Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993)'
Date: 1998-07-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, application of EU law, civil aviation, international standard, noise protection

14.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 284/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on
the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes
which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II,
Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July
1993)’

(98/C 284/01)

On 27 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which
was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
1 June 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez.

At its 356th plenary session held on 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to three, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

The implementation of Directive 92/14/EEC (1)
1.1.
on noise from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes means the
gradual phase-out between 1995 and 2002 of aeroplanes
which exceed the noise thresholds established according
to the most stringent international noise standards (2)
and contained in the directive.

1.2.
The development of ‘hushkits’ for many noisy
aeroplane types has meant that some of these aeroplane
types no longer need to be phased out, as the fitting of
hushkits enables them to meet the noise standards laid
down in Directive 92/14/EEC.

1.3.
The noise problem, however, is not the only
adverse effect that these generally very old aeroplanes
have on the environment. At the same time they have a
considerably higher fuel consumption than more modern
planes, which means that their CO2 and NOx emissions
are relatively much higher. In addition, while there

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
(2) These are contained in Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the

Convention on International Civil Aviation.

may not necessarily be any direct correlation between
environment considerations and aircraft safety, the use
of new aircraft would increase passenger safety and
public safety in general.

1.4.
The current draft directive seeks to reconcile the
right of European carriers to demand a structured
renewal of their fleet, as provided for in Directive
92/14/EEC, with the protection of the environment. It
aims to achieve this by restricting the fitting of hushkits
to aeroplanes currently registered in an EU Member
State and banning the registration in Member States of
hushkitted aeroplanes which have been operating in
other countries.

So, one of the objectives of the current draft
1.4.1.
directive is to avoid a potential influx of hushkitted
aircraft from the United States for registration in the
EU, as the noise standards established for the air fleet in
the US are set to trigger a considerable surplus of this
type of aircraft with a very high average age, and these
aircraft may well find their way into the EU.

C 284/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.98

2. General comments

The Economic and Social Committee supports
2.1.
the current draft directive’s aim of improving the
protection of the environment and air transport safety
while safeguarding existing plans for the renewal of the
air fleet owned by EU carriers in keeping with the
provisions of Directive 92/14/CEE.

2.2.
The ESC wishes to stress that, given the inter-
national nature of air transport, EU measures should
serve as an immediate reference framework for adoption
at international level within the ICAO (1) so that Euro-
pean air carriers are not forced into a situation of
competitive disadvantage.

The ESC would also like to highlight the fact
2.3.
that, in order to achieve harmonization across the EU
and fit in with the global and border-free nature of air
transport operations the adoption of the draft directive
in conjunction with Directive 92/14/EEC should avoid
justified
any
operating restrictions in certain airports, which could
endanger the single market in air transport.

across-the-board and insufficiently

2.3.1.
The ESC recently issued an opinion on airport
charges (2) in which it welcomes the Commission’s
proposal (3) to allow these to be differentiated according
to the level of noise pollution from different aeroplanes.
This would promote the use of less noisy aeroplanes
and thus contribute to protecting the environment.

2.4.
The ESC has become aware of the major effort
which the draft directive will entail for air freight
carriers, due to the fact that the aeroplanes used for this
purpose are relatively older and mainly use airports
during night hours. The ESC calls upon the Commission

(1) International Civil Aviation Organization.
(2) OJ 73, 9.3.1998.
(3) Proposal for a Council Directive on airport charges, OJ

C 257, 22.8.1997.

Brussels, 1 July 1998.

to study ways of preventing the possible emergence
of flags of convenience under the protection of the
temporary exemption provided for under Article 3(3),
which would result in unfair competition for EU carriers.

The ESC agrees with the temporary exemptions

2.5.
granted in the draft directive for emergency cases.

2.5.1. However, the Committee wishes to oppose the
exemption granted under Article 4.2 to civil aircraft
used exclusively outside the territory of the Community
and in the French overseas departments.

2.6.
Lastly, the ESC stresses that the European Union
should play a pro-active leadership role, within Europe
itself above all and also within the ICAO, to ensure that
these standards are adopted at international level. This
is the only way to guarantee effective and universal
protection of the environment and a parallel increase in
air transport safety.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The following new recital should be added:

‘Whereas given the international nature of air trans-
port, efforts should be made to ensure that measures
to limit noise pollution from aeroplanes are adopted
as part of international agreements; whereas if such
measures are adopted at Community level, they
should serve as a reference for adoption as quickly
as possible at international level.’

3.2.

The following new recital should be added:

‘Whereas in order to avoid a deterioration in noise
levels around airports, measures to restrict aeroplane
noise should be backed up with more systematic
planning of
the surrounding air space and be
accompanied by specific measures for research into
noise reduction under the Fifth Community RTD
Framework Programme.’

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS