Most passengers assume that if several companies offer a service at an airport, competition is simply happening. Ground handling does not work that way. At Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS), a legal and regulatory architecture governs exactly how many companies may operate on the ramp, who they can be, and under what conditions they win or lose that right. When Schiphol chose to reduce its ground handling companies from six to three, three of the incumbents challenged that decision in court and lost. Understanding why they lost tells you a great deal about how ground handling licensing actually works across the European Union.
What EU Law Says About Ground Handling Competition
The legal foundation goes back nearly three decades. The European Commission's Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport sets out that EU Directive 96/67/EC, in force since 1997, opened ground handling at EU airports to competition. Before that, handling was typically a monopoly held by the airport itself or its flag carrier.
The directive did not create a free market. It created a managed one. For certain categories of service, including baggage handling and ramp handling, the European Commission confirms that member states may limit the number of suppliers to a minimum of two. That floor of two is not a target; it is the lowest the law permits.
The directive also contains an independence requirement. At least one supplier in a limited market must be independent of both the airport and the dominant airline at that airport, according to the European Commission. That condition matters at Schiphol, where KLM is the dominant carrier. It means that of whichever small number of handlers an airport selects, the market cannot be entirely carved up between the airport and its biggest customer.
How Schiphol Applied That Framework
Working within this framework, Schiphol ran a formal tender for ground handling concessions covering baggage handling and apron services, Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide reports. The airport launched that tender in December 2025, Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide reported, and it represented a significant shift: the process moved Schiphol from an open ground handling market to a regulated concession model, Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide notes.
Six companies were active at Schiphol before the tender. Three would win concessions; three would not. In June 2026, Schiphol provisionally selected dnata, KLM and Viggo as the awarded operators. The three unsuccessful bidders were Aviapartner, Menzies Aviation and Swissport.
That outcome left KLM, the airport's dominant airline, as one of the three selected handlers. The EU independence requirement means that at least one of the other two, dnata or Viggo, must be independent of both Schiphol and KLM. The selection as published satisfies that condition on its face.
The Court Proceedings
All three unsuccessful bidders launched summary proceedings, known in Dutch law as kort geding, against Schiphol's tender outcome, according to both the District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) and Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide. The kort geding is an expedited civil procedure used in the Netherlands when a party seeks urgent interim relief; it is not a full merits trial, but the court's findings carry immediate legal weight.
The District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) reports that the oral hearing for all three cases took place jointly on 2 September 2026. On the same occasion, the District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) confirmed that dnata, KLM and Viggo intervened in the proceedings on Schiphol's side. The District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) also notes that the works council of Swissport sought to join proceedings on Swissport's side but was refused by the court.
On 23 September 2026, the court issued its ruling, the District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) and Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide both confirm. The court rejected all objections raised by Aviapartner, Menzies and Swissport. With that decision, Schiphol's reduction from six handlers to three became legally final.
What the Ruling Reveals About Airport Power
The case illustrates something that is easy to overlook: within the EU's framework, an airport is not merely a landlord. It is a licensor with the legal authority to decide how many ground handling concessions exist and, through a competitive tender, which companies hold them. The directive sets the floor (a minimum of two for restricted categories) but leaves significant room above that floor for airports and member states to shape the market.
Schiphol's move from an open market to a concession model is consistent with a broader rethinking of ground handling regulation that has been under way across Europe. We examined the EU's wider regulatory review in our earlier piece on how Europe is rewriting its ground handling rules after thirty years. The Schiphol tender and its legal outcome sit squarely within that trend.
For the three companies that lost, the consequences extend beyond one contract. Losing a whole station at a major hub means losing slot access, ground equipment investments, and the workforce tied to that location, all at once. Aviapartner, Menzies and Swissport each operated across multiple European airports, so the loss of Schiphol is damaging but not terminal. For smaller operators, an equivalent ruling at a key airport could be existential.
For passengers and airlines, the picture is mixed. Fewer handlers can mean more consistent service standards and clearer accountability. It can also mean reduced resilience: if one of three handlers faces industrial action or operational disruption, the airport has fewer alternatives than it did with six.
The Bottom Line
Ground handling licensing is not an administrative footnote. It is a system through which airports, backed by EU law and national courts, exercise direct control over who competes for ramp work and on what terms. Schiphol's decision to halve its handler count was legally sound, the District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) has confirmed, because the directive permits it and the tender process was upheld. The ruling draws a clear line: within the EU minimum of two independent suppliers, airports have wide discretion.
For anyone tracking how ground handling markets develop across Europe, our Airline Search is a useful tool for following the carriers whose operations depend on whoever wins these concessions at major hubs.
This article draws on information from European Commission – DG MOVE and reporting by District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) and Aviation Pros / Ground Support Worldwide.
Continue to follow The Aviation Hub for more analysis and insight.
Advertise with us Your brand, in front of an aviation audience Home page and in-article placements, sold directly, one advertiser per slot. From £250 a year. See the rates
