12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/1 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Opinion  on the  Commission  report  and  proposal  to the Council  concerning  an 
action  programme  for the European  Aeronautical  Sector 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 265  of 19 November  1975,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 15 October  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  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 137th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 February  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made 
by the Council  of the European  Communities  on 
15 October  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in par-
ticular  Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 28 October  1975,  instructing  the Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and Services  to draw 
up an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, Having  regard  to its opinion  on industrial  policy, 
particularly  those  on  shipbuilding,  the  paper 
industry  and  data  processing('), 
Having  regard  to its opinion  on the Community's 
external  relations,  particularly  those  with  the 
ACP  and Mediterranean  States  (2), 
(') OJ No C 94, 16. 8. 1974,  OJ No C 62, 15. 3. 1975 
and OJ No C 255,  7. 11. 1975. 
(2) OJ No  C 35,  16.  2. 1975  and  OJ  No  C 62, 
15. 3. 1975. 
No C 131/2 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
Having  regard  to its opinion  of 27 September 
1973  on the  draft  Council  Decision  on the  first 
measures  of a common  approach  to air trans-
portO), 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by  the 
Section  for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Ser-
vices  at its meeting  on 4 February  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by 
Mr Masprone,  on  behalf  of the  rapporteur, 
Mr Evain, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 137th 
plenary  session  held  on 25 and  26 February  1976 
(meeting  of 25 February  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a majority,  there  being  seven  votes  against  and 
five abstentions: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. In  March  1975,  the Council  of Ministers 
of the  European  Communities  adopted  a resol-
ution  in which  it called  on the  Commission  to 
submit  to it, by 1 October  1975,  'a preliminary 
general  report  on  the  operating  conditions 
obtaining  in the Community  aircraft  construction 
industry  and  on the  measures  necessary  for  its 
development'. 
1.2. The  purpose  of this  report  was  to enable 
the Member  States  to express  in more  specific 
terms  their  resolve  to cooperate  on new  pro-
grammes  for the aircraft  industry,  and  to examine 
openings  for 'structural  alignment'  and  'improved 
industrial  structure'. 
1.3. In  submitting  its action  programme,  the 
Commission  is therefore  responding  to the Coun-
cil's request.  Indeed,  it has  submitted  a wide-
ranging  overall  programme,  which  impinges  on 
many  aspects  not  only  of industrial  policy,  but 
also of general  policy  in the Member  States. 
I1) OJ No C 100,  22. 11. 1973. 1.4. The  Commission's  initiative  should  there-
fore be endorsed,  and  welcomed,  for,  in view  of 
the accumulation  of delays,  there  is an urgent 
need  for Community  decisions.  If these  decisions 
are not taken,  the predominance  of the two  world 
super  powers  in advanced  technology  knowhow 
and industrial  capacity  will  increase  further,  and 
European  countries  will  be reduced  to playing  the 
role of the subcontractors. 
2. Preliminary  questions 
2.1. Is  it essential  to maintain  and  develop  an 
aircraft  industry  in the  Community?  If so, can 
action  be taken  solely  at national  or also  at 
Community  level? 
2.2. The  answer  to the first  question  is certain-
ly in the affirmative.  In the interests  of employ-
ment,  technological  progress,  balance-of-pay-
ments  equilibrium  and  even  independence,  it is 
vital for the Community  to have  a proper  aircraft 
industry. 
2.3. As  regards  the second  question,  it must  be 
accepted  that  action  can  no longer  be taken 
purely  at national  level.  But it must  be added  that 
for years  — even  without  a Community  pro-
gramme  — the aircraft  industries  in the Member 
States  have  been  resorting  to transnational  col-
laboration  on a wide  scale.  This  development  is 
not without  its difficulties,  certain  of which  are 
discussed  in item  2.7 below.  But  despite  this,  the 
aircraft  industries  in the EEC  are developing  on 
both  an international  and  a national  basis. 
2.4. Transnational  collaboration  may  be bilat-
eral or multilateral,  and  between  countries  or 
between  companies.  In some  cases  only  European 
countries  are  involved,  and  in others  non-Eur-
opean  countries  are also  represented,  which  poses 
the question  of what  importance  should  be 
attached  in a Community  programme  to links 
with  manufacturers  from  outside  the EEC.  At all 
events,  most  current  major  programmes  involve 
transnational  collaboration. 
2.5. One  example  in the  civil  sector  is the 
Airbus  project  (France  —  Germany  —  the 
Netherlands  — Spain).  We may  also  mention  the 
successes  achieved  in the  Anglo-French  produc-
tion of helicopters.  And  thirdly,  the  agreement 
between  SNECMA  of France  and  General  Elec-
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/3 
trie of the USA  for the design  and  manufacture  of 
'ten-ton'  engines  for the 1980's. 
2.6. Two  examples  in the  military  sector  are 
the Breguet  Atlantic  project  (France  — Germany 
— The  Netherlands  — Italy),  and  the  MRCA 
project,  in which  Germany,  the United  Kingdom 
and Italy  are cooperating  in the development  of a 
new combat  aircraft. 
2.7. However,  such  transnational  collabor-
ation  is currently  running  up against  a number  of 
obstacles  within  the Community  itself.  The  Com-
munity  should  therefore  give  priority  to the 
elimination  of these  obstacles,  some  of which  are 
not confined  to the aircraft  industry.  An example 
is the absence  at Community  level  of forms  of 
business  organization  which  would  facilitate  col-
laboration  between  firms  in different  Member 
States.  Other  obstacles,  however,  are peculiar  to 
the aircraft  industry.  These  include: 
— the  divergences  between  the systems  of mar-
keting  aid  in force  in the  various  Member 
States  (whereas  potential  customers  want 
clear  and  coherent  offers), 
— the  absence  of a Community  procedure  for 
airworthiness  certification, 
— the  non-alignment  of noise  and  pollution 
Regulations, 
— the  inadequate  alignment  of industrial  stan-
dards. 
2.8. Lastly,  on a more  general  note,  it is clear 
that the  Community's  lack  of political  unity 
stands  in the way  of closer  cooperation. 3. Basic  facts  and  difficulties  involved 
(a) The  civil  and  military  aircraft  industries  are 
indivisible 
3.1. The  first  basic  fact  is that  the  civil  and 
military  aircraft  industries  are  indivisible.  The 
basic  research  is the same  and  the skills  required 
and even  the  personnel  also  overlap  to a great 
extent.  Some  aircraft  and  equipment  can  be used 
for both  civil  and  military  purposes. 
3.2. In  addition,  more  than  60%  of the  Eur-
opean  aircraft  industry's  sales  are in the military 
sector.  Certainly  it is desirable  that  business  in 
the civil  sector  should  expand,  but,  as things 
stand  at present,  it is impossible  to coordinate  the 
activities  of the  EEC  aircraft  industry  solely  on 
the basis  of civil  programmes. 
3.3. The  Commission  has therefore  quite  right-
ly drawn  up proposals  for  the  military  sector, 
too. However,  the  EEC  has  no powers  in this 
field  at the moment.  The  Commission's  proposal 
for the  adoption  of a resolution  envisaging  a 
European  Military  Aircraft  Procurement  Agency, 
is therefore  addressed  to the  Member  States 
'meeting  within  the  Council',  as this  is not  a 
matter  for which  the Council  itself  is responsible. 
3.4. Besides  raising  a major  political  problem, 
the Commission's  proposal  fails  to specify  how 
the proposal  might  be implemented  in practice. 
This  omission  should  be remedied. 
2.9. These  various  problems,  and  the ways  in 
which  they  might  be resolved,  will  be discussed  at 
greater  length  in another  part  of this  opinion. 
However,  it should  be stressed  here  and  now  that 
appropriate  measures  could  be swiftly  adopted 
without  causing  any  major  difficulties  or raising 
any issues  of general  policy. 
2.10.  Finally,  we must  ask  ourselves  what  is 
the political  situation  in the Community  at pre-
sent,  as it is this  which  will  determine  whether  or 
not the Commission's  programme  will  be adopt-
ed by the  Member  States  in the  near  future.  It 
would  therefore  seem  expedient  to examine  the 
basic  facts,  the difficulties  involved  and  the action 
and progress  called  for. (b) Member  States'  interests  differ 
3.5. The  Member  States'  divergent  interests  in 
the aircraft  and  aviation  sector  constitute  another 
basic  fact.  Production  is largely  concentrated  in 
the United  Kingdom  and  France.  These  two 
countries  alone  account  for 77%  of the persons 
employed  in this  sector  throughout  the Commun-
ity (70%  for  airframes,  88%  for  engines  and 
82%  for  equipment).  The  percentage  of the total 
industrial  labour  force  employed  by the aircraft 
industries  in these  two  countries  is nearly  five 
times  the figure  for the four  other  Member  States 
which  have  manufacturing  facilities. 
No C 131/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
3.6. At  the other  end  of the scale,  there  is no 
aircraft  production  in Denmark,  Ireland  or 
Luxembourg.  All the Member  States  however,  are 
customers  of the  aircraft  industry,  since  they  all 
have  commercial  airlines  and/or  national  airfor-
ces. 
3.7. This  disequilibrium  is one  of the difficul-
ties facing  a Community  policy  for  the  aircraft 
and aviation  sector.  In  the  decision-making 
bodies  Member  States  must  not  allow  the inter-
ests of customers  to prevail  over  everything  else. 
They  must  give  appropriate  weight  to industrial 
and social  interests,  too. 
3.8 This  difficulty  is certainly  not insurmount-
able.  Manufacturing  aircraft  to suit  users'  needs 
should  bring  customers'  and  manufacturers' 
interests  closer  together.  Stepping  up subcontract-
ing and  extending  it throughout  the EEC  should 
strengthen  solidarity  between  Member  States. 
3.9. But  all this  will  require  time.  It is also 
clear  that  sufficiently  strong  Community  institu-
tions  are essential  to the success  of the Commis-
sion's  action  programme. 
(c) The  aerospace  market  is a world  market 
3.10.  Although  the  Community  market  has 
been  tending  to grow  in relative  terms  it cannot 
in itself  provide  an adequate  outlet  for the EEC 
aircraft  industry.  As the Commission  has noted  in 
its report,  if the aircraft  industry  is to develop,  it 
must  continuously  adapt  to the needs  of a market 
which  lies  for the most  part  outside  Europe  and  is 
therefore  global  in scale.  Furthermore,  within 
Europe,  there  are non-member  countries  such  as 
Sweden,  Spain  and  Switzerland  to consider. 
3.11.  It  must  also  be emphasized  that  each  of 
the sectors  of the  aircraft  industry  (airframes, 
engines,  equipment)  has  its own  specific  features. 
In the case  of engines,  for example,  these  include: 
— a minimum  production  run  of 2500  to 3000 
units, — longer  lead  times  than  for airframes; 
— more  extensive  and  more  mechanized  produc-
tion facilities  than  in the case  of airframes. 
Because  of these  constraints  only  two  countries  in 
the Community,  the United  Kingdom  and  France, 
at present  design  and  manufacture  complete 
engines. 
3.12.  Airframe  manufacturing  is more  wide-
spread. 
3.13.  It  must  be ensured  that  the  Commis-
sion's  proposal,  which  aims  first  at drawing  up a 
programme  and  then  at planning  production  and 
sales,  is in keeping  with  the requirements  of the 
world  market  and  more  especially,  with  the need 
for competitiveness.  In other  words,  decision-
making  and  financing  machinery  must  be suffi-
ciently  flexible  and fast-acting. 
3.14.  This  flexibility  and  ability  to act  fast 
must  go hand-in-hand  with  optimum  participa-
tion of the relevant  economic  and  social  groups  in 
the aircraft  industry.  Suitable  procedures  will  be 
necessary  so as to reconcile  social  and  economic 
imperatives  with  the exercise  of supervision  by a 
Community  body. 
3.15.  It  should  be stated  clearly  how  this  need 
for flexibility  is to be reconciled  with  supervision 
by a Community  organization  and  with  decision-
making  machinery  which,  at a political  level,  still 
largely  takes  the  form  of negotiations  between 
Member  States. 
(d) The  conditions  for  bringing  about  an  EEC 
civil aviation  market  do  not  at present  exist 
and active  steps  will  have  to be taken  to 
remedy  this  situation 
3.16.  Air  transport,  like  sea  transport,  is not 
covered  by  the  common  transport  policy  as 
provided  for in the Treaty,  even  though  the Court 
of Justice  recently  ruled  that  both  forms  of 
transport  are  covered  by the  Treaty's  general 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/5 
provisions.  Any  change  here  would  have  to be 
unanimously  endorsed  by  the  Council  under 
Treaty  Article  84 (2). 
3.17.  Whilst  the  Commission's  ambition  to 
establish  a genuine  European  airspace  may  be 
legitimate,  it presupposes  a resolute  political  will 
on the part  of all the EEC  Member  States. 
3.18.  The  Community  would  have  to initiate 
new action  and  equip  itself  with  the appropriate 
powers,  on the basis  of Treaty  Articles  84 (2) and 
235. 
3.19.  In  this  context,  the  Committee  would 
point  out  that,  in its aforementioned  opinion  of 
27 September  1973,  it asked  the Commission  to 
study  and  rough  out,  within  a reasonable  time,  a 
consistent  overall  air  policy.  The  Committee 
supports  the  proposal  that  the  Commission 
makes  in this  area  on pages  6 and  7 of its report 
and in Article  3 of the  proposal  for  a Council 
Decision. 
3.20.  So  far,  attempts  at creating  a European 
airspace  for  the  purposes  of air traffic  control 
have  not been  successful. Member  States.  While  any  idea  of protectionism 
is to be rejected,  and  while  the  question  of 
competitiveness  should  not  be overlooked,  the 
Committee  considers  that  the  procurement  poli-
cies of the  governments  and  of the airlines  must 
be coordinated. 
(e) The  importance  of subcontracting 
3.24.  Account  must  also  be taken  of the 
importance  of subcontracting  in the  aircraft  in-
dustry.  Work  subcontracted  includes  both  sub-
assemblies  and  components.  More  often  than  not, 
subcontracting  has  the twin  advantage  of lower 
cost and  greater  flexibility.  It also  makes  it 
possible  to cushion  the effects  on employment  of 
changes  in the level  of activity. 
3.25.  Any  Community  programme  for the air-
craft  industry  would  have  to take  these  factors 
into account.  It would  have  to ensure  that 
subcontracting  in the  Community  develops  in 
such  a way  as to facilitate,  as much  as possible, 
Community  level  cooperation  on projects  and 
efficient  implementation  of such  Community 
projects. 
3.21.  For  example,  Eurocontrol  could  have 
taken  over  responsibility  for  controlling  all air 
traffic  in Europe,  but it has been  unable  to secure 
the backing  of all European  countries. 
3.22.  Be  this  as it may,  Eurocontrol  is respon-
sible  for setting  up a system  for standardizing  and 
coordinating  air traffic  control  techniques  in use 
in its Member  States'  airspace.  It has  just  been 
confirmed  that  Eurocontrol  is to continue  this 
work,  which  deserves  support  so that  the results 
obtained  can  be safeguarded  and  perhaps  utilized 
to the Community's  advantage. 4. Relatively  technical  parts  of the  programme 
which  can be put into  effect  fairly  quickly 
4.1. Leaving  aside  the  Commission's  overall 
objectives,  a large  number  of the  technical 
measures  recommended  relate  to  present 
difficulties  which  will  have  to be dealt  with  at all 
events. 
4.2. These  are  primarily  measures  aimed  at 
improving  the position  of EEC  products  vis-a-vis 
competing  products  from  the USA. 
3.23.  The  airlines'  procurement  policy  will 
play a vital  role  in creating  a major  EEC  market, 
and cannot  be left  out  of any  planning  on a 
Community  scale.  Like  any  aerospace  project, 
such  planning  can  only  be carried  out  in close 
collaboration  with  air carriers. 
Civil  and  military  aircraft  sales,  which  are  too 
often  subject  to political  pressures,  show  the 
disarray  of European  buyers  and  their  indiffer-
ence  at times  towards  equipment  produced  by the (a) Common  certificate  of airworthiness 
4.2.1.  At  present  there  is no set of specifica-
tions  common  to all the EEC  aviation  authorities, 
although  two  Member  States  do have  common 
specifications  which  also  cover  supersonic  air-
craft.  The  United  States  possesses  a coherent 
body  of rules,  and  the  European  aircraft  indus-
try has  no option  but  to bow  to United  States' 
No C 131/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
requirements.  If the Community  had  rules  of its 
own,  negotiations  could  be held  on an equal 
footing. 
4.2.2.  The  work  the  aircraft  industry  has 
embarked  upon  in liaison  with  the  competent 
authorities  is sufficiently  advanced  to enable  one 
to look  forward  to the increasing  use of common 
standards  for  airworthiness  certification  in the 
Member  States. 
4.2.3.  Consideration  must  be given  to setting 
up a European  office  for airworthiness  certifica-
tion.  This  would  be completely  independent  and 
afford  users  and  the  public  authorities  every 
guarantee  as to the enforcement  and  up-to-date-
ness of the relevant  rules. 
(b) Common  certification  in respect  of nuisance 
reduction 
4.2.4.  This  entails  adoption  of standards  for 
the reduction  of noise  and  pollution  caused  by 
aircraft.  These  standards  would  be based  largely 
on the  requirements  of Annex  16 to the  ICAO 
Chicago  Convention. 
(c) Common  standards 
4.2.5.  This  is a complex  field.  Work  on 
nationalization  and  simplification  is being  carried 
out by representatives  of the  aircraft  industry, 
national  standards  bodies  and  the  European 
Committee  for  Standardization.  Thanks  mainly 
to the  efforts  of AECMA  (Association  eur-
opeenne  de constructeurs  de materiel  aerospatial), 
enough  progress  has been  made  to enable  certain 
European  standards  to be laid  down  and  applied. 
(d) Common  sales-financing  machinery 
4.2.6.  There  is also  the question  of measures  to 
facilitate  sales  and  after-sales  back-up.  Leaving 
aside  production  costs,  one  of the main  difficul-
ties here  is that  the  EEC's  principal  competitor, 
the US  aircraft  industry,  conducts  all its export 
financing  transactions  in a single  currency.  It can 
do this  by channelling  the transactions  through  a 
coordinated  group  of banks. 4.2.7.  Alignment  between  the  Member  States 
producing  airframes,  engines  and  equipment 
would  be particularly  beneficial  in the following 
areas: 
— sales  finance  (terms,  rates,  repayment 
periods), 
— credit  insurance, 
— insurance  against  exchange  risks. 
4.2.8.  It  is worth  mentioning  here  the  Com-
mission's  plan  to set up a European  Export  Bank, 
on which  the Committee  is due to give  an opinion 
shortly. 
4.2.9.  All  these  measures  should  form  a coher-
ent whole.  They  should  improve  the  present 
position  of European  manufacturers  vis-a-vis 
their  competitors,  and  help  them  to overcome 
their  difficulties  without  special  measures  having 
to be taken  each  time  a sale  is made. 
(e) Creation  of a real  EEC  market 
4.2.10.  The  creation  of a real  EEC  home 
market  must  be considered  a matter  of priority 
and a necessary  preliminary  to the framing  of an 
effective  civil  aircraft  manufacturing  policy. 
4.2.11.  Re-organizing  traffic  within  Europe  on 
the basis  of multilateral,  rather  than  bilateral, 
agreements  would  enlarge  the home  market  and 
thus create  the necessary  base  for exports,  just  as 
the large  US home  market  has enabled  the USA  to 
export  all over  the world. 
4.2.12.  We  would  stress  the importance  of the 
Commission's  recommendation  that  measures  be 
taken  to facilitate  pooling  of transport  aircraft 
and crews,  and  reciprocal  recognition  of the 
relevant  technical  standards,  with  a view  to 
optimum  equipment  utilization. 
4.2.13.  On  a more  general  level,  any  Com-
munity  action  concerning  the  aircraft  industry 
must  be linked  to the  Community's  policy  with 
respect  to international  relations.  The  Mediterra-
nean  policy  and  the dialogue  between  Europe  and 
the Arab  countries  should  help  towards  expand-
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/7 
ing the  EEC  industry's  markets  and  area  of 
production.  In particular,  the implementation  of 
the Convention  of Lome  could  lead  to a special 
examination  of the  participating  countries'  air-
craft  and  equipment  needs.  However,  this  policy 
must  not  be  detrimental  to the  interests  of 
developing  countries.  In addition,  the  GATT 
tariff  negotiations  should  be used  to facilitate  the 
access  of Community  products  to large  industria-
lized  markets,  beginning  with  North  America. must  be  dealt  with  in greater  detail  in the 
Commission's  proposals.  Generally  speaking, 
public  funds  should  to an increasing  degree  be 
allocated  to EEC-approved  programmes. 
5.4. A  Community  body  could  perhaps  be set 
up to finance  programmes  of basic  research 
designed  in particular  to maintain  the  world 
competitiveness  of the EEC's  aircraft  industry. 
4.2.14.  Whatever  progress  and  improvements 
may be made  in the  technical  and  financial 
framework  of the  aircraft  industry,  one  thing 
must  not  be forgotten.  That  is that  the market  is 
the crucial  factor.  This  means  that  the technical 
and financial  framework  must  be  constantly 
adapted  to the changing  requirements  of a market 
which  lies mainly  outside  Europe. 5.5. Such  a body  would  make  it possible  to 
eliminate  duplication  of work  and  waste  of 
resources.  The  findings  of the  research  it pro-
motes  should  be made  available  to the  EEC's 
industry  in ways  to be defined.  But  it would  be 
premature,  as things  stand  at present,  to do away 
completely  with  national  funding. 
5. Fundamental  parts  of the  programme  which 
should  be put into  effect  in stages 5.6. It  would  also  be  possible  to set  up 
machinery  at Community  level  for comparing  the 
performance  of equipment  produced  by  rival 
manufacturers.  One  of the  advantages  of this 
measure  would  be that  it would  identify  deficien-
cies and  highlight  areas  where  improvement  is 
needed. 
5.1. In  order  to turn  the Community's  existing 
financial,  industrial  and  technical  resources  to 
better  account,  more  care  must  be taken  in 
defining  and  selecting  aircraft  programmes  that 
are to receive  Community  support.  At the present 
time,  the  Member  States'  support  is not  fully 
effective  because  it is all too  often  scattered  over 
programmes  which  have  not  been  drawn  up in 
the light  of a Community  policy.  Programmes 
should  be selected  carefully  and  lead  to 'families' 
of aircraft  being  developed. 
5.2. Parallel  to an in-depth  market  study,  there 
should  be an active  employment  policy  for  the 
aircraft  sector.  Special  attention  should  be paid  to 
the structure  of the  labour  market,  terms  of 
employment  and  basic  training,  not  to mention 
further  training  for  staff  employed  in this  and 
allied  industries. 
5.3. It  is also  very  important  to specify  what 
financial  machinery  will  be used  for  launching 
and implementing  programmes.  One  aim  here 
must  be to husband  public  resources  and  avoid 
duplication  of work.  This  highly  important  point 6. Conclusions 
6.1. The  objective  the  Commission  has  set 
itself  will  have  to be approached  in stages.  A first 
stage  could  comprise  finding  solutions  to some  or 
all of the  problems  outlined  in points  4 and  5 
above.  A technical  and  financial  framework 
which  is conducive  to the  growth  of the  EEC 
aircraft  industry,  a blueprint  for future  develop-
ment,  consultation  on programmes  — these  are 
initial  clear-cut  goals  which  it should  be possible 
to attain  without  insuperable  difficulties.  Com-
pletion  of this  first  stage  would  be a major  stride 
towards  the Commission's  objectives. 
6.2. Community  financial,  economic  and  in-
dustrial  supervision  of the  whole  aircraft  in-
dustry  would  be a new  and  important  political 
step,  which  could  only  be effected  gradually. 
Doubtless,  this  will  raise  the issue  of priorities  in 
the allocation  of the EEC  budget.  If this  move  is 
to be fully  successful,  a real  European  political 
No C 131/8 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
organization  will  have  to be set up.  The  entire 
action  programme  proposed  by the Commission 
for the civil  and  military  sectors  should  thus  be 
implemented  in parallel  with  progress  in the 
political  organization  of European  union. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 February  1976. 6.3. It  is essential  that  the  political  will  to 
develop  a Community  aircraft  industry  and  mar-
ket be expressed  as rapidly  as possible,  and  be 
focused  immediately  on specific  and  concrete 
issues. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the communication  from  the Commission  to the Council  concerning 
a Community  policy  on data  processing 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not been  published  in the Official  Journal 
of the European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 3 October  1975,  the  Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  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 137th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 February  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made 
by the Council  of the European  Communities  on 
3 October  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in par-
ticular  Article  198  thereof, Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to draw 
up an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the 
Section  for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Ser-
vices  at its meeting  on 4 February  1976, 
Having  regard  to the oral  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr de Ferranti, 
Having  regard  to the previous  opinions  issued  by 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee  in the field 
of data-processing('), 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 28 October  1975,  instructing  the Section  for 0) OJ No  C 255,  7. 11.  1975  and  OJ  No  C 263, 
17. 11. 1975.