Iata Ground Handling Agreement Annex B

SGHA 2018 has highlighted broader audit rights, in accordance with clause 5.9, to allow other airlines, within an IATA audit pool, to examine the terminal for the benefit of that pool. At present, 37 airlines are in the ISAGO audit pool, which can benefit from common operational audit reports for the same customs clearance at a given airport. However, in practice, it is difficult to imagine this unless an airline has sufficient resources (such as ground support staff and equipment) to play the role of an incumbent. The activities of most airlines are thin and are increasingly thin. This new clause will protect customs clearance companies if an airline tries to circumvent an unfavorable contract and simply set its «in-source» requirements. Amended clause 7.3 and new clause 7.4 give the customs clearance the right to suspend services if the airline fails to pay in the event of insolvency or requests immediate advance payment or cash payment. Given the historical liquidity issues faced by some airlines, it is perhaps surprising that these clauses have not been previously included in the ASA. This does not mean that handling companies will be anything other than unsecured creditors for unpaid invoices. Depending on the current SGHA legislation, advances or cash advances may be contrary to existing local insolvency rules. The 38th edition of IATA`s Airport Handling Manual (AHM) is now live. The EMO contains the latest iteration of the SGHA, which reflects developments in both aviation and the broader sense, and is the result of consultation and input from airlines, terminals and other industry stakeholders. The insolvency of carriers can also have a wider impact.

For example, the UK 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 groundhandling services. In the 2013 SGHA, there was some confusion as to the time limit that applies to a carrier`s right to compensation. The confusion was caused by the phrase: «Any claim shall be filed within the time limits set out in Article 31.2 of the 1999 Montreal Convention». Article 31.2 sets out the time limits of the agreement for the exercise of the claims of the person entitled to the shipment in respect of damaged and delayed cargoes, which are 14 and 21 days respectively. It does not respond to a carrier`s claims against a debacacitor. It will be interesting to see how claims are handled and whether this results in the airline`s internal processes to track and monitor cargo claims. Improvements can be made if airlines use more detailed documentation requirements for cargo shipments and the handling of irregularities (in points 5.3.1 and 5.7 of Annex A respectively). The training rules provided for in the new clause 5.6 set as a minimum awareness of the rules and regulations applicable to the material handler and refer to the IATA materials in clause 5.3. . .

.