Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky,(COM(2001) 123 final — 2001/0060 (COD))the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air-navigation services in the Single European Sky,the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky, andthe Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air-Traffic Management Network(COM(2001) 564 final — 2001/0235 (COD) — 2001/0236 (COD) — 2001/0237 (COD))
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European standard, action programme, air space, air traffic, air transport, organisation of transport, trans-European network

C 241/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down

the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky’,

(COM(2001) 123 final — 2001/0060 (COD))

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

provision of air-navigation services in the Single European Sky’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

interoperability of the European Air-Traffic Management Network’

(COM(2001) 564 final — 2001/0235 (COD) — 2001/0236 (COD) — 2001/0237 (COD))

(2002/C 241/04)

On 15 November 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Tosh.

At its 392nd Plenary Session of 17 and 18 July 2002 (meeting of 17 July) the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 119 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

that lay down general criteria for setting the management
regime to be in place by 31 December 2004.

1.1.
Community intervention is required to create the
environment wherein air traffic will become more regular
and punctual, whilst maintaining high levels of safety. This
concerns all civil and military air-traffic movement. This will
create environmental and social benefits for the Community.
The proposals concern all air-traffic movements under civil
control; including military movements. The action programme
conceives that a single integrated airspace — a single sky
— will emerge from these proposals. The reform of the
management of all the components that contribute, in an
holistic manner, to airspace usage, is believed to be at the root
of any action to improve system efficiencies.

1.4.
A High Level Group sought contributions from all
elements of the industry for the report to the Commission in
November 2000 on a Single European Sky. Its analysis dealt
with the following features:

— regulation;

— institutions;

— technology;

— human resources.

1.2.
Conceptually these proposals seek for the first time to
set up a single regulatory framework for airspace — not
aviation — which has hitherto been subject to separate sets of
regulations, but with whose basic principles, e.g. on safety, the
new proposals are however aligned. The single sky proposals
concerning airspace are distinct from ‘open sky’ proposals
concerning the wider provision of air-transport services by
airlines.

1.5.
The constituent proposals of the action programme on
the creation of the Single European Sky consist of those setting
out the framework (1) and three draft Regulations presented
under COM(2001) 564 final:

— provision of air navigation services 2001/0235 (COD);

— organisation and use of the airspace 2001/0236 (COD);

1.3.

The Communication introduces three draft Regulations

(1) COM(2001) 123 final.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/25

— interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management

Network 2001/0237 (COD).

These three proposals deal respectively with those organis-
ations which provide air-traffic control services, the regulation
of such provision and the organisation of airspace, and the
technical requirements to secure interoperability of equipment
and personnel.

2.1.1.
The report sets out clearly the benefits expected to
flow from the adoption of ‘single sky’ regulations, but fails to
the cost benefits or
include any quantitative analysis of
operational
impacts flowing from the proposed initiatives.
Reports of the Performance Review Commission do however
provide quantified evidence of the problems inherent in the
current approach.

The most productive method for the EESC’s opinion is
1.6.
to take the successive papers all together and structure its
response thematically, as follows.

2.2. General comments

2. Context

2.1.
The High Level Group’s report pursued a rational
evaluative process which in summary defined the following
sequence of aspects and then further reflected upon the
consequential ISSUES that distilled out:

Aspects

Issues

Traffic growth

Fragmentation

Imperative for change and
performance improvement

Deficiencies in the current
system

ATC
process

organisation-reform Need for reform

Regulation-safety-
performance-sustainable
design-economic domains

Processes required

Federal
military

airspace-including

Common airspace

Institutional framework

Eurocontrol, Pan-European

Airspace management

Complexity

ATM systems and coordina-
tion

Integrate military, common
standards

Social aspects

Certification requirements

Regulator

Resources,
authority

expertise

and

2.2.1.
These proposals are of particular significance for the
Community as airspace is a common resource of general
interest to all. Facilitating safe and efficient air transport is
of particular economic importance to Europe. The EESC
understands and supports the thrust of this initiative but the
concept is complex, binding together many strands governing
air-traffic movements. In view of this, there is a need for
quantified measures and targets to ensure that the proposal for
a community seamless airspace actually achieves its stated
aims. Priorities, objectives and outcomes should be more
clearly spelled out. In particular, safety must remain a first
priority.

2.2.2.
The Commission relies heavily upon the removal of
fragmentation to support the proposals. The Commission’s
current proposals also rely heavily on the removal of bottle-
necks and improvements to processes and procedures for the
design, management and regulation of air space. Removal of
fragmentation is not an end in itself and clear output targets
need to be established. In particular, system capacity must be
capable of sustaining the projected growth in demand for air
transport of approaching 5 % per annum.

2.2.3. Whilst
the EESC accepts that common airspace
management within non-national boundaries does not pre-
inter-
sume sovereignty,
country, there remains the difficulty of defining the functional
regional ‘blocks’ where commercial pressures could obstruct
their implantation.

for already such examples exist

For example, it will be important to ensure that the reconfigur-
ation of upper air-space architecture actually improves sector
design and routing performance and leads to improved
capacity and efficiency. The value to the air industry and the
travelling public remains to be clarified. Eurocontrol have
estimated the benefits of route optimisation might only be a
5 % improvement in operating costs. We urge the Commission
to quantify and set
targets for the effectiveness of their
proposals.

C 241/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

2.2.4.
There is a need to be clearer about the precise causes
of the problems. For example, are the problems of air transport
services’ regularity, delay, safety, the outcome of disjointed
uses of air space? Congestion, quoted by the Commission to
be of ‘catastrophic proportions in 1999’, also occurs in lower
air space and can manifest itself most visibly at airports! 1999
was also an exceptional year, affected by military action in the
Is it not that upper level safety occurrences are
Balkans.
extremely rare and that perhaps route coordination through
full
integration of all users, is the only certain winner for
consumers from these interventions? Although the average
delay per movement due to air-traffic management (ATFM)
was only 33/4 minutes in 2001 (Source: Central Office for
Delay Analysis), the average AFTM delay per delayed move-
ment was approximately 20 minutes. The proportion of flights
delayed for ATFM reasons was 15,7 % in 2001, down from
over 20 % in 1999. Not all of these delays derive from
congestion in upper air space as some arise from restrictions
put in place due to constraints on airport capacity or from
weather. There is, nonetheless, likely to be very significant
advantage from coordination in the heavily congested central
European air space.

2.2.5.
The EESC is also concerned that there is insufficient
detail in the proposal on how the Single Sky Committee will
function. Whilst accepting that it will be made up of national
experts, it is unclear how it will consult and seek the advice
of industry experts. If the industry’s human resource and
technology shortcomings are to be overcome it will be vital
for this Committee to have the necessary sectoral expertise
and to establish procedures for gaining input from industry.

2.3. Regulation

2.3.1.
The separation of powers with the creation of an
independent European regulator, independent financially and
with a clear remit and definition of responsibilities, is, as for
other industries, a welcome concept. The framework of
regulation should be clear and precise and focus on the key
issues. The EESC believes it is extremely important to ensure
regulation is not over proscriptive and assures the environment
wherein providers can operate in an efficient competitive way.

2.3.2.
It will be important to ensure that the regulator has
a high quality information system to monitor the operation of

the system. The quality of the design formats and supply lines
of the information system for regulators will be crucial for the
effectiveness and credibility of the intended harmonisation.

2.4.

Institutions

To give more credence to the proposed institutional
2.4.1.
framework perhaps more emphasis should have been placed
on its effects on efficiency and consistency in decision-making.
The transition to give legislative powers for decision-making
to Eurocontrol (1) is a major step forward.

2.4.2.
Alongside the importance of ensuring that the frame-
work by which the Single Sky Committee will consult and gain
the advice of industry is clear, there is a need for clarification
of the separate role and purpose of the Sectoral Dialogue
Committee and when it will be consulted. EESC would
want to stress the importance of full consultation on the
implementation of these measures to ensure their appropriate-
ness, efficiency and effectiveness. At present the consultation
framework is not adequately set out.

2.4.3.

Cooperational aspects are clearly beneficial for:

— safety and efficiency;

— resource optimality and integration;

— payments systemisation;

— innovating solutions with their wider marketing value.

2.4.4.
The decision-making loop sets out to encompass all
parties engaged with air-traffic management, not only ATC
but those providing services such as weather reports or ground
airport services as well as those supplying equipment.
It
would be very useful for the added value of such inclusive
consolidation to be estimated and measured in practice since
failure to realize such benefits should carry clear penalties.

(1) Currently numbers 31 Member States. Eurocontrol has as its
primary objective the development of a seamless, pan-European
air traffic management
(ATM) system. Eurocontrol develops,
coordinates and plans the implementation of short and long-term
pan-European ATM strategies and their associated action plans in
a collective effort involving national regulatory authorities, air-
navigation service providers, the civil and military airspace users,
industry and other European institutions.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/27

2.4.5.
A single sky, reliant on coordination of activity,
cannot be as effective as that controlled by a single entity.
Nonetheless, it would have been of value to see comparison
made with practice in North America, where there is a
‘community’ federal air-space entity, with some evaluation of
the input there to regularity, safety and timekeeping. The
Performance Review Commission have, however,
indicated
that the US system may be 50 % more productive and 50 %
more cost effective. The US system might still provide a
benchmark, despite the different circumstances.

2.4.6.
The uniform accreditation regime for the network of
organisations charged with providing effective inspection and
monitoring of air-navigation services will be fundamental
to the integrity of creating this seamless single sky and
simultaneously and transparently to protect public interest.

unique operational procedural and perhaps remunerative
dilemmas. However, identification and sharing of best practice
and training will be key.

2.6.2.
The clear message is that availability of qualified
personnel is a key limiting factor for air-space development.
This should prompt the requisite EU funding support to
Member States for such skills and expertise development, to
rank alongside funding for technology projects such as those
evolving around Galileo. Recognition and developing of inter-
personal skills, of languages, and of leading edge-operational
competencies should be integral with the proposals.

2.4.7.
There are also many lessons to be gleaned from
regulatory frameworks established in other sectors of general
interest.

3. Conclusions

2.5.

Technology

The critical mass and focus for EU technology
2.5.1.
has very strong resonance and should be a cornerstone of
justification for these proposals. It is clear that Community
designed and supplied equipment providers will see their
hands strengthened in the international market place. It is
therefore important that global agreement on the principles
is urgently concluded. With such progress, cooperation to
standardise on a worldwide scale will bring recognition and
cost-benefit outcomes to EU suppliers who, for example,
already enjoy leading status for ground-based equipment and,
on a continuing basis, as technical upgrades roll out.

The value to these proposals of the European invest-
2.5.2.
ment in Galileo should be underscored and every opportunity
extended to all facets of ATM providers to maximise its impact.

The assertion in proposal 2001/0060 (COD) is that for
3.1.
safe, regular operation of air transport services and their
impact for goods and mobility, a single sky is imperative. The
adoption of the ‘gate-to-gate’ concept would enhance adoption
and comprehension.

3.2.
However, the proposals in themselves cannot address
the pressure of demand on major hubs. EESC would believe
that supplementary action to develop additional runway
capacity and other landside infrastructure, minimizing local
environmental impacts, is essential if airspace capacity is to be
optimised.

The premise that safety precedes in ranking order, all
3.3.
other aspects of these proposals, should be enshrined into
every element of them. To this end it is expected that standards
will be established and continuously reviewed, and from
which, funding requirements will stem, not the reverse of
providing up to an ‘affordable’ level of funding.

3.4.
The occurrence reporting data framework should be
designed to encourage elimination of incidents and avoid
blame attribution.

2.6. Human Resources

The anticipated interoperability of personnel

2.6.1.
is
emphasised but indications of how to achieve this in practice
needs fuller elaboration and case-study development. The
amalgam of military and civilian personnel will create some

3.5.
There is an absence of cost-effectiveness measurements
for these proposals. It would be reasonable to expect that such
an evaluative framework had been developed and should
have been published, to validate this intervention; e.g. the
‘air space safety’ and of
quantification of

‘regularity’ of

C 241/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

‘congestion’; historically and then that expected as outcome
from these instruments, would be set as good practice after
due process! It would be expected that the legislative financial
statements would require same for cost-benefit appreciation.

3.6.
The assumption that straight line traffic routing is to
be preferred might be better worded to underscore that the
best economic route is best, given the impact of prevailing
atmospheric, traffic and weather conditions.

There will be considerable investment and technology
3.7.
development in this industry. It will be important that the
Community make available adequate instruments for front-
end R&D input to assure the creation and retention of centres
of excellence.

The charging regime to airspace users must be trans-
3.8.
parent
incentives are given for
to ensure that the right
matching investments to user demand. It will be important
that the framework gives the right incentives for investment in
new technology and capacity. The EESC would like to see
evidence that
the charging regime for air-space users is
comparable with the cost regimes for other transport modes
such as railways, and that internalised external costs are clearly
identified. Such identification will serve to encourage industry
efforts to reduce environmental damage limitation. The key
charging principles should be based upon transparency of
costs and charges.

3.9.
The amalgam within these proposals of both civil and
military airspace users, is entirely logical, clarifying as it will
the allocation of rights. It remains a concern that large areas of
airspace reserved for military users may not be used effectively
and consideration must be given to release of more air space
for civilian use. Prospects for a more rational use of this
airspace will doubtless be given a rough ride due to the security
environment surrounding the military movements. Dispute
resolution for such matters should take place in camera.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

3.10.
The integrity of the Regulator’s role to rigorously
enforce standards must be sacrosanct. The EESC notes the
perceptions that service-provision modernisation, injecting as
it does competition and commercial prerogative, can have
mixed outcomes. Quality of delivery and user interests must
not suffer in the transition nor should under-investment, as
became apparent within the UK rail infrastructure. Investment
throughout the supply chain. Such
in ATM will
beneficiaries could include e.g.:

impact

— reduced airspace-unit usage times;

— lowered aircraft amortisation and fuel consumption as

journeys shorten;

— improved passenger handling at airports and capacity

improvement as congestion dissipates;

— positive environmental impact.

3.11.
The European Regulator must ensure that the pay-
ments’ regime recognises and rewards the investors’ impact
wherever it occurs in the chain. There needs to be regulatory
clarity to ensure that investment can be remunerated and that
the investor, whether public or private, can achieve an
appropriate return.

3.12.
Given that very soon Europe’s 450 airports will
handle 1 billion passengers annually, the gains to consumers’
costs, journey times, and punctuality and to their environment
should be spelt out to enhance the legitimacy of the proposals.

3.13.
The timescale for introduction for this new regime is
short by any project standard. It will be important to get it
right. In summary, the EESC supports the principles of the
proposals set out by the Commission but there remains much
detail to be worked out, particularly regarding the precise
operation of the new framework, consultation arrangements
and the setting and monitoring of targets.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS