52006DC0821

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 24.1.2007

COM(2006) 821 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

on the application of Council Di rective 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996

1. Introduction

1. On 15 October 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports. The Directive was a first step towards the gradual opening-up of access to the groundhandling market so as to help reduce the operating costs of air carriers and improve the quality of service. Article 22 of the Directive requires the Commission to draw up a report on the application of the Directive. This Report by the Commission sets out to comply with this requirement.

2. At the request of the Commission, in 2002, a study ‘on the quality and efficiency of groundhandling services at EU airports as a result of the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC’ was carried out. The Commission has published this study on its website[1] as it contains valuable information on the economic effects the Directive has had in the various Member States.

3. It is recalled that the Directive makes an important distinction between two types of groundhandling services: (1) the categories of services to which, at airports reaching a certain threshold, free access exists for suppliers of groundhandling services and for which airport users are free to perform self-handling; and (2) the limited number of specific categories of groundhandling services[2], which may, at certain airports, be reserved for a limited number of groundhandling service suppliers and self-handling users respectively. The latter are generally also referred to as restricted services and this terminology is used in the text below.

2. The findings of the study

4. Transposition of the Directive into national legislation

Transposition of the Directive into the legislation of Member States has in most instances been a relatively smooth process even if with many Member States the Commission has had to engage in correspondence and consultations in order to clarify and provide information and assistance on how to transpose the Directive correctly. Another matter was the rather slow speed with which transposition has been completed: most new national legislation was adopted before 1999 while four Member States were as late as 1999 to adopt legislation and one needed till as late as 2000.

5. In two instances the Commission has disagreed with Member States on the way they transposed Article 18 of the Directive, which stipulates that Member States may take the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers. The Commission took the view that the national legislation adopted by the Member States in question went against the effective application of the Directive. The European Court of Justice eventually ruled accordingly[3] and one Member State has now complied with the Court ruling. The Commission is considering taking legal action against the other Member State on the basis of Article 228 of the Treaty.

6. Exemptions on the basis of Article 9 of the Directive

Where at an airport specific constraints of available space or capacity exist, Member States may decide to restrict the number of handlers. Member States must notify the Commission of any exemption granted by them. On the basis of Article 9 the Commission has received ten notifications. After examination, the Commission has granted eight exemptions and turned down two. A list of the airports concerned is presented below.

Airport | Date of Commission decision | Exemption granted until |

Frankfurt | 14 January 1998 | 1 January 2001 |

Hamburg | 30 October 1998 | 31 December 2000 |

Stuttgart | 30 October 1998 | 31 December 2000 |

Berlin Tegel | 27 April 1999 | 31 December 2000 |

Düsseldorf | 14 January 1998 | 31 December 2000 |

Düsseldorf | 5 January 2000 | 31 December 2001 |

Paris CDG | 27 April 1999 | 31 December 2000 |

Funchal | 10 January 2000 | 31 December 2001 |

Exemptions requested by the airports of Cologne/Bonn on 30 October 1998 and Oporto on 10 January 2000 respectively were not granted.

Annex A gives a general picture of the capacity and space constraints that were encountered by airport operators after the implementation of the Directive. This Annex is based on a postal survey and does not include all major EU airports[4]. It appears that apart from the airports mentioned above, which had filed an exemption request that was upheld, after the entry into force of the Directive most airports did not have any problems to accommodating new handlers or they could make arrangements to find a solution quickly. Their view is widely shared by the service suppliers.

7. Application of the Directive

Article 1(4) of the Directive requires the Commission to publish each year a list of Community airports at which the groundhandling market must be opened in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Directive. The most recent list was published on 17 November 2006[5]. This list is based on the passenger and cargo traffic statistics relating to the year 2005 and it is attached as Annex B . It follows that in that year there were 95 airports with more than 2 million passenger movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight, and 49 airports were below that threshold but had annual traffic over 1 million passenger movements or 25 000 tonnes of freight.

Of these 144 airports, only 13 airports in the Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 meet the minimum threshold of 1 million passenger movements/25 000 tonnes of freight[6].

The effects of the application of the Directive which are described below, are predominantly related to the airports in the 15 Member States as the airports of the ‘new’ Member States have as yet limited experience with the Directive.

8. The cost of groundhandling

It is widely acknowledged that the prices of groundhandling services have gone down across the board in nearly all Member States since the adoption of the groundhandling Directive and this decrease is deemed to be more visible in those Member States which had handling monopolies or a highly regulated market before 1996. It is thus recognised that the Directive has had a positive effect on competition, which may have led to this decrease, even though it is also argued that developments in the airline industry may also have been an important part of the cause of the pressure on prices as cost-cutting air carriers have been pressing groundhandling service suppliers to lower them. Annex C demonstrates the price developments at a number of EU airports that have taken place since the implementation of the Directive. The Annex illustrates the overall decrease of prices from the perspective of the respective players in the market even though the precise percentages differ. The perception of the exact decline in prices is not uniform therefore.

9. The quality of groundhandling

Following the adoption and implementation of the Directive, the changes in the level of quality seem to have varied at the different airports. Stakeholders have different views, mostly from the perspective of their respective competitive positions in the market before and after the Directive became applicable, but the instances in which stakeholders, across the board, recognise an increase in quality levels far outweigh the incidental cases where a deterioration is observed. Apart from these two options - higher or lower quality levels - there are instances where there is an absence of any change in quality levels. The overall perception is that the achievements of the increase in market access are a higher degree of competition, an increase in the free choice between service providers and a reduction in the costs of these services. The air carriers are the main beneficiaries of this development but they have used it mainly to play off the various suppliers against one another in order to get the best price, while putting less emphasis on the quality of service.

10. The views on the subject tend to differ according to the perspective of suppliers of groundhandling services, airport operators, and air carriers that self-handle or provide handling services to third parties (or do both) respectively. The general conclusion is that air carriers have had more leeway to pick the groundhandler of their choice. Air carriers value this development as it implies in many cases that the traditional monopolies of the airports, which not only provide infrastructure but also act as groundhandling service providers, have been altered and subjected to competition.

11. The airports feel that this effect has certain repercussions on the level of service and the management of the airport itself, as incidental lapses may disturb the efficiency of the airport system as a whole. The User Committee is not the most appropriate place to deal with the subject as national carriers, which in many instances perform self-handling and would thus be affected by any rule on quality, tend to have a strong say in this Committee. Airports take the view that they have insufficient tools to address such situations. Annex D provides an overview of the development in quality levels at EU airports since the application of the Directive. The views on this development of the airport operators, the Airport Users Committee and the groundhandler(s) at the airport in question have been taken into account.

12. Competition

The Directive has also had its effect on the degree of competition at EU airports as for almost all categories of groundhandling services the number of service suppliers in the market has gone up. Annex E presents the number of third party handlers present at EU airports both before and after the application of the Directive[7]. At the majority of airports where the numbers have changed there has been an increase. Only as regards the fuel and oil handling services have the numbers remained static overall. As to the number of self-handlers (second part of Annex E ), they have either remained the same or decreased. The number in brackets behind each category of service refers to the number of the category of service listed in the Annex to the Directive.

13. In spite of these higher numbers, which indicate a clear increase in competition at airports, independent groundhandling service suppliers consider that their commercial opportunities have remained limited in view of what they consider to be the relatively small ‘contestable market’ at notably the larger airports, i.e. the part of the market that is not in the hands of the incumbent air carrier and/or the airport operator and that is therefore free to be captured by independent handlers. This can be explained by the many hub carriers that not only self-handle but that also, as third party handlers, provide handling services for their alliance, code-share or franchise partners on the basis of reciprocal handling arrangements between air carriers (‘if I handle you at my airport, you handle me at your airport’). Where at such airports the airport operator is also active in the market, the remaining market share to be captured by independent handlers can indeed be small. This appears not to have changed since the application of the Directive. The independent service suppliers claim that because of this situation their commercial opportunities and profitability have not really improved. Yet, this does not seem to square fully with the higher numbers mentioned above: if the facts and figures were really as moderate for independent handlers as they claim, then not as many would have stayed in the market as happens to be the case.

14. The selection procedure

Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a selection procedure for suppliers that wish to be authorised to provide groundhandling services at airports where their number is limited. Where an airport operator is not directly or indirectly involved in the provision of similar services it can be made responsible for the selection by the public authorities. In this way, the entity that selects the handler is not to be its competitor once the handler starts offering its services. But in practice the intended distance and independence has not in all instances been assured. There are cases where Member States have a financial stake in an airport which not only provides air transport infrastructure but also groundhandling services. As a result of this direct interest by a Member State in the profitability of the airport company, the authorities concerned are not always prepared to make the choice that is in the best interest of airport users.

15. Article 11 also states that suppliers of groundhandling services are selected for a maximum period of 7 years. This period is perceived by service suppliers and air carriers to be too short to allow them to recoup the considerable investments in staff and equipment, although this time constraint is not the only aspect: service suppliers also find it difficult to devise strategies for the longer term as air carriers are reluctant to agree on long-term contracts and commitments. A shorter period for a licence, as has been set in some cases, can make it even more difficult, for new entrants especially, to set up a new business and, as a result, it may prove a barrier to access.

16. Participation of the airport operator in the groundhandling market

In a good number of Member States (Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal) the airport operator is active in the groundhandling market by providing handling services and is thus a direct competitor of suppliers of groundhandling services and air carriers which provide these services for third parties. The reason is that in those Member States, and in some others as well, a legal obligation for airports generally exists to provide groundhandling services. The justification for this is to prevent a situation where airports would exist where no groundhandling services are provided at all. All the same, it is a fact that at many larger airports where a sufficient number of service suppliers are interested in offering their services or where airport users also provide third party handling, the management bodies of airports are active in the market by providing handling services. At many such airports they have a strong position, which makes it difficult for a competitor or a new entrant to gain (additional) market share.

17. Air carriers and handlers consider that at those airports where the management body runs the airport but at the same time acts as a supplier of groundhandling services competition is distorted, as the airport management body can pull too many strings, and thus influence the day to day business at the airport, to make it a normal competitor. In other words, the airport operator is regulator, landlord, operator of infrastructure and groundhandler at the same time and these roles are conflicting. The present Directive does not provide strong enough tools to prevent this kind of situation. On the other hand, the airports argue that independent service suppliers and air carriers enjoy advantages which airport operators do not have, as large independent handlers and the incumbent air carriers operate at a global level and are thereby in a position to benefit from economies of scale. The table in Annex F shows at what EU airports the airport operator is also active as a provider of groundhandling services. This table is not exhaustive as not all airports are mentioned.

18. Centralised infrastructure

Article 8 of the Directive allows Member States to reserve for the airport operator, the management of the centralised infrastructure used for the supply of groundhandling services whose complexity, cost or environmental impact does not allow for its division or duplication. The airport operator may make it compulsory for suppliers and self handling air carriers to use this infrastructure, and may impose charges for the use of the facilities. This provision has given rise to uncertainty concerning the definition of what exactly is centralised infrastructure as well as the cost of using it. As to this definition, in some Member States airport users see no need for the public authorities to interfere in this respect, while in other Member States users are in favour but the authorities have been slow to react. A more pressing point is the way airports charge air carriers for the use of the centralised infrastructure: this varies from one airport to another and is not transparent. There may be an overlap with aeronautical charges but as the way of calculating the charge for the infrastructure lacks clarity, that is not certain. The airport management body may also give a discount on these charges to its own handling customers and this may distort competition. By way of example, Annex G mentions a number of EU airports and states whether the centralised infrastructure has been defined or not, what the charging base for the infrastructure is and whether any problems have been encountered.

19. Access to installations

Related to the above subject is the provision of Article 16 of the Directive which guarantees access to airport installations to service suppliers and self-handling airport users. It also stipulates that the space available for groundhandling at an airport must be divided among the various suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users so as to allow fair competition. The managing body of the airport can place conditions upon this access and in addition collect an access fee which has been further defined as a commercial fee, which has to be determined according to relevant, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. In practice, the possibility of levying the fee has not been taken up by all airports: some airports do not charge an access fee to handlers or air carriers, but other airports do.

20. The exact nature of the access fee has been the subject of legal proceedings between Lufthansa and Hannover-Langenhagen Airport, the latter taking the position that the fee had to be seen as a fee due for providing air carriers with economic access to the market that is an airport. Lufthansa opposed this and took the view that the fee was a service-related one and that there had to be some relation with the service provided by the airport and the fee itself. On 16 October 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled that Article 16(3) precludes an airport operator from making access to the groundhandling market in the airport subject to payment by a self-handling air carrier or a groundhandling service supplier of an access fee as consideration for the grant of a commercial opportunity in addition to the fee due by that self-handler or supplier for the use of the airport installations[8]. The fee that can be collected for the use of airport installations must be determined according to the criteria laid down in Article 16(3).

21. At most EU airports, the managing bodies have done what they could to accommodate new entrants to the market by allocating facilities to them even though there have been limitations due to peak periods such as summer seasons or to existing rent agreements to be honoured. In general, there has been no unfair allocation or distribution of facilities and the occasions on which new entrants were deliberately allocated poor facilities are limited. This is valuable confirmation from a competition point of view, as air carriers acknowledge that the allocation of facilities to handlers influences their commercial choice of handler.

22. Employment

Groundhandling is labour-intensive: around three quarters of the total handling costs relate to employment of staff. A general concern in the Member States is that it is difficult for suppliers of groundhandling services to attract, and keep, qualified handling staff as there seems to be a significant turnover of staff. Also, it is alleged that the increase in competition as a result of the Directive has led to incumbent carriers or service suppliers laying off a number of their staff while the new entrants have acquired new workers but generally at lower wages. There has thus been, in some Member States, a degree of pressure on labour relationships, salary levels and working conditions and thus on workforce stability . It is said that the new entrants, and thus indirectly the introduction of competition, may be the cause of the deterioration in the qualification and training of staff and their labour conditions and that thereby the quality of services provided has suffered. However, no recent data are available and this makes it difficult to substantiate or verify the veracity of these assumptions. Annex H provides information as to what changes in social conditions have taken place from the viewpoint of airport operators, the Airport Users Committees and service suppliers respectively. It must be noted that a significant number of the stakeholders interviewed have not reacted to the questions on this issue and this may indicate that it is not an item of contention or special concern for them. Annex I provides an overview of the opinions of unions and work councils concerning the presumed negative impact of the Directive.

23. Overall results of the Directive

Annex J reflects the overall results of the Directive from the viewpoint of the airport operators, the Airport User Committees - which consists of air carriers -, and the groundhandling service suppliers.

3. APPLICATION IN THE TEN MEMBER STATES SINCE THEIR ACCESSION ON 1 MAY 2004

2 4. As a result of the thresholds established in the Directive, the latter applies to thirteen airports[9] in nine Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 as the annual traffic of those airports is over 1 million passenger movements. On the basis of the information received from the public authorities of the Member States concerned[10], it appears that in the majority of these Member States the Directive is correctly applied and the Commission has not received indications from market players that contradict that information. In one Member State, the situation is unsatisfactory and the Commission has addressed the public authorities of that Member State on the issue.

The Commission underlines that in all cases where a Member State does not fully and correctly apply the Directive, the Commission will unabatedly continue to actively endeavour to achieve the full application of all provisions of the Directive.

4. GROUNDHANDLING AND SECURITY

25. The Commission has started Community inspections in the field of aviation security only after the entry into force of Directive 96/67/EC. As a result, no evaluation of potential differences in the implementation of security measures at Community airports before and after the opening of the ground handling market could be carried out.On the basis of the results of the Commission’s inspections that have been conducted since February 2004, as well as on the basis of the contents of the Member States’ annual reports on national quality control in the field of aviation security, there are no indications suggesting that the number of ground handling service providers active at an airport, and which numbers differ significantly between Member States, has an actual impact on the quality and the enforceability of the implementation of security requirements.Access to certain ground handling activities like aircraft cleaning and catering that can be considered as security sensitive as they take place on the ramp of an airport and in the aircraft itself, has not been restricted in the Directive. At many large EU airports, the number of suppliers of these services is considerably higher than two. Yet, their presence on the ramp has not given rise to security concerns.

26. Detailed security requirements for staff and vehicles entering critical parts of the security restricted area of airports are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 establishing common rules in the field of aviation security, as well as in Commission Regulations (EC) No 622/2003 and (EC) No 1138/2004. These requirements apply to all staff working in such areas and include compulsory background checks on a person’s identity and previous experience, including any criminal history, strict identity control and physical staff screening upon entry to critical parts of the security restricted area and completion of a security training and awareness programme for every staff member concerned. These common requirements have proven to be conducive to providing an adequate level of security, irrespective of the number of ground handling providers at an airport.

5. THE WAY FORWARD

27. In March 2003 the Commission services published a Consultation Paper on issues to be addressed in a revision of the Directive. Member States, the accession countries and stakeholders in the air transport industry were invited to give their views and they have done so extensively. At a hearing that was held on 6 April 2006, the Commission once more consulted with all stakeholders on the various possibilities to devise a proposal for a revision of the Directive.

28. A large number of stakeholders recognised the need for an improvement of the Directive in terms of bringing about a simplification of the Directive as well as a clarification of provisions of which the meaning and scope has been subject to different interpretations in the course of time after 1996. The Commission will define its course of action on the basis of the discussion of this report in the Council and the European Parliament. In addition to simplification and clarification of the Directive, a future proposal could aim to provide for further market opening and regulate issues which have become relevant since the application of the Directive. Such issues are the definition of insurance requirements and quality standards applicable at an airport, and an improvement of the procedure for the selection of service suppliers. In any case, the Commission will continue to closely monitor the groundhandling market with a view to further assess its development.

6. CONCLUSIONS

29. Council Directive 96/67/EC has led to:

(a) the introduction of competition at many airports which were previously closed or static markets;

(b) better value for money spent on groundhandling services;

(c) greater pressure on the prices for groundhandling services;

(d) dilatory actions in some instances on the part of competent authorities in fully applying the Directive;

(e) some impact on employment conditions in the industry but no evidence of an overall reduction of jobs;

(f) a modest shake-up in the market shares in groundhandling at the economically most important EU airports.

ANNEX A

Capacity and space problems - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Did new entrants have any capacity or space constraints? | Have there been problems with suppliers already operating at the airport? | Have you had problems allocating new handlers? | Are there any hindrances for the access of suppliers to the market? | Are you aware of any preferential treatment of handling customers of the airport? |

Paris-Orly | Airport operator: Yes, the space allocated to each handler is proportional to its volume of activity. Cariane: No | Airport operator: No Cariane: No | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No Cariane: No | Cariane: No |

Marseille-Provence | Airport operator: No AUC: No | Airport operator: No AUC: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No AUC: No | AUC: No |

Bâle-Mulhouse | Swissport: No comment | Swissport: Yes, insufficient number of check-in counters | Swissport: No | Swissport: N/a |

Bordeaux-Mérignac | Airport operator: Yes, space constraints | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: If new entrance, capacity or space constraints | Airport operator: If new entrance, capacity or space constraints | Airport operator: If new entrance, capacity or space constraints |

Berlin-Schönefeld | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No |

Berlin-Tegel | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: No |

Hahn | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No |

Dusseldorf | Airport operator: No, space allocation at the apron for ramp handling is limited even if only one third party handler is operating AUC: No Aviapartner: Yes, poor locations, sometimes obligation to take too much space at high cost | Airport operator: No AUC: No Aviapartner: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No AUC: No Aviapartner: not really, concession contracts | AUC: No Aviapartner: No |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Ground handler: Aviapartner: Yes, poor locations, sometimes obligation to take too much space at high cost Hannover Aviation Ground Service: Yes | Aviapartner: No Hannover Aviation Ground Service: Yes | Aviapartner: not really, concession contracts Hannover Aviation Ground Service: N/a. | Aviapartner: No Hannover Aviation Ground Service: No |

Leipzig-Halle | Airport operator: Yes AUC: No PortGround: Yes, regulations on use of airport | Airport operator: No AUC: No PortGround: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No AUC: No PortGround: No | AUC: No PortGround: No |

Köln-Bonn | Airport operator: No AUC: No Aviapartner: Yes, poor locations, sometimes obligation to take too much space at high cost | Airport operator: No AUC: No Aviapartner: No | Airport operator: Yes, in 1998 the airport filed an exemption request caused by capacity constraints. The airport had to build up additional staging areas. | Airport operator: Yes, due to the limitations according to BADV AUC: No Aviapartner: Not really, concession contracts | AUC: No Aviapartner: No |

Shannon | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: Yes, space for cargo handling limited- one supplier requires extension to premises. | Airport operator: Not yet | Airport operator: No |

Torino-Caselle | Sagat: No | Sagat: No | Sagat: No | Sagat: No |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | Airport operator: Yes | Airport operator: Yes |

Alicante | Aena: No | Aena: Yes | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No |

Bilbao | Aena: No Iberia: No | Aena: No Iberia: No | Aena: No | Aena: No Iberia: No | Aena: No Iberia: N/a |

Gran Canaria | Aena: Yes / subject to space availability | Aena: Yes | Aena: No | Aena: Yes / rules that handlers must comply with | Aena: N/a |

Ibiza | Aena: No Ineuropa: Yes | Aena: No Ineuropa: Yes | Aena: No | Aena: No Ineuropa: No | Aena: No Ineuropa: N/a |

Lanzarote | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: N/a |

Malaga | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: Yes /minimum requirements | Aena: N/a |

Sevilla | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: No | Aena: N/a |

Göteborg-Landvetter | AUC: Yes, Servisair has insufficient premises | AUC: No | AUC: No | AUC: N/a |

London-Gatwick | Airport operator: No AUC: Yes, capacity and space constraints demand management | Airport operator:Yes, reallocate facilities already used by existing handlers through the transition period. AUC:Yes, check-in and parking problems but have been resolved. | Airport operator:Yes, these were managed through the transition period of introducing another handler | Airport operator: No AUC: Yes, limitation on the number of airside handlers to 4. | AUC: N/a |

London-Stansted | Airport operator: Yes, cargo space restriction due to no new construction of space for new entrants initially. ASIG: Yes, facilities to operate from are indequate. | Airport operator: Pre-Directive – No Post-Directive – Yes, due to space constraints | Airport operator: Yes, in all areas with new handlers as initial entrants | Airport operator: No other than accommodation ASIG: Yes, if into-plane companies want to supply services to unhandle the into-wing price of fuel and will not supply fuel separately. | ASIG: No |

Luton | Airport operator: Yes, shortage of space | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No |

Newcastle | Airport operator: No Servisair: Yes | Servisair: Yes, a licence is required | Servisair: BA seems to get priority. |

Aberdeen | Airport operator: No Servisair: No | Airport operator: No Servisair: No | Airport operator: No | Airport operator: No Servisair: Yes, apron congestion for additional GSE. | Servisair: N/a |

Edinburgh | Airport operator: No AUC: No Aviance: No Servisair: No | Airport operator: No AUC: Yes Aviance: No Servisair: Yes, difficulties have been experienced with available property, equipment parking and staff car parking | Airport operator: Yes, airside accommodation | Airport operator: Yes, Space for equipment and accommodation airside AUC: No Aviance: No Servisair: No | AUC: N/a Aviance: No Servisair: No |

Glasgow | Airport operator: No Airline Services: No Aviance: No Servisair: Not at start Execair: No | Airline Services: No Aviance: No Servisair: No | Airport operator: No | Airline Services: No Aviance: No Servisair: No | Airline Services: N/a Aviance: N/a Servisair: N/a |

ANNEX B

concerning the procedure laid down by Article 1, para 4 of Council Directive 96/67/EC

According to the provisions of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports[11], the Commission is required to publish, for information, a list of the airports referred to in the Directive.

Airports whose annual traffic is more than 2 million passenger movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight | Airports whose annual traffic is more than 1 million passenger movements or 25 000 tons of freight | Other airports open to commercial traffic |

Austria | Vienna | Salzburg | Graz, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Linz |

Belgium | Brussels, Charleroi, Oostende, Liège-Bierset | Antwerpen |

Cyprus | Larnaca | Paphos |

Czech Republic | Prague | Brno, Karlovy-Vary, Ostrava, Pardubice |

Denmark | Copenhagen Kastrup | Billund | Aars, Anholt, Århus, Aalborg, Karup, Odense, Esbjerg, Bornholm, Sønderborg, Vojens, Thisted, Stauning, Skive, Roskilde, Hadsund, Herning, Kalundborg, Koster Vig, Laesoe, Lemvig, Lolland-Falster, Viborg, Tønder, Sydfyn, Sindal, Padborg, Ærø, Randers, Ringsted, Kolding, Spjald, Morso, Samso |

Estonia | Tallinn, Kärdla, Kuressaare, Pärnu, Tartu |

Finland | Helsinki-Vantaa | Enontekiö, Helsinki-Malmi, Ivalo, Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kajaani, Kemi-Tornio, Kittillä, Kruunupyy, Kuopio, Kuusamo, Lappeenranta, Maarianhamina, Mikkeli, Oulu, Pori, Rovaniemi, Savonlinna, Seinäjoki,Tampere-Pirkkala, Turku, Vaasa, Varkaus |

France | Paris-CDG, Paris-Orly, Nice-Côte d’Azur, Marseille-Provence, Lyon-Saint Exupéry, Toulouse-Blagnac, Bâle-Mulhouse, Bordeaux-Mérignac | Pointe-à-Pitre-Le Raizet, Nantes-Atlantique, Montpellier-Méditerranée, Fort de France-Le Lamentin, Beauvais-Tille, Strasbourg | Agen-La-Garenne, Ajaccio-Campo dell’oro, Albi-Le-Sequestre, Angers-Marce, Angoulème-Brie-Champniers, Annécy-Meythet, Aubenas-Vals-Lanas, Aurillac, Auxerre-Branches, Avignon-Caumont, Bastia-Poretta, Beauvoir-cote-de-lumiere, Bergerac-Roumanière, Besancon-la Veze, Béziers-Vias, Biarritz-Bayonne-Anglet, Blois-le Breuil, Bourges, Brest-Guipavas, Brive-La Roche, Caen-Carpiquet, Cahors-Lalbenque, Calais-Dunkerque, Calvi-Ste Catherine, Cannes-Mandelieu, Cannes-Palmbeach, Carcassonne-Salvaza, Castres-Mazamet, Cayenne-Rochambeau, Chalon-Champforgeuil, Chalon-Vatry, Chambéry-Aix les Bains, Charleville-Mezières, Chateauroux-Deols, Cherbourg-Maupertus, Cholet-Le-Pontreau, Clermont-Ferrand-Aulnat, Cognac-Chateaubernard,Colmar-Houssen, Courchevel, Deauville-St Gatien, Dieppe-Saint Gatien, Dijon-Longvic, Dinnard-Pleurtuit-St Malo, Dole-Tavaux, Epinal-Mirecourt, Figari-Sud Corse, Gap-Tallard, Granville, Grenoble-St Geoirs, Ile d’Yeu-le-Grand Phare, La Baule-Escoublac, La Mole, La Rochelle-Laleu, Lannion-Servel, La-Roche-sur-Yon-Les-Ajoncs, Lannion, Laval-Entrammes, Le Havre-Octeville, Le Mans-Arnage,Le Puy-Loudes, Le Touquet-Paris-Plage, Lille-Lesquin, Limoges-Bellegarde, Lorient Lann-Bihoue, Lyon Bron, Macon-Charnay, Metz-Nancy-Lorraine, Monbeliard-Courcelles, Montluçon-Gueret, Morlaix-Ploujean, Moulins-Montbeugny, Nancy-Essey, Nevers-Fourchambault, Nîmes-Garons,Niort-Souché, Ouessant,Pau-Pyrénnées, Périgueux-Bassillac, Perpignan-Rivesaltes, Poitiers-Biard, Pontoise-Cormeilles, Port Grimaud, Quimper-Pluguffan, Reims-Champagne, Rennes-St Jacques,Roanne-Renaison,Rochefort-St Agnant, Rodez-Marcillac, Rouen-Vallée de la Seine, St Brieux-Armor, St Denis-Gillot.St Etienne-Bouthéon, St Nazaire-Montoir, St Tropez La Mole, Saint Yan , Samur Saint Florent, Tarbes-Oussun-Lourdes, Toulon-Hyères-Le-Palyvestre,Tours-St.Symphorien, Troyes-Barberey, Valence-Chabeuil, Valenciennes-Denain, Vichy-Charmeil |

Germany | Berlin-Tegel, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt/Main, Hahn, Hannover-Langenhagen, Leipzig-Halle,Stuttgart, München, Nürnberg, Köln-Bonn | Berlin-Schönefeld, Bremen, Dortmund, Dresden, Münster/Osnabrück, Paderborn-Lippstadt | Altenburg-Nobitz, Augsburg, Barth, Bayreuth, Berlin-Tempelhof, Bielefeld, Braunschweig, Chemnitz-Jahnsdorf, Cottbus-Drewitz, Cottbus-Neuhausen, Egelsbach, Eisenach-Kindel, Erfurt, Essen/Mühlheim, Friedrichshafen, Gera, Heringsdorf, Hof-Plauen, Jena-Schöngleina, Karlsruhe/Baden-Baden, Kassel, Kiel, Lahr, Lübeck-Blankensee, Magdeburg, Marl-Loemühle, Meschede, Mönchengladbach, Niederrhein, Neubrandenburg, Passau-Vilshofen, Porta-Westfalica, Rothenburg/Görlitz, Rostock-Laage, Saarbrücken-Ensheim, Schönhagen, Schwerin-Parchim, Siegerland, Speyer-Ludwigshafen, Stendal-Borstel, Strausberg, Welzow, Zweibrucken |

Greece | Athinai, Iraklion, Thessaloniki, Rodos | Chania, Kerkira, Kos | Alexandroupoulis, Araxos, Ioannina, Kalamata, Kastoria, Kavala, Kozani, Nea Anchialos, Preveza, Astypalaia, Chios, Ikaria, Karpathos, Kasos, Kastelorizo, Kefallonia, Kithira, Leros, Limnos, Mikonos, Milos, Mitilini, Naxos, Paros, Samos, Santorini, Siros, Sitia, Skiathos, Skiros, Zakinthos |

Hungary | Budapest Ferihegy | Balaton-West, Debrecen, Györ-Pér, Szeged |

Ireland | Dublin, Shannon, Cork | Knock, Kerry, Galway, Donegal, Sligo, Waterford |

Italy | Roma-Fiumicino, Roma-Ciampino Milano-Malpensa, Milano-Linate, Napoli, Bologna, Catania, Palermo, Bergamo, Venezia, Torino, Verona, Cagliari, Pisa | Olbia, Firenze, Bari, Lamezia, Genova | Albenga, Alghero-Fertilia, Ancona-Falconara, Aosta, Biella-Cerrione, Bolzano, Brescia, Brindisi-Papola Casale, Crotone, Cuneo-Levaldigi, Foggia-Gino Lisa, Forli, Grosseto, Lampedusa, Marina di Campo, Padova, Pantelleria, Parma, Perugia-Sant’Egidio, Pescara, Reggio Calabria, Rimini-Miramare, Siena-Ampugnano, Taranto-Grottaglie, Tortoli, Trapani-Birgi, Treviso-Sant’Angelo, Trieste-Ronchi dei Legionari, Vicenza |

Latvia | Riga | Daugavpils, Liepaja, Ventspils |

Lithuania | Vilnius, Kaunas, Palanga, Siauliai |

Luxembourg | Luxembourg |

Malta | Luqa-Malta |

Netherlands | Amsterdam-Schiphol | Maastricht-Aken , Rotterdam | Eindhoven, Groningen-Eelde, Twente-Enschede |

Poland | Warszawa-Okecie | Bydgoszcz, Gdansk, Katowice-Pyrzowice, Krakow, Lódz-Lublinek, Poznan-Lawice, Rzeszów-Jasionka, Szczytno-Szymany, Szczecin-Goleniów, Wroclaw-Strachowice, Zielona-Góra-Babimost |

Portugal | Lisboa, Faro | Funchal, Porto | Braga, Chaves, Coimbra, Corvo, Evora, Flores, Horta, Lages, Porto Santo, Santa Maria, Pico, Saõ Jorge, Cascais/Tires, Graciosa, Vila Real, Covilhã, Viseu, Bragança, Ponta Delgada, Portimao, Sines, Vilar de Luz (Maia) |

Slovakia | Bratislava, Kosice, Nitra, Piestany, Poprad-Tatry, Prievidza, Sliac, Zilina |

Slovenia | Ljubljana | Ajdovscina, Bovec, Celje, Lesce, Maribor, Murska Sobota, NovoMesto, Portoroz, Postojna, Ptuj, Slovenjgrodec, Valenje |

Spain | Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Lanzarote, Madrid, Malaga, Menorca, Palma de Mallorca, Sevilla, Tenerife Norte, Tenerife Sur, Valencia | Jerez, Reus, Santiago, Vitoria | Albacete,Almeria, Asturias, Badajoz, Cordoba, El Hierro, Gomera, Granada, La Coruna, La Palma, Leon, Madrid-C.Vientos, Melilla, Murcia, Pamplona, Salamanca, San Sebastian, Santander, Valladolid, Vigo, Zaragoza |

Sweden | Göteborg-Landvetter, Stockholm-Arlanda | Malmo-Sturup, Stockholm/Bromma, Stockholm/Skavsta | Ängelholm, Arvika, Arvidsjaur, Borlänge, Eskilstuna, Falköping, Gällivare, Gällivare/Vassare, Ljungby/Feringe, Ljungbyhed, Ludvika, Gävle-Sandviken, Gothenburg-Säve, Hagfors, Halmstad, Hemavan, Helsingborg/Hamnen, Hultsfred, Jokkmokk, Jönköping, Kalmar, Karlskoga, Karlstad, Kiruna, Kiruna/Loussajärvi, Kramfors, Kristianstad, Lidköping; Linköping/Malmen, Linköping/SAAB, Luleå/Kallax, Lycksele, Mora/Siljan, Norrköping/Kungsängen, Oskarshamn, Pajala, Ronneby, Satenäs, Skellefteå, Skövde, Stockholm/Västeras, Storuman, Stromstadt/Nasinge, Sundsvall/Härnösand, Sveg, Söderhamn, Torsby/Fryklanda, Trollhättan-Vänersborg, Umeå, Uppsala, Uppsala/Viktoria, Vilhelmina, Visby, Växjö-Kronoberg, Örebro, Örnsköldsvick, Östersund/Frösön |

United Kingdom | Aberdeen, Belfast-International, Belfast-City, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, East-Midlands, Glasgow, Liverpool, London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, London-Stansted, Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Nottingham East Midlands, Prestwich. | Cardiff Wales, Kent International, London City, Southampton | Teesside, Inverness, Sumburgh, Humberside, Bournemouth, Norwich, Exeter, St Mary’s (Scilly), Penzance, Plymouth, Scatsta, Stornway, Kirkwall, Blackpool, City of Derry, Sheffield, Benbecula, Tresco (Scilly), Wick, Cambridge, Islay, Isle of Man, Dundee, Campbeltown, Barra, Biggin Hill, Battersea, Tiree, Lerwick, Southend, Lydd, Hawarden, Coventry, Gloucester, Shoreham, Unst, Carlisle, Barrow, Newquay, Fermanagh |

ANNEX C

Summary of price developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Airport operator | Airline | AUC | AOC | Handler |

Vienna | -15% | Austrian Airlines: -5% | -5% | -10% | VAS: no insight |

Brussels | Increase | Lufthansa: increase | No change | BGS: no change Aviapartner: no change |

Copenhagen | Decrease | -10 to -15% | Novia: decreased SAS: frozen1 |

Helsinki | No insight | British Airways: no change | Stable | GlobeGround: no major change Finnair: -30% to -40% Fortum: no change |

Lyon | -50% | Brit Air: no change | Slight decrease | Aviapartner: -20% Servisair: -20% |

Nice | Air France: no change | Swissport: lower |

Paris-CDG | -20% | Lufthansa: +8% | Slight decrease |

Toulouse | Decrease | Slight decrease | Servisair: -20% Aviapartner: -20% |

Frankfurt | -5% to -15% | British Airways: significant decrease | -10% | No change | Acciona Airport Services: decrease |

Hamburg | -5% to -15% | No insight | No insight | Checkpoint B: -15% to -20% Swissport and Menzies: -10% to -15% |

Munich | -15% | British Airways: 15% to -25% | Frozen | Aviapartner: -20% |

Nuremberg | -10% to -20% | Eurowings: -15% | Frozen | Aviapartner: -20% |

Stuttgart | Decrease | Alitalia: no change | -15% to -20% | Decreased | Servisair: airlines expected -25% Aerogate: decreased |

Athens | -30% to -40% | Decrease | Swissport: -40% Goldair: large discounts |

Heraklion | -15% |

Dublin | No insight | Ryaniar: no insight Aer Lingus: +10% | No change | Servisair: -5% to -7.5% Aviance: no insight |

Milan-MXP | -20% |

Naples | -25% | No change |

Rome-FCO | -10 to –25% | Alitalia: Decrease | EAS: -30% |

Luxembourg | No change | Cargolux: increased | Increase | Decrease | CSLux: frozen Luxair: frozen |

Amsterdam | -5% to -10% | KLM: Decrease2 | Decrease | GlobeGround: Decrease2 |

Faro | Decrease | Charter airlines: -10% | Decrease | Decrease | Portway: -25% TAP Handling: -15% |

Lisbon | Significant reductions up to 50% | Lufthansa: -20% | Decrease | Decrease | Portway: -10% |

Barcelona | Decrease | Decrease | Iberia Handling: decrease |

Fuerteventura | Decrease |

Madrid | Decrease | Decrease | Ineuropa and Iberia Handling: decrease |

Palma de Mallorca | Decrease | Decrease | Ineuropa: -20% |

Tenerife Sur | Decrease | -20% |

Stockholm | -20% to -30% | Skyways: -10 to -15% | No change | Decrease | Air Cargo Center: slight decrease Novia: -20% to -30% Servisair: decrease |

Belfast | No insight | BMI: no insight | No insight | No insight | Servisair: -10% Aviance: -5% |

Birmingham | Decrease | Aer Lingus: frozen British Airways: slight increase | Frozen | Groundstar: no change Servsisair: no insight Aviance: frozen |

London-LHR | No comment | American: -20% Malaysia Airlines: -10% to –40% | No comment | No comment | Swissport: -25% to -30% |

Manchester | +10%3 | Monarch: no change | Aviance: -20% since 1992 Ringway: no change Servisair: -10% to -15% |

1. But off-peak prices are estimated to have decreased up to 35%.

2. Price erosion started in 1993 with the entrance of Ogden.

3. Decrease in prices took place in 1992 when market was opened, but since the implementation of the Directive, Manchester Airport estimates the prices have increased.

Price developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Airport operator | AUC | Ground handler |

Paris-Orly | No comment | Cariane: Higher (Directive) |

Marseille-Provence | -15% (Industry) | Lower (Industry) |

Bordeaux-Mérignac | Lower |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | Unknown | Swissport: – 20% (Directive) Aviapartner: -20% (Directive and industry) |

Berlin-Schönefeld | Increase (Industry) |

Hahn | Decrease (Industry) |

Dusseldorf | - 20% (Industry) | -5% (Directive) | Aviapartner: -20% (fear of Directive) |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Aviapartner: -20% (fear of Directive) Hannover Ground Aviation Service: -20% to -30% (Industry) |

Leipzig-Halle | -10% (Directive and industry) | No change | PortGround: decrease |

Köln-Bonn | -7% (Directive and industry) | Decrease (Industry) | Aviapartner: -20% (fear of Directive) |

Shannon | No change |

Torino-Caselle | Sagat: -15% (Directive and industry) |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | No comment | PGA: increase (Directive) |

Alicante | -20% to -25% (Directive and industry) |

Bilbao | -20% to -25% (Directive and industry) | Iberia: -20% (Industry) |

Gran Canaria | -20% to -25% (Directive) |

Ibiza | -20% to -25% (Directive and industry) | Ineuropa: -15% (Industry) |

Lanzarote | -20% to -25% (Directive and industry) | Nordic: N/a |

Malaga | -20% to -25% (Directive) |

Sevilla | -20% to -25% (Directive and industry) |

Göteborg-Landvetter | Decrease (Directive and industry) |

London-Gatwick | No insight | No change | Inflight Cleaning Services Ltd.: -10% (Directive) |

London-Stansted | Stansted Airport Limited: -30% (Directive and industry) ASIG: -20% (Directive and industry) |

Luton | -10% (Directive and industry) |

Newcastle | Decrease (Directive) | Servisair: -15% (Industry) |

Aberdeen | No change | Servisair: decrease (Directive and industry) |

Bristol | N/C |

Edinburgh | Decrease (Industry) | Aviance: -5% (Industry) Servisair: -20% (Directive and industry) |

Glasgow | No change | Airline Services Ltd.: Anticipated changes due to progress in service standards. Avance; no change Execair: +10% (Industry) Servisair: -25% (Industry) |

ANNEX D

Summary of quality developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Airport operator | Airline | AUC | AOC | Handler |

Vienna | No change | Austrian Airlines: increase | VAS: no insight |

Brussels | Increase | Lufthansa: no change | No change | BGS: increase Aviapartner: no change |

Copenhagen | Decrease | SAS: no change |

Helsinki | No change | British Airways: no change | No change | GlobeGround: increase Finnair: no change Fortum: increase |

Lyon | Decrease | Brit Air: increase | No change | Aviapartner: decrease Servisair: decrease Globeground: increase |

Nice | Decrease | Swissport: increase |

Paris-CDG | Unstable | No change | Globeground: increase |

Toulouse | Decrease | No change | Aviapartner: decrease Servisair: decrease |

Frankfurt | No change | British Airways: no change | No change | No change | Acciona Airport Services: no change |

Hamburg | No change | No change | No change | Checkpoint B: no change AHS Handling: increase Swissport: no change |

Munich | - 5% | British Airways: no change | Decrease/ no change | Aviapartner: no change |

Nuremberg | No change | No change | Aviapartner: no change |

Stuttgart | No change | Alitalia: increase | No change | No change | Servisair: no change Aerogate: decrease |

Athens | Increase | Increase | Increase | Olympic Handling and Goldair: increase |

Heraklion | Increase | Increase |

Dublin | Decrease | Aer Lingus: no change | No change | Servisair: no change Aviance: increase |

Milan-MXP | No change | No change |

Naples | Increase | No change |

Rome-FCO | No change | Alitalia: increase | Increase | EAS: increase |

Luxembourg | No change | CSLux: increase Luxair: increase |

Amsterdam | Decrease | KLM: No change | SGUC: decrease | No change | GlobeGround: no insight |

Faro | Increase | Charter airlines: increase | Increase during off peak |

Lisbon | No change | Lufthansa: increase | Increase |

Barcelona | Decrease | Decrease |

Fuerteventura | Increase |

Madrid | Increase |

Palma de Mallorca | Increase | Increase | Iberia Handling and Ineuropa: increase |

Tenerife Sur | Increase | Ineuropa: increase |

Stockholm | -10% to -20% | Skyways: decrease | No change | Novia: no change Servisair: increase |

Belfast | No change | BMI: no change | No change | Servisair: +15% Aviance: no change |

Birmingham | Decrease | Aer Lingus: increase | Increase | Groundstar: increase Servisair: increase |

London-LHR | No comment | United: decrease Malaysian Airlines: -10% Singapore Airlines: increase | No comment | No comment | Swissport: no change |

Manchester | Decrease | Decrease | Decrease | Aviance: increase Ringway: increase Servisair: decrease |

Quality developments - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Airport operator | AUC | Ground handler |

Paris-Orly | No comment | Cariane: increase (Directive) |

Marseille-Provence | No change | No change |

Bordeaux-Mérignac | Decrease |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | Increase (Industry) | Swissport: decrease (Directive) Aviapartner: decrease (Directive and industry) |

Berlin-Schönefeld | No change |

Hahn | No change |

Dusseldorf | No change | +10% (Directive and industry) | Aviapartner: no change |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Aviapartner: no change Hannover Ground Aviation Service: decrease (Industry) |

Leipzig-Halle | No change | No change | Aviapartner: no change |

Köln-Bonn | No change | No change | Aviapartner: no change |

Shannon | Increase (Directive and industry) |

Torino-Caselle | Sagat: no change |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | Increase (Directive) | PGA: no change |

Alicante | Increase (Directive and industry) |

Bilbao | Increase (Directive and industry) | Iberia: +10% (Industry) |

Gran Canaria | Increase (Directive) |

Ibiza | Increase (Directive and industry) | Ineuropa: Increase |

Lanzarote | Increase (Directive and industry) | Nordic: N/a |

Malaga | Increase (Directive) |

Sevilla | Increase (Directive and industry) |

Göteborg-Landvetter | Decrease (Industry) |

London-Gatwick | No change | No comment | Inflight Cleaning Services: -10% (Directive) |

London-Stansted | Decrease (Directive and industry) | ASIG: no change |

Luton | +10% (Industry) |

Newcastle | No change | Servisair: no change |

Aberdeen | No change | Servisair: increase (Industry) |

Bristol | No comment |

Edinburgh | No change | Aviance: -10% (Industry) Servisair: increase (Industry) |

Glasgow | Increase (Industry) | Airline Services: increase (Industry) Aviance: +10% (Industry) Servisair: +25% (Industry) |

ANNEX E

Number of handlers - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Number of third party handlers1 |

Passenger handling (2) | Baggage handling (3) | Freight and mail handling (4) | Ramp handling (5.4) | Fuel and oil handling (7) |

Passenger handling (2) | Baggage handling (3) | Freight and mail handling (4) | Ramp handling (5.4) | Fuel and oil handling (7) |

Paris-Orly | Yes | Yes | ADP separated its accounts before the Directive came into force. ADP accountants are responsible for the separation of accounts. |

Marseille-Provence | No |

Bordeaux-Mérignac | No |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | Yes | Aviapartner: Yes | No | CAA responsible for checking the separation of accounts. |

Berlin-Schönefeld | Yes | No |

Berlin-Tegel | Yes | Yes | Meeting of shareholders and board of directors |

Hahn | Yes | Yes | Use of certified accountant |

Dusseldorf | Yes | AUC: Yes, high market share and long term contracts | Yes | AUC: Yes, suggestion | Own profit centre and separation of revenue and costs. Safeguarded by finance department and controlling system, also checked by the AUC. |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Yes | Hannover ground aviation service: No | Yes | Hannover Ground Aviation Service: No | By CAA |

Leipzig-Halle | Yes | PortGround: No | Yes | ProtGround: No | Separate investment |

Köln-Bonn | Yes | AUC: Yes | Yes | AUC: Unknown | Separate business unit (profit centre), checked by independent accountant |

Shannon | Yes | Yes | Direct revenues and costs are allocated to the individual business area. Indirect costs are apportioned based on the outputs of a cost attribution model. Checked by external auditors. |

Torino-Caselle | Yes | Sagat: No | Yes | Different companies |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | Yes | PGA: Yes | Yes | PGA: Probably |

Alicante | No |

Bilbao | No |

Gran Canaria | No |

Ibiza | No |

Lanzarote | No |

Malaga | No |

Menorca | No |

Sevilla | No |

Göteborg-Landvetter | No |

London-Gatwick | No |

London-Stansted | No |

Luton | No |

Newcastle | No |

Aberdeen | No |

Bristol | No |

Edinburgh | No |

Glasgow | No |

ANNEX G

Centralised infrastructure - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | CI defined | Charging Base | Users consulted? | Problems |

Paris-Orly | Yes | Cost related | Yes | No |

Marseille-Provence | Yes | Number of passengers and usage | No | No |

Bâle-Mulhouse | Yes | No separate charges | Yes | No |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | Yes | Covered by passenger security charge | Yes | No |

Berlin-Schönefeld | Yes | Based on number of passengers, MTOW or usage | Yes | No |

Berlin-Tegel | Yes | Parts are covered by aeronautical charges and the access fee, other elements based on number of passengers and MTOW | Yes | Yes |

Hahn | Yes | Cost related | Yes | No |

Dusseldorf | Yes | Cost related | Yes | Yes, Aviapartner notes the airport has put as much price to CI (see Section 4) |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Yes | Usage related | Yes | Yes, Aviapartner notes the airport has put as much price to CI (see Section 4) Hannover ground aviation service: No |

Leipzig-Halle | Yes | Cost related | Yes | Yes, AUC noted there is insufficient information about CI |

Köln-Bonn | Yes | Based on aircraft type | Yes | Yes, Aviapartner notes the airport has put as much price to CI (see Section 4) |

Shannon | No | No charges |

Torino-Caselle | Yes | Based on number of passengers and ATMs | Yes | No |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | No | No charges |

Alicante | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Bilbao | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Gran Canaria | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Ibiza | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Lanzarote | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Malaga | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Sevilla | Yes | Movement basis | No |

Göteborg-Landvetter | Yes | Based on number of passengers and ATMs | No | Yes, according to the AUC there were problems with regard to the definition of Ground Power Unit and remote parking |

London-Gatwick | No | No charges |

London-Stansted | Yes | Parts are covered by aeronautical charges and other elements are cost related | Yes | Yes, according to ASIG at other airports where oil companies own the facilities, there is difficulty for other fuel suppliers to gain access to the final storage facility. |

Luton | Yes | No set formula at present | Yes | No |

Newcastle | Yes | Depending on usage | Yes | Yes |

Aberdeen | No | No charges |

Edinburgh | No | No charges |

Glasgow | No | No charges |

ANNEX H

Changes in social aspects and training - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

Airport | Airport operator | AUC | Ground handler |

Change in social aspects? | Change in training standards/ education level? | Change in social aspects? | Change in training standards/ education level? | Change in social aspects? | Change in training standards/ education level? |

Paris-Orly | Yes | No | Cariane: No | Cariane: No |

Marseille-Provence | No | No | Difficult to evaluate | No |

Bâle-Mulhouse | Swissport: Yes, very restrictive salary increases | Swissport: Yes, training reduced to minimum |

Bordeaux-Mérignac | Yes, Strikes | Yes |

Strasbourg-Entzheim | No | No | Aviapartner: Yes, frozen salaries | Avipartner: No |

Berlin-Schönefeld | Yes | Yes |

Berlin-Tegel | N/a | N/a |

Hahn | No | No |

Dusseldorf | Yes, more flexible working time, lower wages | No | Yes | Yes | Aviapartner: Yes, gain in productivity | Aviapartner: No |

Hannover-Langenhagen | Aviapartner: Yes, gain in productivity Hannover Aviation Ground Service: Yes | Aviapartner: No Hannover Aviation Ground Service: No |

Leipzig-Halle | Yes, new labour contract | No | Yes | No | PortGround: Yes, new labour contract | PortGround: No |

Köln-Bonn | Yes, fewer full time jobs, lower entrance salary | No | No | No | Aviapartner: Yes, gain in productivity | Aviapartner: No |

Shannon | No | Yes, more input by airport authority in terms of audit/review of training |

Torino-Caselle | Sagat: Yes, increase of temporary and part-time contracts, decrease in salaries | Sagat: No |

Porto-Sà Carneiro | No comment | Yes, more training | PGA: Unkonwn | PGA: Unkonwn |

Alicante |

Bilbao | Iberia: No | Iberia: No |

Gran Canaria |

Ibiza | Ineuropa: Yes, improved | Ineuropa: Yes, improved |

Lanzarote | Nordic: N/A | Nordic: N/A |

Göteborg-Landvetter | Yes, more staff on temporary contracts | Yes, due to external rules and regulations |

London-Gatwick | No evidence | No evidence | No | No |

London-Stansted | None | Yes, incorrect use of equipment | ASIG: No | ASIG: Yes, airport company showing greater focus and actively encouraging operators to work with them |

Luton | Yes, movement of labour | Yes, continuity of standards |

Newcastle | No | No | Servisair: No | Servisair: Yes, better |

Aberdeen | Yes, high employee turnover rate | Yes, improved due to joint training initiatives on the ramp | Servisair: Yes, lower salaries to compete in market | Servisair: Yes, market requirements |

Bristol | Yes, job security |

Edinburgh | Yes, more temporary employee contracts | Yes, more structured training and manuals | Yes | Yes | Aviance: No Servisair: Yes, ability to attract calibre of staff required diminished against inability to pay appriate salaries | Aviance: Yes, more demands of hasher training from airlines Servisair: Yes, NVQs to attract employees against competitive market – more multi-functional training to reduce cost |

Glasgow | Yes, better | Airline Services: No Aviance: No Servisair: Yes, salaries kept low in order to compete in market Execair: No | Airline Services: No Aviance: Yes, setting up of a training department Servisair: Yes, more multi-functional training Execair: Nol |

ANNEX I

Negative impact of Directive according to unions/work councils – (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

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. |

ANNEX J

Results of Directive - (Source: SH&E Limited, October 2002)

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 |

[1] www.ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm. Study carried out by SH&E International Air Transport Consultancy, London.

[2] I.e. baggage handling, ramp handling, fuel and oil handling, freight and mail handling as regards the physical handling of freight and mail between the air terminal and the aircraft.

[3] ECJ ruling of 9 December 2004, Case C-460/02 Commission v. Republic of Italy . ECJ ruling of 14 July 2005, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case C-386/2003.

[4] The same applies to the Annexes E, F, G, H and I.

[5] OJ C 279, 17.11.2006.

[6] Bratislava, Budapest, Larnaca, Ljubljana, Luqa-Malta, Paphos, Prague, Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Warsaw, Krakow and Katowice.

[7] To complete the picture, the numbers of self-handling air carriers are also included.

[8] Case C-363/01 Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH vs Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

[9] See note 6 supra.

[10] With the exception of Cyprus.

[11] OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36.