The IGHC is the only official forum where ground handlers can meet with their airline counterparts to discuss and debate changes to any of the existing IATA programmes, such as ISAGO, IGOM, SGHA and AHM. These are recognised industry tools in daily use around the world and the commitment of working group members that contribute to these important programmes is often undervalued.
As you may be aware, there are significant changes being made by IATA to the governance structure and operation of the IGHC. I am concerned that these changes are being made behind closed doors without the industry having the opportunity to understand, interpret and debate these changes. We sincerely hope these changes are for the better - but we just do not know because no details have been released about the nature of the changes other than that they will involve “a complex governance change which has to be in the best interests for the industry overall,” according to Hemant Mistry of IATA. How IATA can be so sure that these changes will be in the best interests of the industry is a mystery to me if they don’t fully consult the industry before announcing an official decision on the changes to be made.
Unless IATA is transparent regarding these changes, how do we know that they are in the best interests of all stakeholders? During the last 30 years IATA hasn’t had a very good track record when it comes to engaging the ground handler as an equal business partner. So, should we be suspicious and seek clarity?
There seems to be a lack of information amongst members of the IGHC regarding the proposed changes, even within the inner circle of the IGHC officers. I have been unable to obtain any clear and concise information directly from IATA and I am concerned that changes may be forced on the ground handlers without due consultation.
When we consider that the IATA IGHC is actually a group that operates within the airlines’ own members’ association, there are questions being asked by ground handlers around the world as to whether this is an equitable arrangement. If significant changes are being proposed by IATA now, should one of the changes be the proposal to set up an independent IGHC so that the ground handling members of the IGHC are equal partners?
IATA doesn’t accept that the existing IGHC is not an equal forum - but the fact is, it is not. IATA already recognises the equal partnership approach in its role within FIATA so the precedent does exist. ASA approached IATA on this point last year but was told that it would be very difficult to change the governance of the IATA IGHC to an equitable association. The fact that they have already done so with FIATA but choose not to in this instance is, in my view, further confirmation that an equitable airline/handler association simply doesn’t suit their cause. It is worth remembering that under the existing IATA set-up, a committee of senior airline representatives layered above the IGHC can veto any proposed changes and would do so if these changes were perceived as a potential disadvantage to IATA’s airline members. It has happened in the past. Perhaps IATA will change this, but unless they openly share the details of their governance changes we just don’t know.
If the ordinary members do nothing and leave everything up to the elected officers there is a danger that these changes will be adopted without the fullest consultation of the IGHC members. As long as the IGHC/GHC remains an integral part of IATA’s airline association, the ground handlers will never be treated as equal partners, despite the IATA rhetoric to the contrary. When will IATA wake up to the fact that the airline ground handling business is very different today compared to the business it was 30 years ago, when the original IGHC was set up to accommodate mainly airline reciprocal handling agreements? The fact is that the airline industry today cannot operate without the GSPs and we need to have an independent, open association that reflects this.
So what can the ordinary ground handling members of the IGHC do?
What about an open debate in Toronto at the next IGHC meeting to discuss a complete change in the structure of IGHC and to have an open vote on the proposed changes? This would be an opportunity for IATA to explain why they are so against an equal forum of industry stakeholders. This may also be the last time members are given the opportunity to vote at the IGHC because I have been told that one of the proposed changes is to remove member voting. Now that is not very democratic.
Of course not all ground handlers that are members of the IGHC may be attending the Toronto IGHC, so there has to be an opportunity for these members to voice their opinion as well. I welcome any individual views on the above issue, which can be sent to me at: tim@groundhandling.com
