So let me start by asking you a question… Is the IAP designation worth it for airports and for their employees? I guess it depends on who you ask and where you live. But from my perspective I absolutely believe it is worth the time and effort to complete. I completed my IAP in 2014. There are many practical reasons to get the designation. Most importantly, airport executives and professionals are continually challenged by information gaps, time squeezes and the change dynamics that are encountered in the airport business. Additional reasons include:

• Sharing of Best Practices and learning from the experiences of other airport professionals. While we may be in different regions or countries we share similar challenges and opportunities.
• The opportunity to gain and share your own knowledge, experience and expertise in a community of professionals.
• To build a network of colleagues and establish professional relationships and friendships with people from around the world – today I can pick up the phone to speak with people in San Francisco, Munich, the Gold Coast and/or Charlottetown.

I believe that the pursuit of a designation really comes down to Life Long Learning – the ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated – pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons.
It not only enhances social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development, but also self-sustainability in a fast changing industry. In fact, if you want career stability keep on learning it is really the only buffer. But most importantly it is good for our business when our people expand their knowledge into other areas.
We are part of a movement, let’s continue to promote IAP to our colleagues, teams, superiors and direct reports.
Thank you for your patience, you can now renew your membership dues through the new IAP CoP Website.

RJ Steenstra, IAP
Treasurer of the board & Nominating Committee
President and Chief Executive Officer
Fort McMurray International Airport

Passenger Terminal EXPO 2017, Amsterdam, March 14 to 16.

We spotted more than 20 members of the IAP Community of Practice in the panel of the Passenger Terminal Expo including IAP graduates, IAP candidates, AMPAP Associates and AMPAP Instructors. If you are going, make sure to say Hi to your colleagues:

Vince Scanlon, Nandita Bhatt, David-Ioan Ciceo, Scott Gibbons, Richard Duncan, Sharon McCloskey, Thomas Kallmayer, Jim Parashos, Brian Cobb, Arturo Garcia-Alonso, Aymeric Dussart, Etienne van Zuijlen, Francisco Salguero, Maurice Jenkins, Mark Croudace, Mohamad Al Agha, Sarah Wittlieb, Paul Behnke, RJ Steenstra, Thomas Romig, Pedro Bettencourt, Peter Adams,…

Paul Behnke, AMPAP Instructor, will take part in the panel discussion about “Airports and Emergency preparedness: The challenge of covering all contigences” along with RJ Steestra, IAP, Thomas Romig, IAP, Pedro Bettencourt, IAP and Peter Adams, IAP. Paul will on the side represent the AMPAP programme with brochures and banners, don’t hesitate to have a chat with him!

In a press release dated 8 February 2017 Aero Montreal announced a decision of the Government of Canada to provide $372.5 million as repayable loans to Bombardier. These funds have been allocated for research and development (R&D) activities for the Global 7000 and CSeries business jet programs. The press release follows a day after the government of Brazil launched a formal complaint against Canada in The World Trade Organization (WTO), saying the loans to Bombardier were contrary to the rules on subsidies of the WTO.
A subsidy is defined by the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) of the WTO as the conferring of a benefit by way of a financial contribution by the government or any public body. This would include the transfer of funds, such as grants, loans, equity infusion and potential transfer of loan guarantees.
In a similar case, WTO, in its judgment rendered in March 2012 found that Boeing received between $3 billion and $4 billion in U.S. subsidies, and by contrast WTO had said in December 2011 that Airbus received $18 billion in subsidies from European governments. The operative provision under WTO in this context is Article XVI.4 which provides that as from 1 January 1958 or the earliest practicable date thereafter, contracting parties are required not to grant either directly or indirectly any form of subsidy on the export of any product other than a primary product.
Do you think Brazil has a case against Canada? Join the conversation on the LinkedIn Group

Ruwantissa ABEYRATNE
AMPAP Instructor