News
BackThis week, both employer and employee representatives voiced their dissatisfaction with the new Commission Proposal on groundhandling services and the loading and unloading of or refuelling of aircrafts within the scope of a hearing in the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Although the competent Commission official did not tire of emphasising the necessity of more competition, suggesting this would bring more quality and efficiency, employer and employee associations criticised the proposal, as they envisage the danger that in particular the quality of services might deteriorate.
Morgan Foulkes of Airports Council International (ACI) pointed out that the current Directive had already almost completely opened up the groundhandling market. A comparison of the last 15 years would show that the market shares in this sector had shifted and that now a large number of independent service providers would be engaged in groundhandling. However, it had become evident that whilst their number had increased, service quality had decreased. Foulkes also came out in favour of putting more emphasis on the social conditions for employees.
Athar Husain Khan of the Association of European Airlines emphasised that airlines had a great interest in efficiency. However, he does not think that the new regulatory measure for groundhandling is necessary. The argument of the Commission, that 70 % of all delays were the result of groundhandling was also incorrect, said Khan. Carlos Navas of the Airport Services Association agreed. Only 4 % of delays were the result of ground services.
Enrique Carmona of the der European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) explained in detail how small the savings for airlines would be if, because of the liberalisation efforts of the Commission, the costs for groundhandling staff would be further reduced. About 70 % of the total costs for ground services are spent on salaries. Assuming that about 5 % of the flight costs are allocated to groundhandling, the costs for salaries paid to groundhandling staff account for 3.5 % of the overall flight costs, said Carmona. Even if the wages in this sector would be reduced by another 10 %, the cost savings per flight would be no more than 0.35 % - a negligible amount. The ETF representative also pointed out that over the past 15 years the workload of groundhandling staff had significantly increased - the number of flights between 1996 and 2011 had doubled; however, the number of employees had only risen by 40 %. The most important goal would be to improve staff training and social protection.
The German EESC Member Ingo Kronsfoth warned that due to the present Commission Proposal, quality and security could further decline. Kronsfoth demanded to provide staff with basic training rather than a two-day course. Companies submitting tenders based on dumping wages, should be ignored demanded the EESC representative. The request of the Commission that in the event staff was transferred to another service provider, all collateral agreements had to be fulfilled would be deceitful. This by itself would be good; however, in many cases collateral agreements would not exist. In this case, the new groundhandling service provider would not be obliged to comply with anything, said Kronsfoth.
One of the few supporters of the new Commission Proposals was Lufthansa, whose representative briefly commented that security was guaranteed and additional providers would improve quality. The comment by Marian Krzaklewski, EESC representative and member of Solidarność in Poland was like a slap in the face of groundhandling staff: he told the story of an acquaintance who had said to him he had the feeling that he was underpaid. However, the only thing he could say to that was that anybody who was not happy with what he was earning should simply look for another job.
Due to the critical approach, both from the employee and the employer sector one can only hope that the Commission Proposal will see significant changes. Only a few weeks ago, the MEP’s of almost all parliamentary groups voiced their lack of understanding with regard to the Commission text. The preliminary draft of a statement on the Airport Package by the EESC has already been prepared; after an initial debate at the end of January, the European Parliament will continue its discussions in the coming weeks.
EESC statement on the EU Airport Package - Preliminary draft
Athar Husain Khan of the Association of European Airlines emphasised that airlines had a great interest in efficiency. However, he does not think that the new regulatory measure for groundhandling is necessary. The argument of the Commission, that 70 % of all delays were the result of groundhandling was also incorrect, said Khan. Carlos Navas of the Airport Services Association agreed. Only 4 % of delays were the result of ground services.
Enrique Carmona of the der European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) explained in detail how small the savings for airlines would be if, because of the liberalisation efforts of the Commission, the costs for groundhandling staff would be further reduced. About 70 % of the total costs for ground services are spent on salaries. Assuming that about 5 % of the flight costs are allocated to groundhandling, the costs for salaries paid to groundhandling staff account for 3.5 % of the overall flight costs, said Carmona. Even if the wages in this sector would be reduced by another 10 %, the cost savings per flight would be no more than 0.35 % - a negligible amount. The ETF representative also pointed out that over the past 15 years the workload of groundhandling staff had significantly increased - the number of flights between 1996 and 2011 had doubled; however, the number of employees had only risen by 40 %. The most important goal would be to improve staff training and social protection.
The German EESC Member Ingo Kronsfoth warned that due to the present Commission Proposal, quality and security could further decline. Kronsfoth demanded to provide staff with basic training rather than a two-day course. Companies submitting tenders based on dumping wages, should be ignored demanded the EESC representative. The request of the Commission that in the event staff was transferred to another service provider, all collateral agreements had to be fulfilled would be deceitful. This by itself would be good; however, in many cases collateral agreements would not exist. In this case, the new groundhandling service provider would not be obliged to comply with anything, said Kronsfoth.
One of the few supporters of the new Commission Proposals was Lufthansa, whose representative briefly commented that security was guaranteed and additional providers would improve quality. The comment by Marian Krzaklewski, EESC representative and member of Solidarność in Poland was like a slap in the face of groundhandling staff: he told the story of an acquaintance who had said to him he had the feeling that he was underpaid. However, the only thing he could say to that was that anybody who was not happy with what he was earning should simply look for another job.
Due to the critical approach, both from the employee and the employer sector one can only hope that the Commission Proposal will see significant changes. Only a few weeks ago, the MEP’s of almost all parliamentary groups voiced their lack of understanding with regard to the Commission text. The preliminary draft of a statement on the Airport Package by the EESC has already been prepared; after an initial debate at the end of January, the European Parliament will continue its discussions in the coming weeks.
EESC statement on the EU Airport Package - Preliminary draft