“Mandatory Handling” in Europe

Why helicopter pilots should push back

Helicopter and GA pilots across Europe are often told that “handling is compulsory.” While airports may enforce this in practice, most such policies lack legal foundation. In many cases, the requirement is unjustified, non-transparent, and violates EU law, ICAO principles, and basic consumer protections.

This article explains your rights as a pilot, dissects actual airport examples, and shows why “mandatory handling” is often a legal fiction. We also show two examples of airfields who are fully compliant, Southend in the UK and Friedrichshafen in Europe.

Industry-Wide Support for Reform

In June 2024, IATA submitted formal evidence to the EU Commission citing widespread abuse of handling policy (search for IATA Fitness check of EU airport legislation):

• Lack of transparency
• Unlawful denial of self-handling
• Non-cost-related pricing
• Airport-imposed monopolies without justification

These findings mirror the pilot experiences and airport practices highlighted in this article. The IATA submission specifically criticises the failure to enforce Directive 96/67/EC and calls for regulatory intervention.

A 2021 EU-commissioned evaluation of Directive 96/67/EC found persistent violations of market access rules (search for EU Support study to the ex-post evaluation of Directive 2009/12/EC on Airport Charges). The study identified widespread issues with self-handling denials, non-transparent charges, and unjustified handling monopolies. It concluded that “enforcement at Member State level is limited,” leaving operators with few remedies .

---

Legal Framework

ICAO Doc 9082 (Charging Policy)

Paragraph 4(ii):

“Users shall not be required to pay for facilities and services they do not use.”

https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9082_cons_en.pdf

Directive 96/67/EC (EU Ground Handling)

Article 7(2):

“Where the number of suppliers of groundhandling services is limited… access shall be open to at least two suppliers… unless specific constraints make it impossible to open the market.”

Article 14(2):

“Member States shall ensure that suppliers… publish their prices and conditions… in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.”

• Self-handling must be permitted unless safety or capacity constraints are documented.
• Restrictions must be justified, transparent, and non-discriminatory.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1996/67/oj/eng

Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008

Article 22(1):

“Community air carriers shall have access to groundhandling services at airports in the Community on a non-discriminatory basis.”

This supports the position that unjustified denial of self-handling or exclusive contracts without clear justification are prohibited.

• Prohibits unjustified economic barriers at EU airports.
• Guarantees non-discriminatory access for air operators.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1008/oj/eng

---

Real World Airport Examples

France — Nantes Atlantique (LFRS)

AIP AD 2.LFRS (23 JAN 2025):

“Handling is compulsory for all aircraft on main apron.”

Why this fails:

• No helicopter exemption
• No safety or infrastructure justification
• No handling cost published
• No breakdown of services provided

Why helicopters should be exempt:

• Helicopters do not require pushback, marshalling, GPU, or baggage handling.
• They often self-park or use dedicated rotary aprons.
• ICAO rules prohibit charging for services not used.
• No operational reason prevents self-handling or direct apron access.

Nantes violates the principles of proportionality, transparency, and cost-relatedness.

Pilot Feedback:

“We hovered into the corner of the apron, shut down next to the gate, and were charged €160 for ‘minimum handling’—we never saw a soul.”

Private pilot, EC120, June 2024

---

France — Cannes Mandelieu (LFMD)

AIP AD 2.LFMD (23 JAN 2025):

“Handling is mandatory… for helicopters staying at least one night.”

• “Overnight” is an arbitrary trigger unrelated to services
• No public cost
• No legal reference

No evidence that staying overnight requires handling support. Charges are imposed without service.

Example:

A pilot landing for one overnight stay in a Robinson R44 was charged over €200 with no itemised receipt. No marshaller, no fuel, no crew assistance.

---

France Corsica – Calvi Sainte Catherine (LFKC)

NOTAM Briefing. B2879/25
E) MANDATORY HANDLING UPON 24HR PPR

The uploaded AIP for Calvi Sainte-Catherine (LFKC) does not state that handling is mandatory. However:

• The VAC explicitly prohibits unaccompanied walking on the apron, citing security.
• It designates the GA apron (D) as under the control of the handling company.
• The distance between Apron D and the terminal, combined with the apron access rule, effectively forces pilots to use handling, even if not explicitly stated.

While not legally “mandatory” by declaration, the physical layout and procedural rules at Calvi functionally impose handling, violating ICAO’s principle that charges must not be levied for services the user cannot decline. This is a de facto mandate by operational constraint, not a declared requirement—legally questionable under both EU and ICAO frameworks.

Pilot testimonial:

“The AIP doesn’t say handling is mandatory, yet handling was used, yet the VAC DOES say that you cant walk on the apron without accompaniment and that the handling company is responsible for the D (GA) apron which is miles from the terminal… so… in effect it is mandatory?”

---

Spain — Ibiza (LEIB)

AIP AD 2.LEIB (25 APR 2024):

“Handling is compulsory for all general and business aviation.”

• Blanket rule for GA
• No cost published in AIP
• No exemption for self-handling operators

Spain’s own Royal Decree 1161/1999 allows GA self-handling unless safety prevents it. Ibiza ignores this.

Pilot Testimonial:

“They told me via email I couldn’t land without an agent. I offered to self-handle with a fuel truck on stand-by. Denied.”

– EC135 pilot, April 2024

---

Italy — Bolzano (LIPB)

Pilot Briefing (15 JUL 2021):

“Minimum handling is mandatory” on Apron 200.

• “Minimum handling” is undefined
• No entry in AIP confirming requirement
• No published price list

A pilot briefing note is not a legal mandate. Charges imposed without AIP support are likely unenforceable.

---

Greece — All Airports

GEN 1.2.5.1.4 (May 2022):

“It is obligatory… to accept marshalling and transport wherever available.”

• Applies to all GA indiscriminately
• No published prices
• No option for self-handling

This blanket rule is legally indefensible under EU law and ICAO charging principles.

---

United Kingdom

The UK has no legal requirement for handling for helicopters or GA.

• Self-handling is permitted unless restricted by the airport (e.g. security).
• Fees must reflect actual services rendered, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• If no service is provided, no payment is legally required.

Airports that force handling without delivering service are in breach of UK consumer law.

Example:

A Jet Ranger pilot landing at a Class D UK airport was told “mandatory handling” was required. When asked for legal basis, no clause could be produced. The charge was later waived.

---

Pilot Action Checklist

1. Ask for the AIP Clause Don’t accept verbal or email claims of “mandatory handling” without formal documentation.
2. Refuse Undelivered Services No marshaller? No transport? No fuel? No charge.
3. Use Self-Handling Where Not Prohibited Unless blocked for safety, you may refuel, reposition, or taxi yourself.
4. Document Everything Keep emails, take photos, and note times. Build evidence.
5. Challenge Charges
   • UK: Small Claims Court, Trading Standards
   • EU: National CAA or DG MOVE complaint
   • ICAO: Report via your CAA for non-compliance tracking
6. Report Abuse to Helipaddy We’ll help track and publicise misapplied policies.

---

Some other examples

Belgium

A pilot landing recently in Belgium described handling as “really poor,” with no real service provided:

“I found handling really poor. No customer service, no asking what we needed, no helping at all.” 

The pilot implied the handling requirement was enforced—yet the quality of service provided did not justify a mandatory charge.

Southampton Airport, UK

A GA pilot noted that Southampton shifted from being GA-friendly to enforcing mandatory handling:

“All GA being required to use handling … my business went elsewhere.” 

This enforced handling—even without legal obligation—deterred GA pilots from using the airport.

Sevilla (LEZL), Spain

A EuroGA forum thread highlights a complex handling experience:

“Security is always surprised if you don’t use handlers… handlers are the story for itself – they obviously can’t stand the fact that a single pilot … doesn’t need their services beyond apron transport if this is mandated.” 

In this case, a pilot was forced to pay €100 for minimal “man‑power assistance” that added no value.

---

Who gets it right

Southend Airport (EGMC, UK) — Optional Handling Available

Structure:

• Southend has a Jet Centre offering full handling services for business and private aircraft.
• However, pilots can self-book landings via AeroPS without using handling. See more at Southend Airport – Heli & Fly.
• The airport explicitly distinguishes between:
  • Self-service (via AeroPS): land, park, pay online.
  • Jet Centre: optional full-service FBO with its own rates.

Why this is a model example:

• Transparent: Fees are listed on AeroPS and FBO websites.
• Non-discriminatory: Handling is offered, not required.
• Proportional: Charges depend on what services are used.

Pilot experience:

R66 Pilot: “I booked and paid through AeroPS, parked, and walked out. No staff interaction. Completely efficient.”

Friedrichshafen Airport (EDNY, Germany) — Mandatory Handling with Transparent Justification

Structure:

• Handling is required for all GA above 2t MTOW, or if arriving outside of AFIS hours.
• The airport AIP explicitly lists:
  • Thresholds for when handling applies
  • Services included (escort, parking, fuel coordination)
  • Charges based on MTOW, with a detailed fee table

Why this is acceptable:

• The rule is clearly stated in the AIP
• The reasons are operational and proportionate (e.g. apron congestion, security escort)
• Pricing is published and itemised on their website and via AeroPS

Conclusion:

Friedrichshafen enforces handling only where operationally justified and does so with full transparency. Pilots may not like the fee, but they are not misled.

---

IATA Findings

1. Lack of Transparency

“Airlines continue to face opacity in pricing, service levels and market access.”

This aligns with our examples where handling fees are imposed without itemised costs or service disclosure (e.g. Cannes, Ibiza, Calvi).

2. Market Access Restrictions

“Self-handling is not always respected or permitted despite EU law.”

Supports our critique of airports that block or de facto prevent self-handling (e.g. Nantes, Calvi, Greece).

3. Monopolistic Behaviour

“Airports designate a single ground handler without justifying exclusivity under Article 7(2) of Directive 96/67/EC.”

Matches our analysis that helicopter operations often face unjustified exclusive arrangements.

4. Disproportionate Charges

“Charges are not always cost-related, particularly for low-complexity operations.”

We agree that rotary GA is being unfairly lumped in with large jet handling costs.

---

Final Word

Mandatory handling is often imposed through inertia, convenience, or commercial exploitation—not legal requirement. If you’re flying a helicopter and told handling is required, demand the legal reference. If the airport can’t produce one—and no service is delivered—you are within your rights to decline.

Let Helipaddy know where it’s happening using the comments below. More importantly, let us know if you were successful in getting handling waived.