Sustainable development governance
Public policy positions and participation
SEA is involved in the following national and/or international sector associations:
Assaeroporti – Italian Association of Airport Managers, with the duty to protect and strengthen the position of airport managers, developing their functionality and interacting with the governing institutions to ensure the development of air transport. It also encourages collaboration between members in order to further the improvement of airport management procedures and techniques.
Assoclearance - the Italian Association for the Management of Clearance and Slots, comprising airlines and Italian airport managers, with the duty to optimize distribution of time slots and allocate slots to airlines, taking account of demands and historical data.
Assolombarda – National Association of small, medium and large enterprises, with the scope to protect the interest of members in their dealings with external parties involved in fields such as the institutions, training, the environment and the region, culture, the economy, employment and civil society, making available a wide range of specialist services which contribute to business development.
ATAG Air Transport Action Group – Association which represents all actors involved throughout the air transport industry chain, in order to encourage communication between the various actors and promote sustainable air transport development.
UNIVA Varese – Association of companies within the Confindustria System, in order to encourage the development of provincial industry, promoting collaboration between businesses.
ACI Europe – Airport Council International – Association of European airports, which represents over 400 airports in 46-member countries. It guarantees effective communication and negotiation on legal, commercial, technical, environmental and passenger issues and other interests.
IGI – the Large Infrastructure Institute is a research center focused on public tender issues. The development of the public works market, which tends to favor the private financing of public works, has led to the institute extending its member base, with the entry of large motorway concession holders, airport bodies, banking institutes, Insurance Companies and business sectors complimentary to traditional contractors.
AIGI – Italian Association of Legal Counsel, with the scope to promote, train and develop legal councils and their role in Italy.
Environmental externalities relating to our airport activities
Financial implications for the activities related to climate change
SEA, for participation in the Airport Carbon Accreditation project and the reaching of “Neutrality”, supports the following costs:
Involvement costs in the ACA project and purchase of offsets (Euro)
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|
ACA membership/certification | 10,500 | 11,200 | 9,800 |
Off-sets purchases | 15,524 | 16,230 | 19,362 |
Source: SEA
Number and percentage of people residing in areas affected by airport noise
Awareness upon noise pollution issues in the last 10 years has increased greatly, resulting in the adoption of many European, domestic and regional regulations. Such awareness has improved with the issue with the European Directive 2002/49/CEE enacted in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 194 of 19/08/2005.
The Directive, and therefore the enacting decree, introduced the concepts of noise mapping and strategic noise mapping: Under this legislation the legislature has saw the representation in an easily understandable manner of the noise pollution situation in the principal urban areas and of the areas creating greatest amount of noise pollution, and on the other to have available useful information and instruments to organically manage the noise pollution problem at a national and European level.
The tables below report the results of the noise mapping in 2014. (The census dataset used by the University of Milano-Bicocca for population calculation consists of residency data supplied by the Lombardia Regional Agency for the Protection of the Environment - ARPA).
Linate - Exposed population by municipality
Municipalities | Noise zoning | |
---|---|---|
60-65 dB(A) | 65-75 dB(A) | |
Milan | 41 | 0 |
Segrate | 4,110 | 146 |
Peschiera B. | 173 | 16 |
San Donato M. | 710 | 165 |
San Giuliano M. | 6,120 | 0 |
Malpensa - Exposed population by municipality
Municipalities | Noise zoning | |
---|---|---|
60-65 dB(A) | 65-75 dB(A) | |
Somma Lombardo | 694 | 120 |
Arsago Seprio | 82 | 0 |
Casorate Sempione | 258 | 0 |
Cardano al Campo | 0 | 0 |
Samarate | 0 | 0 |
Ferno | 28 | 0 |
Golasecca | 0 | 0 |
Lonate Pozzolo | 1,195 | 465 |
Castano Primo | 247 | 0 |
Nosate | 0 | 0 |
Turbigo | 456 | 0 |
Robecchetto | 9 | 0 |
Source: SEA
In June 2014, European Regulation No. 598/2014 entered into force, establishing rules and procedures for the introduction of noise reduction operating restrictions at European Union airports, and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC.
The regulation applies exclusively to airports with civil traffic exceeding 50,000 movements per year, where a noise problem has been detected, and establishes procedures to be followed to limit noise emissions and reduce the number of people exposed to noise according to the balanced approach principle.
Biodiversity
The protection of biodiversity and ecological diversity is of primary importance for sustainable development and in order to guarantee a proper balance between human activities and the natural environment. The SEA Group is mindful of its position within a green environment, particularly in relation to Malpensa, and this requires a close monitoring of the impact from business activities and a commitment to mitigating actions.
A number of areas surrounding the Linate airport are within the South Milan Agricultural Park (created by Law No. 24 of 23/4/1990), comprising a vast area which extends over nearly all of the southern half of the province of Milan. In addition, Forlanini Park, one of the major urban parks in Milan, and the Idroscalo lake adjoin the airport.
Malpensa airport is within the Valle del Ticino Regional Park. The Park spans ten of the eleven municipalities within the Malpensa Area Territorial Plan. The only municipality outside the park is Busto Arsizio.
The natural reserves of the park and the relative protected areas are concentrated within the valley of the river, beginning with the Villoresi and Naviglio Grande canals, far from the airport, separated by wooded areas alternated with protected cultivated zones of little natural value but of high ecological value, also for the lessening of the impact of the airport. The landscaped areas of the Park are located away from the airport, buffered by the residential areas of Somma Lombardo, Arsago Seprio and Casorate Sempione.
The scope of intervention of the Malpensa airport expansion project, described in the Master Plan, contains analysis concerning the vegetation and fauna quality.
In relation to the first aspect, the analysis may be summarized as follows:
- the presence of oak woods and high-quality heath, resulting from important natural formations and which represent approx. 45%;
- good quality pine forests, although with little coverage (0.6%);
- a significant presence of black locust and wild cherry trees, comprising approx. 40%, whose quality has been impacted by the general lack of natural flowers and the declining quality of the natural environment;
- finally, the remaining extension of the area is classifiable as of declining quality.
The fauna component analysis however, carried out in the expansion area of the airport, both in the regional parks of the Ticino valleys of Lombardy and Piedmont, reported in the area of intervention, 84 species of trees against 257 present at the parks, while amphibians, reptiles and mammals are not found.
The fauna species of interest in the intervention area are the red-backed shrike and the European nightjar, although the former in extremely reduced numbers, while the presence of the latter is only potential as generally documented.
The area of intervention also includes 8 other nesting species, of which none in Attachment 1 of Directive 2009/147/EC are within the endangered category of the IUCN Red List.
In particular:
- three species in Attachment II of Directive 2009/147/EC and in the Least Concern category of the UICN Red List (a pair of Common Wood Pigeons, a pair of Common Black Birds, a pair of Hooded Crows);
- six species not included in Directive 2009/147/EC in the Least Concern category of the IUCN Red List (a pair of Common Buzzards, two pairs of Common Swifts, four pairs of Nightingales, a pair of Common Black Birds, a pair of Melodious Warblers, a pair of White Throats, a pair of Chaffinches);
- a non-native species, introduced for hunting purposes, in the Black Threatened category of the IUCN Red List, not included in Directive 2009/147/EC (two pairs of Northern Bob Whites).
In terms of the vegetation and eco-system aspects, the area of intervention directly concerns the habitats of conservational interest external to the Natura 2000 sites and indirectly a number of Natura sites nearby.
The habitats present in the area of intervention and within the list at Attachment 1 Directive 92/43/CEE are:
- dry heaths – (4030) moorland;
- common or sub-Atlantic oak or central European hornbeam woods (9160);
- old acidophilus oakwood of sandy plains with Quercus robor (9190);
- and comprise natural habitats of EU interest.
The mitigation actions were established as:
- actions for the re-establishment of moorland (approx. 180 hectares);
- actions for the re-establishment of forest and grasslands (approx. 600 hectares);
- actions for the recovery and development of ecological functionality.
The forestry redevelopment actions, in addition to planning for an area greater than that removed, positively impacts upon the quality of forested areas, eliminating large quantities of areas covered by non-native species.
Service quality provided to passengers
Passengers with Reduced Mobility (PRM)
From July 2008 SEA implemented all aspects of Regulation (EC) 1107/06 and the relative ENAC circular which allocated to the airport management companies the responsibility for Passengers with Reduced Mobility (PRM) and the duty to provide assistance to such passengers. From this point, the service was no longer provided under a competitive system, but rather as a centralized service remunerated under a tariff applied to all departing passengers.
The 2017 performances reported in the Service Charter follow.
Indicators of assistance service efficiency
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Departing PRMs: waiting time to receive booked assistance from one of the designated points | Waiting time in minutes in 90% of cases | Target 2017 | 20’ | 20’ | 9’ |
2017 Result | 21’40’’ | 18’15’’ | 3’50’’ | ||
Departing PRMs: waiting time to receive assistance from one of the designated airport points, once presence has been notified, with pre-booking | Waiting time in minutes in 90% of cases | Target 2017 | 25’ | 25’ | 14’ |
2017 Result | 23’10’’ | 19’15’’ | 3’20’’ | ||
Arriving PRMs: waiting time on board for booked PRM disembarkation after disembarkation of the last passenger | Waiting time in minutes in 90% of cases | Target 2017 | 10’ | 10’ | 7’ |
2017 Result | 8’ | 8’ | 6’ | ||
Arriving PRMs: waiting time on board for non-booked PRM disembarkation after disembarkation of the last passenger | Waiting time in minutes in 90% of cases | Target 2017 | 15’ | 15’ | 14’ |
2017 Result | 7’ | 7’ | 5’ |
Source: SEA
Personal safety indicators
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perception of the condition and functionality of means and equipment | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
2017 Result | 96.2 | 91.4 | 95.3 | ||
Perception of the adequacy of staff training | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 91.0 | 91.0 | 91.0 |
2017 Result | 96.5 | 96.5 | 99.3 |
Source: SEA, Doxa
Airport information indicators
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accessibility: essential information notices accessible to persons with visual. auditory or motor disabilities over total essential information notices | % essential information notices accessible over total essential information notices | Target 2017 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
2017 Result | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Completeness: information notices and instructions regarding offered services available in an accessible format over total | % information notices and instructions regarding services in an accessible format over total information notices and instructions | Target 2017 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
2017 Result | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Perception of the effectiveness and accessibility of information. communications and internal airport signage | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
2017 Result | 96.8 | 92.9 | 96.8 |
Source: SEA, Doxa
Passenger communications indicators
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N. of answers provided in the established time with respect to total requests for information received | % answers provided within the established time over total requests | Target 2017 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
2017 Result | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Complaints received over total PRM traffic | % complaints received over total PRM traffic | Target 2017 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
2017 Result | 0.003 | 0.014 | 0.01 |
Source: SEA
Comfort indicators at airport
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perception of the effectiveness of PRM assistance | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.5 | 90.5 | 90.0 |
2017 Result | 95.8 | 95.5 | 96.9 | ||
Perception of the accessibility and usability of airport infrastructures: parking, intercoms, dedicated spaces, toilets, etc. | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
2017 Result | 95.9 | 90.9 | 96.6 | ||
Perception of spaces dedicated to PRM parking (e.g. Sala Amica) | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
2017 Result | 94.4 | 87.2 | 91.7 |
Source: SEA, Doxa
Relationship and conduct indicators
Indicator | Measurement unit | Malpensa T1 | Malpensa T2 | Linate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perception of the courtesy of staff (info point, security, special assistance staff) | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 91.0 |
2017 Result | 95.9 | 98.6 | 99.0 | ||
Perception of the professionalism of special assistance staff | % PRMs satisfied | Target 2017 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 91.0 |
2017 Result | 96.4 | 98.1 | 99.1 |
Source: SEA, CFI Doxa
Certification of the assistance service
SEA’s reduced mobility passenger airport assistance service is certified (TÜV IT 005 MS).
The service is certified through a Technical Regulatory Framework (Disciplinare Tecnico) established in line with standard UNI CEI EN 45011, and validated by a special Technical Committee, chaired by Professor Mario Melazzini and composed of the main associations for the protection of persons with disabilities (LEDHA and FAND) and the Malpensa Users Committee, representing the airlines and airport operators of Milanese airports. The Technical Regulatory Framework, which commits SEA to maintain at its airports of Linate and Malpensa a service level above that required by the European regulation.
The Technical Regulatory Framework may be consulted on the website www.seamilano.eu in the section: Airports - Useful Information - Passengers with Reduced Mobility. This result is in addition to that received by SEA in 2010 from the certification body Dasa-Rägister for the compliance of Linate and Malpensa with regulation D-4001:2008, which defines the requirements which a site must have to allow use by persons with motor difficulties in compliance with equal opportunities rules (Certificate IA-0510-01).
Both initiatives seek to provide objectivity and transparency on the quality of services provided and to establish a long-term collaboration between the parties involved in these delicate assistance processes.
All services for passengers with reduced mobility are provided free of charge by the Sala Amica and include complete assistance to passengers with temporary or permanent reduced mobility issues. This service must be requested at least 48 hours in advance to the airline with which the flight has been booked.
Passengers with reduced mobility may find facilitated access at all airport spaces: Car spaces close to the entry points, elevators with visual and sound devices and appropriate ramps; for blind or reduced site passengers keypads with Braille have been installed both to telephones and at a number of elevators and preferential pathways with the LOGES system have been created (yellow rubber stripes with codes to indicate direction, obstacles and dangers).
Airport Passenger Contingency Plan
The Malpensa and Linate SEA Contingency Plan has been active since 2011, in order to respond to needs at an airport in situations of operational disruption that generate delays or cancellations of flights, through assistance to passengers staying at the airport for prolonged periods, with targeted interventions, such as temporary accommodation and catering provisions, etc.
In 2017, the organizational structure demonstrated the capability to intervene in a regulatory emergency situation, when amendments to the Schengen Code regarding border controls were introduced in April, applying a new protocol of security checks to Schengen Area country citizens. The intensification of the document control process demanded the activation of Contingency Plan operatives, on days of greater traffic, in order to manage queues of passengers waiting at police checks, both on arrival and departure, and to facilitate their access to information.
The higher than expected increase in traffic, especially from the end of July to the middle of September, also generated operational necessities requiring the intervention of Contingency Plan operatives in order to manage the influx of passengers to security channels at Terminal 1, addressing departing passengers separated from their carers.
Finally, on occasion of Pope Francis’ visit to Milan in March, Contingency Plan volunteers were called to provide a welcome and essential service, involving SEA employees and state bodies, in greeting the Pope on board when his plane arrived at Linate.
Since 2015, SEA employees have been actively involved in the Airport Helper community, making themselves available to passengers to provide information when they are present at the Milanese airport terminals whether for professional or non-professional reasons. Indeed, both Contingency Plan and Airport Helper assistants are called, under the same objective, to assist airport passengers in critical situations by providing first-response information on the operational status of the airport, and, if necessary, distributing food and/or folding beds with blankets and pillows for a few hours stay at the airport.
Organizational management
Our people
SEA Group and external staff by gender at December 31 (No.)
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |
Employees | 796 | 2,004 | 2,800 | 822 | 2,028 | 2,850 | 836 | 2,051 | 2,887 |
Temporary workers | 5 | 32 | 37 | - | 16 | 16 | - | 18 | 18 |
Total | 801 | 2,036 | 2,837 | 822 | 2,044 | 2,866 | 836 | 2,069 | 2,905 |
Source: SEA
SEA Group employees by contract type, gender and location at December 31 (No.)
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |
Permanent | 791 | 2,003 | 2,794 | 821 | 2,027 | 2,848 | 834 | 2,047 | 2,881 |
Linate | 347 | 798 | 1,145 | 356 | 813 | 1,169 | 365 | 816 | 1,181 |
Malpensa | 444 | 1,205 | 1,649 | 465 | 1,214 | 1,679 | 465 | 1,222 | 1,687 |
Other locations | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4 | 9 | 13 |
Temporary | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
Linate | 5 | 1 | 6 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 3 | 3 |
Malpensa | - | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | 2 | - | 2 |
Other locations | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Total | 796 | 2,004 | 2,800 | 822 | 2,028 | 2,850 | 836 | 2,051 | 2,887 |
Source: SEA
SEA Group employees by contract type and gender at December 31 (No.)
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |
Full time | 632 | 1,977 | 2,609 | 635 | 1,993 | 2,628 | 650 | 2,015 | 2,665 |
Part time | 164 | 27 | 191 | 187 | 35 | 222 | 186 | 36 | 222 |
Total | 796 | 2,004 | 2,800 | 822 | 2,028 | 2,850 | 836 | 2,051 | 2,887 |
Note: 2015-2016 data has been modified to include staff with temporary contracts.
Source: SEA
Contract type data indicates a marginal share of temporary contract workers, representing 0.2% of total workers at 31/12/2017, with part-time workers representing 6.8%. Contractors also represented a marginal share at 31/12/2017, equal to 1.30% of the group’s total personnel.
SEA Group outgoing employees by location, gender and age grouping (No.)
2017 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | - | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 22 | 31 | 41 | |
Malpensa | - | - | - | 20 | 21 | 41 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 68 | |
Other locations* | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Total | - | 2 | 2 | 23 | 26 | 49 | 18 | 40 | 58 | 109 | |
Turnover | 0.0% | 33.3% | 16.7% | 4.6% | 2.3% | 3.0% | 6.3% | 4.5% | 5.0% | 3.9% |
2016 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | - | 2 | 2 | 8 | 22 | 30 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 42 | |
Malpensa | 1 | - | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | - | 2 | 2 | 14 | |
Other locations* | - | 3 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 14 | - | - | - | 17 | |
Total | 1 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 39 | 55 | 1 | 11 | 12 | 73 | |
Turnover | 14.3% | 71.4% | 42.9% | 2.8% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.2% | 2.6% |
2015 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 14 | 20 | 32 | |
Malpensa | 1 | - | 1 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 18 | |
Other locations* | - | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | - | - | 6 | ||
Total | 4 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 7 | 18 | 25 | 56 | |
Turnover | 50.0% | 41.7% | 45.0% | 1.1% | 1.1% | 1.1% | 3.6% | 2.8% | 3.0% | 1.9% |
Note: intra-group transfers are not considered.
* Personnel present at the airports of Rome Ciampino and Venice in 2015.
Source: SEA
Regarding contract terminations, 62% involved administrative staff and 85% voluntary mobility and incentivized redundancy. The outgoing population was 62% male, 53% older than 50 years, and 62% at Malpensa airport.
SEA Group incoming employees by location, gender and age grouping (No.)
2017 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | 4 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 32 | |
Malpensa | - | - | - | 6 | 11 | 17 | - | 10 | 10 | 27 | |
Other locations* | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Total | 4 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 25 | 34 | 2 | 16 | 18 | 59 | |
Turnover | 66.7% | 50.0% | 58.3% | 1.8% | 2.2% | 2.1% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 1.5% | 2.1% |
2016 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | - | 3 | 3 | 1 | 19 | 20 | - | 2 | 2 | 25 | |
Malpensa | - | - | - | 2 | 5 | 7 | 1 | - | 1 | 8 | |
Other locations* | - | 1 | 1 | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | 3 | |
Total | - | 4 | 4 | 3 | 26 | 29 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 36 | |
Turnover | 0.0% | 57.1% | 28.6% | 0.5% | 2.1% | 1.6% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 1.3% |
2015 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Linate | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 16 | |
Malpensa | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | |
Other locations* | - | 3 | 3 | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | 5 | ||
Total | 5 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 30 | |
Turnover | 62.5% | 58.3% | 60.0% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 1.0% |
Note: intra-group transfers are not considered.
* Personnel present at the airports of Rome Ciampino and Venice in 2015.
Source: SEA
The 59 hires, of which 95% administrative staff and 75% male, mainly concerned transfers from Airport Handling to saturate the incremental needs of security area staff (68%). This explains the greater concentration of hires in the age grouping between 30 and 50 years old. On the other hand, 11% of qualified new hires were younger, with an age of less than 30 years old. The hires were distributed equally between the two airports.
SEA Group employees by professional level, gender and age grouping at December 31 (No.)
2017 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Executives | - | - | - | 2 | 15 | 17 | 5 | 34 | 39 | 56 | |
Managers | - | - | - | 56 | 76 | 132 | 42 | 100 | 142 | 274 | |
White-collar | 6 | 4 | 10 | 413 | 654 | 1,067 | 225 | 509 | 734 | 1,811 | |
Blue-collar | - | 2 | 2 | 32 | 370 | 402 | 15 | 240 | 255 | 659 | |
Total | 6 | 6 | 12 | 503 | 1,115 | 1,618 | 287 | 883 | 1,170 | 2,800 |
2016 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Executives | - | - | - | 1 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 35 | 41 | 56 | |
Managers | - | 1 | 1 | 55 | 75 | 130 | 42 | 96 | 138 | 269 | |
White-collar | 7 | 4 | 11 | 468 | 714 | 1,182 | 191 | 439 | 630 | 1,823 | |
Blue-collar | - | 2 | 2 | 39 | 438 | 477 | 13 | 210 | 223 | 702 | |
Total | 7 | 7 | 14 | 563 | 1,241 | 1,804 | 252 | 780 | 1,032 | 2,850 |
2015 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 30 | 30 - 50 | > 50 | Total | ||||||||
Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | |||
Executives | - | - | - | 2 | 16 | 18 | 5 | 33 | 38 | 56 | |
Managers | - | 1 | 1 | 62 | 82 | 144 | 37 | 88 | 125 | 270 | |
White-collar | 8 | 6 | 14 | 527 | 807 | 1,334 | 143 | 351 | 494 | 1,842 | |
Blue-collar | - | 5 | 5 | 43 | 492 | 535 | 9 | 170 | 179 | 719 | |
Total | 8 | 12 | 20 | 634 | 1,397 | 2,031 | 194 | 642 | 836 | 2,887 |
Source: SEA
Industrial Relations
The trade unionization rate in the group is in line with the previous year.
SEA Group Trade Union membership
Number of trade union memberships | Trade Union memberships | % trade union membership | |
---|---|---|---|
31/12/2017 | 14 | CGIL; CISL; COBAS COORD.P. VARESE; CUB-TRASPORTI; FLAI; SEL; SIN.PA; U.G.L.; UIL; USB; ADL VARESE; SGB; LABOUR; SI COBAS | 59% |
31/12/2016 | 13 | CGIL; CISL; COBAS COORD.P. VARESE; CUB-TRASPORTI; FLAI; SEL; SIN.PA; U.G.L.; UIL; USB; ADL VARESE; SGB; LABOUR | 59% |
31/12/2015 | 11 | CGIL; CISL; COBAS COORD.P. VARESE; CUB-TRASPORTI; FLAI; SEL; SIN.PA; U.G.L.; UIL; USB; ADL VARESE | 59% |
Principal agreements in 2017 with the Trade Union Organizations
In 2017, constant discussions with legally constituted trade unions continued regarding emerging issues in individual departments. The following agreements have also been reached in order to reduce personnel costs, increase productivity and render the organization more efficient:
- March, June and October 2017 - signing of agreements on the optimization and requalification of human resources;
- December 2017 - signing of an agreement on the ‘welfare bonus’ and ‘work-life balance’.
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of agreements signed with the Trade Unions | 6 | 2 | 6 |
Source: SEA
In 2017 no specific trade union agreements concerning workplace health and safety were signed.
In relation to the minimum notice period for operational amendments, the time necessary for the adoption of such may significantly vary, according to the issue for which the amendment is necessary and the availability of the Trade Union Organizations – according to that established by the regulation in force at the time – or where no regulation is in force (and therefore a trade union agreement or where sufficient a communication campaign is applied).
In the first case, the average quantifiable notice time is one month and in the second case two weeks. In relation to the change of shifts, company practices (in line with the Confindustria interpretation of Article 3 point three, first paragraph of the Inter-confederal Agreement of April 18, 1996 between Confindustria, Intersind, Asap and Cgil, Cisl, Uil and Cisnal and Cisal and Confail), SEA provides 15 days of notice between communication to the Trade Unions and implementation.
The amendments for which (e.g. collective dismissals, lay-off schemes) the law establishes specific procedures were excluded from the cases already reported and therefore the number of days of the duration of the procedure and the frequency of the various stages scheduled.
Management of environmental resources
Raw materials
As SEA is a supplier of services, the principal raw materials consumed, in addition to electricity consumption (including the gasoline and petrol utilized for operations at the airport), are the liquids for the de-icing of aircraft during the winter season amid particular weather conditions.
Malpensa – Raw material consumption
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|
Kilfrost ABC3 TYPEII (Litres) | 960,000 | 677,035 | 841,566 |
Solid de-icing material (Kg) | 9,500 | 3,710 | 9,290 |
Liquid de-icing material (Kg) | 627,470 | 79,270 | 494,720 |
Linate - Raw material consumption
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|
Kilfrost ABC3 TYPEII (Litres) | 302,981 | 223,699 | 344,277 |
Solid de-icing material (Kg) | - | - | - |
Liquid de-icing material (Kg) | 45,919 | 36,200 | 7,981 |
Source: SEA
Water quality
The quality of the water distributed through the airport aquaducts was subject, in addition to inspections by the Sanitary Board, an internal programme of frequent checks which includes the evaluation of the numerous chemical/physical and microbiological parameters.
The following tables outline that the parameters analyzed are significantly lower than the maximum levels permitted by law and highlight the good quality of the water distributed at both airports, both from a chemical and micro-biological viewpoint.
LINATE – CHARACTERISATION OF POTABLE WATER
Parameter | Measurement unit | Average annual value | Parameter values Legislative Decree 31/01 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||
pH | pH unit | 8.0 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 6.5 ≤ pH ≤ 9.5 |
Conductivity | µS/cm | 397.5 | 388.6 | 387.7 | 2500 |
Hardness | °f | 22.8 | 22.8 | 21.7 | 15 ≤ °f ≤ 50 |
Nitrates | mg/l | 12.0 | 11.9 | 11.1 | 50 |
Chlorides | mg/l | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.8 | 250 |
Sulfates | ug/l | 32.4 | 32.5 | 31.3 | 250 |
Iron | ug/l | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 200 |
Trichloroethylene + Tetrachloroethylene | µg/l | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 10 |
Total trihalomethanes | µg/l | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 30 |
Benzene | µg/l | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
Coliform bacteria at 37°C | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Escherichia coli | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Enterococci | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Source: SEA
MALPENSA – CHARACTERISATION OF POTABLE WATER
Parameter | Measurement unit | Average annual value | Parameter values Legislative Decree 31/01 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||
pH | pH unit | 8.1 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 6.5 ≤ pH ≤ 9.5 |
Conductivity | µS/cm | 327.4 | 314.0 | 307.0 | 2500 |
Hardness | °f | 17.9 | 17.4 | 17.0 | 15 ≤ °f ≤ 50 |
Nitrates | mg/l | 23.6 | 22.5 | 21.7 | 50 |
Chlorides | mg/l | 14.0 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 250 |
Sulfates | ug/l | 16.4 | 15.3 | 15.4 | 250 |
Iron | ug/l | 10.0 | 11.3 | 11.2 | 200 |
Trichloroethylene + Tetrachloroethylene | µg/l | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 10 |
Total trihalomethanes | µg/l | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 30 |
Benzene | µg/l | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
Coliform bacteria at 37°C | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Escherichia coli | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Enterococci | n/100ml | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Source: SEA
Waste management22
Again in 2017, the SEA Group confirmed its commitment to the separated collection of municipal urban waste at the Linate and Malpensa airports. Currently, separated collection is implemented for: paper, cardboard, wood, glass, plastic, metal, toner, organic waste. Separated waste management was introduced also to the areas of the airport open to the public.
Linate - SEPARATED waste (tonS)
Source: SEA
Malpensa - SEPARATED waste (tonS)
Source: SEA
All special waste produced is separated by type, with specific contracts with companies authorized for the management of such (for example: IT equipment, oils, emulsions, irons, paints, etc.). It is therefore entirely separated by type and disposed of, recycled according to the applicable regulations and the technological standards of the treatment plant to which it is conferred.
The disposal methods for the various types of waste, as established by regulation (attachments B and C of Legislative Decree 152/2006) are reported in the following tables23:
Linate – Special hazardous waste disposal methods (tons)
Disposal/recovery method | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|
Principal utilization as fuel or as another energy production method (R1) | 0.2 | 0.1 | - |
Land incineration (D10) | - | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Held for allocation for one of the operations indicated at points R1 to R12 (R13) * | 190 | 116 | 154 |
Preliminary depositing of waste for allocation to one of the operations indicated from points D1 to D14 (D15) | 36 | 8 | 11 |
* The increase in the amount of special waste produced and put into reserve storage (R13) in 2017 is attributable to the start of a new de-icing fluid collection plant accounting for a total of 168.63 tons.
Linate – Special non-hazardous waste disposal methods (tons)
Disposal/recovery method | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|
Principal utilization as fuel or as another energy production method (R1) | 1,029 | 1,237 | - |
Land incineration (D10) | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1,296 |
Held for allocation for one of the operations indicated at points R1 to R12 (R13) * | 728 | 854 | 746 |
Recycling/recovery of organic substances not utilized as solvents (including compost and other organic conversion processes) | 189 | 175 | 154 |
Preliminary depositing of waste for allocation to one of the operations indicated from points D1 to D14 (D15) | 28 | 39 | 41 |
Organic treatment not specified elsewhere in the present attachment, resulting in the production of compost or mixing, which is eliminated according to one of the processes listed at points D1 to D12 (D8) | 336 | 239 | 239 |
* The data excludes the extraordinary production of non-hazardous ‘construction and demolition’ waste coming from airport surface cleaning activities and totaling 1,417.36 tons in 2016 and 548.98 tons in 2017.
Source: SEA
Malpensa – Special hazardous waste disposal methods (tons)
Disposal/recovery method | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|
Principal utilization as fuel or as another energy production method (R1) | 0.3 | 0.2 | - |
Land incineration (D10) | - | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Held for allocation for one of the operations indicated at points R1 to R12 (R13) | 45 | 42 | 55 |
Preliminary depositing of waste for allocation to one of the operations indicated from points D1 to D14 (D15) | 23 | 35 | 22 |
Malpensa – Special non-hazardous waste disposal methods (tons)
Disposal/recovery method | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|
Principal utilization as fuel or as another energy production method (R1) | 3,789 | 3,832 | - |
Land incineration (D10) | - | 2 | 3,812 |
Held for allocation for one of the operations indicated at points R1 to R12 (R13) | 1,601 | 1,512 | 1,500 |
Preliminary depositing of waste for allocation to one of the operations indicated from points D1 to D14 (D15) | 88 | 139 | 220 |
Preliminary reconditioning before one of the operations from points D1 to D13 (D14) | 8 | - | - |
Organic treatment resulting in the production of compost or mixing, which is eliminated according to one of the processes listed at points D1 to D12 (D9) | - | 5 | - |
Source: SEA
The dry residual portion of urban waste produced at both airports is disposed of in energy recovery thermal-destruction plant; the separated portion of waste is however allocated to specific recovery and recycling plant (disposal collection and transport or recovery by the Municipality).
Special waste is predominantly transferred, depending on its specific characteristics, to recovery plants. In case of waste with unsuitable properties (e.g. sewage purging), the waste is transferred to final disposal plants for collection, transport and disposal or recovery by specialized or authorized companies.
22 The 2015-2016 data refers only to SEA.
23 Note: The information was received from providers of the service.