Die FBB betreibt den Flughafen Schönefeld und über ihre Tochtergesellschaft BFG den Flughafen Tegel. Im Jahr 2018 wurden an den Flughäfen rund 34,7 Millionen Passagiere befördert. Damit ist Berlin der drittgrößte Flughafenstandort in Deutschland. Um die nötigen Kapazitäten für die Zukunft zu schaffen, entsteht derzeit der neue Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt am Standort Schönefeld.

berlin.airport

Aufrufe

vor 10 Monaten

Flag

Annual Report 2017

Portraits, finances, prospects: Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH presents its key business segments, latest financial statements and most recent developments in the annual report.

→ 124 | Flughafen

→ 124 | Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH → 03 Risks and Opportunities A Risk Management A comprehensive risk management system has been implemented at FBB and its subsidiaries. The Company's Central Risk Management Office is responsible for the general control of risks. The risk officers in the various divisions regularly carry out contributory work. They assess identified risks and prepare and track the appropriate control and monitoring measures. Any new serious risks must be reported immediately as part of an ad hoc report independently of the regular reports. B. Major Risks Risks that were reported in fiscal year 2017 and could have a major impact on business activities or the results of FBB are explained in the following. B.1 Overall economic risks Fluctuations in economic conditions can have a major influence on the commercial development of air traffic and subsequently on FBB. In addition, the uncertainty of the political situation and the growing number of terrorist attacks in many countries could have a negative impact on air traffic. Based on the currently good economic position - the official growth forecast for the German economy for 2018 is 2.0% - FBB sees continuation of the positive traffic development and is therefore assuming steady growth of its divisions Operations and Commercial. B.2 Noise protection programme BER FBB also continuously recorded and documented the risks for the noise protection programme BER in 2017. The essential risks include the increase in the

Our figures | 125 ← number of households that are entitled to a claim within the protection and compensation regions as well as changed stipulations for the entitlement of rooms to a claim. Further progress has been made with the processing of the noise protection applications in 2017. Of the available 21,162 applications more than 19,500 and therefore 92 per cent have now been processed. Changed stipulations for the claim authorisation of rooms would lead to a new processing of numerous of these already processed applications. Since 2017 various actions have been pending regarding the claim authorisation of rooms. A conclusion of these pending court proceedings can be expected for the upcoming year. B.3 Disputed regulations of the previous schedule of charges / risk from a new schedule of charges Two actions filed against the Senate Administration for Urban Development of Berlin concerning the approval of the Schedule of Charges 2015 for Tegel Airport were dismissed by the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Berlin-Brandenburg in 2016. In one proceedings an appeal was lodged against the decision at the BVerwG [Federal Administrative Court]. BFG is a joined party in these proceedings. Two other airlines have filed action against the approval of the Schedule of Charges 2015 by the Ministry for Infrastructure and Agriculture of the State of Brandenburg for Schönefeld Airport. FBB is a joined party in the proceedings. The same plaintiffs have also filed actions against the approval of the schedule of charges 2016 and 2017 against the Senate Administration for Urban Development and the Ministry for Infrastructure and Urban Development. These proceedings are suspended until the decision of the BVerwG. There are significant doubts regarding the admissibility of all actions. Should the courts consider the airlines' suits to be admissible and express an opinion regarding the legality of the approval by the state aviation authorities, the effect on the civil-law effectiveness of the schedule of charges will have to be re-assessed.