Black Book Pdf.pdf

Ground Handling Regulation in India And A comparison with international policies and practices Dissertation Submitted to the D.Y. Patil University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted by: Firoz khan (Roll No.MBAAVI016007)

Research Guide: Dr.Adveta Gharat School of Management D.Y. Patil University CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai December 2017

1

Ground Handling Regulation in India And A comparison with international policies and practices Dissertation Submitted to the D.Y. Patil University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted by: Firoz khan (Roll No.MBAAVI016007)

Research Guide: Dr.Adveta Gharat School of Management D.Y. Patil University CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai December 2017

2

Plagiarism Certificate

Plagiarism Checker X Originality Report Similarity Found: 14% Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 Statistics: 2763 words Plagiarized / 15023 Total words Remarks: Low Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Optional Improvement.

3

DECLARATION I hereby declare that the dissertation “Ground Handling Regulation in India A comparison with international policies and practices” submitted for the MBA Degree at D.Y. Patil University’s School of Management is my original work and the dissertation has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar titles.

Place: Mumbai Date: (Firoz Khan) Signature of the Student

4

Certificate This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Ground Handling Regulation in India A comparison with international policies and practices is the bona fide research work carried out by Mr. Firoz Khan student of MBA, at D.Y. Patil University’s School of Management during the year 2016-2018 , in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Master in Business Management and that the dissertation has not formed the basis for the award previously of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or any other similar title.

Dr. Adveta Gharat

(Dr. R. Gopal, Director, School of Management, D.Y. Patil University) Place: Mumbai Date: 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the first place, I thank the D. Y. Patil University, School of Business Management, Navi Mumbai for giving me an opportunity to work on this project. I would also like to thank Ms.Adveta Gharat , Designation, School of Management, D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai for having given me her valuable guidance for the project. Without her help it would have been impossible for me to complete the project. I would also like to thank the various people from the retail industry who have provided me with a lot of information and in fact even sharing some of the confidential company documents and data – many of which I have used in this report and without which this project could not have been completed. I would be failing in my duty if I do not acknowledge with a deep sense of gratitude the sacrifices made by my parents and thus have helped me in completing the project work successfully.

Place: Mumbai Date: Signature of the student.

6

Table of Contents

Sr.no

Content

Page.no

List of figure List of Tables Overview List of Abbreviations 1

Introduction

13-14

2

Meaning and definition Of Ground Handling

15

3

Objectives

16

4

Methodology

17-19

5

literature Review

20

6

Background

21-22

7

Problem Statement and Research Questions

23-24

8

Ground Handling Service

25-38

9

Regulation

39-57

10

Ground Handling Regulation in India - 2007

58

11

Ground Handling Regulation in India -2016 NCAP

59-60

7

12

Highlights of the Merits and Problems of the New Ground Handling Regulation

61-84

13

Competition

85-98

14

Recommendation

99-101

15

Annexure

102-104

16

Data Analysis and interpretation

105-114

17

Conclusion

115

18

References

116-117

8

Overview Ground Handling care of is a basic administration that is required by a Aircraft administrator before take-off and in the wake of landing. Because of security worries at Indian Airports, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) issued a roundabout making it compulsory for all Ground Handling care of specialist organizations to experience trusted status and personal investigations of its workers previously issuing the airport section pass. Resulting to this administer, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in India issued another ground dealing with control in 2007 that confined the quantity of specialist coops and in addition self handling via air ship administrators (barring the national aircraft) at six noteworthy Airports in India. The private airplane administrators recorded a suit against the legislature. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of India at the season of composing this paper. The primary reason for this exploration is to recognize approaches to alter the current control by building up a reasonable, non-biased Ground Handling care of direction that is advantageous to all the real partners in the Indian flying industry, without trading off on wellbeing, security and space requirements at Airports. This exploration distinguished the fundamental issues of the current ground dealing with control in India and examinations were made basically with the European Council Directive that was issued in 1996. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard and suggested rehearses, alongside 9

other universal practices, were contrasted and the Indian situation. Security rehearses at Airports, wellbeing benchmarks for Ground Handling care of, rivalry, cost and quality control were additionally talked about. Suggestions were proposed to enhance the present control in light of writing audit, incorporation of different assessments from experts in ICAO, wellbeing and security controllers in Australia, aircrafts, airports and Ground Handling care of organizations in India and outside

10

List of Abbreviations

AAI

Airport Authority of India

ACI

Airports Council International

AERA

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority

ASB

Aviation Security Branch

ASIC

Aviation Security Identity Card

BCAS

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security

CAA

Civil Aviation Authority

CARC

Civil Aviation Regulatory Commission

CASA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

DGCA

Directorate General of Civil Aviation

DOIT

Department of Infrastructure and Transport

GATS

General Agreement on Trade in Services

IATA I

international Air Transport Association 11

ICAO

International Civil Aviation Organization

IGHC

International Ground Handling Council

NACIL

National Aviation Company of India Limited

WTO

World Trade Organization

12

INTRODUCTION This exploration venture is a piece of my course work for the program Masters of Aviation Industry Management at D Y Patil University, Navi Mumbai. Ground Handling care of direction in India is an exceptionally topical issue in Indian flying. The worldwide Ground Handling care of market is assessed at a yearly turnover of between $30 billion and $40 billion relying upon the administrations that are incorporated into Ground Handling care of action (WTO, 2007). In India alone, the evaluated size of the ground dealing with advertise is around 1500-2000 crores Indian rupees, which is roughly $ 335 447 million (Hindustan times, 2011). As anticipated by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), by 2020 India will be the fifth biggest household advertise with around 69 million Passengers (The Hindu, 2011). In this circumstance Ground Handling care of, which is a fundamental administration required by all carriers, is of most extreme significance. Any control or direction relevant for this administration will specifically affect the essential partner of the administration, i.e. the air ship administrators. Because of the Ground Handling care of direction that became effective in 2007 in India, carriers with both household and universal operations (barring the national transporters) have been confronting various issues. Very much experienced existing ground dealing with organizations working in India will likewise be influenced when the new ground Ground Handling care of control in India – a

13

correlation with global approaches and practices Understudy no| S3272584 6 taking care of control is completely actualized. On the off chance that viable directions were not set up, Airports would confront wellbeing and security worries and additionally the accessibility of space for ground dealing with operations in a sparing way. Hence this paper will give a diagram of different universal practices prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the major

14

Meaning and Definition of Ground Handling There is no universal standard definition for Ground Handling care of. Ground dealing with benefit essentially implies the administrations required by a Aircraft administrator before take-off what's more, in the wake of landing. As indicated by ICAO, it alludes to the "administrations vital for an air ship's landing in, and take off from, an airport" (Secretariat, 2000a). IATA depicts it as "a basic some portion of the general item carriers offer to their Passengers" (Smet, 2010). In the Indian setting, Ground Handling care of means: slope taking care of, movement taking care of and some other action indicated by the Central Government (Gohain, 2007). A nitty gritty depiction of this administration is given in ensuing areas of this papertenets and directions identifying with Ground Handling care of honed in Europe and in Australia.

15

Objectives The primary reason for this exploration was to distinguish approaches to alter the current control by setting up a reasonable, non-oppressive ground dealing with direction that Ground Handling care of direction in India – a correlation with global approaches and practices is useful to all the real partners in the Indian flight industry, without trading off wellbeing, security and space requirements at Airports. This exploration venture was directed through the accompanying procedure: 1. Distinguishing proof of different issues identified with the Ground Handling care of control in India. 2. Appraisal of the positive and negative effects of the new ground dealing with arrangement issued in 2007. 3. To comprehend different universal approaches and practices on self-taking care of. 4. To comprehend the ground dealing with strategies of ICAO and airports in USA, Europe and Australia 5. Assessment of global strategies to get bits of knowledge on approaches to comprehend the issues of ground dealing with distinguished already.

16

Methodology The method of data collection was largely dependent on the resources obtained from the public domain via the internet. Some of the main literature that was referred is as follows: 1. ICAO, 2000 – Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services – Ground Handling at Airports (ANSConf-WP/10) This paper gives guidance to all the Member States for regulatory practices of ground handling services at airports and also policy guidance to move to a more competitive environment.

2. Gillen, D. 2007. The Regulation of Airports. Working Paper 2007-5, University of British Columbia.

This paper discusses various motives of the governments/regulators in framing a policy for airports in different countries.

17

3. European Union - Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on Access to the Ground Handling Market at Community Airports

This document gives a framework to all airports in Europe in forming ground handling policies for their respective countries.

4. Airport Research Centre, 2009 – Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 1996-2007

The document, as its name suggests, analyses the effect of the Directive issued by the European Union in liberalising the ground handling market. 5. DGCA AIC 07/2007 - Grant of Permission for Providing Ground Handling Services at Airports other than those belonging to the Airports Authority of India. AND AAI 2007 - Airports Authority of India (General Management Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations.

18

These two documents along with subsequent amendments are the main foundations to this paper. These documents give a clear picture about the ground handling regulations in India.

One of the methods used for this research is by interviews (face to face and via the telephone). An interview is a meeting where a series of questions are asked to the interviewee to obtain valuable information on the subject matter.

19

literature Review The literature review as part of this project revealed that ground handling services was included in GATS in its first Air Transport publication (WTO, 2006). As per GATS, ground handling services is directly related to airline operation. Not many officials in the aviation industry are aware of this agreement. But considering the fact that there are quite a number of international ground-handling companies operating in India, the impact of GATS might be limited.

In the Middle East, the airport operator considers ground-handling services as a monopoly activity of the airports. However the service quality offered is considered top class (Itz, 2011). This agreement might be of influence in such regions. However there is no data to confirm it. Future research could be done on the impact of the inclusion of ground handling services in GATS in different countries.

20

Background In 2007, the Director General of Civil Aviation in India issued a roundabout for data, direction and consistence on the give of consent for giving Ground Handling care of administrations at airports other than those having a place with the Airports Specialist of India (AAI) (Gohain, 2007). In this way around the same time, the AAI issued a control to all airports possessed by them, in view of the roundabout issued by the DGCA called the Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (AAI, 2007). These controls welcomed wide feedback from the group of private airplane administrators in India. The essential explanation behind these controls was recognized in the round (No.4/2007 dated 19/2/2007) issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) which expressed that "there are number of Ground Handling care of offices working at the Airports in the nation without earlier exceptional status and historical verifications". Because of these controls, private airplane administrators could never again complete self Ground Handling care of at airports situated at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad (Zaidi, 2010a) On fourth March 2011 the controllers of this administration under the standard of Union of India were given a positive judgment against the Federation of Indian Airlines (comprising of predominantly the private air ship administrators) in the High Court of Delhi. Hence, the Federation of Indian 21

Airlines has taken this case to the Supreme Court of India and the hearing is in process at the season of composing this paper.

22

Problem Statement and Research Questions As a responsive advance by the BCAS on issues of Ground Handling care of security prerequisites at airports in India, the ground dealing with control by DGCA and AAI issued amid 2007 limited the quantity of ground dealing with specialist organizations. Ground Handling care of performed via carriers themselves (self dealing with) was limited at 6 noteworthy airports in the nation. In airports possessed by AAI (other than Chennai and Kolkata), selftaking care of is allowed yet limited to outside aircrafts working in India according to the new control. The airplane administrators are required to acquire this administration from any of the three substances said in the control (Zaidi, 2010a). But since of specific issues with some of these substances (talked about later in this paper), universal carriers with outside enlistments are additionally confronting some trouble. Therefore this research is focused on the following main questions. 1) What are the main issues with the new ground handling policy in India? a) Why is self-handling at the airside not permitted at six major airports in India? b) Are there any international ground handling policy standards/regulations that prohibit self-handling?

23

2) What are the major ground-handling rules and regulations practiced in USA, Europe and Australia? 3) Is India’s ground handling policy consistent with the international standards, rules and regulations? If not, what are the recommendations to improve the current ground handling regulations?

24

Ground Handling Service Meaning and Definition The significance and meaning of Ground Handling care of contrasts between nations. Despite the fact that the general comprehension of the significance of Ground Handling care of administrations is very comparative, there is nobody definition. The general comprehension of Ground Handling care of incorporates every one of the administrations that are required by an airplane before take-off and in the wake of landing (Regulation, 2011). In any case, air activity administrations are excluded as a feature of ground dealing with (Hajarat, 2007). Ground Handling care of administrations are given to the clients of the Airport inside the airport premises. An airport client might be an aircraft, airport administrator, or sanctioned administrations that is any individual or organization that is in charge of the carriage of Passengers, mail and additionally cargo via air from or to the airport (Jackson, 1997). The European Union Board portrays ground dealing with benefit as "a fundamental administration for the best possible working of air transport" and "a basic commitment to the productive utilization of air transport foundation (Howlin, 1996). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) expresses that ground dealing with incorporates "administrations vital for a Aircraft's landing in, and take off from, an airport" and is isolated as terminal taking care of and incline dealing with (Secretariat, 2000a). ICAO additionally noticed that on 25

specific events, line support may likewise be incorporated into the meaning of Ground Handling care of (WTO, 2006).The International Air Transport Association (IATA) states that Ground Handling care of is "an basic piece of the general item carriers offer to their Passengers" (Smet, 2010). The International Ground Handling Council (IGHC) of IATA had isolated the Ground Handling care of exercises into fourteen subsectors and in 2003 this was regrouped into eight exercises as appeared in Table 1. These sub-segments were ordered as operational or regulatory capacities (WTO, 2007). The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Association (WTO) depicts ground dealing with as "administrations gave to airplane, Passengers and load at an Airport" (WTO, 2007). GATS utilizes ICAO's definition for its general system and utilizations the meaning of IGHC of IATA for its operational what's more, showcase divisions (WTO, 2006).

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in India has defined the meaning of ground handling as follows (Gohain, 2007): (i) Ramp handling which shall include the activities specified in Annexure ‘A’; (ii) Traffic handling which shall include the activities as specified in Annexure ‘B’; (iii) Any other activity specified by the Central Government to be a part of either ramp handling or traffic handling. 26

Self Handling Self ground dealing with is a circumstance in which the airport client does not subcontract Ground Handling care of movement to an outsider, rather plays out these capacities independent from anyone else (Howlin, 1996). In most cases, airlines themselves do self ground handling for their flights (Regulation, 2011). The Council of European Union defines self handling in Article 2 of the Directive as “a situation in which an airport user directly provides for himself one or more categories of ground handling services and concludes no contract of any description with a third party for the provision of such services; for the purpose of this definition, among themselves airport users shall not be deemed to be third parties where: ‐ One holds a majority holding in the other; or ‐ A single body has a majority holding in each ” (Howlin, 1996). In the United Kingdom (UK), airports can have any number of self handlers and limitation is provided only with the approval of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) with respect to security, safety, space and available capacity (NEI, 2002).

27

Mutual Handling When one airline does ground handling for another airline, it is called mutual handling. This type of ground handling is seen at US airports. Such contracts between airlines enable services on common routes to be provided jointly and revenue to be shared. However, this method is gradually changing due to competition between airlines (WTO, 2007).

28

Classification of Ground Handling Services Ground dealing with can be for the most part named Airport operations at the terminal building and at the airside (Ashford et al., 1997). In the Indian situation, the terminal building operations are called movement taking care of and the exercises at the airside are named as incline taking care of (Zaidi, 2010a). The capacities or administrations incorporated into Ground Handling care of varies amongst nations and now and then contrast from Airport to airport. Table 1 indicates ground dealing with administrations in their general classifications as characterized by the IATA (WTO, 2007), European Union Council

(Howlin, 1996), the DGCA in India (Gohain, 2007) and the CARC of Jordan (Hajarat, 2007). Table 1 demonstrates how ground-taking care of exercises are comparative yet named and classified diversely by IATA and different nations. IATA

European Union Council

India

Jordan

29

Representation, Administration and Supervision Passenger Services Ramp Services Load Control, Communication and Flight Operations Cargo and Mail Services Support Services Security Aircraft Maintenance

Ground Administration and Supervision Passenger Handling Baggage Handling Freight and Mail Handling Ramp Handling Aircraft Services Fuel and Oil Handling Aircraft Maintenance Flight Operations and Crew Administration Surface Transport Catering Services

Ramp Handling Aircraft Handling Aircraft Servicing Aircraft Cleaning Loading and unloading Cargo Handling Services Traffic Handling Traffic Handling Flight Operations Surface Transport Representational Services Security

Schedule I Ground Administration and Supervision Passenger Handling Aircraft Services Flight Operations and Crew Administration Surface Transport Catering Services Schedule II Freight and Mail Handling Ramp Handling Fuel and Oil Handling

30

Ground Handling Service Providers There is no particular worldwide govern in the matter of who ought to give ground handling care of administrations at an Airport. By and large, airport specialists, aircrafts or Ground Handling care of operators or on the other hand a mix of these three complete Ground Handling care of at airports (Ashford et al., 1997). The GATS arranged by WTO additionally affirms the above reality that 31

the dominant part of ground dealing with administrations is given via carriers themselves or by an Airport administrator or by pro Ground Handling care of associations. Once in a while these administrations are done by a blend of these elements (WTO, 2007).

ICAO Amid May 1997, ICAO affirmed the proposals created by the Air Transport Regulation Panel (ATRP) for Ground Handling care of that contained model provisos on five "working together" matters. ICAO suggested that Member States could utilize the model conditions as direction in making respective or multilateral assertions for choosing the gatherings to be engaged with the arrangement of Ground Handling care of administrations. Table 2 demonstrates the theoretical of the model statement (Secretariat, 2000a).

32

Model Clause on Ground Handling Each Party should approve air carrier(s) of the other Party/Parties, at every transporter's decision to: a) Perform its own ground dealing with administrations; b) Handle another or other air carrier(s); c) Join with others in shaping an administration giving substance; or potentially d) Select among contending specialist co-ops

The notes appended to this model condition plainly determine that air transporters are allowed to look over different alternatives accessible (as recognized in Table 2) with the exception of in situations where there are requirements because of wellbeing, security and space at airports. They additionally indicate that on account of these exemptions, the transporters that are confined ought to be chosen on the premise of target, straightforward and non-unfair methodology. (Secretariat, 2000a)

United States of America In USA, more often than not the Aircraft administrators or carriers play out these administrations. In the event that an aircraft has an interline concurrence with another, at that point Ground Handling care of hardware and 33

administrations might be shared between these carriers moreover. In different cases, master organizations that have an aptitude in ground dealing with do this capacity, either independent from anyone else or in a joint effort with the air ship administrator (Ashford et al., 1997).

34

United Kingdom In UK, the CAA has built up specific directions on who can perform Ground Handling care of administration at airports. It can be performed by the accompanying gatherings (Jackson, 1997): Any Airport client, including a carrier, can do Ground Handling care of without anyone else's input (self taking care of) and the Airport administrator can't limit the quantity of self handlers unless they legitimize that it might be because of wellbeing, security or space requirements. The Airport administrator could host a concurrence with a third get-together for such administrations gave these specialist co-ops are not specifically or in a roundabout way Controlled by any of the following In Australia, there is no particular control with reference to who might be permitted to perform ground-dealing with administrations. The principle specialist co-ops for carriers at the airports are organizations that spend significant time in the ground dealing with capacity and they direct this movement under security measures set by Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). There are around 16 Ground Handling care of organizations in Australia. Qantas, the national transporter of

35

Australia, gives this support of its own air ships and also for other carrier administrators (Heilbronn, 2011). A portion of the fundamental ground-dealing with organizations in Australia are Menzies Aviation, Toll Data, Aero-Care and the Ground Handling Division of Qantas.

36

India Before the control issued in 2007, for all intents and purposes anybody could perform Ground Handling care of in India as long as they followed certain conditions. The principal ground dealing with control became effective in the year 2000 where the Airport Authority of India (AAI) enabled an air ship administrator to either do their own particular Ground Handling care of administrations at an Airport or use the administrations of any of the accompanying (Gupta, 2000): Airports Authority of India (AAI) The two national transporters of India (Air India and Indian Airlines) Any Ground Handling care of organization authorized by AAI Amid this period, Air India and Indian Airlines controlled most of the Ground Handling care of administrations in India. Exclusive organizations like Cambata Aviation could just have 20-25% market get to. Consequently, the administration opened the market for outside direct speculation up to 74% which saw the passage of numerous new Ground Handling care of organizations (WTO, 2006). In 2007, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) issued another control expressing that ground dealing with at six Airports (Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad) must be performed by one of the accompanying three substances:

37

The Airport administrator without anyone else's input or its joint wander accomplice Subsidiary organizations of the national bearer AI (National Aviation Company of India Ltd (NACIL) or their joint wander accomplices which have some expertise in ground dealing with administrations) Any ground dealing with specialist organization chose through a focused offering process on the premise of imparting income to the airport administrator and which has accomplished exceptional status from the Government At all other airports, airline operators except for foreign airlines are allowed to self handle, in addition to the above three entities (Zaidi, 2010a). It should be noted that the above mentioned six metropolitan cities account for more than 70% of air traffic in India. During the 2008-09 period, out of a total of 108.88 million passenger movements, these six airports accounted for 78.69 million passenger movements (ACEXC, 2011). For this reason, Government policy on ground handling at these six major airports as well as other airports in India is of utmost significance to all airlines operating in India.

38

Regulation Direction is considered as a term that is at times hard to be characterized. It has distinctive implications to various individuals relying upon where they originate from. For a few it might be a prohibitive power that administrations use to oblige freedoms of certain individuals. For others, it serves the interests of the predominant class and sets control in a enlightened frame. A few people view direction as that which is done just by the government (Levi-Faur, 2010). In this way by understanding the variety of meaning, Levi-Faur (2010) propose that "control is the declaration of prescriptive principles and in addition the checking and authorization of these guidelines by social, business, and political performing artists on other social, business, and political on-screen characters". The principle motivation behind direction in a general public is to achieve ideal results so that regardless of whether the market framework falls flat, the directions set up will shield the general public from any destructions. The point of direction is connected to a financial hypothesis called General Harmony Theory. This hypothesis features the requirement for control in a general public, which is to settle a specific circumstance if the market framework falls flat and to manage the formative components of a nation in the event that it is still in the new born child phases of development and advancement (Hazra, 2007).

39

Civil Aviation Industry The tradition of International Civil Aviation in 1944 (Chicago Convention) denoted a critical occasion in the historical backdrop of common flight where 52 States marked a consent to co-work in the common aeronautics part and chose to have consistency in direction and principles, methodology and association with respect to common aeronautics matters. As a result of this tradition, ICAO was shaped amid 1947 (ICAO, 2011a). One of the fundamental exercises of ICAO is institutionalization of practices and methodology of issues identified with avionics. This is accomplished by the foundation of International Standards and Recommended Practices distributed by ICAO (ICAO, 2011b). Part States are obliged to regard and take after these Standards and Suggested Practices however there is no system to uphold consistence by Part States (ZoaEtundi, 2011). In the event that any of the 190 Contracting States (as of this date) can't take after the guidelines or on the off chance that they follow in an alternate frame, it is required by them to inform these distinctions with ICAO, which are at that point flowed to all Member States. However ICAO does not have the command to authorize the usage (Mishra, 2011). On the premise of the Chicago Convention and ensuing advancements in the common aeronautics division, numerous universal bodies and directions were built up from time to time in various nations. As the extent of this paper is 40

constrained to ground dealing with administrations and their control, the consequent segment gives a short review of the current Ground Handling care of direction in USA, Europe, Australia and India.

41

Regulation of Ground Handling Services Purpose As examined beforehand, one of the primary motivations behind direction is to overcome showcase disappointments. A portion of the market disappointments that might be pervasive in a general public could be because of imposing business model and enlightening asymmetries (Hazra, 2007). Most airports are considered as common imposing business models because of their market control (ACI, 2000a). In this way Ground Handling care of specialist organizations have a tendency to take after the same attributes of restraining infrastructure at airports in a few nations. Amid the late 1990s, at a portion of the European Airports, ground dealing with benefit identified with traveller registration and things dealing with was an imposing business model (NEI, 2002). After understanding the centrality of ground dealing with at Airports, ICAO tended to different ground dealing with administrative issues at its Montreal Conference in the year 2000 (Secretariat, 2000a). Hazra (2007) likewise expresses that the requirement for direction in the common flight showcase might be ascribed to wellbeing, security and for the insurance of the earth. He contends that most specialist co-ops by and large know more than a definitive purchasers. This data asymmetry could cause advertise disappointments. In this way certain principles and directions ought to be built up and observed by reviews what's more, survey. This viewpoint is 42

likewise imperative for ground dealing with administrations in light of the fact that any disappointment in this basic capacity at Airports could have destructive impacts in the avionics segment.

43

Current Regulatory Framework As ground handling activities are services performed at airports (that are generally considered a monopoly) and have an impact on the safety and security of civil aviation operations, a degree of regulation is important for ground handling functions as these are vital services offered for all airlines. There were no international regulations for ground handling until the late 1990s. They varied from country to country. However, bilateral air service agreements contained some limited rules regarding this aspect. In 1996, the European Union (EU) promoted competition on a regional level by liberalising the existing rules on ground handling services (Secretariat, 2000a). The ICAO does not have material by which a country can base regulations for ground handlers. It basically differs between countries (Smet, 2010). Some of the recommendations regarding ground-handling rules are found in its Airport Economics Manual. The General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS) arranged by World Exchange Organization (WTO) represents air transport benefits inside a particular add called Annex on Air Transport Services. Right now this Annex is under its second survey that initiated in September 2005 (WTO, 2011). An exceptional working gathering of IATA called IATA Ground Handling Council (IGHC) comprises of Ground Handling care of specialist co-ops who have an chance to take an interest in setting norms for ground dealing with. They have 44

two or three working gatherings who are right now creating strategies and proposals on certain Ground Handling care of subjects. IATA's Airport Handling Manual was likewise arranged by IGHC (IATA, 2011). Other than the above worldwide associations, every nation has its own particular principles what's more, controls that oversee Ground Handling care of exercises. In the greater part of the nations there are no different direction identified with Ground Handling care of administrations, as these are a piece of different directions identified with Airports or inside the two-sided benefit understandings. The European Union (EU) Council has a particular control called the Council Mandate 96/67/EC (Directive) which oversees all Ground Handling care of strategies at Group airports of the European Union (Howlin, 1996). On the premise of this Directive, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) presented the Airports (Ground Handling) Regulations 1997, which is the administrative structure of Ground Handling care of for all Airports in the UK (Jackson, 1997). In The Bahamas, the Civil Aviation Department has an Advisory Circular (Air conditioning 12-006) for 'Satisfactory Ground Handling Arrangements' as a control for Air Operator Certificate (AOC) holders and in addition their Ground Handling care of specialist co-ops (CAD, 2008). In Jordan, Ground Handling Services (Part 140) is under its common flying law (Hajarat, 2007). In Lebanon,

45

Ground Dealing with Regulation is a subpart (Part III – Subpart 310) of the Lebanese Aeronautics Regulation (DGCAL, 2005). In India, the first ground handling regulation came into effect during the year2000, and in September 2007 the Director General of Civil Aviation issued another regulation that covers the rules for granting permission for ground handling services at airports other than those belonging to Airports Authority of India (AAI) (Gohain, 2007). Subsequently in October 2007, the AAI published in the official gazette the Airports Authority of India (General Management Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (AAI, 2007). As ground-handling services are one of the main functions carried at an airport, it is important to understand various regulatory mechanisms that operate within the airport environment. The subsequent section gives an overview of airport regulations and various economic regulations practiced at airports.

46

Regulations at Airports Airports Council International (ACI) trusts that direction is required for Airports in specific situations where an airport would have a high level of market control, where there is confirm that Airports will exploit their market control if not managed and where the Airport clients are not ensured by other general enactment. A nation needs to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of direction before forcing it, as control forces costs, administration, resoluteness and to ensure current/previous national bearers

limits imagination. (ACI, 2000a) Gillen (2007) contends that airport direction depends on the most ideal ways that nations use to seek after effectiveness targets and non-productivity destinations. As per him, directions depend on various thought processes of the administrations of various nations. A portion of the conceivable purposes behind controlling Airports could be for expanding income on privatization, advancing and ensuring carrier rivalry, restraining valuing conduct in an economy or Nations around the globe utilize diverse types of financial control for Airports as they are considered as normal restraining infrastructures. One essential order would be founded on single till, double till or shared till (half

47

breed) approach (IATA, 2006). With a specific end goal to better comprehend the part of monetary control of a nation on Ground Handling care of, it is vital to know the contrast amongst aeronautical and non-aeronautical movement which are the primary wellsprings of income at an Airport, and furthermore different value instruments utilized at airports. An airport by and large has two principle wellsprings of income. One is from aeronautical offices and the other from non-aeronautical and business exercises (ACI, 2000b) Aeronautical income involves income from air activity operations, for example, landing charges, traveller benefit charges, stopping and overhang charges, load charges, security charges, commotion related charges and some other charge for air movement operations. Non-aeronautical income incorporates salary from obligation free shops, eateries, bars and bistros working inside the Airport premises. It too incorporates income from rentals, vehicle stopping, income from business exercises worked at Airports and flight fuel and oil concessionaries (ICAO, 2006).

48

Is ground handling an aeronautical or non-aeronautical activity?

The meaning of aeronautical administrations gave via Airports Economic Administrative Authority (AERA) of India, in its white paper issued amid 2009, is somewhat not the same as that of ICAO said in the above passages. Ground dealing with administrations identifying with Passengers, payload and Aircraft is a piece of aeronautical movement. Also, providing fuel to the air ship at an Airport is additionally part of aeronautical administration (AERA, 2009). The Association of Private Airport Operators (APAO), because of AERA's white paper on Economic Regulation at Airports, has remarked that rivalry does exists for ground dealing with at Airports and that ground dealing with and load taking care of ought to be removed from administrative settings and that it would hurt the current contracts marked by real airports in India (APAO, 2010)The Airports Council International (ACI), in its Annual Report of 2010 orders the income from Ground Handling care of as a component of aeronautical administrations, which is around 5% out of 2010 (ACI, 2010). The Operation Management and Advancement Agreement (OMDA) amongst AAI and DIAL (one of the individuals from ACI) marked amid 2006, arranges Ground Handling care of exercises counting load taking care of as a nonaeronautical movement (Pandey et al., 2010). In expansion to this logical 49

inconsistency, it is additionally observed that ACI's Director of Economics had grouped Ground Handling care of as a non-aeronautical action (WTO, 2007). ICAO considers the income from ground dealing with as a different wellspring of income, neither aeronautical nor non-aeronautical. In any case, if ground handling care of is performed by exceptional Ground Handling care of endeavours and if the airport forces concessions or potentially charges as lease, at that point such income should be dealt with as non-aeronautical income (ICAO, 2006). The Australian Competition and Buyer Commission has included Ground Handling care of including gear capacity and refuelling as an aeronautical movement (ACCC, 2009). From the above points of interest, it is comprehended that ground-taking care of administrations are for the most part considered as an aeronautical action.

50

Price Regulation at Airports Ground Handling care of administrations, being one kind of administration offered at Airports, is to a great extent Influenced by value direction at Airports. The diverse sorts of value control are Clarified underneath:

Single Till Approach Single till is an evaluating system for airports whereby the income from nonaeronautical Furthermore, business exercises is utilized to counterbalance aeronautical expenses. This lessens the aeronautical charges paid by the aircrafts. There is no lawfully Restricting prerequisite globally for a nation to pick this sort of cost Direction (ACI, 2000b). This rule essentially does not make any Refinement amongst aeronautical and non-aeronautical action at an Airport, In any case, rather considers an airport as a coordinated business with the goal that all airport Incomes are considered for deciding airport charges (AERA, 2009). The Aircrafts and Passengers are relied upon to profit by this direction. ICAO and IATA prescribe the single till administrative approach (IATA, 2007). Now and again, income from non-aeronautical exercises is more than that from The

51

aeronautical wellsprings of income. For the most part, the exercises at the airside are Considered less productive contrasted with business exercises. As the essential point of an Airport is to give a methods for effective air transport, ICAO bolsters single till. ICAO additionally trusts that the foundation of business furthermore, non-aeronautical action is just to help the primary motivation behind an airport also, not the other path round (Secretariat, 2000b). It is additionally vital to take note of that ICAO, in its strategy on airport charges, suggests full improvement of every single business movement at Airports by considering productivity of operations at the terminal, direct costs charged to people in general and what the Passengers require. In any case, concessionaries that are specifically identified with airport operation, for example, in-flight cooking, ground

dealing with and fuel ought to be exempted (ICAO, 2009). A portion of the Airports that take after single till direction are Vienna (Austria),

Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf and Munich in Germany, Dublin (Ireland), Oslo (Norway), and Airport sin Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom (non aeronautical incomes are incorporated) (Gillen, 2007). In India, AERA favours single till approach as prescribed by ICAO and IATA. (AERA, 2009)

52

Dual Till Approach

In the double till approach, incomes, expenses and resources of an Airport are arranged under aeronautical or non-aeronautical movement (AERA, 2009). Hamburg Airport was the first in Europe to set a double till framework in the year 2000. It is an intricate technique for value control in light of the fact that in this strategy the categorisation of which is aeronautical and non-aeronautical must be plainly indicated (Gillen, 2007). To assess Airport charges, as it were aeronautical charges are mulled over (IATA, 2007). Generally Airports find that the utilization of the double till administrative framework is helpful for them. For this reason, the ACI bolsters double till and had additionally prompted AERA against a single till administration (ACI, 2010).

53

ACI additionally contends that the single till administration has a few issues that are overcome by the double till framework. On the off chance that business income is utilized to balance aeronautical misfortunes, private speculators may lose enthusiasm for extending the business segment of the Airport that could acquire a considerable measure of benefit. In case of an expansion in air movement, the single till administrative approach won't not be in a position to take into account the necessities of clog, as against double till, which would have enough income produced from aeronautical sources without anyone else's input (ACI, 2000b)

54

Shared Till (Hybrid) Approach

Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) and Mumbai International Airport Restricted (MIAL) in India utilize the common till Inflation-X Price Cap demonstrate for computing aeronautical charges. Rather than utilizing all the non-aeronautical charges to counterbalance aeronautical charges as in the double till approach, in the mixture model of DIAL and MIAL 30% of the gross income of non-aeronautical charges are utilized. Copenhagen Airport (Denmark) and Budapest (Hungary) likewise take after a mixture till approach (AERA, 2009). By and large, carriers incline toward the single till approach of evaluating when contrasted with double till. Airports, then again, favour double till evaluating (Giddings, 2011). Basically privatized Airports select double till evaluating in order to think about the two sources of income particular and have the capacity to make benefit in both independently. To summarise, the effect of price regulation at airports on ground handling services is as follows: In a single till regime: In the event that Ground Handling care of is considered as an aeronautical administration, it is considered as an basic administration at all aircrafts and the cost is managed alongside all other aeronautical administrations with the goal 55

that aircrafts are not charged intensely for this administration. Be that as it may, if this administration is taken as a non-aeronautical action, at that point it doesn't go under the domain of direction, which permits the Airport administrator or ground dealing with organization to think about it as a business operation and to charge any cost for this administration contingent upon the market powers of rivalry.

In a dual till regime: The arrangement of ground dealing with as an aeronautical or non-aeronautical action does not by any stretch of the imagination make a difference in a double till administration in light of the fact that both the wellsprings of income are considered independently and wage from this administration is utilized to assimilate just the cost of giving this administration. Consequently in India, Airports Authority of India, airports shaped under the Public Private Partnership show (e.g.: DIAL, MIAL, HIAL, BIAL and so forth) and other privatized Airports in the nation should consent to AERA's direction, which is a solitary till demonstrate with the incorporation of Ground Handling care of administration as an aeronautical movement. Income from 56

concessionaries would be utilized to cross-sponsor the cost of this benefit, along these lines giving a sensible cost to aircraft administrators.

57

Ground Handling Regulation in India – 2007 The fundamental impetus for presenting the Ground Handling care of strategy in 2007 was expected to national security concerns. The quick advance to take care of this issue was to confine the quantity of individuals entering the delicate regions of Airport, particularly the airside. In request to accomplish this the BCAS made trusted status and individual verifications of all airport workers exceptionally strict. Outsourcing was likewise prohibited. In this manner, the DGCA chose to limit the quantity of ground handlers, particularly at 6 noteworthy

airports in India that would at last decrease the quantity of individuals doing likewise work (It, 2011). In spite of the fact that the explanation behind presenting the new approach was honest to goodness, the means taken to accomplish this end were not totally reasonable for every one of the partners. The accompanying area demonstrates the favourable circumstances a few partners had over others. It ought to likewise be noticed that this control has numerous likenesses with the European Council's Ground handling care of Directive distributed amid 1996 for all its

58

Ground handling NCAP Policy 2016 The current Ground Handling Policy/Instructions/Regulations will be supplanted by another structure given underneath a) The airport administrator will guarantee that there will be three Ground Handling Offices (GHA) including Air India's backup/JV at all real airplane terminals as characterized in AERA Act 2008 to guarantee reasonable rivalry.

b) Non-real airplane terminals are exempted from least number of ground handlers. Airplane terminal administrator will settle on the numbers, in view of the activity yield, airside and terminal building limit.

c) if there should be an occurrence of outsider ground handling care of, Air India's backup/JV will coordinate the sovereignty/income share offered by the other ground handling care of organization. In the event that there are more than 1 ground handlers, Air India will coordinate the least sovereignty/income offered by the other ground handlers.

d) All household planned aircraft administrators including helicopter administrators will be allowed to complete self-taking care of at all airplane terminals. Self-taking care of incorporates the ground 59

taking care of administrations of its own flying machine operations, utilizing hardware possessed or gone up against rent. The self-taking care of by an Airline might be finished by its own backup, through possess workers or representatives of their own auxiliary gone up against customary work.

e) Hiring of representatives through labor provider won't be allowed. In any case, if hardware is gone up against procure from outside organizations without labor, it will be allowed. Aircrafts and organizations permitted to do groundtaking care of administrations at airplane terminals might guarantee consistence to security arrangements as required under the law.

f) The subtle elements of carriers capacities, airport capacities and security capacities will be informed independently. Community airports

60

Highlights of the Merits and Problems of the New Ground Handling Regulation

Advantages/Benefits to Stakeholders 1. As the quantity of airport section passes issued is presently restricted to the direct workers of the airplane administrator, airport administrator or Ground Handling care of organization, security would be better kept up at the airports in the nation (Mishra, 2011).

2. Wellbeing and security preparing given to a set number of staff individuals is thought to be more productive when contrasted with a bigger populace. BCAS is likewise ready to proficiently screen the quantity of airport passage goes as the number of utilizations prepared and kept up is relatively less (Mishra,2011).

3. All Airport administrators, including AAI and privatized airports, can have economies of scale in ground dealing with operations at the airside as there would be greatest usage of the current gear and different assets, particularly at occupied and congested Airports in the nation (Ashraf, 2011).

61

4. The national aircraft of India (Air India) and its parent organization (National Avionics Company of India Limited) have a main edge in this strategy as they are permitted to give Ground Handling care of administrations to all aircrafts working by any means Airports in the nation including remote carriers (Paulus, 2011).

Disadvantages/Problems:

1. All Aircraft administrators in India (barring the national bearer, Air India) are definitely not allowed to self-deal with at the airside in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chennai and Bengaluru Airports. This makes it troublesome for the Aircraft administrators as they have just put vigorously in ground hardware and have likewise prepared their representatives over the previous years (Manmohan, 2011).

62

2. Remote carriers working in India are confronting trouble on account of the restricted number of good decisions of Ground Handling care of specialist organizations at certain Airports, particularly that worked via Airports Authority of India (Its, 2011).

3. Most aircrafts, particularly outside carriers, are not extremely happy with the quality what's more, execution norms of the national transporter as a ground dealing with benefit supplier. There have been different instances of security dangers caused by the ground dealing with representatives of Air India in a few airports worked via Airports Expert of India (e.g. Trivandrum International Airport) (Paulus, 2011).

4. All however the new strategy expresses that the aircrafts have a decision of three ground dealing with specialist co-ops, as a general rule the Airports Authority of India has inquired the aircrafts to browse just two specialist co-ops in airports in South

India – the national transporter and its backup (AISATS) or the consortium of Bhadra International India Limited and Novita International Consulting APS (Paulus, 2011). 63

5. The arrangement expresses that "every concerned organization should guarantee that cutting edge hardware is utilized and best practices are taken after" for Ground Handling care of (Gohain, 2007). However the DGCA hasn't illuminated the meaning of best practices of ground dealing with hardware to be utilized by the all specialist organizations.

6. Security leeway and different particulars identified with safe Ground Handling care of operations at Airports are not plainly indicated in the new ground dealing with strategy. The carriers and the Airport administrators typically set the wellbeing norms.

The DGCA has not unmistakably portrayed this perspective in the new arrangement.

7. BCAS has issued a round that requires 13 security capacities to be the prime duty of the airplane administrator in 2009. However the new ground dealing with approach denies the air ship administrator to play out these exercises (Manmohan, 2011). Along these lines there is absence of clearness by the 64

controllers in characterizing obligation and responsibility for giving ground dealing with administrations.

8. Some carrier administrators are of the feeling that the condition under which the Ground Handling care of delicate at Airports in India (particularly that at Chennai and Kolkata airports) was not directed in an extremely straightforward way. One of the Indian organizations who were granted the ground-taking care of agreement at Airports possessed by AAI has no past understanding of ground dealing with. These issues have caused a worry for some aircraft administrators in India. Discussion and Analysis of the New Ground Handling Regulation and a Comparison with International Policies and Practices

65

Security

BCAS in India and ASB in Australia As observed before, the new Ground Handling care of direction in India was produced in reaction to the roundabout issued by BCAS (Circular no. 4/2007 dated 19.02.2007) as to guidelines on arrangement of ground dealing with offices at the airports. The criticalness of this round expanded after the Mumbai fear attacks(Itz, 2011).

The guideline factor talked about in this roundabout is exceptional status of Ground Handling care of organizations and record verifications of their 66

representatives (BCAS, 2007). This responsive step taken by BCAS is exceedingly critical in light of the fact that the quantity of outsourced ground dealing with administrations had been expanding. It began getting to be plainly troublesome in settling responsibility and obligation in operations (Paulus, 2011).

Airports are considered as a delicate territory where hostile to social components for the most part tend to work. Along these lines the security steps taken by BCAS for the arrangement of ground dealing with organizations at airports are plainly observed as a positive advance to enhance the national security of the nation. Notwithstanding the trusted status of the organizations and the historical verifications of the executives and workers of the organization, BCAS likewise made it required for all representatives to finish the Aviation Security Awareness Program before they are issued with airport passage licenses (BCAS, 2007). In Australia, The Aviation Security Branch (ASB) under The Department of Foundation and Transport (DOIT) sets measures and strategies to guarantee security at Airports including that at the airside. ASB conducts a survey of these norms and guarantees that they are predictable with worldwide commitments. The ASB additionally screens consistence with these norms and methods, and checks in the event that they are predictable with the Aviation Transport 67

Security Act 2004 and Aviation Transport Security Directions 2005. ASB facilitates with knowledge organizations for creating benchmarks in light of insight guidance (DOIT, 2011). There are distinctive layers and procedures to keep up and guarantee security. One of the fundamental apparatuses is the issuance of an Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC). Any individual working at an Airport, particularly at the airside, is required to have an ASIC. This recognizable proof card is issued by DOIT in the wake of performing extensive foundation checks of the people who have connected for it. This is the main layer of security that the ASB guarantees (Cook, 2011). The second layer of security is the Access Control Card issued by the airports in Australia. It works with the assistance of electronic scanners whereby get to is limited to security touchy territories and the zones inside the Airport premises are set apart with distinctive levels of access for people. For instance, registration staff may not be allowed to the Customs controlled zone or slope, in this manner limiting the Access

Control Card of these staff individuals to such zones (Cook, 2011). Correspondingly, BCAS is actualizing biometric advancements for all Airport section grants issued in the nation. BCAS would be in charge of program conveyance, framework organization and preparing of faculty for executing this measure. Aircrafts, Airport administrators, Indian Customs and Immigration, 68

ground dealing with organizations and security offices would be the essential clients (BCAS, 2011).

This framework as followed in created nations, for example, Australia is required to additionally enhance the security arrangement of all airports in the nation. Correlation Between Security Levels and Number of Ground Handling Operator As featured before, the new Ground Handling care of strategy is required to enhance the security worries at Airports as the quantity of ground dealing with organizations permitted to work is checked to for the most part three substances. Be that as it may it may not really be an compelling measure.

An examination on the effect of the European Directive on access to the ground dealing with showcase uncovers that no sign was discovered that demonstrated that there was any connection between the quantity of ground dealing with suppliers and the quantity of security occasions at Airport sin Europe. The regular safety efforts taken for all the staff and vehicles permitted to work in the Airport condition were satisfactory to keep up the level of security. However the investigation did not make any inferences on the effect of security at European Airports as sufficient information was not gotten from airports due to privacy reasons (Airport Research Centre, 2009) .

69

At the point when the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) needed to choose the application put together by Gatwick Airport (amid 2007) with respect to the quantity of providers of airside Ground Handling care of administrations, the CAA chose to expel the confinements that were forced as there were no counter contentions got. All Ground Handling care of staff were liable to security confirming and needed to agree to the security norms set up by the Department of Transport (Bush, 2007).

From the above it is obviously observed that in the European markets, there are no confirmations of relationship between's limitation of the quantity of Ground Handling care of administrators inside the Airport and change in the security levels in a nation. What is important generally are the norms and techniques built up for enhancing the security at Airports by the concerned experts. In the event that there is an idiot proof security technique for controlling the entrance at Airports and if other safety efforts are sufficient (similarly as in generally created nations) the quantity of Ground Handling care of administrators working at the airside would not be a lot of a security worry in India. Subsequently limiting the quantity of ground handling care of administrators at the airside, including the confinement of carrier administrators to self handle may not really enhance the security worries in the nation.

70

Safety

In nations like Australia, there are no particular directions for Ground Handling care of operations. By and large, carriers themselves have certain determinations for their ground handler. CASA details wellbeing rules for ground operation and guarantees that these security measures are clung to. A portion of the security rules are in sure areas of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

71

CASA ought to likewise have duplicates of the operation manual of Aircraft administrators in Australia for survey and review purposes.

CASA likewise makes strides in actualizing Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and different Civil Aviation orders issued every once in a while for guaranteeing safe ground dealing with operations at Australian Airports(Heilbron, 2011). In India, the DGCA is the peak expert in charge of common flight wellbeing. It is a body working under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. It is unmistakably specified in the new ground dealing with approach that exceptional status and satisfactory levels of individual verifications by the BCAS must be finished before a ground dealing with specialist organization is issued an authorization to work. However, one of the primary issues that have not been tended to is the necessity of wellbeing freedom from DGCA, which is additionally of prime significance in a Ground Handling care of operation The subject of Ground Handling care of administrations has been as of late allocated to the Aerodrome Security Department of the DGCA. The security oversight of this administration is relied upon to take a more drawn out time (Rawat, 2011). Despite the fact that the new control requires the administration suppliers to take after "prescribed procedures" in ground dealing with operations, the subject of

72

'Airside wellbeing methods for ground dealing with operations at Airports' and the 'Prerequisites for the issue of security leeway for Ground Handling care of' is right now a draft report as it were. It ought to likewise be noticed that it has been over three years since the ground dealing with direction was issued. Lately, it has been seen that most aircraft administrators and Airport administrators have been actualizing their own security administration framework. Ground dealing with operation being a piece of an essential operation at an Airport, coordination between every one of the partners is of most extreme significance. Along these lines to give a protected ground dealing with operation, all substances included need to coordinate among themselves and furthermore take after the predetermined models set by the controllers. The National Authority of Civil Aviation (ENAC) in Italy presented a working paper on the theme "Taking care of Liberalization and Regulation" amid the Conference on the Financial aspects of Airports and Navigation Services held in Montreal amid 2008. In its accommodation, a standard accreditation procedure of Ground Handling care of specialist organizations was shown. It disclosed the control to be taken after and different authoritative viewpoints, (for example, preparing of controllers, agendas, and so forth.) inside ENAC to actualize this direction in Italy (ENAC, 2008).

73

Security affirmation of Ground Handling care of operations is exceptionally huge in the Indian situation. There is a requirement for qualified and prepared security experts inside the administrative administration to execute worldwide wellbeing gauges in the Indian avionics industry. These elements go about as an establishment before some other control in the nation is executed. Wellbeing freedom and the affirmation procedure for Ground Handling care of operations ought to be executed at Indian airports as right on time as could be allowed.

Coordination Between the Regulators The avionics business is exceptionally powerful. In this manner it is critical for controllers, implementers, facilitators, administrators and clients to organize among themselves for protected and secure operation. The coordination should begin from the best level. Tragically, the new Ground Handling care of strategy has clearly demonstrated an absence of coordination between the arrangement creators, particularly between the DGCA and BCAS. As observed some time recently, the BCAS is a free administrative expert in India that casings strategies and methods identified with security benchmarks as per ICAO's norms and suggested hones. The DGCA is the zenith controller to guarantee safe common aeronautics hones.

74

In 2009, BCAS issued a roundabout (AVSEC Order no. 3/2009 dated 21/8/2009)

determining thirteen security capacities to be the prime duty of the Aircraft administrator. The concentrate of the roundabout that was issued by the BCA 1. Access control to the airplane

2. Airplane security look/security check amid ordinary and in addition bomb risk circumstances

3. Screening of enlisted/unaccompanied things till acknowledgment at registration counters

4. Observation of screened things till acknowledgment at registration counters

5. Security control of the checked stuff from the point it is taken into the

75

charge of the airplane administrator till stacking into air ship

5. Traveller’s stuff compromise/distinguishing proof

6. Security of stuff tag, loading up cards and flight archives

7. Security of misused/unaccompanied/travel exchange stuff

8. Optional checks at stepping stool purpose of Aircraft

10. Security of providing food things from pre-setting stage till stacking into air ship 11. Security control of express freight, messenger sacks, payload, organization stores, packages, mail sacks and escorting from city side up to the airplane

12. Accepting carriage and recovery security expelled articles

76

13. Some other security capacities informed by the Commissioner now and again.

This request (AVSEC 03/1009) issued by BCAS repudiates a few parts of the ground dealing with strategy issued by DGCA in 2007. The new strategy restricts carriers to convey out the previously mentioned security works via air ship administrators, while BCAS particularly expresses that these security capacities are just to be done by the air ship administrators (BCAS, 2009).

On account of an outside aircraft, one of the prerequisites for working in an Indian Airport is that the norms in connection to wellbeing and avionics security must be legitimately kept up and regulated by the nation of the aircraft. The working authorisation of the outside aircraft might be repudiated or suspended in case of non consistence of this run (AIC 8/2010) issued by the DGCA (Zaidi, 2010c). This roundabout re-attests the way that for outside transporters, (in actuality for all bearers) security and security is the essential obligation of the air ship administrator According to the new Ground Handling care of approach, remote carriers are restricted from playing out their own particular Ground Handling care of operation at the airside. In the meantime, the necessities in AIC 8/2010 issued by the DGCA require the carriers (regardless of regardless of whether they are Indian bearers or with remote enlistments) to be in charge of 77

wellbeing and security principles. In this circumstance, there might be inquiries with respect to who would be considered responsible and in charge of the upkeep of wellbeing and security gauges at the slope (airside) if the new ground dealing with strategy were to be executed. In this way it has been seen that the DGCA has negated its own standard while building up duty and responsibility of sheltered and secure Ground Handling care of operation at the airside.

78

Responsibility and Accountability of Safety and Security for Ground Handling Operations The duty regarding security of Ground Handling care of practices at airports was a bantered about issue at the IATA Ground Handling Council (IGHC) in May this year (Hunter, 2011). Most aircrafts met consistently asserted that the essential obligation of both wellbeing and security lies with the Aircraft administrator, as they are responsible to the Passengers straightforwardly for the administration advertised. A delegate of a Ground Handling care of organization in Australia is of the sentiment that wellbeing and security of Ground Handling care of exercises at Airports is the prime duty of both the aircraft and the Ground Handling care of operator (Blow, 2011). An organization situated in India is of the conclusion that all the real partners associated with arrangement of ground handling care of administrations to the traveller, particularly at the airside, are essentially capable for wellbeing and security (Maharishi, 2011). Most ground dealing with organizations by and large trust that it is the obligation of the considerable number of partners associated with giving the benefit. In spite of the fact that doubtlessly all partners are similarly in charge of wellbeing and security at the airside, it is vital for the controllers of a nation to plainly characterize the essential substance that is responsible for protected and secure practices of various ground operations, particularly at delicate zones, for 79

example, the airside or determine the capacities that each gathering is responsible for. In Australia, Aircraft administrators are permitted to play out their own taking care of or pick a Ground Handling care of specialist co-op, for example, the airport administrator or a particular ground handling care of organization. CASA requires the air ship administrators to be principally responsible for wellbeing and security at the airside. The Ground Operations Inspector in the Safety Oversight branch of CASA clarified that security at the airside is the essential duty of an air ship administrator (Heilbron, 2011). Cook (2011) of DOIT clarified that the duty regarding security relies upon a case-to-case premise. By and large air ship administrators are essentially dependable to guarantee security of the Passengers. They are required to guarantee that the ground dealing with organizations whom they utilize take after the security gauges and systems as required by DOIT.

Accordingly CASA, which manages wellbeing in Australia, and DOIT, which directs security at the airside, together urge the Aircraft administrators to be fundamentally dependable and responsible for a protected and secure Ground Handling care of operation at airports in Australia. Airport administrators and Ground Handling care of organizations are required to collaborate with the airplane administrators to accomplish this goal. In India, the duty and 80

responsibility for wellbeing and security of ground dealing with operation, particularly at the airside, isn't clarified in the new ground dealing with control. Just BCAS has made it clear that specific security capacities are the essential obligation of the Aircraft administrator. The DGCA is yet to unmistakably indicate the obligation and responsibility of security parts of ground handling As clarified some time recently, most carriers consistently concur that air ship administrators are principally in charge of the security of ground operations. One of the best authorities in the Indian flying industry trusts that if the new Ground Handling care of strategy were to be executed, Ground Handling care of organizations/Airport administrators ought to accept the essential obligation regarding security at the airside as they are the main specialist organizations for the carriers at the six noteworthy Airports in India. It ought to likewise be noticed that respectable

Ground Handling care of organizations for the most part accept a specific measure of obligation in the occasion of any harm caused by their operation. As the Ground Handling care of operation is performed by various elements, it is critical that there is a level of collaboration between every one of the partners. It is additionally exceptionally essential for the controllers to plainly characterize and portray the essential substances that are mindful and responsible for every part of the Ground Handling care of operation at an airport. Absence of 81

coordination and obsession of obligations may bring about a fault diversion in case of default of wellbeing or security techniques.

82

Ground Handling for Cargo Airlines versus Passenger Airlines The new ground dealing with approach 2007 (altered in 2010) states - "all payload carriers, which have their own payload Aircrafts, may attempt self dealing with in their centre point airports". Payload taking care of administrations of traveller carriers is a piece of the meaning of Ground Handling care of at the slope. This is dealt with distinctively when contrasted with the freight treatment of carriers having their own payload Aircrafts. The Federation of Indian Airlines asked in the court that the new Ground Handling care of approach separated between freight carriers and traveller aircrafts (Manmohan, 2011).

One of the primary explanations behind issuing the new ground dealing with arrangement is to enhance the security at the airside at significant airports in the nation. On the off chance that security is the prime concern of the approach creators, the aircrafts addressed whether there was no security danger for freight carriers that were permitted to work in these same Airports(Manmohan, 2011). Since the boycott in outsourcing of workers for Ground Handling care of is being actualized (for both freight and traveller carriers), the security worries at the Airport is probably going to enhance as there are less individuals at the airside (Mishra, 2011). As clarified some time recently, the Airport safety

83

efforts in a nation is the basic factor that would enhance security worries in a nation.

84

Competition ICAO's Annexure 9 (Facilitation) Recommended Practice 6.6, states as takes after (ICAO, 2005):

It is suggested that airplane administrators, in concurrence with, and subject to, sensible restrictions which might be forced by the Airport administrators, be offered the decision of giving their own administrations to ground dealing with operations, or the choice of having such operations performed completely, or to a limited extent, by an association controlled by another air ship administrator approved by the Airport administrator, or by the Airport administrator, or by an adjusting specialist endorsed by the airport administrator. ICAO settles on it obvious that few decisions ought to be given to air ship administrators with regard to Ground Handling care of courses of action, including giving their own particular administrations. In situations where Airports give such administrations or get concessional income from their arrangement, fitting direction is contained in ICAO's approach on Charges for Airports furthermore, Air Navigation Services (Doc: 9082), with supplementary direction given in

85

Airport Economics Manual (Doc: 9532). These are a portion of the measures taken by ICAO to guarantee rivalry and non-unfair practices in Ground Handling care of administrations (Mishra, 2011).

Run 92 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 is characterized as takes after (Manmohan, 2011):

The licensee should, while giving Ground Handling care of administration without anyone else, guarantee a aggressive condition by permitting the carrier administrator at the airport to lock in, with no limitation, any of the Ground Handling care of specialist organizations who are allowed by the Central Government to give such administrations. Given that such Ground Handling care of specialist organization might be liable to the trusted status of the Focal Government."

From these suggested practices and standards, unmistakably rivalry must be guaranteed for ground dealing with exercises. However the limitation of carrier administrators (barring the national aircraft, Air India) against self taking care of at specific airports, and confining Ground Handling care of to the airport administrator and additionally other allowed ground dealing with organizations 86

alone, is against the suggested hones gave by ICAO. It has been seen that India's new ground dealing with strategy intently takes after the model of the European Directive issued in 1996. However on examination, it is comprehended that a portion of the basic conditions specified in this order are totally maintained a strategic distance from by the new control in India, which is as per the following (Howlin, 1996):

Though for specific classes of Ground Handling care of administrations, access to the market and

self taking care of may come up against wellbeing, security, limit and accessible space limitations; while it is in this manner important to have the capacity to restrain the quantity of approved providers of such classifications of ground dealing with administrations; though it ought to likewise be conceivable to restrain self-taking care of; while all things considered, the criteria for constraint must be pertinent, objective, straightforward and non-oppressive; While if the quantity of providers of Ground Handling care of administration is constrained, compelling rivalry will require that no less than one of the providers ought to eventually be free of both the overseeing body of the Airport and the prevailing transporter.

87

At Airports worked by AAI, the third ground dealing with specialist organization (other than the Airport administrator and the backup organization of the national bearer) is chosen by the AAI on delicate. This organization chose by AAI is to be security cleared by the Central Government and have certain particular execution measures met. It is likewise required to pay a specific measure of eminence to the AAI on its income (AAI, 2007). In such cases, it has been seen that despite the fact that India's Ground Handling care of arrangement intently takes after the European model, it has unmistakably damaged one of the imperative standards to guarantee rivalry, particularly at Chennai and Kolkata Airports(possessed by AAI).Numerous legitimate outside carriers have communicated worries over this fundamental administration required by them while working in India. In spite of the fact that the new direction indicates three specialist co-ops, AAI has required the remote carriers to contract with either the AISATS (national aircraft and its joint wander) or the consortium of Badhra Worldwide India Limited and Novia International Consulting APS Denmark. Be that as it may, on enquiry of whether AAI would give Ground Handling care 88

of administration, it has been said that the approach choice has not yet been taken (Paulus, 2011). It ought to likewise be noticed that it has been a long time since the new control was surrounded.

The European Ground Handling care of model is additionally not an ideal one in accomplishing satisfactory rivalry. One of the effects of the European ground-dealing with mandate is that rivalry enhanced post progression. Be that as it may, this solid rivalry existed for just around 7 – a long time since the issue of the Directive. Amid the previous five to six a long time, overabundance rivalry has brought about value wars between the specialist co-ops. Ground dealing with organizations are relied upon to have 'innovative' plans to pick up business. In future, there may be where all of administration will be invoiced (Rood, 2011). It may be consequently that the European Council has now chosen to audit the current Directive. General society interview process was shut amid 2010 (CAA, 2011).

89

Tender Conditions for Competitive Bidding Process One of the delicate conditions said for giving a permit to Ground Handling care of administrations is as per the following: The giver must not to be a carrier/aircraft administrator or its joint wander or its backup

The delicate conditions alongside the new direction has obviously demonstrated that the legislature of India has given AAI, Airport administrators and the national transporter inclination over alternate aircrafts working inside the nation (private and outside).

Paulus (2011) contends that the delicate conditions likewise have an inclination towards Air India, being an aircraft permitted to work according to essential lead in the control. Another delicate condition states as takes after:

Ensuing to the honor, the fruitful giver will set up another legitimate element of its consortium/tie up courses of action/JVC and additionally Co. to speak to the honor in executing the permit concurrence with AAI for executing ground dealing with administrations to different aircrafts at Chennai and Kolkata Airports.

90

The legitimate substance that is shaped in the southern area is right now obscure because of need of information. It is been seen that Badhra International (one of organizations who is granted the Ground Handling care of administration contract at AAI airports) isn't an autonomous element. It is

some portion of the consortium framed with Novia International Consulting APS (Salmon, 2011).

91

Price of Ground Handling services As the European market was changed because of the European Council Directive, at most Airports costs of Ground Handling care of administrations diminished seriously at a normal of around 12% amid 1996-2002. Conversely, at Helsinki Airport the costs expanded essentially because of high movement volume and satisfactory number of handlers. At Cologne Bonn Airport costs stayed stable amid this period. For the most part, costs at most Airports in Europe diminished. Rivalry was only one of the variables, other drivers being higher profitability and process changes, economies of scale due to expanding movement volumes and a steady number of handlers. It was likewise observed that amid 2002-2007 costs kept on diminishing, demonstrating that there is extreme rivalry in the ground dealing with showcase in Europe (Airport Research Center, 2009).

By and large, the cost of ground dealing with benefit is around 10% of the aggregate carrier spending plan (Itz, 2011). Without fuel it takes around 75% of the aggregate carrier operation costs (Ashraf, 2011). As observed before, AERA's choice is to execute the single till value administration at Indian Airports. At present, DIAL and MIAL take after the mutual till valuing model for the majority of its administrations. On account of ground dealing with action, benefit suppliers charge a require on aircrafts on the off chance that they 92

are an Airport administrator. In the event that the administration supplier is an alternate organization, it regularly pays a concession charge/income offer to the Airport administrator (AERA, 2009).

The characterization of ground dealing with action as an aeronautical or nonaeronautical movement would be influenced by the monetary control of an airport (single till, double till and cross breed) at times. The money related model embraced by the airport according to AERA's last stand will likewise influence the costs of Ground Handling care of in future (Mishra, 2011). As observed some time recently, AERA orders Ground Handling care of as an aeronautical movement. This implies Ground Handling care of administration would go under the domain of cost direction when AERA affirms its remain on single till value administration at Indian Airports.

93

Quality of Ground Handling services The investigation on the effect of nature of Ground Handling care of operation at airports in Europe reasoned that at most airports there were changes in the nature of administration since 1996. In any case, there was no pattern that was seen from the airports inquired about. This might be since the drivers for affecting quality differed between airports. As a rule terms, nature of administration is affected by the Ground Handling care of specialist organization, the administration level understandings between the carrier and framework at airports, for example, better offices accommodated Ground Handling care of (Airport Research Center, 2009).

One of the worries raised by most carriers amid the meeting procedure was the nature of Ground Handling care of administration offered by the national transporter (of India) in the past. The greater part of the rating given by the interviewees was 2-3 out of (10 being the best). Nature of administration recognizes one carrier from another. The level of administration offered by the carriers decides the aggressive edge one aircraft has over the other. In such a situation ground-dealing with benefit is likewise a noteworthy piece of the ground operation.

94

In spite of the fact that the underlying direction precluded the carriers from performing self taking care of at the terminal building, a survey was directed by the controllers and from that point extra arrangements were incorporated into the new direction that permitted all carriers, counting remote aircrafts, to attempt self taking care of inside the terminal building where there was traveller interface. This included travellers and stuff taking care of exercises at the airport terminals (Zaidi, 2010b). To screen the set execution models identifying with quality, progression and unwavering quality of administration as might be determined by the Central Government or any expert approved by it for this sake"

The nature of Ground Handling care of administrations (an aeronautical action) would likewise come under the domain of AERA. When AERA distributes the real Economic Regulation of Airports and Air Navigation Services, it would be normal that the nature of

Ground Handling care of administration offered at all Airports would be checked, and the wasteful entertainers would be supplanted by elements that take after prescribed procedures. This will be a control for all the remote bearers 95

who might be occupied with working their administration to India and who are new to the execution and quality guidelines of the ground handlers working at an airport.

96

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) The GATS of the World Trade Organization happened amid 1995 to give certain standards and tenets for a multilateral structure for exchange administrations. It is essential to take note of a portion of the principle highlights of GATS. Right off the bat, GATS goes for the dynamic expulsion of boundaries to exchange benefit. Furthermore, it plans to cover all tradable administrations in all areas. Thirdly, the advantage of the nation is adjusted with all the products and enterprises offered and not only one specific segment (IATA, 1999). The writing survey as a major aspect of this undertaking uncovered that ground dealing with administrations was incorporated into GATS in its initially Air Transport production (WTO, 2006). According to GATS, ground dealing with administrations is specifically identified with carrier operation. Very few authorities in the flying business know about this understanding. However, considering the way that there are a significant number of universal ground-taking care of organizations working in India, the effect of GATS may be constrained.

In the Middle East, the Airport administrator considers ground-dealing with administrations as a restraining infrastructure action of the airports. However the administration quality offered is considered top class (Itz, 2011). This assention may be of impact in such areas. Be that as it may there is no 97

information to affirm it. Future research should be possible on the effect of the consideration of Ground Handling care of administrations in GATS in various nations.

98

Recommendations From the above information and exchange of different parts of the issues in new ground dealing with direction in India, the accompanying are the proposals made to accomplish the principle goal of this exploration – that is to distinguish approaches to change the current direction by setting up a reasonable, nonoppressive Ground Handling care of control that is helpful to all the real partners in the Indian flight industry, without bargaining on wellbeing, security and space requirements at airports.

1. A viable idiot proof security framework must be actualized at all Airport sin the nation including the execution of AEC program by the BCAS. The security framework should be observed every now and then and updates of innovation must be produced using time to time.

2. DGCA must actualize security norms relating to ground dealing with direction including the criteria for wellbeing freedom of all ground dealing with substances. Once the benchmarks are set, the execution of the principles must be examined at general interims.

99

3. The wellbeing and security controllers of India (DGCA and BCAS) must go to a consolidated conclusion on which elements would be responsible and dependable for the distinctive exercises of Ground Handling care of at Airports.

4. AERA must take its last remain on its monetary control of Airports and air route benefits in order to control the costs of Ground Handling care of administrations (aeronautical action) in India

5. AERA should either set its own particular quality benchmarks for different Ground Handling care of administrations or screen the execution of the quality gauges set by the airport administrators in the nation (if that follows global models).

6. The proposed self-governing Civil Aviation Authority must be set up at the most punctual to arrange between the controllers. This self-governing body must be totally separate from the impact of Indian legislative issues and ought to actualize the directions as got from universal associations such as ICAO and IATA as pertinent to the flying business in the nation.

100

7. Carrier administrators must be permitted to look over a few changed alternatives of ground dealing with specialist co-ops including self-taking care of according to the suggestions given by ICAO. On the off chance that, in any sensible case, constraint to self-taking care of is forced at the airports, it must be founded on pertinent, straightforward and non-biased variables.

These suggestions are in no way, shape or form thorough. It is just the consequence of the inquire about led amid the brief time of under three months (term of the course work). Additionally research may refine these suggestions that could be considered for the Indian situation.

101

Annexure 1. Are you aware about the ground handling policies in India? Yes No 2. Are you aware about the ground handling policies abroad? Yes No

3. Does IATA help in the definition of arrangements and direction for a nation's ground handling care of exercises? Yes No

4. .Does IATA guarantee aggressive and non - prejudicial ground handling services at airport in a nation? Yes No

5. Do ground staff require training?

102

Yes No

6. Do you think NCAP 2016 policies will be benificial for ground handling? Yes No

7. Is India's ground handling care of arrangement steady with the global principles and directions? Yes No

8. Are there any issues with new ground handling policies in india? Yes No

9. The upcoming regulations function efficiently? Yes No

103

10.Improvement in ground handling services alone can improve the over all functioning of the airport? Yes No

104

Data Analysis and interpretation on Questionnaire 1.Are you aware about the ground handling policies in India?

Yes

No

Inference: 70% of the employees who works in ground handling field in India are aware about the India’s ground handling policies and rest of 30% of employee are not aware about it

105

2.Are you aware about the ground handling policies abroad?

Yes

No

Inference: 40% of the employees who works in ground handling field in India are aware about the abroad’s ground handling policies and rest of 60% of employee are not aware about it

106

3.Does IATA help in the definition of arrangements and direction for a nation's ground handling care of exercises?

Yes

No

Inference:70% of employee said yes that IATA helps in the definition of arrangements and direction for a nations ground handling care of exercises and rest of 30% are said no

107

4.Does IATA guarantee aggressive and non - prejudicial ground handling services at airport in a nation?

Yes

No

Inference:80% of employee thinks that IATA guarantee aggressive and non-prejudicial ground handling service at airport in nation rest of 20% of employee not agree with the same thing

108

5.Do ground staff require training?

Yes

No

Inference: 90% of an employee who thinks that ground staff need the training and 10% employee not agrre with that

109

6.Do you think NCAP 2016 policies will be benificial for ground handling?

Yes

No

Inference :80% of an employee said yes with that the new NCAP 2016 Policies will be benificial for the ground handling and rest of 20% employee said no

110

7. Is India's ground handling care of arrangement steady with the global principles and directions?

Yes

No

Inference :40% of an employee who thinks that India's ground handling care ofarrangement steady with the global principles and directions and rest of 60% of employee not think the same thing

111

8.Are there any issues with new ground handling policies in india?

Yes

No

Inference :20% of an employee who said yes that there are issues with new ground handling policies in india and 80% of an employee said no

112

9.The upcoming regulations function efficiently?

Yes

No

Inference :60% of an employee said yes that upcoming regulations function Efficiently rest of 40% employee said no

113

10.Improvement in ground handling services alone can improve the over all functioning of the airport?

Yes

No

Inference :20% of an employee said yes with that Improvement in ground handling services alone can improve the over all functioning of the airport and rest of 80% of employee said no

114

Conclusion The fundamental issue of Ground Handling care of control issued in India amid 2007 was with respect to security worries inside the nation. Keeping in mind the end goal to protect national security, the Government of India chose to confine the quantity of Ground Handling care of administration suppliers at 6 noteworthy Airports in the nation. Self-taking care of was additionally confined at these Airports. This choice by the Government made separated assessments in the aeronautics industry in India. An examination on this issue uncovered that the Ground Handling care of control in India (issued amid 2007) is like that of Europe Council Directive 96/67/EC issued on fifteenth October 1996 on access to the Ground Handling care of market at Community Airports. Be that as it may, not every one of the parts of this Directive were utilized while setting up the control in India. Meetings and the writing survey uncovered that the European Ground Handling Mandate is likewise not an ideal model to take after as it has certain issues, which are at present under survey by the European Council. India, being a developing flying showcase, requires a specific level of Ground Handling care of direction for compelling and productive Ground Handling care of operation. The administrative experts must be free from all political and other shrouded motivation to guarantee protected and secure common flying operations. Inclination must be given to Aircraft administrators in looking over a few changed decisions of Ground Handling care of administrations including that of self dealing with according to the ICAO suggestion, as air ship administrators are the essential beneficiary of this administration. Impediments, assuming any, must be on pertinent, straightforward and nonunfair bases.

115

References: http://www.acexc.com/category.php?catid=85&sublist=sub12&divshow=H

http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Annual%20Report/ACI_A_online.pdf

http://civilaviation.nic.in/aera/WP-01-2009-10/APAO.pdf

http://bcasindia.nic.in/news/techspbiomet1206.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appd=11&mod e=detail&id=3841

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/branch.aspx

http://www.iata.org/workgroups/pages/ighc.aspx

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/aimstext.htm

116

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/questionnaire

http://infrastructure.gov.in/pdf/case-study-final-251010.pdf

http://www.aviationreg.ie/Groundhandling__the_Commissions_role/Default.13 9.html

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/transport_e/transport_air_e.htm

https://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.iata.org/Pages/default.aspx

117