💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 4893.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 17:51:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Europe s regional airports - Runway or another

2013-10-22 07:59:48

Proposed EU rules aim to stem the flow of money from taxpayers pockets to

Ryanair s coffers. That could doom some small airports, and increase some fares

ANGOUL ME airport in south-west France, like many small provincial airports

across Europe, more closely resembles a motorway caf or a visitors centre at

a minor battlefield than an economic hub. And since scheduled flights ceased in

2010 it cannot even count on the trickle of visitors a second-tier historical

site might expect. Yet Angoul me is a battleground in a conflict that pits

European regional development against fair competition, and low-cost carriers

against full-service airlines.

Europe is peppered with over 450 airports, mostly small and loss-making. About

85% are publicly owned this week the Scottish government said it would buy

Prestwick airport near Glasgow, following the Welsh government s

nationalisation of Cardiff airport in March. Local politicians enthusiastic

sponsorship of airports, as a means to boost their regional economies, has in

turn contributed to the rapid growth of low-cost airlines, since the airports

have used their subsidies to offer cheap landing fees and other sweeteners to

persuade the cheap carriers to fly there.

Transport & Environment, a green lobbying group, reckons that about 3 billion

($4 billion) of taxpayers cash in EU-approved aid finds its way to airports

each year, and plenty more that is not sanctioned. But EU laws ban state aid if

it seriously distorts markets. Indeed, 60 airports, from tiny Angoul me to

Brussels Charleroi, which handles over 6.5m passengers a year, are under

investigation for providing aid that breaches the rules. None of the inquiries

has yet reached a conclusion.

Small airports deserve subsidies, argues ACI Europe, a trade body that

represents them, because their fixed costs from security and runway maintenance

to mopping floors are far higher per passenger than at bigger ones. Bigger

airports make so much money from parking charges and renting space to

restaurants and shops that they do not have to charge airlines so much for

landing fees and other services. Without subsidies, small airports would have

to charge airlines more for flying to out-of-the-way places, which the carriers

would be disinclined to do.

The low-cost airlines have plenty of airports to choose from, as do their

passengers: nearly two-thirds of Europeans are within two hours drive of at

least two airports. So in 2011, even as carriers opened up many new routes,

they closed 15% of existing ones.

Ryanair is the sole or dominant carrier at many of the airports under

investigation. The discounted landing and baggage-handling fees it gets, and

the payments it receives for promoting the airports on its website, are an

important part of its business model. Leipzig-Altenburg airport in Germany

another of those under inspection by the European Commission in effect pays

Ryanair a fee for each passenger it sends there. The commission has let it keep

the amount a commercial secret, but a report on Angoul me said it had been

paying Ryanair about 11 a passenger.

Guidelines on state aid introduced in 2005 let airports offer some inducements

to airlines to start up new routes. But by common agreement the rules are

cumbersome, inflexible and unenforceable, especially now that the power in the

relationship between airports and low-cost airlines has swung dramatically in

favour of the latter. Even Michael O Leary, Ryanair s boss, with customary

bluntness, calls the rules lunatic .

The full-service airlines, their businesses devastated by low-cost competition,

have filed complaints against Ryanair and its benefactors. But in the scramble

to win flights, local airports are continuing to seek ways to sidestep the

rules.

Changing course

To speed up a resolution of the cases, many of them years old, and to clarify

what would be acceptable in future deals between airports and airlines, in July

the commission proposed a new set of rules, for which the consultation period

has just ended. The new rules are likely to come in next year. The aim is to

reconcile the principle of fair competition with the airports role in boosting

small towns economies and keeping them connected to the outside world. State

subsidies towards operating costs at airports handling over 200,000 passengers

a year will be phased out over ten years, and charges to airlines must rise to

compensate. However, airports will be able to offer below-cost charges to

airlines for up to two years if they can show a business plan that eventually

allows them to turn a profit.

Mr O Leary, in a rare show of assent with the Eurocrats, says the new rules are

terrific . That may sound odd: their objective is to eliminate the state aid

that flows to his airline. But Mr O Leary is a realist, so he probably sees the

new rules as the best he could hope for, given the pressure on the commission

to ensure fairer competition. Besides, there may be tussles in Brussels as the

transport directorate, which is fond of subsidies, arm-wrestles the more

free-market directorate for competition into softening the new rules to let

more of the handouts to airlines continue.

The loudest complaints against subsidies have come from big airlines. Air

France is responsible for 20 cases against airports in its home market. But it

may be hard to find much sympathy for airlines that were themselves born and

bred from state coffers. Some taxpayers may not like lining Ryanair s pockets.

But as Olivier Jankovec of ACI Europe says, the local economy also benefits,

and these advantages are not protected by the new rules. One broad basis for

judging subsidies whether they would be paid in a free market is too narrowly

applied, he argues. An unsubsidised small airport would not pay several euros

to attract each passenger but local hotels, shops and other businesses might.

This, says Mr Jankovec, justifies taking a more relaxed attitude to state aid.

Spain s collection of white-elephant small airports shows what happens when

local politicians urge to splurge is unchecked. So it makes sense for the

commission to try to curb the subsidies. But if its new rules achieve this

objective, the result will be that some smaller airports will find it hard to

pay Ryanair and other low-cost carriers enough to keep them flying there. Many

of the 80-odd European airports with fewer than 1m passengers will be at risk

of closing, like Angoul me; in other cases passengers will face higher ticket

prices. And some of Europe s less-famous spots will see fewer tourists.