WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The disconnect between the necessary elimination of overcapacity in air transport and measures to support airline companies.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, air transport, carrier, competition law, economic consequence, terrorism, transport capacity, transport safety

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/107

(2002/C 134 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: The disconnect between the necessary elimination of overcapacity in air transport and measures to

support airline companies

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the growth of air traffic, and therewith the profit-making capacity
of airline companies, was already in decline before 11 September 2001, resulting in a large number of
empty seats on aircraft and the cancellation of scheduled flights?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that the currently prevailing system of a worldwide free market and the
resultant competition between companies, who with variations in quality and fares partially cover the same
links and where the allocation of landing rights is the only check on the expansion of air transport, leads
undertakings to generate overcapacity and precipitous growth so that they are compelled to seek new
customers and create new needs?

3.
Does the Commission share my concern that state support for airlines, for which there have been
renewed calls since 11 September 2001 and which can be provided by the Member States in the form of
risk insurance from 22 September 2001 for a period of four weeks, contributes to the maintenance of
overcapacity in air transport and to a delay in its necessary elimination?

Given the increasing encroachment of airports, the nuisance of aircraft noise and the discharge of
4.
greenhouse gases, does the Commission take the view that in future we should make sure that aircraft and
airline capacity should not greatly exceed existing needs?

Does the Commission agree that current airline problems must not be used to justify giving up the
5.
drive against an improper competitive advantage for air transport over other forms of transport, from not
having to pay tax on aircraft fuel?

Is the Commission prepared to remove all obstacles to agreements between governments and airlines

6.
to regulate and share passenger flows, so that capacity overshoots may be dealt with effectively?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

1.
Before 11 September 2001, there were already signs that growth in demand for air transport was
softening after several years of strong expansion and some airlines were facing a downturn in profits.
However, other airlines, particularly in the low-cost sector, were continuing to expand and post higher
profits.

Community aviation policy is based on the principle of freedom to provide services in an open and
2.
the seats available before
competitive market. Since airlines were still successfully filling most of
11 September 2001, it appears that the expansion of the industry was broadly in line with the general
public’s demand for air transport.

The Commission agrees that state aid in the air transport sector is undesirable. It prevents the
3.
development of an efficient industry by exempting companies from normal commercial pressures, by
removing incentives for airlines to control their costs and capacity, and by enabling them to mount unfair
competition to unsubsidised airlines. Relevant proposals adopted by the Commission on the 10 October
2001 respond to the specific situation derived from the events of 11 September 2001 and are compatible
with these principles.

C 134 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The Commission stated in its recently published White Paper on Transport Policy (1) that
the
4.
transport system as a whole should be sustainable from an economic, social and environmental point of
view. Air transport poses some specific environmental problems and these should be addressed at
European and international level, however absolute capacity limitations on airlines may not be appropriate.
The objective should be to give airlines freedom to operate efficiently within a broader framework of
general rules designed to promote higher environmental standards.

5.
Taxation of aviation fuel and other market based measures with similar effect must be examined
through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) since the current exemption for kerosene is
level. These policies have been incorporated into some
long-established policy, agreed at international
3 000 bilateral air services agreements. In the shorter term the Commission is looking at how emission
related levies or voluntary mechanisms might be used to reduce the environmental impact of aviation. For
the longer term, it is studying how it could be part of an emissions trading programme under the Kyoto
protocol.

6.
Community legislation provides for capacity to be handled through competitive forces in the air
transport market. Returning to a policy of regulating passenger shares between airlines by government
intervention would remove incentives for airlines to improve their services or to compete with one
another on price. This would not be in the interest of European consumers or the European economy.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2002/C 134 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2803/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Injury done to the environment and to public services by the Member States’ temporarily taking

over airline insurance risks

1.
Can the Council confirm that the decision by the Member States’ finance ministers of 22 September
2001 in Liège to take over non-insurable risks of airline companies with no requirement to make premium
payments is provisional and in principle will not remain in force for more than four weeks?

2.
Does the Council agree that such insurance covers more than a merely ‘theoretical risk’, since in the
event of accidents which Heaven forbid will never occur, very real huge large amounts would have to be
paid out?

Given the measure referred to in paragraph 1, what are the Council’s plans to prevent tax revenue
3.
from the Member States being withdrawn from the objectives to which they were assigned in the national
budgets, so that funds for inter alia education, the environment, old-age provision and health care do not
end up in renewed support for airlines?

4.
How does the Council plan to ensure that the above-mentioned measure does not produce a delay in
the elimination of the over-capacity prior to 11 September 2001, which is responsible for the many empty
seats on aircraft, and which would mean that the environment continues to be affected by unnecessarily
high noise and emission levels?

Has the Council considered measures which,

5.
that airline restrictions following
11 September 2001 are extended beyond four weeks, could replace the recently announced support
measures and would not lead to damage to the environment or be detrimental to public services in the
Member States?

in the event