B. IACA's position on the Commission's proposal in general.

As IACA members strive for more efficiency in air travel, they attach a high level of importance to the issue of airport charges, as it constitutes a significant element of their overall costs. However, they were disappointed with the European Commission's proposal, as it does not address cost-effectiveness in airport service provision.

For this reason, IACA calls upon the TRAN MEPs to avoid further diluting the Commission?s already weak proposal, as the Regulatory Body should indeed address the unbalanced relationship between a fully deregulated sector (airlines) and their monopolistic service providers (airports).

C. Amendments supported by IACA

-Scope of the Directive

IACA Members seriously challenge the assumption that the risk of misuse of a dominant position does not exist at smaller airports. IACA Members are experiencing misuse of this position at small airports. Therefore, IACA concludes that the level of threshold of the future Directive must be as low as possible.

In this respect, IACA welcomes Rapporteur MEP Stockmann's new Amendment 46, placing the threshold of the future Directive at 5 millions passengers per year or 15 % of the national Member State's passenger traffic.

-Reference to ICAO policies on charges for airports

IACA Members have the opinion that ICAO policies, as mentioned in its Doc. 9082/7, constitute an adequate framework for airport charging mechanisms. Therefore, IACA favors the Amendments 21 and 71 proposed by MEP Hennis-Plasschaert.

-Reference to cost-effectiveness

IACA Members find it evident that airports should provide their services and facilities in an efficient manner. Yet, this reference to cost-effectiveness in airport service provision has actually been omitted in the Commission's Proposal. Therefore, IACA endorses the inclusion of this principle in the Directive through the adoption of Amendment 24 proposed by MEP Hennis-Plasschaert.

-Security costs

IACA Members have the opinion that the methods for the levying of security costs should be harmonized across the Community. Moreover, the related airport charge should reflect the principle that security services should be provided at cost and thus be non-profit making. Therefore, IACA strongly supports Amendments 28 and 169 proposed by MEP Jarzembowski.

D. Amendments explicitly rejected by IACA

-Choice of the business model

Airport users need a genuine Economic Regulation on airport charges to rebalance the relationship between airports and airlines. In the absence of such an adequate instrument, airport users believe that it would be detrimental to airlines to grant a blank cheque to airports in respect to the choice of the Single/Dual Till business model.

The “Single Till” principle for airport charges refers to the pooling of airport revenues and costs from all revenue-generating activities at an airport. An airport?s infrastructure is specifically built for aviation purposes, and non-aeronautical revenues are largely generated due to the stream of airline passengers passing through the airport premises.

As airports are increasingly developing non-core activities, airlines should be able to benefit from these activities (generated by their passengers) through lower aeronautical charges. An airport's “single-till” charging mechanism therefore permits the airports to maximize generated profits from retail and commercial activities, while airport users (airlines) may benefit from lowered airport charges.

The “Single Till” principle adequately reflects the above mechanism from which airports should not deviate.

In this respect, IACA categorically rejects Amendment 31 by MEP Ferber and MEP Jeggle.

-Pre-financing

Airport users should be fully consulted at the earliest possible stage about any new infrastructure projects at an airport, as these projects may have an impact on charges. However, as is the case for any large infrastructure projects and for other modes of transport in particular, airport users should not be faced with pre-financing obligations. Therefore and in the absence of a genuine Economic Regulation as required under ICAO recommendations, IACA rejects Amendments 150 (MEP Becsy), 152 (MEP Blokland), 153 (MEP Grosch) and 154 (MEP Albertini).