Iata Standard Ground Handling Agreement 2020
Many of these changes are purely editorial and modify SGHA 2013. However, some changes are significant and focus on operational practices, improved standards, training, bankruptcies, claims and compliance in general. We briefly reviewed the main changes to the Main Agreement and Appendix B and looked at what they might mean for users. 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. IATA has explicitly identified its resolutions and standard practices as benchmarks for the provision of services to businesses and has presented them verbatim in the new subsections 5.3 (a) and b). 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. 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. 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. 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. It would thus be possible to establish a liability regime in which the carrier and the ground handling agent or terminal operator simply share responsibility on the basis of their proportionate share in the transport costs. 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). . . .