Iata Sgha Main Agreement
The training rules in the new clause 5.6 define as a minimum awareness of the rules and regulations applicable to the material handler and refer to the IATA materials in clause 5.3. This new clause will protect customs clearance companies if an airline tries to circumvent an unfavorable contract and simply set its “in-source” requirements. In 2013, IATA`s Ground Handling Council authorized the use of yellow pages to publish texts amending Annex B in the years between new versions of the SGHA. Annex B of the SGHA 2018 added the yellow pages to paragraph 8. In the future, this will provide some flexibility in the baseline model. Carriers are now required to immediately inform customs officers when asserting a claim for compensation for damage to the cargo in accordance with clause 8.6, and these claims must now be filed within two years of the period provided for in Article 31.2 of the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99). Otherwise, the claim may be invalidated if the handler is severely affected. 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. 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. 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. The new clause 3.3 of the SGHA 2018 prohibits self-handling if an airline has already outsourced it as part of the SGHA. In Europe, for example, the 1996 EU Groundhandling Directive (96/67/EC) opened up the groundhandling market to competition and maintained the carrier`s general freedom to clear customs at an airport itself. Alastair Long Registered Foreign Lawyer, Hong Kong T +852 3983 7788 E firstname.lastname@example.org What is the situation in case of total loss of cargo? Article 31.2 of MC99 does not impose an initial time limit for claims for lost cargo, although any right to compensation does not die out if proceedings are not initiated within two years (Article 35). Partner of Peter Cole, Hong Kong T +852 3983 7711 E email@example.com However, maintaining the original clause 5.10 might have been wise given the strengthening of data protection legislation (e.g. B GDPR in the EU), increased public awareness, data protection campaigns and activism. Some believed that the wording of the 2013 edition simply meant that a carrier`s right to compensation was not valid, unless the consignee had asserted a right within the 14/21 day period.
Others argued that the carrier itself should itself claim compensation within those time limits. The 38th edition of IATA`s Airport Handling Manual (AHM) is now live….