Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. Ground handlinG business at non – european biGGest world airports as a problem of market structures anna tomoVÁ1, Lukáš TRGIŇA2, Alena NOVÁK SEDLÁČKOVÁ3 Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, The Slovak Republic E-mails: 1anna.tomova@fpedas.uniza.sk (corresponding author); 2lukas.trgina@gmail.com; 3alena.sedlackova@fpedas.uniza.sk Received 08 October 2015; accepted 24 November 2015 abstract. In the paper we analyse the market structures of ground handling at the biggest non-European passenger and cargo airports in accordance with the ACI list of the most important world airports in 2014. Using the IATA IGHC database as of spring 2015, our analysis revealed that out of Europe double digit numbers of providers are rare what contrasts with situation in Europe where ground handling markets were deregulated by the Council Directive 96/67/EC. The analysis also brought that the monopolistic structures of ground handling markets were more specific for the regions of Asia and the Middle East. Airports as ground handling providers were not found within the analysed sample in North America, Latin America, Africa and Australia and Oceania, while this arrangement was to a larger extent present at the analysed Asian airports. Asia and the Middle East biggest air- ports are identified by us as candidates for further deregulation of ground handling arguing by forecasted demand for air services in the regions, although expected deregulation may be curbed by national regulators. keywords: airports, ground handling, deregulation, market structure, monopoly, duopoly, product portfolio, global expansion. JEL Classification: L1, R40. 1. introduction To provide air traffic services air carriers have to handle passengers, baggage, cargo and aircraft on ground. According to the European Commission (2011) ground handling services as services which cover all ground-based aviation related activities carried for airlines at airport are a key function in the aviation value chain.1 ICAO (2010) in its official definition contained in the Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil 1 Proposal for a regulation COM (European Commission 2011) 824 estimated costs for ground handling services represent about 5 to 12% of airlines operating costs. Ground handling services also impact on flight delays as expressed by SITA (2010): “One of the greatest opportunities for airlines and other airport-based companies is to improve the efficiency and flexibility of ground handling to lower operting costs and reduce flight schedule delays”. B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2015, 13(2): 321–335 doi:10.3846/bme.2015.301 mailto:anna.tomova@fpedas.uniza.sk mailto:lukas.trgina@gmail.com mailto:3alena.sedlackova@fpedas.uniza.sk http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/bme.2015.301 322 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures Aviation Operation of Aircraft Part I defines ground handling as “services necessary for an aircraft’s arrival at, and departure from, an airport other than air traffic services”. In the definitions, operational approach to ground handling is emphasized although ground handling is also an interesting economic issue market structures of ground handling services including. Ground handling services may be delivered to airlines under different market struc- tures depending on subjects participating in the delivery of ground handling services. In principle, airports, airlines and independent ground handling companies are involved in ground handling business as suppliers. While airports and independent ground handling companies are so called third parties in the delivery of ground handling services for airlines, airlines may deliver the services for themselves or provide services for other airlines. When airlines deliver ground services to other airlines this is considered as the delivery by third parties. When airlines self- handle themselves on the ground this is so called self-handling. Thus, third party vs self-handling are two options for airlines. Airlines ground handling strategies depends on many factors, mainly on business model applied. Following low cost (cost cutting) strategy airlines may prefer the out- sourced delivery of ground handling services while full service network airlines typical- ly rely more on the in- house delivery of ground handling services keeping in this way ground operation under their control. However, strategies of airlines towards ground handling are in a state of flux. Some full service network airlines have converted their ground handling strategy from in-house concept to complete outsourcing. Further full service network airlines have taken over ground operation from airports. Some airlines have expressed their interest to be more active in the delivery of ground handling ser- vices as a third party provider. At local, i.e. one airport level, there are different market structures for different cat- egories of ground handling services. It gives the enormous complexity to this issue as every category of ground handling services represents a specific market with a specific market structure (Tomová, Kirschnerová 2015). Moreover, there can be a different ac- cess (i.e. regulatory) regime for domestic and foreign airlines operation what add further complexity to the issue. Thus, the structure of ground handling markets depends on regulatory measures which open the market more or less for self-handling providers and/or third party pro- viders of ground handling. Within third party portion of the market (i.e. not consider- ing self-handling) we can theoretically distinguish the market structures according to numbers and types of ground handling suppliers. An airport may be the only third party provider of ground handling services at the airport, or airlines as third party provid- ers compete with the airport at the airport for ground handling services, or third party handling is accessible only for independent ground handling companies at the airport or there may be a duopoly of the respective airport and an airline, etc. 323 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 In this paper we investigate market structures of ground handling focusing on the most important (i.e. the biggest world airports out of Europe). In general, ground han- dling economic problems are not sufficiently covered by the aviation economic literature and non-European coverage of the topic is still very poor. 2. previous research Economic research of ground handling business has been mostly aimed at Europe reflecting in this way deregulation of ground handling markets as initiated by the Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the ground handling market at Community airports. The Directive have been introducing two freedoms – freedom of self-handling and freedom of third party handling into the system, al- though for some airports limited access with regard to the market access freedoms still exist at some airports in some countries. In generally, application of the Direc- tive have brought more competition among the providers of ground handling and more options for airlines to choose among competing third party handlers or to be self-handled. Impact of the Directive were investigated in Study of the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services (ACR 2009), also in Study on the quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU airports as a result of the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC (SH&E 2002). Both studies have found the number of ground handling providers airports increased due to deregula- tion. Ahsbash (2008) reviewed fundamental changes of ground handling markets at European airports as a consequence of deregulation, and similarly, Müller et al. (2008) investigated deregulated ground handling markets at German airports. Ground handling markets at Brussels airport were analysed by Meersman et al. (2011), Burg- houwt et al. (2014) examined the situation at Amsterdam Schiphol airport. Global expansion of several independent ground handling companies was documented by WTO (2007) study as a consequence of deregulation of ground handling markets in the world. According to the state of our current knowledge, only Barbott (2012) tried to cover the issue theoretically. She examined effects of different market structure s in ground handling on consumer surplus using Cournot’s theory and considering ground handling as complementary goods.2 Her findings revealed impacts of market structure on con- sumer surplus. Ground handling markets at airports out of Europe have been only slightly touched by the work of Tan (2010) letting thus a space for further investigations. 2 Several practitioners and theoretists as well consider ground handling production as a joint production with the production of air traffic services and reject to analyze ground handling services as complementary goods. 324 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures 3. methodology and data In our research we worked with the IATA IGHC database (as of spring 2015) which contains the data about ground handling providers – members of the IATA IGHC cover- ing airports worldwide. However, we had to extract and consequently process the data what was exhausting and time consuming process as the database does not provide the data in this format. Then, we reviewed the market structures ground handling markets at 74 non-European airports. The choice of airports came of the top 100 lists of the biggest airports in the world, both in passenger and cargo segment. We gathered the data for 27 airports in Asia, 8 airports in the Middle East, 26 airports in the North America, 7 airports in Latin America, 3 airports in Australia and Oceania, 3 airports in Africa. We were led by the following research questions: Are market structures of ground handling at the most important airports in non- Eu- ropean regions similar to situation in Europe? (In Europe, at the most important airports, ground handling markets are neither monopolistic nor duopolistic nowadays. As a result of deregulation of ground handling markets relatively high numbers of third party pro- viders compete there (Tomová 2013) although historically – before liberalisation of air transport market in the European Union – just monopolies or duopolies prevailed in the European Union ground handling markets). Are there typical market structures at the world regions differing one region against the other one? Or are there mainly country versus country differences? (Ground han- dling markets are primarily driven by national regulatory measures therefore country versus country differences can be expected in the issue more). What is a share of airports in the position of a third party provider at the airports we analysed? (When an airport delivers ground handling services as one of the third party providers it may abuse its position (Barbott 2012) and distort competition). How many independent providers has full portfolio of services in its supply at the airport? (This is important when considering global expansion of ground handling com- panies (Tomová, Kirschnerová 2015). Due to the fact a shift to multiproduct companies operating ground handling globally can be assumed). In our analyses we split the market structures of ground handling distinguishing the following market structures: – Monopoly of an airport (so called centralized model); denoted in the following tables as M/Airp, – Monopoly of an independent ground handling company; denoted in the following tables as M/IGHc, – Monopoly of an airline; denoted in the following tables as M/Airl, – Duopoly of an airport and an independent ground handling company; denoted in the following tables as D/Airp-Airl, – Duopoly of an airline and an independent ground handling company; denoted in the following tables as D/Airl-IGHc, 325 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 – Duopoly of an airport and an airline; denoted in the following tables as D/Airp –Airl, – Duopoly of two airlines; denoted in the following tables as D/Airl-Airl, – Duopoly of two IGHc; denoted in the following tables as D/IGHc-IGHc – Diversified market structures with more than two providers; denoted in the follow- ing tables as DivS. Our approach to the topic is similar with the methodology of (ACR 2009) and (SH&E 2002) studies covering the European Union ground handling markets after de- regulation. The studies revealed the numbers of ground handling suppliers and types of ground handling suppliers. 4. Results and findings In the following tables the results of the processed IGHC IATA data are contained in- forming about the market structure at the biggest world non-European airports. As contained in Table 1, in Asia, ground handling markets at the analysed airports differ. About 48% airports in the sample had diversified structures of ground handling markets with more than two providers, however, Hong Kong International Airport was the only Asian airport in the sample which achieved double digit number of ground handling providers. Duopolistic markets were observed at 22% airport and monopo- listic markets at about 30% airports. Monopolistic market structures were represented by monopoly of an independent ground handling provider, monopoly of an airline and monopoly of an airport as well. Mainly in the analysed Chinese airports we revealed monopoly as prevailing form of market structure in the delivery of ground handling services. In Hong Kong, Taiwan and Turkey a more diversified structures dominated. In Japan we observed diversified structures and duopoly as well. Airports as providers of ground handling services were observed at about 30% airports. Using the information in Table 2, Airports in the Middle East did not achieve double digit number of ground handling providers. Half of the analysed airports experienced diversified market structures of ground handling. The rest was represented by monopoly of independent ground handling providers. Diversified market structures were typical for the analysed airports in Israel and The United Arab Emirates, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia kept monopolistic structures of the markets. Only one airport in the sample ex- ploited monopoly power as a ground handling supplier. As contained in the Table 3 on the following page, at the analysed airports in Latin America all three market structures (diversified market structures, duopolistic markets and monopolistic markets) were observed. None of the airport achieved double digit number of ground handling providers and airports in the analysed sample were not involved in the delivery of ground handling services. In the case of diversified market structures, none of the airports achieved double-digit number of ground handling suppliers indicating a dif- ferent situation in comparison with the European Union biggest world airports. 326 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures Table 1. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the biggest world passenger and cargo airports in Asia (Source: processed and compiled by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of indep. providers Airport as a provider Market structure Taiwan Taoyuan International Taiwan 6 5 0 + DivS sIndira Gandhi International India 4 1 3 – DivS Chennai International 3 2 1 – DivS Chhatrapati Shivaji International 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc Bengaluru International 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc Soekarno-Hatta International Indonesia 1 0 1 – M/IGHc Narita International Japan 5 2 2 + DivS Kansai International 3 2 1 – DivS Fukuoka 3 2 1 – DivS Tokyo (Haneda) International 2 2 0 – D/Airl-Airl Naha International 2 2 0 – D/Airl-Airl New Chitose 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc Incheon International Korea 3 1 1 + DivS Jinnnah International Pakistan 4 0 4 – DivS Ninoy Aquino International Phiilippines 4 1 2 + DivS Singapore Changi Singapore 1 1 0 – M/Airl Subarnabhumi International Thailand 4 2 2 – DivS Tan Son Nhat International Vietnam 4 2 1 + DivS Hong Kong International Hong Kong 10 3 6 + DivS Chengdu Shuangliu International China 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc Pudong International 1 0 0 + M/Airp Beijing Capital International 1 1 0 – M/Airl Guangzhou Bai Yun International 1 1 0 – M/Airl Shenzen International 1 0 1 – M/IGHc Tianjin Binhai International 1 1 0 – M/Airl Hongqiao International 1 0 1 – M/IGHc Ataturk International Turkey 6 2 4 – DivS 327 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 Table 3. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the biggest world passenger and cargo airports in Latin America (source: processed and compiled by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of indep. providers Airport as a provider Market structure Aeor.Int. De la Cuidad de México Mexico 5 1 4 – DivS Aer. Int. de Azeiza Argentina 3 1 2 – DivS Guarulhos Int. Brasil 3 2 1 – DivS Viracopos Intern. AO 1 0 1 – M/IGHc Aeropuerto Int. El Dorado Columbia 2 2 0 – D/Airl- Airl Aeropuerto Internacional Arturo Merino Benitez Chile 1 1 0 – M/Airl Aer.Int. Jorge Chávez Peru 3 1 2 – DivS As contained in Table 4, in Africa at three of the analysed airports a diversified market structure was revealed, and Cairo International Airport achieved a double digit number of ground handling providers represented mainly by independent ground handling suppliers. None of the analysed airports in the sample was involved in the provision of ground handling services. Table 2. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the biggest world passenger and cargo airports in the Middle East (source: processed and compiled by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of independent providers Airport as a provider Market structure Ben Gurion Intern. Israel 5 2 3 – DivS Doha Intern. Qatar 1 0 1 – M/IGHc King Khaled Intern. Saudi Arabia 1 0 1 – M/IGHc King Abulaziz Intern. 1 0 1 – M/IGHc Dubai Intern. The United Arab Emirates 5 0 5 – Div/S Abu Dabi International 4 1 3 – Div/S Sharjah International 5 0 4 + DivS Dubai World Central Al Maktoum International 1 0 1 – M/IGHc 328 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures Table 4. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the most important passenger and cargo airports in Africa (source: processed by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of indep. providers Airport as a provider Market structure Cairo Int. Egypt 10 1 9 – DivS Jomo Kenyatta Int. Kenya 4 0 4 – DivS OR Tambo Int. The Republic of South Africa 4 0 4 – DivS Similarly as in the case of Latin America and Africa, none of the analysed airports in Australia and Oceania was involved in the provision of ground handling services as well as none of the airports achieved double digit number of ground handling providers (Table 5). Slightly diversified structure of ground handling markets was observed at the analysed Australian airports while Aucklad International airport in New Zealand had a duopolistic market structure of its ground handling. Table 5. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the most important passenger and cargo airports in Australia and Oceania (source: processed and compiled by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of indep. providers Airport as a provider Market structure Sydney International Australia 3 1 2 – DivS Melbourne 3 1 2 – DivS Auckland International New Zealand 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc In the analysed airports in the North America, the airports were not involved in the provision of ground handling services and none of the analysed airports achieved a dou- ble digit numbers of ground handing providers. At the only airport in the sample ground handling market was monopolistic, duopoly was recorded for three airports. At about 85% analysed airports diversified market structures were observed with Los Angeles International AO at the head in this respect counting eight providers. Based on the findings in Table 6 we can summarize the analysed biggest world airports in North America, Australia and Oceania, Africa and Latin America were not involved in the provision of ground handling services. It implies that due to this arrange- ment airports cannot abuse their power to distort the competition being one among com- peting providers. Monopolistic provision of ground handling services was found in a larger extent at the analysed Asian biggest airports and the analysed airports in the Mid- dle East’s. In the list of analysed North American airports the only case of monopolistic 329 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 Table 6. Ground handling providers (IATA IGHC members) at the most important passenger and cargo airport in the North America (source: processed and compiled by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) Airport Country Total number of providers Number of airlines – providers Number of indep. providers Airport as a provider Market structure Memphis Int. Airport US 4 1 3 – DivS Ted Stevens Anchorage Int. Airport 2 0 2 – D/IGHc- IGHc Louisville International Airport 1 1 0 – M/Airl Miami International Airport 4 1 3 – DivS Los Angeles International AO 8 1 7 – DivS John F. Kennedy Int. Airport 6 3 3 – DivS O´Hare International Airport 5 1 4 – DivS Indianapolis Int. Airport 2 1 1 – Newark Liberty Int. Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Int. Airp. 5 1 4 – DivS Dallas/Ft Worth Int. Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Int. Airport 2 1 1 – D/Airl- IGHc Oakland Int. Airport 4 1 3 – DivS George Bush Intercontinental Airport 3 1 2 – DivS LA/Ontario Int. Airport 4 1 3 – DivS Honolulu Int. Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Philadelphia Int. Airport 4 1 3 – DivS San Francisco Int. Airport 8 2 6 – DivS SeattleTacoma Int. Airport 5 2 3 – DivS Sky Harbor Int. Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Logan Int. Airport 3 2 1 – DivS Washington Dulles Int. Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Denver International Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 3 1 2 – DivS Toronto Pearson Int. Airport Canada 4 2 2 – DivS Vancouver Int. Airport 4 2 2 – DivS 330 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures provision was found. At the analysed Latin American airports as well as African and Australian Oceanian airports duopoly or a more diversified market structures were typi- cal. As a whole, working with 74 analysed cases monopoly was found at 20% airports, duopoly at 15% airports and more diversified market structures was revealed at 65% airports. However, the only three of non-European analysed biggest world airports in passenger and cargo airports, i.e. 4% of the sample investigated recorded double digit numbers of ground handling providers. This is a different in comparison with Europe where deregulation of ground handling markets made the markets more accessible and the numbers of providers increased importantly mainly in the biggest airports. As our investigation included also services portfolio we were aimed to find how many of the providers at the analysed airports supply markets with the full range of ground handling services according to the categories of IATA IGHC (eight categories), Such approach is reasoned by the fact that evolution of the industry is expected to shift to multiproduct ground handling companies competing globally. Further argument is in the status of competition among ground handling providers which may be different among providers with complete and uncomplete portfolio of services. Table 7. Number of the providers at the biggest world airports out of Europe with full portfolio of services (source: processed by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) World Region Asia Middle East Latin America Africa Australia and Oceania North America Total Number of providers with full portfolio of services 10 5 1 2 2 0 20 of which independent providers 1 4 1 2 0 0 8 As contained in Table 7, from the handlers which operated ground handling services at the analysed airports in Asia only 12.5% provided full portfolio of services. In the Middle East almost 22% of the providers provided full portfolio of services, in Latin America only one provider had such attribute, in Australia and Oceania two provid- ers, In Africa two providers and no such provider of this type was found in the North America. It means that multi-service providers with full portfolio of ground handling services represent only small portion of the providers operating ground handling at the analysed airports (8.2%). The respective share of independent ground handling provid- ers with full portfolio of ground handling services compared to all providers at the analysed airports is even minor counting only 3.3%. With regard to the presence of so called global ground handling companies, we were focused on the presence of two ground handling giants at the analysed airports Swis- sport and Menzies. 331 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 Table 8. Presence of two global giants on ground handling markets at the analysed airports in world regions out of Europe (source: processed by the authors from the IATA IGHC database) World Region Swissport Menzies Number of airports with Swissport presence Share of the analysed airports in the region Number of airports with Menzies presence Share in % of the analysed airports in the region Asia 4 14 % 3 11% Middle East 1 13% 0 0% Latin America 5 71% 2 29% Africa 2 67% 1 33% Australia and Oceania 0 0% 3 100% North America 22 85% 9 Total 34 45% 18 24% As it can be seen in Table 8, Swissport had established ground handling operation at 34 airports within the analysed group what represents 45%. Menzies had established ground handling operation at 18 airports within the analysed group what represents 24 %. From this finding results that global giants in ground handling business which ex- pand internationally are important players at the biggest airports out of Europe and full geographical coverage and extension of their geographical network may be expected in future. 6. conclusions In this paper we investigated the market structures of ground handling markets at the biggest world passenger and cargo airports out of Europe covering the regions of Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, Australia and Oceania and North America. Our analysis revealed that out of Europe double digit numbers of providers are rare what contrasts with situation in Europe where ground handling markets were deregu- lated. Only three of the analysed airports recorded such double digit numbers of ground handling providers. Our analysis also brought that monopolistic structure of ground handling markets was more specific for the analysed airports in Asia and the Middle East, while at the analysed airports in Africa, Australia and Oceania and Latin America this market arrangement was not found. Airports as ground handling providers were not revealed within the analysed sample in North America, Latin America, Africa and Australia and Oceania, while this arrangement was to a larger extent present at the analysed Asian airports. Although in the cases when an airport is not an operator of ground handling services and market structure is not monopolistic it may prefer one of the providers present at the airport from several reasons, for instance if such provider is a national flag carrier. Airport portion in the ownership of ground handling providers (joint stock companies) is a further problem connected with market power abuse. 332 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures At the analysed airports ground handlers with full portfolio of services represented only marginal share in the total number of providers at the airports what makes the problem of market structures attributable to specific ground handling services even a more complex issue. Of this number, independent ground handling companies with full range of supplied services counted even less. On the other hand, our analysis confirmed international expansion of key global handlers Swissport and Menzies at the biggest world passenger airports out of Europe. Our analysis showed there can be expected further deregulation of ground handling markets at the biggest world airports – mainly in Asia and the Middle East as they were identified by us as the regions in which monopolistic or duopolistic structures still exist in a larger scale. On the other hand, just these two regions are so called high growth aviation regions and increased demand for passenger and cargo air services is predicted in these regions in future (Boeing 2015; Airbus 2015). In a situation of monopoly and duopoly, the supply of ground handling services may be limited not meeting increas- ing demand what will generate pressure on deregulation of ground handling markets in the regions. Higher competition due to deregulated markets with higher numbers of competing ground handling providers can impact prices and quality of ground handling services delivering in this way competitive benefits for the analysed airports and con- sumer surplus to customers (Barbott 2012). This aspect is extremely important for those of the analysed airports which compete each other as international hubs. Further deregulation of ground handling markets will boost global ground handling players like Swissport and Menzies to expand more at the biggest airports and exploit in this way network economies typical for global business (Tomová 2011a, 2011b). In our paper we worked with the data of IATA IGHC what can be objected as self- handling part of the markets is not clearly discoverable and only the IATA IGHC mem- bers were covered, however according to our current and best knowledge such analysis focused on non- European world regions has not been realized so far. In general, contemporary economic aviation research should concentrate more on the topic of market structures in world ground handling by theoretical and empirical stud- ies. In theory, contemporary economic research have not answer yet whether the provi- sion of ground handling services is joint production or production of complementary goods what is essential to recommend an optimal market structure for ground handling markets at airports in different contexts. Taking into account Barbott (2012) approach to this issue, we are not aware of any more theoretical considerations of the problem. Empirical investigations realized so far were concentrated to view the issue at local, i.e. one airport level and network nature of ground handling business which is typical for expanding global ground handling giants is not sufficiently covered nor by theory nei- ther by empirical research. Competition of handlers running their business on network of airports each other as well as their competition with local players at local level is a further rail for contemporary economic research. Such research could help in answering 333 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 the question about potentially global nature of ground handling business and its impact on aviation in future. As deregulation of ground handling is being prepared in some countries (CAPA 2014) regulators of ground handling markets in these countries with monopolies or duopolies of handlers at their airports can demand this research output to open ground handling markets effectively, i.e. for the benefits of final consumers of air services. On the other hand, insufficiency of the big global data will be certainly a limiting factor in such effort and creating such big global ground handling databases will probably accompany research activities in the field.3 funding Research outputs contained in the paper are results of activities within the project VEGA MŠ SR 1/0838/13. The outputs have been also contributed by activities within the project KEGA MŠ SR 024 ŽU-4/2014. The research outputs are being included in the textbooks written within the KEGA MŠ SR 024 ŽU-4/2014 project. disclosure statement Authors do not have any competing financial, professional or personal interest from other parties in the issues covered by the paper. references Ahsbash, S. 2008. Deregulation of Ground Handling Market at European Airports, Economics and Organisation of Enterprize 1: 12–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10061-008-0002-1 ACR. 2009. Study on the Impact of Directive 96/67/EC on Ground Handling Services 1996–2007 [on- line]. Final report [cited 18 May 2015]. Available from Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/ air/studies/doc/airports/2009_02_ground_h andling.pdf Airbus. 2015. Global market forecast 2015–2034 [online], [cited 12 September 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/ Barbott, C. 2012. Opening ground handling markets to competition: effects on welfare, Transportation Science 46(4): 536–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0413 Boeing. 2015. Current aircraft financial market outlook 2015 [online], [cited 12 September 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/key_orgs/pdf/ BCC-market-Report-WEB.pdf Burghouwt, G.; Poort, J.; Ritsema, H. 2014. Lessons learnt from the market for air freight ground handling at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Journal of Air Transport Management 41: 56–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.06.016 CAPA. 2014. Airport ground handling – industry overview 2014. Part 1: Liberalisation, efficiency and compensation [online], [cited 11 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://centreforaviation. 3 The only CAPA’s material cover the issue globally and otherwise grey literature prevails in ground handling economic issues such as Newton (2010), Paulus (2011), Gerden (2014), Savaser (2014). The ground handling economic literature of grey nature is very fragmented. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10061-008-0002-1 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/studies/doc/airports/2009_02_ground_h andling.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/studies/doc/airports/2009_02_ground_h andling.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0413 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699714000908 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699714000908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.06.016 http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airport-ground-handling--industry-overview-2014-part-1-liberalisation-efficiency--compensation-195301 334 A. Tomová et. al. Ground handling business at non – European biggest world airports as a problem of market structures com/analysis/airport-ground-handling--industry-overview-2014-part-1-liberalisation-efficiency--com- pensation-195301 Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the ground handling market at Com- munity airports [online], [cited 20 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:l24142&from=EN European Commission. 2011. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Coun- cil on ground handling services at EU airports [online], [cited 20 March 2015]. Available from In- ternet: http://www.usosectoraereo.com/attachments/546_Projet%20Regulation%20GH%20190911.pdf Gerden, E. 2014. Russia plans to invest billions into its GSE industry [online], [cited 18 May 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.aviationpros.com/article/11694451/by-eugen-gerden ICAO. 2010. Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Operation of Aircraft Part I [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: www.bazl.admin.ch/experten/regula- tion/03080/03081/index.html? Newton, G. 2010. The numbers game [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http:// www.aviationpros.com/article/10370782/the-numbers-game Meersman, H.; Pauwels, T.; Struyf, E.; Van de Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. 2011. Ground handling in a changing market. The case of Brussels Airport, Research in Transportation Business & Management 1(1): 123–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.06.003 Müller, J., Orak, G.; Petkov, E.; Schulz, S.2008. Restructuring of the European Ground Handling Mar- ket after the EU market liberalization [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http:// userpage.fu-berlin.de/~jmueller/gapprojekt/downloads/gap_papers/Groundhandling_02_02_08.pdf Paulus, N. C. 2011. Ground handling regulation in India [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://stanleypaulus.com/downloads/ARP.pdf Savaser, C. 2014. Ground handling exceptions for foreign air carriers in Turkey [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.martindale.com/aviation-aerospace-law/article__2056246.htm SH&E. 2002. Study on the quality and efficiency of ground handling services at EU airports as a re- sult of the implementation of Council Directive 96/67/EC [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exercises/ASP%20Zerbib%20SH&E%20report.pdf SITA. 2010. Transforming airline operations using hands held devices [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: https://www.appearnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Trans- forming_airline_operations_at_airports_with_handheld_devices_0.pdf Tan, L. 2010. Differences in ground handling in the global market [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextLunTan.pdf Tomová, A. 2013. Kvalita, cena a koordinácia ako hlavné problémy liberalizácie trhov pozemnej obsluhy v EÚ, Ekonomicko-manažérske spektrum- vedecký časopis Fakulty prevádzky a ekonomiky dopravy a spojov Žilinskej univerzity v Žiline. Ročník 7(2): 42–50. Tomová, A. 2011a. Globálna tvár trhov pozemnej obsluhy letísk, in Globalizace a regionalizace mezi vládní politikou a tržním prostředím: sborník z konference, 4 November 2011, Praha. Vysoká škola regionálního rozvoje. ISBN 978-80-877174-12-8 Tomová, A. 2011b. Global geography of airport ground handlers, in Proceedings of the Conference “New Trends in Civil Aviation 2011”, 26–27 September 2011, Prague. Prague: ČVUT. ISBN 978-80-01-04893-1 Tomová, A.; Kirschnerová, I. 2015. Players in airport ground handling: a new typology reflecting international expansion. Manuscript under review of Sczcecin University. World Trade Organisation (WTO). 2007. Air transport and the GATS [online], [cited 30 March 2015]. Available from Internet: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/airtransport_2005_e.pdf http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airport-ground-handling--industry-overview-2014-part-1-liberalisation-efficiency--compensation-195301 http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airport-ground-handling--industry-overview-2014-part-1-liberalisation-efficiency--compensation-195301 http://www.usosectoraereo.com/attachments/546_Projet Regulation GH 190911.pdf http://www.aviationpros.com/article/11694451/by-eugen-gerden http://www.bazl.admin.ch/experten/regulation/03080/03081/index.html http://www.bazl.admin.ch/experten/regulation/03080/03081/index.html http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10370782/the-numbers-game http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10370782/the-numbers-game http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.06.003 http://stanleypaulus.com/downloads/ARP.pdf http://www.martindale.com/aviation-aerospace-law/article__2056246.htm https://www.appearnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Transforming_airline_operations_at_airports_with_handheld_devices_0.pdf https://www.appearnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Transforming_airline_operations_at_airports_with_handheld_devices_0.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/airtransport_2005_e.pdf 335 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 321–335 anna tomoVÁ, CSc. Doc. Ing. – an associated professor at the Department of Air Transport, Fac- ulty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina. She pub- lished several papers devoted to railways and air transport economics using long-term experience in teaching and scientific projects. She is responsible for the development of new courses of air transport economics at the department to meet new requirements of labour markets in industry. Lukáš TRGIŇA, Ing. – a graduate from the Department of Air Transport, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina, he participated in the research of airports economics within the Department of Air Transport and contributed to the research by his thesis. Alena NOVÁK SEDLÁČKOVÁ, Doc. JUDr. Ing., PhD – an associated professor at the Department of Air Transport, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina. She researches legal and economic problems in the development of airports.