No C 237/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
and social consequences and a new approach adopted 
for the purpose of safeguarding the future of the Com­
munity fishing sector. 
5.7. Community preference must mean that pride of 
place is given to Community production, with imports 
being allowed only to meet additional or special needs 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1988. 
1. Background to the proposed Regulation 
1.1. In the light of the package of measures agreed 
by the Council for air transport in December 1987, the 
Council agreed to empower the Commission to grant 
a group exemption from competition rules to certain 
inter-airline agreements. These were seen as being in 
the public interest under conditions which were left to 
be implemented by the Commission. The Commission 
decided to implement these exemptions by means of 
three Regulations, one of which is the subject of this 
Opinion. 
(') ESC Opinion (OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986, p. 27). 
(2) OJ No C 138, 28. 5. 1988, p. 3, and Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3976/87, 14 December 1987 (OJ No L 374, 31. 12. 1987, 
p. 9). as in the processing sector where regular supplies of 
good quality products are required. 
5.8. The policies and actions of all the Community 
institutions must be guided by a firm belief in the geo­
political role of fishing and the importance for the 
Community of the presence of Community flags and 
crews on all the seas of the globe. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
2. Main issues 
2.1. The main issues in the context of the application 
of the Treaty's rules on competition to air transport 
are: 
— the exemptions to be granted cover agreements 
between airlines relating to: 
— coordination of capacity, 
— sharing of revenue, 
— consultation on tariffs, 
— allocation of airport slots. 
2.2. The extent to which the Regulation would facili­
tate the expansion of air transport services within the 
Community, with particular reference to the com­
pletion of the internal market is an important issue. Additional Opinion (!) on the Commission Regulation applying Article 85 (3) of the EEC 
Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices concerning joint 
planning and coordination of capacity, sharing of revenue and consultations on tariffs in 
scheduled air services and slot allocation at airports (2) 
(88/C 237/02) 
On 22 March 1988 the bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third 
paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure, decided to prepare an Opinion on the 
abovementioned matter. 
The Section for Transport and Communications was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject. The rapporteur was Mr Kenna. 
Since the Commission intended to adopt the Regulation in question at an early date, 
Mr Kenna was subsequently appointed rapporteur-general with the task of preparing a draft 
Opinion. 
At the 257th plenary session (meeting of 6 July 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a large majority with 3 abstentions. 
12. 9. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/7 
3. General comments 4. Specific comments 
The Committee notes and approves the objectives of 
the draft Regulation and comments as follows: 
3.1. The application of the Treaty's rules on compe­
tition to air transport became a matter of necessity in 
the light of the completion of the internal market by 
1992. 
3.2. The group exemptions are designed to continue 
the advantages of the integrated air transport system 
because: 
— There are potential benefits for both passenger and 
airlines, from the interlining system. 
— Likewise the passenger, the carriers and airports 
gain potential benefits from spreading flights 
throughout the day or week. 
— The orderly arrangement of slot allocations, with­
out discrimination, is an important aspect of provid­
ing the spread of services during the day or week. In order to ensure that the specific Articles meet the 
overall objectives, the Committee recommends clarifi­
cation of a number of specific points contained in the 
Articles as follows: 
4.1. Article 2.2. 
The coordination of schedules between airlines, so as 
to ensure satisfactory spread of flights over a day or 
longer period, applies to all proposed flights trhoughout 
the period and not specifically to the less busy periods. 
The Committee recommends that this paragraph be 
clarified so as to ensure that any agreement on coordi­
nation of schedules covers the complete schedule of 
all parties involved. In this way the objectives of the 
Commission's proposal which is to ensure satisfactory 
supply of services at the least busy periods will be 
achieved. 
4.2. Article 3.2. 
3.3. In regard to the application of the proposed 
Regulation to slot allocation the Committee draws spec­
ific attention to the present unsatisfactory situation 
which exists in a majority of major airports throughout 
the Community which has resulted in long delays in air 
services. These delays not only affect the quality of 
service to users but also increase the costs of the airline 
and impinge on aspects of air safety. 
The Committee deplores this situation and calls for 
urgent action to tackle the problem of congestion at 
airports and en route. 
3.4. The Committee notes that the emphasis is on 
ensuring a competitive system wich is of particular 
interest to small airlines which tend to exist on the 
periphery of the Community, whereas the larger ones 
are mostly located in central States. Cooperation 
between the smaller airlines in the peripheral States, 
who do not have the benefit of high volume, with 
other operators is necessary for the integration of the 
Community. The integration of the air transport system 
is of particular importance to the development of the 
regional areas of the Community so as to give access 
to central markets for trade and encourage tourism, 
greater mobility of people and integration in general. The Committee agrees with the principle that the trans­
fer of revenue should be predetermined. However, there 
is some residual doubt that in circumstances where 
market conditions change after the arrangement to 
transfer revenue has been agreed in advance, that an 
overly strict application by the Commission could result 
in inhibiting airlines from providing a satisfactory 
spread of services which is in the public interest. The 
Commission should take account of this in a revision 
of the draft Regulation. 
4.3. Article 4.1.2. 
The Committee recommends rewording of this para­
graph to clarify that participation is open to airlines 
who provide service on a route or have firm plans to 
do so. The present wording refers to 'any carrier who 
operates or anticipates operating' may be misunder­
stood because: 
Firstly, a carrier may technically operate to and from 
Member States' airports but without authorization to 
carry traffic between these airports (without Fifth Free­
dom Rights). In circumstances where airlines do not 
carry traffic, it seems superfluous that they should 
participate in consultation on tariffs for the carriage of 
traffic on that route. 
3.5. The Committee suggests that as these exemp­
tions are designed to maintain a competitive position 
while at the same time providing services to passengers, 
they should be continued after the review of the package 
in 1990. Secondly, it would seem reasonable that an airline 
should have acquired authorization to provide service 
or have plans to do so before becoming directly involved 
in consultation on tariffs. The Committee believes that 
No C 237/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
clarification of this point would facilitate more effective 
implementation of this particular Article. 
4.4. Article 4.1.3. 
The Committee notes the wording in this sub-para­
graph could also give rise to misinterpretation. Follow­
ing consultations on tariffs, an airline may in practice, 
legitimately file the same tariff as a competitor if only 
to facilitate coustomers needs. In such circumstances, 
the Article should be clarified so as to ensure that such 
practice does not therefore contravene the objectives of 
this Article. 
4.5. Article 5 
The Committee draws attention to the fact that agree­
ments as such in regard to slot allocations are not a 
feature of the process nor is negotiation usually entered 
into. In practice the authority responsible for allocating 
airport slots, agrees with each airline in a non-discrimi­
natory way the priorities needed to satisfy the require­
ments of the airlines on their schedules as closely as 
possible. 
The Committee therefore, wonders whether the word 
'agreements' in this context be replaced by the term 
'arrangements' and that 'negotiations' be replaced by 
'consultations'. This wording seems to be more in line 
with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3976/87. 
4.6. Article 5.1.2. 
The Committee in recognizing the importance of conti­
nuity in the provision of services and in the allocation 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1988. of airport slots, recommends that the criteria laid down 
should include the rights which a carrier has acquired 
and ensure that in circumstances where services have 
been disrupted in a particular season, that this should 
not prevent a carrier from obtaining an appropriate 
allocation for the following seasons. 
The Committee recognizes that an airport operator, as 
the owner of the assets and of the finite airport capacity 
in use, should be entitled to seek the optimum use of 
such assets and capacity, for the benefit of passengers 
and of all airport users. In discharging this responsi­
bility, airport operators normally delegate the allo­
cation of slots to a national carrier, within parameters 
laid down by the airport operator, at conferences which 
are held on regular dates twice a year. The Committee 
notes that this system relies greatly on a spirit of give 
and take among the airlines themselves. It has worked 
efficiently and effectively, to the benefit of the passen­
ger, the airports and the airlines, for a good many years. 
4.7. Article 5.2. 
In regard to observer status for the Commission at 
negotiations, the Committee would point out that such 
meetings are attended by many non-Community car­
riers. The question of observer status for the Com­
mission is not at the discretion of the airlines. The 
Committee therefore, wonders whether this provision, 
which is not contained in Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3976/87 is workable or practical. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT