WRITTEN QUESTION No. 50/98 by Raimo ILASKIVI to the Commission. Further follow-up question on passenger seating space on aircraft; questioner left to whistle for a straight answer
Date: 1998-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, ILASKIVI
Subjects: air safety, air transport, aircraft, consumer protection, disease prevention, health policy, health risk, product quality, transport user













EUR-Lex - 91998E0050 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0050

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 50/98 by Raimo ILASKIVI to the Commission. Further follow-up question on passenger seating space on aircraft; questioner left to whistle for a straight answer  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/98 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)Subject: Further follow-up question on passenger seating space on aircraft; questioner left to whistle for a straight answerMr Kinnock, Member of the Commission, has replied to my two questions, E-1118/97 ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 80. )) and E-3131/97 ((OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 20. )), on the above subject.With reference, inter alia, to American research, I had asked what the Commission intended to do to eliminate health risks arising from cramped conditions. The existence of these conditions on charter flights, in particular, is common knowledge, but they also prevail on the scheduled flights of certain airlines. In his reply, Mr Kinnock refers only to the comfort and safety of passengers. Evidently he has not studied the relevant research concerning, inter alia, the risk of embolism and the like which exists for tall and fat passengers in cramped conditions.I asked what kind of information had emerged from the contacts with airlines promised in Mr Kinnock's first reply. Mr Kinnock's second reply revealed that no such contacts had been established, but that it was up to air users to select their airlines for themselves.The underlying message is clear: 'if you want a straight answer, you can whistle for it'. The replies given do not answer the questions tabled, and this is indicative of the Commission's unanimous attitude to parliamentarianism. It is downright tragicomic that, whereas the Commission has displayed great concern about the humaneness of animal transport, it is quite uninterested in the transport of human beings, to judge by its replies. Animal transport is governed by Directives 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. )) and 95/29/EEC ((OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52. )). I would therefore ask the President of the Commission how he intends to ensure that the replies given on behalf of the Commission are actually answers to the relevant questions, and I would ask Commissioner Kinnock whether he might be willing to look into the questions a little more thoroughly - and into the replies to them written on his behalf - and to make them more precise.Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)As previously mentioned in the replies to the Honourable Member's written questions E-1118/97 and E-3131/97, Community legislation does not cover seat spacing beyond the general safety requirements for aircraft, nor does any other aviation legislation in other parts of the world.The Commission is well informed about studies and reports on 'the economy class passenger syndrome' and the consequences some passengers are reported to have suffered from being obliged to sit too long in a cramped position.The Commission's work programme does, however, follow certain established priorities taking into account the relative importance of a variety of issues as well as limits on personnel and budget. The establishment of mandatory standards for seat dimensions and space, other than those relating to general safety requirements, is not amongst the priorities and it does not seem to be a priority issue in other parts of the world. The definition of seat dimensions, therefore, remains the responsibility of aircraft operators.The Commission provides clear, factual answers that take into account relevant authentic research and the extent of the legal authority granted to the Commission under the EC Treaty. Its unanimous respect for Parliament and for Honourable Members is unequivocal. It cannot always, however, guarantee that the answers honestly provided will give personal or emotional satisfaction to all questioners.