3 Airports
| (a)
(28345)
5886/07
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(06) 819
(b)
(28346)
5887/07
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(06) 820
(c)
(28347)
5894/07
COM(06) 821
|
Commission Communication: An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe
Draft Directive on airport charges
Commission Report on the application of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
(c) —
|
| Documents originated | 24 January 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 February 2007
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Three EMs of 20 February 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) and (c) Cleared
(b) Not cleared, awaiting further information
|
Background
3.1 Community air traffic tripled between 1980 and 2000. Between
1992 and 2005 the number of intra-Community routes increased by
150%. If demand for air traffic continues in line with current
trends, it will double in 20 years. At present different schemes
for airport charges exist across Member States and there is no
relevant Community legislation. However, the market in groundhandling
services is covered by Community legislation.
The documents
3.2 The Communication, document (a), is the Commission's response
to what it calls potentially the key risk in the development of
air transport in the coming decades — a "capacity crunch"
at Community airports. The Commission:
- says the capacity crunch arises from a mismatch between the
expected continuing increase in demand for air travel and available
airport capacity;
- suggests that a growing gap between demand and
airport capacity poses a threat to the safety, efficiency and
competitiveness of the air transport industry; and
- argues this would have an impact on the competitiveness
of the economy as whole, given air transport's role in driving
economic growth.
3.3 The document sets out the Commission's action
plan to address airport capacity, efficiency and safety under
five main headings, noting the specific actions proposed and their
expected timing, as described in the following paragraphs.
Making better use of airport capacity
3.4 The Commission proposes that:
- Eurocontrol[7]
be asked in early 2007 to develop common definitions and tools
to help assess better the existing capacity of European airports;
- the Commission itself establish in the course
of 2007 an "observatory" of airport capacity to exchange
data and information, including publishing an annual report, to
help develop a Europe-wide view of capacity;
- it and Eurocontrol work together to identify
ways in which consistency between airport take off and landing
slots and air traffic management slots can be improved. This work
is planned for 2007, with any subsequent proposals to modify Community
slot allocation Regulations in 2008; and
- to help reduce delays at airports and improve
predictability, Eurocontrol be asked to develop in 2008 airport
"Collaborative Decision-Making" — improved information
sharing between airports, airlines and air traffic management
providers.
A consistent approach to air safety operations
3.5 The Communication notes:
- the Commission's previously
announced intention to propose, in early 2008, an extension to
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)'s responsibilities
to the regulation of airport safety;[8]
and
- the Commission plan to use the Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS, aka
Galileo)[9] to improve
safety of aircraft in flight and to allow more flexibility in
planning landing and take off routes from airports. To help achieve
this the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR)
programme[10] is expected
to incorporate GNSS into air traffic management procedures.
Promoting co-modality of transport modes
3.6 The Commission believes that air and rail transport
should complement each other better and as a means of achieving
this the Commission:
- notes that programmes such
as TEN-T or the Cohesion Funds could be used to fund co-modality
projects, for example to help develop railway stations at airports
and rail links to airports; and
- plans to publish in early 2007 a consultation
paper on promoting combined air-rail tickets.
Careful consideration of new airport infrastructure
3.7 The legal framework for noise-related operating
restrictions at airports is in Directive No.2002/30/EC, under
which the Commission is required to report on its application
no less than five years after its entry into force. The Commission
is planning to report by the end of 2007. As part of this work
the Commission will consider whether there is a need to make any
recommendations to amend the Directive.
3.8 The Commission expresses the view that general
land use planning and airport planning could be improved, saying
that:
- for example, only a minority
of Member States provide planning authorities and the public with
airport plans setting out information on longer term projections
on airport infrastructure, including obstacles and noise levels;
- it is concerned about the complex and lengthy
planning procedures for airport projects of wider Community importance;
- it suggests a target of five years for planning,
approval and construction of such projects, while complying with
existing requirements including those for environmental impact
assessments; and
- it plans in 2007 to work with Member States and
other interested parties to simplify procedures and promote best
practice in order to improve coordination between airport and
land use plans.
Developing and implementing new technologies
3.9 The Communication notes that Community funded
research has helped develop the Advanced-Surface Movement Guidance
and Control Systems (A-SMGCS), one benefit of which is to allow
airport operations to continue in bad weather, so ensuring continued
safe functioning with high levels of aircraft movements. The Commission
believes that:
- this or similar technologies
should be implemented at Community airports from 2007 onwards;
and
- between 2007 and 2013 the SESAR research programme
will develop new tools and technologies to help make the best
use of existing airport capacity.
3.10 The draft Directive, document (b), is to set
common principles to be respected by airport operators when they
determine the charges to airlines for the use of airport services.
It would not regulate the levels at which charges are set.
3.11 The draft Directive would:
- define an airport charge as
"a levy collected for the benefit of the airport managing
body and paid by the airport users and/or air passengers with
a view to recovering all or part of the cost of facilities and
services which are exclusively provided by the airport management
body and which are related to landing, take-off, lighting and
parking of aircraft, and processing of passengers and freight";
- cover all Community airports which handle one
million passengers or more each year;
- provide against charging systems discriminating
between air carriers, with differences being related to the quality
of services and facilities offered and excess demand for particular
levels of service (for example, use of an older and cheaper terminal)
being managed by relevant, transparent and objective criteria;
- require airports to consult airport users about
any changes to the charging system or levels of charges within
a set timeframe;
- require airports to provide airlines with financial
data including the method of calculation of charges and a list
of the various services and infrastructure provided in return
for the charge levied and airlines to provide airports with certain
information including traffic forecasts;
- provide for airports and airlines to negotiate
service level agreements determining the quality of the airport
services on offer;
- provide for security charges to be used exclusively
to meet security costs;
- require each Member State to set up an independent
regulatory authority (IRA) to ensure the correct application of
the measures taken to comply with the Directive. The IRA could
also be the body responsible for applying additional regulatory
measures connected with airport charges; and
- provide for IRAs to arbitrate, with binding decisions
in the case of any dispute within the scope of the Directive between
an airport and airline.
3.12 The Commission annexes to its proposal an impact
assessment, which takes account of an industry consultation exercise
run by external consultants in 2006, setting out the Commission's
case for the form of legislation it is proposing. The Commission
says that:
- although the International
Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) sets common guidelines for airport
charging schemes, these are non-binding and diverging systems
exist across Member States;
- it has identified tension between airports and
airlines over the acceptability and transparency of charges; and
- it would like measures which allow for a level
playing field, to avoid cases of discontent and discrimination
and to improve transparency.
The Commission's assessment says: "Only in very
few cases, notably that of the UK, is legislation in place that
regulates airport charges to the general satisfaction of both
market players even if on details disagreement may persist."
In summarising the assessment the Commission concludes that the
option to propose a Directive based on common principles rather
than industry self-regulation or binding regulation would be the
most successful, as it would increase pressure on inefficient
airports whilst allowing Member States to retain a degree of freedom
to adapt their policy to national conditions.
3.13 The Commission Report, document (c), concerns
a review of Directive 96/67/EC on groundhandling services, which
applies to all Community airports open to commercial traffic,
although in the case of third-party handling, it applies only
to airports with an annual traffic volume of not less than two
million passenger movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight. The primary
aim of the Directive, which was introduced in phases between 1996
and 2001, was to liberalise the market in groundhandling services
to help reduce the operating costs of airlines and to improve
the quality of service they receive. The Report concludes that
the Directive has led to:
- the introduction of competition
at many airports which were previously closed or static markets;
- better value for money spent on groundhandling
services;
- greater pressure on the prices for groundhandling
services;
- some impact on employment conditions in the industry
(but no evidence of an overall reduction of jobs); and
- a modest shake-up in the market shares in groundhandling
at the economically most important Community airports.
The Commission says that it is continuing to consider
a possible revision of the Directive, dealing with not only simplification
and clarification, but also issues such as definition of insurance
requirements and quality standards and the selection procedure
for service providers.
The Government's views
3.14 In relation to the Commission's Communication,
document (a), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Gillian Merron), notes that it contains a substantial
list of proposed actions in a number of areas and comments that:
- some of the actions, such as
the proposal to extend the EASA's remit to airport safety and
the review of the noise Directive were announced previously;
- others, for example Eurocontrol's work with the
Commission and Member States, will involve further work and scrutiny
under procedures established for taking forward the Single European
Sky initiative;
- for some other actions, such as action related
to airport planning, the Commission envisage cooperation between
Member States and between Member States and the Commission; and
- some of the proposed actions may involve legislation,
others will not.
The Minister adds that the nature of the Communication
means that details of proposed actions have not been provided.
It is expected that these will be contained in further separate
documents over the course of the coming two or so years.
3.15 The Minister continues, taking all this into
account, that at present the Government is broadly content with
the Communication and the actions in it. The importance of making
best use of existing airport infrastructure first and promoting
access to airports by public transport is in line with the Government's
own policies set out in its White Paper "The Future of Air
Transport".[11]
But the Minister says there are initial concerns about some aspects
of the Communication, for example:
- the Government would want to
consider the value of Eurocontrol developing harmonised tools
for airport capacity forecasting when more is known about what
this involves, the legal basis for it and the financial implications
for Eurocontrol's budget;
- measures such as Collaborative Decision-Making
and A-SMGCS may be of value to larger Community airports, but
may well not be appropriate or cost-effective for smaller airports.
It will be important to consider proportionality in measures to
encourage these technologies and legislation to require introduction
may not be appropriate;
- the research programme for SESAR is at an early
stage of definition, so there can be no guarantee that it will
be able to deliver and promote the new technologies hoped for
by the Commission; and
- under Directive 2002/49/EC, relating to assessment
and management of environmental noise, all major Community airports
will be required to produce noise maps by mid 2007, followed by
action plans to control the noise in mid 2008. There will be a
need for the Commission to ensure that there is clear linkage
and coordination between common work areas stemming from this
Directive and Directive No.2002/30/EC on noise related operating
restrictions at airports.
3.16 On the draft Directive, document (b), the Minister
comments that the Government supports the principle that price
regulation of airports may be necessary when an airport has monopoly
power, recognises that some airlines have complained of unjustified
charges or unfair treatment at Member State airports and recognises
that this is the Commission's way of addressing that issue. She
explains that a framework for economic regulation of UK airports
has existed for over 20 years in the Airports Act 1986. This sets
out:
- that those UK airports with
annual turnovers in excess of £1 million (some 51 airports)
must ask the Civil Aviation Authority (CCA) for permission to
levy airport charges;
- that they are then free to set such charges in
line with the market conditions under which they operate, subject
to domestic and European competition law;
- a system to regulate airports with monopoly power.
Designated airports, currently London Heathrow, London Gatwick,
London Stansted and Manchester, are regulated on the charges they
can levy through a price cap, which is set every five years by
the CAA.
3.17 Given this context the Minister says that the
proposed Directive would create an additional layer of regulation
over and above the UK provisions for airports with turnovers in
excess of £1 million, as it would cover those airports with
passenger movements of more than 1 million passengers each year.
The number of regulated airports in the UK would increase from
four to around 20, even though only airports designated under
UK legislation would be subject specifically to price cap regulation.
3.18 The Minister continues that the Government is
primarily concerned that the draft Directive may not target regulation
effectively at monopoly power, because the proposed passenger
numbers threshold has been set arbitrarily and takes no account
of the market position of airports. As a result, it risks imposing
a range of regulatory costs and distortions on a large number
of airports where competition with other airports nearby would
anyway prevent unjustified pricing. She says the Government would
like to consider whether there are more effective ways to target
the measures proposed, preferring economic regulation to exist
where it is warranted, rather than through reference to arbitrary
thresholds.
3.19 The Minister also tells us that:
- while the Government supports
the principle of the IRAs, it is concerned that the current proposal
prescribes an arbitration role for IRAs that could increase costs
and interfere with commercial relationships in a competitive market;
- an initial assessment suggests that a financial
burden would be placed on the IRA and, if funded as for the CAA,
would be passed on to the industry; and
- the Government welcomes the principles of consultation
and transparency, as set out in ICAO's policies, but would like
to ensure that any new Community measures are proportionate and
do not undermine existing competition.
3.20 The Minister adds that further detailed consideration
of the policy implications of the draft Directive will take place
following the consultation with interested parties, with the Government's
three month public consultation on the draft Directive likely
to begin in March 2007.
3.21 The Minister says that the Government broadly
agrees with the Commission's assessment of the effects of Directive
96/67/EC on groundhandling services in its Report, document (c).
She tells us that:
- many continental Community
airports were formerly characterised by monopolistic or heavily
restricted groundhandling service provision;
- application of the Directive's rules at these
airports has had a positive impact in terms of widening the choice
of handler for airport users, with the number of monopoly handlers
for groundhandling services falling and enhanced competition appearing
as a result, to the benefit of airlines and their customers;
- the Directive has been used by the Commission
and Member States to enable them to challenge the handling restrictions
at a number of airports, for example in Germany, France and Portugal;
- it has therefore in some cases been a useful
mechanism for allowing a detailed review of those airports that
wish to continue restricting the groundhandling market;
- the effects of the Directive have not been marked
in the UK, but this is largely because the UK market was already
quite diverse before the Directive entered force, with a wide
choice of service providers available at the larger airports.
For example, Heathrow had exactly the same number of self- and
third-party handlers after the introduction of the Directive (18
and 12 respectively — the highest levels in the Community)
as it did before;
- despite the generally beneficial impact of the
Directive there remain Member States which have been slow in removing
an incumbent's stranglehold over ground handling services; and
- the Government would in principle welcome proposals
from the Commission aimed at further extending competition and
choice in the provision of groundhandling services at Community
airports.
Conclusion
3.22 The question of how to most effectively use
and enhance limited airport capacity, dealt with in the Commission's
Communication, document (a), is important economically and socially.
We note the range of responses proposed, that some of them need
further consideration, that some may suggest legislative proposals
and that some may raise proportionality or other legal issues.
We will be considering these matters as more definite proposals
emerge. Meanwhile we clear this document.
3.23 The Minister both points to a number of problematic
issues with the draft Directive on airport charges, document (b),
and says the Government is launching a public consultation on
the proposal. Before considering this matter further we should
like to hear of developments on the problematic issues and of
the outcome of the consultation. Meanwhile the document remains
uncleared.
3.24 We note the generally positive assessment
of the effect of Directive 96/67/EC on the market in groundhandling
services in document (c), but also that the Government believes
there may be need for further action to extend competition and
choice in the provision of these services. Again if a specific
legislative proposal emerges we will be considering it. Meanwhile
we clear this document also.
7 Eurocontrol is the European Organisation for the
Safety of Air Navigation. Its 37 members are Albania, Armenia,
Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Back
8
(27049) 14895/05 (27050) 14903/05: see HC 34-xiv (2005-06), para
4 (11 January 2006) and HC 41-iv (2006-07), para 3 (14 December
2006). Back
9
For our latest consideration of Galileo see (27592) 10427/06 (27593)
10431/06 (27678) 11282/06: HC 41-iii (2006-07), para 15 (6 December
2006). Back
10
(27066) 15143/05 + ADD1: see HC 34-xvi (2005-06), para 1 (25 January
2006) and HC 34-xx (2005-06), para 1 (1 March 2006) and Stg
Co Debs, European Standing Committee, 13 March 2006, cols
3-16. Back
11
See http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/ . Back
|
