Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTERIM REPORT – DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS <strong>EASA</strong>.2009.OP.21 service providers, their given reason for not providing Type I fluids and two-step de-icing / anti-icing is that there is not enough airline demand. There is probably a series of reasons for such a lack of (communicated) active requests from the airlines to the service providers. The main reasons could be, for instance: − Many airlines are not affected by safety issues caused by anti-icing fluid residues. − Many airlines now have adequate maintenance programmes for the inspection and the cleaning of residues. − The real or perceived higher cost associated to Type I fluids and two step de-icing / anti-icing. − The longer HoT of thickened fluids may represent a benefit in operations for the pilots. − Pilots informal comments to their service providers, possibly in contradiction with their company policy, prefer a quick-and-easy one-step de-icing / anti-icing. − Airlines possibly do not communicate appropriately their requests for Type I fluids and two-step de-icing / anti-icing, or their requests are ignored (50% of the interviewed airlines stated they would actively make such requests to the service providers). − The lack of airline awareness of the current availability of Type I fluids at the stations at which they operate from. Besides the lack of airline demand for Type I fluids and two step de-icing / anti-icing, other main limiting factors, from the point of view of the service providers, are of an economic nature: the provision of Type I fluids and two step de-icing / anti-icing at aerodromes where it is not yet provided can sometimes require a significant initial investment. This investment represents a major long-term financial commitment from the owners of the facilities and equipment (the aerodrome and/or the service provider(s)), and the rate of return – in most cases not quantifiable – is uncertain. De-icing / anti-icing vehicles are the major equipment expenditure; these vehicles typically have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years, which reflects their depreciation rates. Although they can still retain a high value after seven years, the secondhand market cannot be relied upon to secure a return of investment. Such investment is hindered by several market conditions: − Most aerodromes and service providers have a limited financial capacity: de-icing / anti-icing is often performed at a loss at small and medium aerodromes or at aerodromes with modest winter operations (e.g. Southern Europe). − In addition to the previous point, the predicted level of future earnings for de-icing / anti-icing service provision is very low. This is because traffic figures and the severity airsight GmbH - 13 -
INTERIM REPORT – DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS <strong>EASA</strong>.2009.OP.21 of winter operations are highly volatile: thus, the number of de-icing / anti-icing operations per year can vary in Central Europe by up to 50% (e.g. EFM Ground Handling published in their annual report (4 778 operations during the winter season in 2006-2007, versus 7 309 operations 2007-2008 – an increase of 53%). − Service providers generally have short-term contracts with the airlines (renegotiated in some cases on an annual basis), as well as with the aerodromes (license terms of seven years for aerodromes within the scope of Council Directive 96/67/EC) – considering that equipment and facilities is used on average between 10 to 15 years. Together, these factors contribute to defensive strategies and the minimising of investment. − In keeping with providing a better quality of service, the provision of Type I fluids could represent a competitive advantage towards local competitors; however, even if competition exists when several service providers are operating at an aerodrome, the same fluids are usually provided to and by all of them (generally storage facilities are shared). − It must be noted that the service providers who responded to the questionnaire probably underestimated the limitation imposed by their current equipment (only around 25% of the respondents mentioned that “inadequate de-icing / anti-icing truck capability/capacity to provide Type I fluid” would be a limiting factor). − Several interviewed representatives of the aerodromes or service providers identified the provision of Type I fluid as a necessity, but could not convince the final decisionmakers to adopt the proposed improvement. Some interviewees mentioned that regulatory actions at a National or European level could provide the necessary leverage regarding the provision of fluids. − From an operational standpoint, operating with a single type of fluid (mainly Type II) offers the advantage of simplicity: aerodromes and service providers can purchase (in most cases pre-mixed) and store a single fluid type, used for both de-icing and antiicing. Furthermore, according to the interviewees, Type II fluids would particularly well suit the oceanic or moderate continental climates. 2.1.7.3 Non-influencing factors Several factors have little or no influence on the decision to provide Type I fluids and twostep de-icing / anti-icing. Such non-influencing factors are, amongst others: − Aviation regulations on fluid availability: No national regulations require the utilisation of specific fluid types. Operational Directives on the use of thickened fluids airsight GmbH - 14 -
Page 1 and 2: Research Project EASA.2009/4 Regula
Page 3 and 4: EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 5 and 6: INTERIM REPORT - INTRODUCTION EASA.
Page 13 and 14: INTERIM REPORT - DATA SUMMARY AND A
Page 27: INTERIM REPORT - DATA SUMMARY AND A
Page 71 and 72: INTERIM REPORT - OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
Page 79 and 80:
INTERIM REPORT - OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
show all

Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?