Standard Ground Handling Agreement Iata

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. This new clause will protect customs clearance companies if an airline tries to circumvent an unfavorable contract and simply set its « in-source » requirements. 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). Of course, carriers have their own ground operations manual, other service provider guidelines, codes of conduct, approach policies, customer service (e.g. B a customer charter), style and even brand. Check-in companies are often the face of an airline at an airport. Airlines must provide sufficient information to enable carriers to carry out customs clearance correctly (new clause 5.1).

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). 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 rights of the person entitled in respect of damaged and late goods, which are 14 and 21 days respectively. .

. .