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'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: civil aviation, crew, liberalisation of the market, professional qualifications, safety standard

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/37

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

The adoption of the third aviation package (1) by
1.1.
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.

The Commission feels that the liberalization of
1.2.
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.

A meeting of government experts was held
1.4.
in March 1995. They concluded that there are no safety
reasons to justify a licensing system. Some experts even

(1) Regulation (EEC) Nos 2407/92 and 2409/92 of 23 July

1992, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

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

The Commission proposal contains require-

2.1.
ments 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

C 214/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

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.

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.

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.

3. The ESC’s comments

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. Require-
ments 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.

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 men-
tioned 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.

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.

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 stan-
dards for their cabin crews.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/39

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.

Communication on board must be ensured
3.3.1.
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.

The ESC endorses the Commission’s objective
3.4.
of making passenger safety the central factor when
implementing the proposal. It therefore expressly sup-
ports 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 attes-
tations 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.

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).

In this way a high level of safety in the cabin will
3.7.
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.
into
Incorporating the proposed directive
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.

3.5.2.
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

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.

C 214/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

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

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports
and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III’

(98/C 214/11)

On 24 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 129 D of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 Whitworth.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 117 votes in favour, with 8 abstentions.

1.

Introduction and background

The trans-European networks (TEN) derive from

1.1.
Article 129b of the Treaty.

1.2.
Article 129c requires the establishment of a series
of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and
broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of TEN
as well as the identification of projects of common
interest.

Decision No 1692/96/EC (1) established such
1.3.
guidelines for the development of the TEN. The charac-
teristics of the networks in the various transport modes
were identified in Articles 9 to 17 of the decision. The
specific network schemes proposed for the road, rail,
inland waterway, airports and combined transport
networks were illustrated by a series of maps contained
in Annex I to the decision. Annex II contained Criteria
and Specifications for Projects of Common Interest
while Annex III listed the fourteen projects adopted by
the European Council at its meeting in Essen in December
1994.

The characteristics for the development of sea-
1.4.
ports were dealt with only briefly in the decision and no
specific network scheme for them was contained in
Annex I. In a statement attached to the decision the
Commission announced its intention to submit in 1997,
after consulting the interested parties and the Member
States concerned, a proposal for port projects using an
approach similar to that followed for airports.

Extensive consultation has taken place and the
1.5.
Commission has acquired a considerable amount of
relevant data from the four main maritime regions. In
its current proposal it seeks to amend the 1996 Decision
to incorporate its criteria and specifications for seaport
projects and at the same time to amend the decision’s
proposals in respect of inland ports and intermodal
terminals.

2. The Commission’s proposals

2.1. General

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

the
2.1.1.
position of seaports, as well as that of inland ports and

The Commission has concluded that