31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/13 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the authorization of 
scheduled interregional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between 
Member States 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 17 December 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 84 (2) of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
191st plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 84 (2) thereof, 
Having regard to the Council's request of 
17 December 1980 for an opinion on the 
aforementioned proposal, 
Having regard to the Commission's memorandum of 
6 July 1979 on the contributions of the European 
Community to the development of air transport, 
Having regard to the Committee's opinion of 3 July 
1980 on the aforementioned memorandum, 
Having regard to the decision of the ESC Chairman 
on 21 January 1981 instructing the Section for 
Transport and Communications to prepare an 
opinion and a report on the matter under Articles 18, 
22 and 46 of the Rules of Procedure, 
Having regard to the report of the rapporteur, 
Mr Kenna, presented at the Section's 140th meeting, 
held on 14 October 1981, 
Having regard to the oral report presented by 
Mr Kenna, appointed as rapporteur-general at its 
191st plenary session, held on 28 and 29 October 
1981, 
Having regard to its discussions on 28 October 
1981, Whereas it is necessary to extend interregional air 
transport in order to contribute to the further 
development of a common transport policy, facilitate 
regional development and encourage progress; 
Whereas the present proposal for a Regulation deals 
with the question of creating a set of rules which 
enable interregional air transport to be expanded 
with a minimum of measures from the Community or 
the Member States; 
Whereas a certain opening-up of route rights on 
specified interregional air routes and the laying down 
of general criteria for fixing tariffs are being 
sought, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 105 votes to 2 with 6 abstentions: 
1. Introduction 
The Committee in its opinion on the Commission's 
memorandum (July 1980) dealt with the general 
issues as well as the particular interests of 
interregional air transport services. In that opinion, 
the Committee acknowledged the value of a 
competitive regime in the interests of consumers and 
a healthy aviation industry. The Committee also 
recognized the problems which a liberal system could 
create for the existing air transport industry structure 
No C 343/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
and the limits which it might place on development 
but welcomed attempts to improve air services and 
airports for interregional air transport. 
2. The present proposal 
The Committee recognizes the link between this 
proposal on interregional air transport and other 
elements of the common transport policy. 
Interregional air transport services must be regarded 
as an integral part of Community transport policy. 
The principle of flexibility and transparency is 
already part of Community transport policy; 
interregional air transport must be considered in the 
same light. 
3. General comments 
Air transport services are an important part of the 
transport infrastructure linking regions of the 
Community. The Committee agrees about the need to 
improve and develop interregional air transport as a 
part of the common transport policy, as a means of 
helping regional development; improving mobility, 
creating employment and promoting social progress. 
It is also in favour of measures which can provide a 
stimulus for demand for EEC manufactured aircraft 
and airport equipment and for creating employment 
in new services and the activities linked to them. The 
Committee therefore welcomes any initiative which 
will help to achieve these objectives. 
4. The main issues 
4.1. The Committee agrees that the major issue 
stemming from the proposal is how interregional air 
transport may be developed. There are major 
differences of views on this which are set out in the 
report of the Section. 
4.2. In order to reflect as far as possible these 
different views about how to achieve the broad 
Community objectives, the Committee recommends 
that the following points be taken into account in 
formulating Community policy in this field: 
4.2.1. Expansion of interregional air services in 
Europe would not be encouraged by an open skies 
policy along the lines of the de-regulation regime 
introduced in the United States. The Section believes 
that such a policy would not be in the interests of 
airlines, workers or users. It considers that 
Community intervention must aim to achieve a 
balance between total liberalization and restrictive bilateral systems. The primary objective must be to 
improve interregional air links. 
4.2.2. The proposed legislation should be in the 
form of a Directive rather than a Regulation. This 
would enable Member States to take full account of 
the special needs of regional areas of the Community 
and by introducing a degree of flexibility overcome 
some of the problems arising out of the different 
conditions affecting air transport in individual 
Member States. Such an approach is more likely to 
win the support of Member State Governments for 
the principle of Community involvement in 
developing interregional air transport. 
4.2.3. Negative effects on workers and airlines 
should be avoided by any proposal to encourage the 
expansion of interregional air transport by direct 
Community action. In this respect the Committee 
considers that action should be urgently taken to 
implement the Council's commitment in its priority 
programme of 26 March 1981 to promote social 
progress in the transport sector in general. This 
commitment must also apply to the air transport field 
and in the Committee's opinion requires the 
adoption by the Council of a social regulation in the 
air transport field. 
4.2.4. The effect of the proposed Regulation on 
other aspects of transport policy as outlined in the 
report should be taken into account. 
4.2.5. Air safety standards must be maintained at all 
times. 
4.3. In considering the difficulty of reaching 
agreement on common methods to achieve these 
objectives and while recognizing that the 
Commission has gone some way to meet them the 
Committee nonetheless gives the following views on 
some of the specific aspects of the proposal. This is 
done on the assumption that some form of 
Community legislation will result from the initiative. 
The Committee considers only the most important 
aspects of the individual Articles contained in the 
proposal. The views of the Section on. all other 
technical aspects are contained in the report. 
5. Specific comments 
Given that Community legislation will result from 
this Commission proposal, the Committee considers 
that the following Articles are important: 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/15 
5.1. Article] 
The Committee recommends that, notwithstanding 
the divergence of views on the subject of aircraft size, 
no limit should be imposed. Further, the limit of 
capacity should not be a deterrent to airlines to find 
the most suitable size to individual routes within the 
interregional air transport market. 
5.2. Article 2 
The Committee recommends that the airport 
classification system proposed should facilitate the 
expansion of interregional services but as far as 
possible avoid disruption of major trunk routes. 
5.3. Article 6 
In the light of comments under 4.2.4 above, the 
Committee considers that the verification by the 
State of registration of economic and technical 
viability of an air carrier (subparagraph 3) should 
include the working and social conditions, to prevent 
any deterioration in this respect and to ensure 
safety. 
5.4. Article 7 
The Committee considers that the States affected 
should be given greater possibilities to reject specific 
applications than is contained in this Article at 
present. 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1981. 5.5. Article 8 
The Committee considers that the objectives of 
Article 8 are unclear, and ask for clarification. In 
particular the Committee is concerned that this 
Article, as written, could hinder rather than improve 
regional access. 
5.6. Article 10 
The Committee considers that the last sentence 
of Article 10 (2) should provide for possible 
consultation of the trade unions that are parties to 
collective agreements, since all disputes do not solely 
affect the interests of airlines and users. The last 
sentence should be amended to read: 
'The Commission may also consult user 
representatives, the airports concerned, the trade 
unions that are party to collective agreements, or 
independent experts.' 
Reason 
In the Committee's view, it should be made clear that 
the Commission's decision under paragraph 3 in the 
event of any disagreements cannot affect the powers 
of the normal courts. 
5.7. Article 11 
The Committee recommends that user committees 
should be set up in Member States where they do not 
already exist. 
5.8. Article 15 
As in the case of Article 7, the Committee in its 
concern for the interests of the similar Member States 
recognizes that any amendments to this proposal 
should be subjected to the normal procedure of 
unanimous vote in accordance with Article 84 (2) of 
the Treaty of Rome. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
No C 343/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
1. The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected 
during the debate: 
Page 4, item 4.2.2: 
This paragraph should be deleted and replaced by: 
'The proposed legislation should be in the form of a Regulation as proposed by the 
Commission.' 
Reason 
There has been no evidence put forward as to 'special needs of regional areas', or as to the 
purported 'flexibility' which could arise only from a Directive as against a Regulation. On the other 
hand it has been made clear that Member States will communicate with each other following the 
adoption of respective Directives in each Member State using the existing bilateral agreement 
mechanism in circumstances where there exists no reasonable expectation that interregional air 
services negotiations will produce a greater degree of liberalization than is presently enjoyed by 
international scheduled air services generally. The weight of evidence and past experience must 
indicate that in the absence of a regulation, interregional air services, given the misgivings of the 
majority of Member States, will not expand 'with a minimum of measures ... from the Member 
States'. A Directive will take years to implement. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 26, Against: 58, Abstentions: 10. 
Page 4, item 4.2.3: 
Delete last two sentences. 
Reasons: 
This is the first time, these specific issues have been raised. They appear to apply to air transport in 
general and are outside the scope of the Commission's proposals in the field of interregional air 
services. These are issues which justify separate deliberations in their own right, if necessary. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 8, Against: 63, Abstentions: 24. 
Page 5, 5.1, Article 1: 
Point 5.1. (Article 1) should read: 
"The Committee recommends that the capacity be limited to a maximum of 60 seats'. 
Reasons: 
It is necessary to prevent the operation of disguised international scheduled services. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 4, Against: majority, Abstentions: 0. 
31. 12.81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/17 
Page 6, 5.3 (new), Article 4: 
Add the following new point 5.3: 
'The sovereignty of the Member States must not be affected.' 
Reasons: 
Abolition of sovereignty would lead to complete liberalization, which is not desirable. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 6, Against: majority, Abstentions: 12. 
Page 6, item 5.3: 
Delete entirely. 
Reasons: 
This is new since the last draft opinion of the Section. Safety standards have already been 
safeguarded under item 4.2.5 above. It is too much to expect that new and high risk, high 
investment enterprises should be prevented from initiating operations by having to comply with 
unrealistic working and social conditions immediately. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 8, Against: majority, Abstentions: 22. 
Page 6, paragraph 5.4, Article 7: 
Add the following to point 5.4 (Article 7): 
'Article 7 (2) should be deleted.' 
Reasons: 
Workers cannot be expected to look for a new job every six months. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 8, Against: majority, Abstentions: 30. 
Page 6, item 5.4, Article 7: 
Reference to be deleted. 
Reasons: 
If individual states are given the right to reject or even to influence specific applications, the whole 
purpose of the proposed Regulation will be negated. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 12, Against: majority, Abstentions: 25. 
No C 343/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
Page 7, item 5.8, Article 15: 
The comments under this Article should be deleted. 
Reasons: 
It is clearly inconsistent to insist strictly upon unanimity when in the final analysis it is the law 
which will prevail in deciding the final form of the proposal. Accordingly, in the interests of 
practicality and speed it would be more realistic to rely upon a majority view on the basis that it 
would probably reflect the legal position. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 18, Against: majority, Abstentions: 10. 
2. The following text of the draft opinion was deleted as a result of the adoption of the following 
amendment. 
Page 4, point 4.2.3: 
Delete the first word 'Unduly'. 
Reasons: 
The expression 'negative effects' is sufficient by itself if the aim is to avoid distortions of 
competition attributable to working conditions and safety requirements. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 70, Against: 20, Abstentions: 8.