Go Party? Go Skafa! Go Skafa! Go Party!

It will be interesting to see how claims are handled and whether internal flight processes are the result of tracking and tracking cargo claims. Improvements can be made when airlines use more detailed documentation requirements for cargo shipments and handling of irregularities (AnnexS A 5.3.1 and 5.7). It goes without saying that airlines have their own ground operating manuals, other service provider guidelines, codes of conduct, approach policies, customer service (e.g.B. customer charter), style and even brand. Handling companies are often the face of an airline in an airport. Airlines must provide sufficient information to enable assistance companies to perform the processing properly (new point 5.1). Many of these changes are only editorial, SGHA Amendment 2013. However, some changes are significant and focus on operational practices, improved standards, training, insolvency, claims and compliance in general. We briefly reviewed the major changes to the main agreement and Schedule B and looked at what they might mean to users. IATA has explicitly identified its resolutions and standard practices as benchmarks for the provision of services to businesses and has written them down in the new paragraphs 5.3 (a) and (b). The amended clause 7.3 and the new clause 7.4 give the handler the right to suspend services if the airline does not require an immediate advance or cash payment in the event of insolvency. Given the historical liquidity problems faced by some airlines, it is perhaps surprising that these clauses have not yet been included in the SGHA.

This does not mean that the resolution of the companies will be nothing but unsecured creditors for unpaid bills. Under current SGHA legislation, cash advances or advances may violate applicable local insolvency legislation. A carrier`s insolvency can also have greater consequences. The British CAA suspended Monarch Airlines` AOC when it went bankrupt in October 2017 and forced it to cease operations with immediate effect. They no longer needed stopover assistance services. Within SGHA 2013, there was some confusion about the deadline for obtaining damages from a carrier. The confusion was caused by the following sentence: „Any claim must be filed within the time frame set out in section 31.2 of the 1999 Montreal Convention.“ Section 31.2 sets the deadlines for filing claims of persons authorized for delivery for damaged and late shipments, 14 and 21 days respectively. A carrier`s claims against a ground carrier are not addressed. The training provisions contained in the new Term 5.6 contain the knowledge by trade agents of rules and regulations as a minimum and cross-reference to IATA documents in point 5.3. However, in practice, it is difficult to imagine, unless an airline has sufficient resources (for example.

B of ground support personnel and equipment) who are ready to follow in the footsteps of a well-established operator. Most airlines are thinner and thinner. This new clause will protect assistance companies if an airline attempts to circumvent an unfavourable contract and merely include its requirements „in the source.“ The 38th edition of the IATA Airport Handling Manual (AHM) is now live. The AHM contains the most recent iteration of the SGHA, which reflects the evolution of aviation and more broadly, and which results from the consultation and contribution of airlines, handling companies and other players in the sector. The new clause 3.3 of SGHA 2018 prohibits self-help if an institution has already outsourced it under the SGHA. In Europe, for example, the 1996 European Directive on stopover assistance (96/67/EC) opened up the market for stopover assistance to competition and maintained freedom g

Comments are closed.