NMa: Schiphol required to lower tariffs for airline companies
N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol (hereinafter 'Schiphol') has wrongfully refrained from including a number of debit items relating to 2005 and 2006, which the company is required to take into account (both windfalls and setbacks), in the calculation of the airport's tariffs for aviation activities, that are to be effective as of today. This means that in the coming tariff year, Schiphol is allowed to charge € 36.8 million less to airline companies using Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) reached this conclusion after looking into a complaint lodged by KLM. The agency has rejected the tariff complaints lodged by BARIN and SAOC, two sector organisations for the aviation sector.
KLM
The tariff reductions apply to what are known as ''Aviation tariffs', which are levied among other things in connection with the taking off and landing of aircraft and the boarding, disembarking and transfer of passengers. Schiphol had already indicated that it would not take financial windfalls and setbacks from the period 2005-2006 into account in its calculation as of 1 November 2007. This, however, is compulsory under the Aviation Act (Wet Luchtvaart). For this reason, Schiphol is required to lower the previously announced tariffs as of 1 November 2007, to the extent that the company's total revenue will be EUR 36.8 million lower than the previously calculated amount of some EUR 642.2 million, according to the NMa.
KLM had also expressed objections against the height of the tariff for passengers in transit, known as the 'transfer tariff'. In addition, the airline questioned the handling of the compulsory procedure regarding the consultation of airline companies when setting the tariffs. The NMa ruled against KLM on these points.
BARIN and SAOC
BARIN and SAOC had asked the NMa to evaluate the determined tariffs within the new system. In motivation of this request, BARIN and SAOC argued that Schiphol had failed to recognise their rights to provision of information regarding specific points in the run-up to the setting of the tariffs. In addition, they argued that Schiphol had incorrectly applied the system that the company uses as a basis to determine which costs it can take into account in the calculation of the airport tariffs. The NMa ruled against the sector organisations on these points.
Airbridge Cargo
Airbridge Cargo, a subsidiary of the Russian airline company Volga-Dnepr, lodged several objections, including one against the introduction of a new tariff category for the loudest aircraft still allowed to land at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The airline claimed the tariffs for this category of aircraft to be discriminatory. The NMa dismissed this complaint, as an aircraft that produces more noise takes up a larger portion of the maximum annual allowance for noise pollution allotted to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the Schiphol Airport Traffic Decree (Luchthavenverkeersbesluit Schiphol).