Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 6 July 2000 - Strasbourg OJ edition

4. Single European sky
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0141/2000) by Mr Atkins, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the creation of the single European sky [COM(1999) 614 – C5-0085/2000 – 2000/2053(COS)].

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Atkins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we meet at a time when congestion in our skies has never been greater. According to the statistics, the incidence of a 15-minute delay has risen from 12.7% in 1991 to 30.3% in 1999 and is still rising. We are worried not only about the effects that congestion has in terms of inconvenience and the implications for the economic stability of our Union, but we are also concerned first and foremost about threats to safety that may result from it.

It is a fact that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers. It is a fact that there has been a lack of investment in air traffic control systems. The demand for air transport is rising almost daily because of cheap fares, the desire of people to travel abroad on holiday and on business or even to be able to take a few days' break at the drop of a hat has added to this pressure. Whilst this pressure has been growing, we owe it to those working in the system to congratulate them and thank them for what they have done. Unfortunately – and this is not entirely their fault – they are not coping with the pressures as well as we would wish: we have all had experience of that only recently, as a result of the delays caused by the strike in France.

All this, then, has a detrimental effect upon the mobility of our citizens, and in terms of the economic and financial and social costs for our businesses and a wide variety of other people affected on a day-to-day basis by what is going on. I would like to congratulate Commissioner Palacio for having the initiative to bring this to our committee in the terms that she did, and with the force and verve that she has shown, initially, in setting up the high level group, and also in the leadership that she has given to addressing this problem. What has been produced by the Commission is a major contribution to dealing with the saturation of airspace.

The Council of Transport Ministers needs to take a political decision to address this. We cannot put it off any longer. It needs attention now. We need a single sky over a single market but at the same time we have to recognise that individual nation states have views about how these matters should be addressed, particularly insofar as they affect the livelihoods of the workforce and also the use of national airspace for military purposes. Military airspace and its abuse in some countries is something that we also have to address not just in terms of the space that is taken up by military aircraft, but also on occasions the abuse of the civil air corridors by military aircraft not abiding by civil air procedures. This too is an area which need to be addressed.

In this report I have proposed – and the committee has broadly accepted – a suggestion that Eurocontrol should be a regulatory body with more powers, more effective sanctions and with the right of appeal for those who are affected by it. By the same token, we think that the provision of air traffic services should be open to liberalisation, subject to what each individual country decides is appropriate for itself. As Members may well know, in the United Kingdom we have addressed the subject by introducing a principle of privatisation. That may be right for us. It may be wrong for others. It is up to individual nation states to decide, but they must decide to address this problem of the division between regulation of their airspace on the one hand and the air service management provision that could be offered by others or other organisations.

We do believe that there should be objective and independent criteria on how the system is managed, with incentives offered for the achievers and penalties offered for those who do not meet the desired levels. We think that passengers should be compensated for unjust delays and that their rights in these cases should be clear and well known. But above all we wish Commissioner Palacio, with our support, to press the Council of Ministers and all those associated with this to take urgent decisions.

If there is one across-the-board criticism of the report from the industry, it is that perhaps it does not go far or fast enough. This cannot last any longer. We must address this issue now.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zimeray (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – (FR) Mr President, I would like, if I may, to deliver very briefly a few comments on this report.

It seems obvious that we need to completely rethink the organisation of air traffic control in the European sky. In this respect, the Commission’s initiative is commendable. A re-think is one thing, it is also obvious that everything must be carefully reviewed, but I think we should beware of a certain number of preconceived ideas found in reports, communications and speeches on this topic.

It also seems obvious that the political division of the European sky no longer corresponds to the technical requirements and market requirements. I was extremely surprised to learn that in today’s Europe, political boundaries still prevail when it comes to the organisation of air traffic control.

A European air traffic control space must be created, but must this area be completely unified, and according to which criteria? I have many doubts as to the conclusions of the report.

It seems obvious to me that there are a number of advantages to dividing up air traffic control, as air traffic control involves segmenting the territory and technical security limits, but also human limitations mean that each air traffic controller, each control tower can only have a limited territory and a limited number of flights to monitor. In this respect, the cellular, segmented organisation of the European territory must be retained and, in a way, improved.

I am therefore in favour of an increase in the number of air traffic control centres as, not the unification of the whole control system, but the unification of the legal system and also technological unification takes place, as this report, and the research behind the report, have highlighted the absence of European will…

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to give very warm thanks to my colleague Robert Atkins for drafting such an excellent report. He took great trouble not just to comment on the Commission’s proposals but also to outline them. I regard the broad line of separating the regulatory from the operational function as the right one. Indeed in paragraphs 4 and 5 we note again that our Parliament has now decided on two occasions that the regulatory function is to be transferred to the European Union.

That brings me back to the last speaker. Of course we have to distinguish between possibly having several or many service providers in the operational field, but the regulatory function must remain with, or more to the point go to the European Union. Nor is that in any way a problem. Today we have 15 Member States in the European Union, and 12 more have applied to join. If we start to proceed according to the EEA system even at this point – defining the common rules and then asking the candidate states their opinion – we can integrate them. That is why I also think it is a good idea in the present situation for the European Commission to pool Member States’ interests in regard to the regulatory function in the framework of Eurocontrol. We do not need multilingualism, we need unanimity on the question of the regulatory function.

I really would strongly urge the Commissioner to refer the proposals Parliament will be deciding on today back to the High Level Group and to continue ensuring that this working group produces very sound practical results. We have great respect for the vice-president, for she set up this group of military and civilian experts and the work is progressing well. There may still be some resistance in individual countries. We wish the vice-president much luck and success, so that come October we can submit an excellent programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, can I first of all, on behalf of the Party of European Socialists, welcome the Commissioner's initiative. We share her objectives, we support her aims. However, we do perhaps regret the lack of integration with other initiatives that she is pursuing, which is apparent if one reads her communication.

We also note the lack of political will that exists within both the Commission and the Council, although it is worth perhaps reminding ourselves that this initiative started with the Council in June last year when it requested the Commissioner to bring forward this communication. Indeed in March of this year, the Council in Lisbon sought further progress, progress which I am sure we would all endorse.

The Party of European Socialists also supports and indeed welcomes the rapporteur's carefully judged position. It is subsidiarity in action: European where necessary, national where possible. I would like to thank him personally for taking on board many of our concerns, not least in the area of safety, which I acknowledge is now the number one priority for him in his report. The key concerns of the PSE include a regret at the lack of analysis of the real cause of air traffic delays. Airports' runway capacity, airline planning, passenger behaviour, airport infrastructure, as well as the shortage of controllers which was mentioned by the rapporteurs. A second concern of ours is this key principle, which we support and which needs to be developed further, namely the separation of regulation from service providers. That has to be a key building block of our new approach. Eurocontrol too must be reformed and revamped and relaunched.

The third principle we support is liberalisation but not privatisation; and fourth and finally we want to see these proposals developed in conjunction with the proposed European Aviation Safety Authority. Indeed, above all, safety first should be our guiding rule, and I am sure it will be our guiding principle in the months to come.

Between 1986 and 1996 air traffic in Europe doubled. It will double again in the coming ten years. We need to tackle this issue urgently and swiftly but in a coherent way. What we want to hear perhaps from the Commissioner today is a clear timetable from her as to the speed at which she will be acting in the months to come. We all know there will be people waiting in airport lounges this summer asking, why their plane is delayed, not for minutes but for hours. Hopefully the Commissioner today can bring forward a timetable for when those delays will cease. I look forward to her comments, particularly bringing this Parliament up to date on the conclusions last week of the Council which received the interim report of the high level group. I urge colleagues to back the rapporteur's proposal and I urge the Commissioner to bring forward a very clear timetable.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sterckx (ELDR).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Sir Robert Atkins has, in my view, compiled a sound report. He clearly indicated the direction we need to take, because we find ourselves in an absurd situation where we have a unified market for aviation but over and above that, we have an airspace, which has been divided up in an illogical manner. A number of MEPs have already described the effects of that. It is obvious that, if we want a single sky, we need to make investments, as the report clearly states. Thousands of people need to be recruited and investments made in technical infrastructure. As such, it is clear that money has to be earmarked for this. It also means, and I believe that this aspect is more complex, that political decisions need to be taken very quickly. And in reality, these can only go in one direction. We need to tackle the issue at European level. We are all agreed that Member States need to finally decide for themselves what they want do. National airline services also need to realise that their time is up, that we need to lift services to European level rather than national, as this is the root of the evil, if I can put it that way.

Needless to say, services need to come first, because air-traffic control does not exist in isolation. It is a service to airline companies and its customers. People sometimes overlook this aspect and only focus on their own patch. If we talk about services within a unified market, this means, of course, that monopolies are then a thing of the past, that we need clear European legislation and that we must move away from monopolies in the service industry. We are all agreed on this, and I therefore hope that we can make good progress. An important point, as Mr Watts has already pointed out, is safety. Nobody should compromise on safety. As such, Commissioner, what matters more than anything is that once the high-level group has published its findings in October, we need to receive proposals from yourself as quickly as possible. I do not think that this will cause any problems for you. Then, everyone will need to put pressure on the Council of Ministers, Member States will need to take decisions that need to be taken and take the course which we have indicated a few times in the European Parliament and which is once again highlighted in Sir Robert Atkins’ report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the report deals with the problem of increasing air traffic. I want to focus on just one aspect of this report or, more specifically, on a major omission from it.

A number of proposals are put forward but for me the problem with this report is its main thesis that congestion can just be solved with the liberalisation of the air traffic management and control system. What the options are doing is focusing on technical fixes, not the underlying trends. Certainly a single European sky would increase the efficiency with which European air space is used. Improvements in air traffic management would make more space available. Restricting the use of military air space would also make a significant difference. But none of these technical fixes are going to make a long-term impact unless we address the underlying problem, which is the unsustainable growth of air traffic. By failing to link the issue of congestion with air traffic reduction the report misses out on a vital strategy. It can be compared to rearranging buckets under the tap to stop a flood without considering the possibility of at least turning down the tap a little to reduce the flow of water.

Consider the facts. The Commission's recent report has already said the growth of the aviation sector is unsustainable and must be reversed and that growth is forecast to double in the next 15 years. That causes major congestion problems but it also causes major environmental problems as well – not only the noise and pollution for people living around the airports but also the impact on global climate. Air transport is already the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and could account for up to 15% by the year 2050.

Unfortunately this report fails to make the vital link between congestion and air traffic reduction and therefore misses a vital opportunity to address these problems in a lasting manner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ainardi (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I think there is some ambiguity regarding the expression “single European sky”, because air traffic control is in fact, as you are well aware, already a European field of activity. There is already a European system for controlling the air space with Eurocontrol and there is already a body, the Central Flow Management Unit, based in Brussels. This is not perfect, of course, but they do already exist.

The situation must therefore be improved starting with the statement, which is patently obvious, that delays have increased and that with traffic on the rise, they will become worse. It is recognised that there are many causes of delays but, in the end, I find that we are facing an offensive presenting air traffic control as the only reason for delays. I believe it would be sensible also to concentrate far more on the problems of types of plane, types of flow, stopovers and of course the continuing defence-related problems.

I feel as if we are involved in a headlong pursuit to implement solutions that seem obvious, but that do not take account of the specificity of air traffic control. Mr Zimeray said this earlier: yes, a plane journey is divided into different areas and the denser the traffic, the more divisions there are. Why? Because dividing things into different areas is the human way of controlling or managing a number of aircraft. Therefore, in my opinion, thinking that there would be too many control centres is nonsense. Why not say in that case that there are too many aircraft? In addition, as far as I know, there are no specific air traffic control hold-ups at borders either.

The great proposal that is put to us for improving traffic consists of separating regulatory and control functions. But what is the value of such a measure? It may well be necessary to consider more relevant divisions, why not? But that is not what is being proposed. The separation of functions would lead to the liberalisation of air traffic service provision, establishing, as indeed the Atkins report states, a liberalised internal market. Air traffic control is not an airline, nor is it a market sector. Let it not be forgotten that its main function is to ensure safety. I believe, however, that it is contrary to the interests of safety to subject aircraft control and monitoring bodies to market pressure.

The ability to invest in new technological tools and training must therefore be safeguarded. In France – and I am not trying to make France a model – there is a general directorate that governs everything and, in the past few years, investments have been made and air traffic controllers have been recruited. The system is highly effective. On what grounds would you want to break...

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Queiró (UEN).(PT) Mr President, this report takes as its starting point an observation which is familiar to all Members of the European Parliament, as frequent users of aircraft as a means of transport: the skies are becoming more and more congested as a result of the growing demand for this form of transport.

This surfeit of aircraft inevitably goes hand in hand with delays in air traffic, causing frustration for passengers, for companies, for business and for tourism. We share the rapporteur’s opinion that air transport must be seen as a coherent system of operators, airports and air traffic control services, the component parts of which are directly interlinked and that only a study of this system as a whole will solve the problems of airspace capacity.

We therefore welcome the creation of the High Level Working Group, comprising both civilian and military representatives and chaired by Commissioner de Palacio, who has committed herself to studying the issue of flight delays with a view to minimising the problems they cause. She will in due course be submitting a report on this issue to the Council.

Our hope is that this final report will focus on drawing up viable proposals and practical, realistic and effective solutions to the problem of air traffic delays in Europe. We also hope that this report will abandon controversial suggestions that contribute very little to achieving this, such as advocating unrestricted competition between providers of air traffic management services. We fail to see the connection between this so-called liberalisation and the issue of delays, which must be resolved as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, any proposed solutions must respect the national sovereignty of the Member States and restrict the centralisation of regulatory action to absolutely essential matters. Any proposed solutions must also safeguard the particular requirements of defence and the specific military needs of each country and honour the commitments that all countries have made in the framework of international organisations.

This does not mean that those countries are not obliged to make air traffic in high air space as flexible as possible and to seek more efficient ways of linking this with military operational needs. The European air management programme, whose purpose is to achieve complete coordination and integration of ATM systems at European level, must also continue to be expanded under Eurocontrol. The programme must be continued, because the problem lies not so much in the way air space is divided up, which could perhaps be justified in terms of ensuring that there is an appropriate number of aircraft and routes for each controller, as in the technical harmonisation of ATM systems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Speroni (TDI).(IT) Mr President, this is a valuable report: it deals with a very sensitive and, I would say, extremely technical issue, although the problem is essentially political.

There has been talk of the fact that there are too many aircraft in the sky, that one controller has too many aircraft to deal with, etc., but we need only look at the United States of America, which is the most advanced country in the world in terms of aeronautics, where these problems are dealt with and, although they may not be completely resolved, adequate solutions have been found. One basic fact stands out in particular: the United States only operates one central air traffic control system while in Europe there are still 15 separate control systems. We also have to take Switzerland into account as well as the border countries. All these factors are difficulties which we will have to overcome.

It is therefore right to call for a single air traffic control system, at least for the whole of the European Union, which clearly needs to include Switzerland for technical reasons. This is the basic point and it will enable us to resolve a number of difficulties as well as promote technical development, and here I am referring to the TCAS, GPS and GNNS systems, which clearly facilitate a more even flow of air traffic.

I would like to finish by expressing some doubts regarding the application of the principle of subsidiarity: it is a fundamental principle but one which is not always easy to apply. Along with shipping regulations, air transport and air traffic regulations could genuinely be described as the most international rules in existence, and it is therefore difficult to break the matter down into different areas of responsibility.

One last thing: I see that the report principally targets the large air carriers and airlines. Let us not disregard other air space users such as air-taxis, private companies and private users flying club aircraft.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van Dam (EDD).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, securing a place in the transport market is an uphill struggle. This is certainly true if the competition is fierce, the pressure is on, there are worldwide cooperatives and external cost items are considerable. This is the situation which the aviation sector currently faces.

We need to consider the future of the sector for the reasons set out above. In my opinion, we should not accept unlimited growth as a fait accompli. It is true that certain freight cannot be transported in a way other than by air, but the vast majority of freight can. We should tailor our policy accordingly. This, however, requires long-term efforts and specific, effective investments in alternatives. We are not that far advanced yet. Indeed, the development of the Trans-European Networks has been a mixed success.

We now need to look for alternative solutions in the short-term. In my view, what matters most is using the available space in the most effective way, both in terms of airspace and aircraft, which requires both personnel and organisational measures, as pointed out by the rapporteur. By creating one single European sky, we will provisionally have enough airspace to allow us to come up with structural measures to impede the unbridled growth of aviation, based on the current state of affairs. After all, this is what needs to be done if we want to realise the ambitions of a sustainable transport policy. It is important not only to facilitate, but also to restrict where necessary.

Although the rapporteur’s initiatives are sound, it is early days and we should not rest on our laurels. We should keep thinking about the future of the transport sector and aviation, in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hatzidakis (PPE-DE).(EL) Mr Atkins' report addresses an issue which is perhaps the most important issue which either Mrs de Palacio or we in the European Parliament will have to deal with over the next four or five years and I must start by congratulating Mr Atkins on his approach in this specific report.

Despite which, there is clearly a huge problem here. Overall delays in flights have risen from 12.7% in 1991 to 30% in 1999. By 2010, the number of flights will have more or less doubled, resulting in wasted time, financial loss, saturation and, hence, safety risks. Eurocontrol has proven to be inadequate as a mechanism for managing air traffic. It is therefore absolutely essential that Vice-President de Palacio take decisive action, as she has done so far, in order to establish a real single European sky. The Member States must overcome their perhaps justified anxiety as regards the management of their airspace and, at some point, must take a longer-term view of newly-emerging needs which goes beyond their borders and beyond the present situation. We need to take immediate action and to regulate the myriad technical details, such as relations between civil and military aviation. In the meantime, however, passengers must be compensated for delays by airlines and must, of course, be apprised of their rights.

I should like to close my intervention by reminding the House that, when the European Parliament voted on the report for the Intergovernmental Conference, it took view that the regulatory operation of air traffic in Europe, in our Member States, should be taken over by the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Simpson (PSE). – Mr President, I thank Mr Atkins for his report and also for his willingness to cooperate and work with not only my group but other groups in coming up with this document.

There is no doubt that air traffic control delays are a problem. A visit to any of the major airports at this time of year will make that obvious. I hear that the average delay is said to be 20 minutes. All I can say from my experience is that somebody must be picking on Manchester very badly because I have not yet flown with Sabena from Brussels to Manchester when we have ever got anywhere near a 20-minute delay. I can safely say that the timetable now is just a mere guide, not a definitive object, when planning travel.

It is a clear problem that we need to address. The report must consider all the issues involving air traffic and adopt a twofold approach as proposed by the Commission. But not all delays are due to air traffic controls. It is the greatest cop-out in the world for airlines to say to passengers that the delay is caused by air traffic. There is never anybody from the air traffic controllers in the airport to turn around and say that is not true. Frankly, a lot of the delays are caused by the inefficiencies of some of the airlines themselves. Passengers go missing. It never ceases to amaze me the number of passengers that go missing in airports! What do these people get up to, I ask myself? Invariably they cause delays as much as air traffic.

The issue of Eurocontrol is important. We support the compromise that is made in point 8 with regard to Eurocontrol. We also support the need for the military to give up some of their air space.

Finally, there are some TDI amendments with this. I am particularly interested in Amendment No 24. I can only assume that the TDI group must...

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report. Experiences from last Monday reconfirm that this is a very important report indeed. Many Members of Parliament had a journey here to Strasbourg of up to fifteen hours. Flights were cancelled, and many were severely delayed. This situation is absolutely intolerable. Airspace is badly congested, flights are continually late and the rights of air passengers are totally non-existent.

The report proposes relevant action that must be put into effect right away. However, I do not believe that it will be sufficient, as air traffic is expected to double over the next ten years. Short flight routes must be withdrawn in favour of rail, leaving room for longer flights, as there are simply no alternatives to these. Reports aimed at improving the competitiveness of rail transport are, from this point of view, very important. Environmental levies, which are being planned for air traffic, should not constrict long flights unfairly, but should work as an incentive to withdraw short flights in favour of rail.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE).(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, with globalisation we have discovered with pleasure that, above all, aeroplanes can take us from our own city to any corner of the world, and we have enjoyed this so much that we can no longer live without flying. However, just as we discovered the congestion of our cities by motor vehicle, it is now airspace which is becoming clogged too frequently. We regularly suffer delays, we lose our luggage and we have suffered all kinds of work-to-rule or trade union strikes.

We passengers believe that we must establish and defend our rights and manage our airlines, airports, flight timetables and air traffic control better. However, we often also think that we have to share the sovereignty of the air more amongst all the Europeans and that there is a large section of the airspace with is reserved which we do not take social advantage of in the way that our times demand. Therefore, as well as reforming Eurocontrol, increasing the number of radio communication frequencies and implementing new and better technologies for tracking so that more air corridors and more planes can be fitted in, in these days of normality it is necessary for civil commercial aviation to be able to use the reserved spaces, especially in the highest quotas and highest altitudes, which do not usually have too much military use. The citizens demand it and I believe that it is possible to find a solution which is perfectly valid for all, sharing – I insist – sovereignty and the reserved space used by military aircraft.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Markov (GUE/NGL).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, like the rapporteur and the previous speaker I think we urgently need to take the appropriate measures to tackle and eventually put a stop to the constant increase in delays in European air traffic. The discussion in committee and again here in plenary today keeps centring on the best ways and means of changing air traffic management. Sir Robert Atkins, for whose expertise I have enormous regard, and a majority in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism believe the prime way to achieve this objective is through liberalisation measures.

Liberalisation will without doubt increase the number of providers, but it will not resolve certain problems and will even create new ones. Firstly, so long as the Member States give precedence to their justified national interests over the general European interest in regard to the coordination and use of European airspace, we will see no radical changes. Secondly, that is another reason for Eurocontrol’s poor efficiency. No matter whether the regulatory and control bodies are separated or not, whether you liberalise or privatise, so long as there is no political will to accept that European airspace issues can only be approached on a pan-European basis, another ten reports will not help either!

Thirdly, priority must be given to the civil use of airspace. In a peaceful and united Europe there is not one logical reason for reserving a large part of airspace for the military. Fourthly, do you not agree that if we make a kind of fetish out of liberalisation, it is highly likely that there will be fewer and fewer service providers for less lucrative routes and that there cannot be fair competition unless we lay down binding, uniform, social and security standards?

Fifthly, we do not need the Commission to use its influence on national governments in the event of domestic industrial disputes, as called for in paragraph 14 of the report; we need a smoothly running social dialogue between all the players involved in air traffic!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gollnisch (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Atkins’ report raises a number of real problems in the development of the air travel system in Europe.

First of all, the matter of safety. The strikes that sometimes disrupt traffic take thousands of passengers hostage without proper warning. Increasing numbers of intolerable delays are not, as has already been stated, solely due to overcrowding in the sky, but to also the airlines’ attempt, for reasons of cost-effectiveness, to rotate their planes with excessively short, unreasonable and ultimately impossible turnarounds.

The report, however, omits to bring up one fundamental issue: the issue of traffic rights. At the present time, it is extremely difficult for a European company with a line serving, for example, Paris, Houston and San Francisco, to board passengers in California, as this is legally considered as cabotage, whereas an American company serving New York, Madrid or Paris, may board passengers in Spain for disembarkation in Europe. It is in the international negotiation of traffic rights that this concept of European air space…

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Esclopé (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, it has been noted that air transport is increasingly accessible to a greater number of our fellow citizens. This democratisation is admittedly welcome, but raises important questions for the future: increased traffic, overcrowded airports, congested skies and lack of respect for the environment, in particular in terms of noise pollution.

The desire to create optimum air traffic control in Europe is based on good intentions, but why should the Commission challenge the air policies of the Member States and their bilateral agreements through a single air space? Of course, I agree, on the one hand, with the goal of rationalising the movement of aircraft and, on the other hand, with the goal of aiming for improved traffic flow, while fully respecting consumer protection and passenger safety.

I would like to believe Mrs Palacio when she assures us that, and I quote, there is “no reference to creating competition between air traffic control services or their privatisation in the works of the Commission”. But in that case, the staff concerned would have no justifiable need of trade unions?

The Commission is demanding the advent of a proper air traffic management authority, a strong regulatory authority. I say no. No to a complete overhaul of Eurocontrol. No to a new regulatory structure – after all, the current system effectively organises, particularly with regard to safety, a balanced flow of traffic while respecting the national systems which all states are entitled to. No to the Commission representing the Member States with regard to external States, thereby destroying any political decision-making power in the field of air transport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, both the Commission’s communication and the rapporteur’s report, which is magnificent, are in line with the European Council of Lisbon, which asked the Commission for a series of specific proposals as soon as possible.

It is now for the Council to take the necessary and urgent political decisions which will allow the single aviation market to be supplemented with a single air traffic control system.

The growth in demand currently stands at between 5% and 7% and it seems that it will follow the same trend over the next few years. This makes it even more difficult for the European air management systems to do their work, since they have shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with this development and they are the cause of 50% of delays, although it is true that there are other causes, such as the limitations of the airports and flight schedules which do not take account of the limitations of the infrastructures.

Another cause which makes the current system ineffective is the different organisation of the civil system and the military system, as well as the different standards of technical equipment on the ground. The airspace must be accessible under the same conditions for general, commercial and military aviation, which does not mean that we should not give priority, or indeed exclusive access, to the military in the event of crises.

However, the mere fact that a crisis may occur does not mean that certain Member States can justify maintaining the conditions which prevailed during the cold war. It is necessary for the civil and military controllers in the control centres to work in close cooperation.

There is a clear need to achieve more effective cooperation between the different users of the airspace, and I believe that that cooperation and a joint approach should be sought at European level.

I congratulate the rapporteur and the Vice-President of the Commission for the opinions they share on an issue which is so important and so sensitive in the daily lives of our citizens. Mr Atkins’ report is detailed and balanced, and it presents the current and correct position of this House.

Lastly, Madam Vice-President, please take note that we are aware of your efforts and we will support you in the line you have taken.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I must express major reservations with regard to the Atkins report as it bears the stamp of commercial interests concealed behind the best of intentions. In actual fact, the airlines would like the air traffic control sector to be completely liberalised, not so much for reasons of safety, interoperability or reducing delays as to be able to access a market of air traffic control services that would enable the more powerful among them to purchase more expensive, secure slots and leave the problem of delays to other airlines and private aviation.

Under cover of a single sky, such liberalisation would actually offer us a multispeed sky. I have no other way of explaining the witch hunt undertaken in this report with regard to civil air traffic control alone. We all know that this only represents 30% of delays, which admittedly are worth combating, but which essentially depend on military constraints. This is a political problem that depends first and foremost on politicians. We all know that the considerable increase in air traffic is the main underlying cause of overcrowded and saturated skies. We all know that the number of runways and landing platforms would have to be reduced in order to have any chance of a break, a simple break in the saturation.

Finally, in my country, the airlines have chosen to set up shuttles that send a dozen low-capacity aircraft from each provincial French town every morning between 6.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. to Paris alone. Is it the fault of air traffic control if they refuse to allow all these flights to land simultaneously in Paris?

These are the fundamental causes of air delays. Naturally, the single sky must be set up through a reformed Eurocontrol and harmonised control services at European level. However, personally I cannot imagine collective safety services that are dictated by profit alone, controlled by shareholders. In addition, I cannot imagine tomorrow’s single European sky becoming an sky shared unfairly between airlines.

Commissioner, I hope that, in preparing the future directive on the single sky, the Commission will be able to handle this matter by taking a calmer and more impartial overall view.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laguiller (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I am acting as the representative of the air traffic controllers protesting against the European Commission proposal which, in the name of the attractive slogan “single European sky”, will clear the way for the privatisation of air traffic control.

The Atkins report clears the way for the monopoly of private groups that have their eye on air traffic control which, with the increase in traffic, is likely to make money.

This reports mentions delays, which are, apparently, increasingly frequent. But how would subjecting air traffic control to the requirements of private profit possibly put an end to delays? It is precisely the airlines’ quest for profit that has led them to make the choices that cause these delays.

It is in the interests of passengers and their safety, and in the interests of employees in this sector for air traffic control to remain a public service, dedicated exclusively to ensuring the smooth running of air traffic. Competition and the quest for profit in an area as sensitive as air traffic control will inevitably lead to disaster. If it is necessary to put an end to national peculiarities with regard to air traffic management, and if it is legitimate to unify the European air space, this must be achieved by rejecting any idea of privatisation, competition, or quest for profitability, and we will vote against this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Farage (EDD). – Mr President, I really must congratulate my colleague, Sir Robert Atkins of the British Conservative Party, on his most excellent report on the Single European Sky.

This proves beyond doubt that the overarching ambition of the European Union is a single nation with its single national flag, its single national anthem, its single legal space, its single national borders and now the citizens of Europe will soon be able to breath single European air. However, after the failure of the single land policy, known as the CAP, the single sea policy, known as the CFP, we can now look forward to a similar failure of the single sky policy. Not least, given the number of strikes in air traffic control, I suppose we can now look forward to the single European strike. But you have struck a real blow for the Eurosceptic movement in the UK, Sir Robert, I congratulate you.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Foster (PPE-DE). – Mr President, It is quite true to say that air traffic delays need to be urgently addressed. However, it is also worth noting that 33% of ATM delays recorded between January and June 1999 were mostly due to temporary capacity reductions associated not least with the Kosovo crisis. The real problem lies in the sectors straddling areas north and south which include Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain, parts of Germany, Maastricht upper-air space and these are responsible for 44% air traffic flow management delays and 30 bottlenecks.

At one time, Greece was part of that problem. However, the impressive results by the Greeks goes to show that the improvements can be made if there is strong action and real cooperation by national governments. All too often Eurocontrol is used as the scapegoat and is blamed for the present situation, but the real blame must lie with the inaction of national governments in the areas that I have outlined. It is quite clear that the European Transport Council must take immediate action to ensure that the air traffic control decisions are applied by all Member States Europe-wide. It should be remembered that Eurocontrol is the only pan-European institution in the air traffic management domain and must be supported.

Finally, one issue that was raised – the critical shortage of manpower to the tune of 1,000 air traffic controllers throughout Europe – needs to be urgently addressed by national governments. That in itself will go a long way to improving flow control. In addition, both airports and airlines need to look closely at their practices, as they too are responsible far too often for the high percentage of delays incurred.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stenmarck (PPE-DE).(SV) Mr President, allow me to begin by offering my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Atkins, for a powerful presentation, to the Commission for making this issue one of its priorities and to the Commissioner responsible, Mrs De Palacio, for daring to translate words into action. This has meant that the question of a single air traffic control has, in a short time, come closer to a solution perhaps than ever before. Of course, there still remains much to be done. In particular, a number of reluctant Member States need to be convinced, but that is precisely why it is so incredibly important for the European Parliament to give the Commission its full support today for the continuation of the work. We are, of course, in the middle of yet another chaotic summer for flights.

The development we are now seeing will result in a doubling of air traffic in the years following 2010. This assumes that we have had the necessary political decisions. Otherwise we not only run the risk of congestion in the air leading in the future to 15, 30 or 60 minutes’ delay, which we can perhaps put up with, but are also in danger of no longer being certain of ensuring safety. This is something we must never put up with. It is in this light that Mr Atkins’ report and the Commission’s presentation must be seen. The EU has spent a considerable amount of time and energy on tearing down borders and creating a single market. Everyone who travels a mile up in the air – and we are there quite often – can nevertheless see that there are borders everywhere. The report lays down an extremely tight timetable. I share this ambition. Let us together ensure that the summer of 2000 is the last summer with chaos in the skies over Europe. The Commission can actually achieve this with the help of the Atkins report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there has hardly ever been such a topical report as this one. Just in time before the summer break, when everyone goes on holiday and more and more people also travel by plane, today Parliament is considering questions of air traffic. A tiresome subject, as we all know, and as every air traveller finds out. We all suffer from delays that often last hours. It has now become a daily scene at airports to see every passage-way overcrowded with bored, irritable or even aggressive passengers. It happens to us MEPs very frequently, as it does to much of the population during the holidays.

Let me remind you of another aspect. When aircraft cannot land on time, that not only creates a great many personal difficulties for people on business trips who have to keep to their schedules but also produces extra costs and environmental pollution. So I welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted a report on these important subjects and that a High Level Group was set up to consider the problems of establishing a single European sky. I hope we will have the final results of its inquiries before us in good time in the autumn so that we can then really move on to taking concrete measures jointly with the Commission.

The safety aspect comes top of the list for all passengers, but especially for frequent fliers. Safety standards must on no account be endangered. That is why we need better airspace control and protection. Eurocontrol must satisfy all these safety requirements, but that means we also have to create the necessary framework conditions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to warmly thank Mr Atkins for his effort and the serious and rigorous work which he has done over the last few months and which, as the rapporteur for the Industry Committee, Mr Zimeray, has pointed out, illustrates the fragmented situation of our air space both with regard to the existing administrative borders as well as technological fragmentation, which is due to the different systems which are applied in different countries.

On this basis, we have to take account of a fact which is pointed out in the report: the increase in air traffic, the increase in delays. Of course, nobody knows better than the honourable Members what a problem this is.

We must make it very clear that not all delays are due to the management of air traffic; almost half of all delays are due to air companies, airports and sometimes weather conditions.

However, it is the case that 50%, or perhaps a little more, of delays are due to problems in the management of air traffic. I also wish to make it very clear that this does not mean it is the fault of controllers. It is not a problem involving the practices of people who carry out their work in conditions of great tension, difficulty and complexity, and who do everything possible to guarantee the highest possible level of safety. This is the main problem: how to guarantee the highest possible level of safety. The controllers sometimes have to do their work despite excessive numbers of flights, and a lack of human resources, which forces them to work longer hours than they should, and also with certain methods, certain technologies and certain technological supports which are not sufficiently developed.

I wish to make it very clear that this is not a problem with people, with the controllers, who, I insist, do wonderful work. I must say that it is truly impressive to see them at work because they are responsible for everybody’s lives, for the lives of anyone in a plane at any one time.

As the ‘Single European Sky’ illustrates , I believe that what is failing is the management system, since it is in a fragmented situation, divided up by administrative barriers, by administrative borders – in a European Union which has been able create so many common elements – and because of the artificial divisions between sky for military use and sky for civil use which persist in many countries, even though we left the cold war behind some time ago. Furthermore, this does not reflect the countries’ real defence needs. This is because the majority of defence flights take place in low altitude areas of the airspace and not in the high areas. Furthermore, these areas of airspace are used for very few hours of the day, not every day, and in many cases just a few times a year.

What we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is create a common airspace above a certain height, and manage it jointly – as one speaker said a moment ago – forgetting about borders in that high area of the airspace. We should stop talking about British, Spanish, French or Swedish airspace, and simply talk about European airspace in this high area, and leave the area below 29 500 feet, or 31 000 feet – we will have to specify which area – to national management because there are other types of problems there and its military use is more obvious. In any event, we must make the military and civil use of airspace more flexible, improve the efficiency of management and provide air traffic controllers, who are currently working in very complicated circumstances, with an easier environment which will allow them to do their work more effectively.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have asked me about timetables. In principle, the High Level Group, to which I am going to communicate Parliament’s conclusions at the next meeting on the 14th, will finish its work by October. Therefore, the resulting specific proposals will be presented during the subsequent months and we hope that the specific proposals will be under way by the next European Council in the Spring, under the Swedish Presidency. That is the timetable.

The ‘Single European Sky’ initiative in no way implies the removal of Eurocontrol. On the contrary, Eurocontrol is absolutely essential; it is an essential element which must be strengthened and supplemented since, within the European Union, we can go much further than the scope of Eurocontrol.

Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, we must think in terms of a strong European common regulator and we must forget – because, of course, it is not going to appear in the Commission’s communication or proposals – the controversy, which in my view is artificial, between privatisation and non-privatisation. Let us not get into this argument. That is not the aim of this initiative. Countries may deal with this within their own competences, but it is outside of this ‘Single European Sky’ initiative. This initiative will allow us to guarantee a strong European regulator. That is what we are dealing with; creating a common airspace which can be used flexibly.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would thank all of you for your work, especially the rapporteur, Mr Atkins, and I would like to say that I hope that between us we will manage to improve the management of air traffic in one of the areas, which is not the only one, which leads to delays. We are also working to solve the problem of slots and other problems, but there is a time and a place for everything.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy