WRITTEN QUESTION E-3510/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Difference between national and European aviation policies in connection with the establishment of open skies and the supplanting of established airlines by newcomers

1. Can the Commission confirm that of the 15 current Member States only Spain, Greece and Ireland have not concluded undesirable bilateral aviation agreements? Which of the 12 applicant countries due to join the Union in 2004 and 2007 have now concluded a similar agreement with the United States or are considering such a step prior to their accession to the EU?

2. Does the Commission recall its answer to Written Question E-2839/00(1) in which it stated not only that infringement proceedings had or would be initiated against 10 Member States which had concluded bilateral agreements with the United States since June 1992, but also that the conclusion of individual open skies agreements by EU Member States prevented effective negotiations and that it had submitted to the Council a proposal to establish a transatlantic common aviation area (TCAA) involving the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United States?

3. Is the Commission primarily seeking to define more clearly the division of competences between the EU and its Member States on the basis of Article 10 of the Treaty, or rather to bring about changes in aviation policy? To what extent is it really changing policy, given that the existing bilateral agreements between Member States and the United States are being terminated?

4. Is the Commission's aim that of extending the gradual liberalisation within the EU which has taken place since 1987, with the result that any airline with a valid Air Operators Certificate can claim the right to fly any route within the EU, to cover the joint territory of the EU and the United States, something which in practice amounts to a further strengthening of the open skies system already operated by most Member States and which ultimately offers no protection against cut-throat competition?

5. What implications will the policy advocated by the Commission have for future relations between established national airlines and the emerging low-cost airlines?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 106.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

1. The judgements of the Court of Justice in the so-called open skies cases concerned specifically eight Member States. However, the conclusions of the Court that certain elements of bilateral air services agreements are contrary to Community law, are relevant for practically all such agreements to which a Member State is a party, whether they are open skies agreements or not. Therefore, the findings of the Court are relevant for all Member States. The majority of the accession countries has concluded open skies agreements with the United States.

2. The Commission has indeed made proposals to the Council for the negotiation of a Community agreement with the United States which aim to create a Transatlantic Common Aviation Area (TCAA). That agreement will, after its conclusion, also apply to the new Member States after their accession.

3. The TCAA aims to go beyond the current open skies agreements and to eliminate fragmentation of the European market that results from existing bilateral agreements and create more operational and financial flexibility for Community airlines.

4. The current regulatory framework limits the ability of Community airlines to compete effectively with their American competitors, despite the creation of a common market for aviation in the Community. In the new situation envisaged by the Commission the airlines of both sides will have equal opportunities to compete, but within the limits of a strict application of the safety, security, environmental and competition rules.

5. The policy envisaged by the Commission will benefit, and is supported by, both low cost and traditional network carriers. Their relationship will be determined by commercial and operational considerations, rather than by limits in bilateral air services agreements.