choices for airlines
|
Less attractive employment conditions
|
More choices for employees
|
Not one single handler has economies of scale
|
Opened access to closed markets for third party handlers, removed airport monopoly activities
|
Strong competition may endanger the quality of services and create safety and security problems
|
Approached market conditions within Europe standard of services.
|
High expenditure for tender procedure
|
Started a focus on the abuses in the industry
|
Additional expenditure for separation of accounts
|
Groundhandlers are being respected and consulted on airport procedures
|
In some countries the national legislation protects only airports and staff, not the new entrants.
|
Have a sense of security in the industry and therefore being a better employer.
|
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
|
