Annexure II - AERA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The above quotation provide evidence that the EU Directive, in consonence with ICAO policies, "does not prescribe the basis on which airport charges should be set, and explicitly leaves open key issues such as the regulatory till" [Source: Dr. Francesco Lo Passo and David Matthew, NERA (2009), The EU Directive on Airport Charges: Principles, Current Situation and Developments.] d. ACI on Till: ACI on The Airports Council International (ACI), Montreal while referring to the AERA Order 13/2010-11, has indeed brought to the notice of AERA about the amendment done to the Para 30(i) of Doc 9082 and clarified about the neutral position of ICAO on the matter of regulatory till and stated that the conclusions with regard to ICAO Doc 9082 as well as ICAO Doc 9562 in paras 5.17 -5.32 of the AERA Order 13/2010-11, are therefore not tenable and require rectification. e. Planning Commission {PC} on Till: We understand that the Planning Commission of India (PC) has written to AERA clarifying its position on the choice of till to be adopted. We understand that PC has also advocated the need for a Hybrid Till regulation. This has been also in light of the fact that India required a huge private sector investment into the Airport sector under the 12th plan. PC has underscored the importance of the choice of economic regulat ion especially a Hybrid Till approach in achieving the investment goals. Therefore, we again reiterate that the views of the Planning Commission may be taken into consideration. Based on above it can be concluded that a Dual till was not just envisaged in case of HIAL but is also desireable given the need for long term growth of the airport sector. International Examples in support of the treatment of land: NERA has also analyzed the international examples and from their analysis we find that real estate is outside regulation in most of the countries. A detailed country wise analysis is enclosed in Annexure B Annexure II-B CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12023(14)/1/2012- Tariff- Vol - III Annexure II-B Page 14 of 51 14
The summary of such analysis is reproduced here: Country Airport Australia Regu I atorv ti ·11 an d rea I estate treatment In se Iecte d countnes Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney Regulatory till Ex-post Real estate IN/OUT the regulatory till OUT Belgium Bruxelles Single till OUT Denmark Copenhagen Hybrid till Partially IN * France Charles de Gaulle, Orly Single till OUT Germany Frankfurt, Hamburg Dual till OUT Ireland Dublin Single till IN Italy Rome, Milan, Venice Dual till OUT Italy Other ariports Hybrid till Partially IN/OUT ** NewZealand Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington Ex-post OUT South Africa ACSAairports Single till IN The Netherlands Amsterdam Dual till OUT (but hotels IN) United Kingdom Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted Single till IN (but hotels OUT) (*) A percentage of the difference between revenues and costs related to real estate is included in the regulatory till (**) Real estate with no monpoly condition or locational rent is outside the regulatory till. Otherwise 50"10 of the commercial margin (difference between revenues and costs) is included in the till Privatization and Till: We had submitted evidence to Authority showing that the privatization and single till do not go together. There are no major privatizations in world, which are on single till. UK's privatization was due to extraneous reasons. We produce the list of the various private airports and its Till for ready reference. List of privatised a irports and their till (Except UK Airports-BAA) Country Airport Majority Private Ownership Till at Privatisation Annexure II-B Till now Belqlurn Brussels Yes Dual till oraduatlv Dual till q raduallv Denmark Copenhaqen Yes No till Hybrid Hunoarv Budapest Fer Yes No till No till ItaIv Rome Yes No till Hvbid Naples Yes No till Hvbld Venice Yes No till Hvbid Malta Malta Interna Yes Dual till Dual till Slovak Republic Bratislava Yes N/a Australia Melbourne Yes No till dual till? Unreoutated/duat Perth Yes No till dual till? Unrequ lated/dual Brisbane Yes No till dual till? Unrequlated/dual Adelaide Yes No till dual till? Unreoutated/duat Sydney Yes Unrequlated dual Unrequlated/dual New Zealand Auckland Yes unreoutated dual Unrequlated/dual Wellinqton Yes Unrequlated dual Unreuu lated/dual Mexico cancun Yes Dual till Dual till Guadaleiara Yes Dual till Dual till Monterrey Yes Dual till Dual till Mexico City Yes No till/dual till? No till/dual till? CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12023(14)/1/2012- Tariff- Vol - III Annexure II-B Page 15 of 51 15
Page 1 and 2: Annexure II-B CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12
Page 3 and 4: ("Authority") was established on iz
Page 5 and 6: As already mentioned earlier, MoCA
Page 7 and 8: Conclusion: The Concession Agreemen
Page 9 and 10: a. Land LeaseAgreement As per Claus
Page 11 and 12: derive any material commercial adva
Page 13: Regulatory Approaches in Selected C
Page 20 and 21: NER A Economic Consulting "Given th
Page 22 and 23: NERA EC() 110 n 11C CO I1
Page 24 and 25: NERA Economic Consul!inS1 In other
Page 26: NERA Economic Consult ing 5. Conclu
Page 29: NERA t:COIIOlJ1IC COllsul:in9 activ
Page 33 and 34: NERA tC Oll 0 rn ic ConsulU nq B.5.
Page 35 and 36: NERA Ecol1omi c Consulung • A dua
Page 38 and 39: NERA Economic Consultinq • Real e
Page 40 and 41: NERA Economic Consulting only at th
Page 42 and 43: NERA Economic Consulting Table 2.1
Page 44 and 45: NERA Economic Consulting 2.5. Germa
Page 46 and 47: NERA Economic Consulting • sub-co
Page 48 and 49: NERA Economic Consulting industrial
Page 50 and 51: NERA Economic Consulti ng 4. Conclu

Annexure II - AERA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?