Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation` (98/C 214/10)

On 11 September 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes to 6, with 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The adoption of the third aviation package () by the Council of Transport Ministers on 23 July 1992 marks the final stage in the liberalization process of the air transport sector within the context of the completion of the single market.

1.2. The Commission feels that the liberalization of the civil aviation sector should be accompanied by complementary measures in the technical, safety and social fields in order to ensure a unified competition framework. This ought to maintain high safety standards and limit socially regressive consequences.

1.3. To attain these goals implies, in particular, that common rules on the technical fitness of air operators should be adopted to meet the provision of Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention (ICAO). The Joint Aviation Authority has developed technical requirements known as JAR OPS, which were adopted on 28 March 1995 and which could be transposed into Community law in order to harmonize such requirements throughout the Community.

The JAR OPS requirements include, inter alia, training standards for cabin crews. These requirements provide that an operator must ensure that this category of personnel is capable of conducting a number of safety-related functions, e.g. emergency procedures in the event of an accident, the outbreak of a fire on board an aircraft, depressurization of the cabin, medical disorder amongst passengers. It also provides that cabin crew should undergo certain medical examinations to ensure their fitness to carry out their duties.

1.4. A meeting of government experts was held in March 1995. They concluded that there are no safety reasons to justify a licensing system. Some experts even suggested that common safety training standards should be kept to a minimum since much of the training is specific to each airline and even to the type of aircraft to be flown. The general consensus was to stay with the ICAO/JAA approach to develop common standards, as done in JAR-OPS, and leave it to each Member State to decide its own system of implementation.

In parallel with this meeting of national experts the Commission, through the Joint Aviation Committee, sought the opinions of the social partners, who after lengthy discussions failed to agree. The employer organizations strongly favour the ICAO/JAA approach but can accept common provisions for harmonized safety training. The unions, on the other hand, consider that to ensure a high level of safety and facilitate mobility of labour within a single aviation market a licensing system is necessary.

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

2.1. The Commission proposal contains requirements for cabin crews regarding:

- minimum age - 18 years old;

- regular medical examinations;

- initial, conversion and recurrent training;

- checks and attestation of professional competence; and

- mutual recognition of attestations by Member States.

2.2. In the light of the opinions received, and after careful examination of the latest ICAO training manual and current practices in Member States and the industry, the Commission has reached the following conclusions which it considers will provide a fair and neutral evaluation of the fitness of cabin crew and facilitate the mobility of this category of personnel.

The common safety training standards as laid down in JAR OPS (Sub Part 0) compare favourably with internationally recommended standards and the better training practices of industry. They are adequate to ensure a high level of safety.

However, the Commission feels that the JAA provisions are not clear enough on the conditions to be fulfilled by air operators, or any other training organization, to be recognized as suitable for training cabin crews to the above standards. This latter phenomenon is growing as more and more organizations develop commercial training courses for cabin crews which they themselves do not intend to employ. For these reasons it is not possible to rely only on air operator certification to ensure that cabin crews receive the appropriate training to fulfil their safety tasks. Therefore, to maintain high safety standards it is considered that there is a need to ensure that the training organization, be it company or otherwise based, the training programme and facilities be duly approved and given formal recognition. Requirements for approval and of recognition should be left to the Member States themselves.

2.3. The Commission proposes that some form of attestation (recognition) should be given to confirm that the appropriate training has been given and the necessary standards have been achieved. The wording 'attestation of professional competence` has been chosen with care, and after profound reflection, as indicating a concept within which current existing national practices - be they licensing, company certification, or authority approval - can be accommodated and the principle of proportionality be fully respected.

2.4. In order to maintain fitness standards it is to be required that cabin crew members undergo regular medical examinations, although the details of medical requirements could be left to national authorities. It is therefore proposed that each national aviation authority establish criteria for demonstrative and maintaining medical fitness.

2.5. The Commission finds that the provisions in the proposed directive respect the different traditions of the Member States whilst setting uniform standards and requirements.

The Commission, for the above reasons, concludes that its proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

2.6. Since the Commission's proposal is similar in its substance to the requirements contained in JAR OPS, the Commission feels that it should be feasible for the Member States to incorporate the directive's provisions into national law before 1 April 1998.

3. The ESC's comments

3.1. The ESC welcomes the Commission's initiative aimed at ensuring uniform safety standards when training cabin crews in civil aviation.

The current discussion is over two possible ways in which the proposed directive can be transposed into national law.

3.1.1. On the one hand it is proposed that the JAR OPS requirements be taken over within the framework of the ICAO/JAA procedure. Important decisions would then be taken exclusively by the national aviation authorities without any direct involvement of any democratically chosen institutions. On some points which are also of relevance to safety the contents of the ICAO/JAA approach lag behind the Commission proposal (2nd version). For instance, there are no regular health checks, no examinations and attestations of professional competence and no mutual recognition. In addition, the situation in some Member States, whereby cabin crew training is left entirely up to the air operators without there being any official recognition or certification, would continue.

3.1.2. On the other hand, the Commission proposal (2nd version) gives the political institutions some degree of responsibility and, above all, the shortcomings mentioned in the 1st version in terms of improving safety for passengers and crew can be monitored. The ESC expressly endorses the proposed rules in Articles 5, 6 and 7 covering initial training up to the attestation of professional competence. Also welcomed is the Commission's proposal to implement a high level of safety in the internal air transport market, with the Member States having the power to impose appropriate penalties if the directive is flouted.

3.2. A directive on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation is also an important building block in creating a unified competition framework. It will ensure that air operators who have already set high safety standards for their cabin crews are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. This will exert a positive and beneficial pressure on air operators who up to now have achieved competitive advantages by setting minimal safety standards for their cabin crews.

3.3. The ESC is firmly convinced that in Article 1(1) 'Scope` the Commission must define the term cabin crew more tightly. In the event of an emergency all cabin crew must be able to take over safety functions, since in an emergency situation the passengers see no difference between who is qualified to help and who is not! The ESC feels that all persons employed on board in the cabin are cabin crew. This directive must therefore apply without exception to the entire cabin staff.

3.3.1. Communication on board must be ensured not only between crew members, in accordance with paragraph (f) of Annex I on Initial Training, but also between passengers and cabin staff. The need here is particularly evident from paragraphs (e) on passenger handling and (g) on discipline and responsibilities. The ESC therefore feels that knowledge of a foreign language would be a sensible and useful prerequisite for admission to initial training.

3.3.2. The ESC wonders whether the minimum age of air transport employees who are in positions of authority over cabin staff (Article 4(1) in the proposal) should not be set at 21, as is the case in other branches of passenger transport. The ESC feels that authorized cabin crew, who have a big responsibility especially in emergency situations, must have a certain experience of life as well as practical experience of cabin duties.

3.4. The ESC endorses the Commission's objective of making passenger safety the central factor when implementing the proposal. It therefore expressly supports the proposals in Annexes I to III concerning initial, conversion, difference and recurrent training.

3.5. The ESC does not share the concern that different cabin configurations and operational practices could limit the mobility that is thought desirable or even have a detrimental effect on safety requirements.

3.5.1. The process set out in Article 7(3) for issuing attestations of professional competence is therefore approved, as is the mutual recognition of such attestations as proposed in Article 8, provided, of course, that, when a cabin crew member changes company, the conversion and types of training required and the appropriate checks are carried out and included in the personal attestation of professional competence, in accordance with Article 7.

3.5.2. Existing reservations about mutual recognition as proposed in Article 8 can be cleared up by the air carriers themselves, for if an employee wishes to change aircraft they have every opportunity, as part of a proper recruitment procedure, to check out his safety training, his suitability and his qualifications for employment on certain types and variants. Possession of the attestation mentioned in Article 7(3) does not in itself mean one has a right to be recruited.

3.6. The Commission should create a clear set of transitional regulations to guarantee legal certainty for cabin crews who are already appointed and for cabin crews who are not appointed at the time when the directive comes into force. One possibility here is offered by the recurrent training in Annex III which has to be carried out each year. As part of this training the necessary checks have to be passed and the attestations issued in accordance with Article 7(3).

3.7. In this way a high level of safety in the cabin will be achieved. This is in the interests of consumers, air operators and, not least, it is also a protection for the employees on board within the meaning of Directive 89/391/EEC of June 1989 on the implementation of measures to improve safety and health protection for employees. Finally this whole issue is not just a question of applying the articles on competition (Articles 84 - 86 of the EC Treaty) but also one of passenger protection and social progress within the meaning of Article 118a of the EC Treaty.

3.8. Incorporating the proposed directive into national law will increase administrative costs in the Member States and in air carriers that have up to now obtained a competitive advantage through low safety standards. Member States and air carriers that have already aligned their safety standards voluntarily on the level in the Commission proposal will have considerably smaller increases in administrative costs. For all the reasons set out above the ESC is firmly convinced that the gain in terms of safety is the priority of everyone involved, as the need for safety has increased steadily! In addition, however, an improvement of safety standards will also lead to a stronger competitive position for European civil aviation in a global air transport market.

3.9. The ESC calls upon the Commission to adapt the deadline for transposing the directive into national law to current realities. Because of the stage reached in discussions at the Council it is impossible for the Member States to meet the deadline of 1 April 1998.

3.10. The ESC calls upon the Council to deal with the draft directive speedily and endorse the Commission's proposals. In air transport, safety for passengers and employees must take precedence over private interests.

3.11. The involvement of democratically chosen bodies is important to the creation and acceptance of a single internal market. For this reason, and bearing in mind the comments made in point 3.1, the proposal for a directive is preferable to the JAA procedure. The Commission has satisfied this concern.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() Regulation (EEC) Nos 2407/92 and 2409/92 of 23 July 1992, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.