WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/03 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Overbooking on Air France's flights.
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, transport company

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/507

(2004/C 78 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Restrictions imposed on flights into Zurich airport

Can the Commission indicate when it will be in a position to report on the complaint submitted by the
airline company Swiss against the German authorities in regard to restrictions imposed by them for flights
into Zurich airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has indeed received a complaint from the Swiss authorities regarding German measures
which could affect certain landing procedures at Zurich airport. The complaint has been examined on the
basis of the agreement concluded between the Community and Switzerland, and on 5 December 2003 the
Commission has reached a decision on it in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Agreement
and in Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1). This decision finds that Germany may continue to apply the
213th regulation for the implementation of German Air Traffic Regulations establishing procedures for
instrument-guided landings and takeoffs at Zurich airport as amended by the first amending regulation of
4 April 2003. The Decision of the Commission will be published in the Official Journal in the near future.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community

air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0528)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Overbooking on Air France’s flights

Does the Commission consider it unfair and/or unethical commercial practice for airlines to deny access to
passengers who have bought a valid ticket, and will it formally enquire into Air France’s regular and
consistent policy of overbooking on some of its flights from Newcastle?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the general frequency of the practice of denied boarding (about one out of
one thousand passengers are affected) although it does not possess information on specific flights, such as
those of Air France from Newcastle.

The Commission accepts that denial of boarding should be tolerated only with compensation and
assistance for passengers prevented from flying. In 1991 the Community adopted Council Regulation (EEC)
No 295/91 (1), which obliges air carriers denying boarding at airports in Member States to give passengers
financial compensation, the choice between a refund and an alternative flight and meals and hotel
accommodation, as appropriate. This was the Community’s first step in the protection of passengers.

C 78 E/508

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Ten years later, the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the frequency of denied
boarding remained too high (cid:1) around 250 000 passengers where affected each year (cid:1) and should be
reduced. It, therefore, proposed in 2001 a new Regulation (2) designed to cut the frequency of denied
boarding. This would oblige air carriers, when expecting to deny boarding, to seek volunteers to give up
their reservations in exchange for benefits. Only if too few volunteers came forward, would airlines be
allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. If they did so, they would have to compensate
them at an increased rate and assist them as under the present Regulation. This should lead to a
considerable fall in the number of passengers denied boarding.

The new regulation would also create rights for passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to long
delays and would cover non-scheduled (charter) flights as well as scheduled flights.

The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will vote for the compromise of the Conciliation
Committee on this proposal.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding

compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(2) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

The company Minero Siderúrgica de Ponferrada S.A. (MSP) started to work the Feixolín open-cast mine in
1995. The mine is situated 2 km from the Fonfría mine (cid:1) the subject of questions E-1892/02 (1),
E-1431/03, E-1432/03 (2) and E-2858/03 (3) (cid:1) and is thus also home to brown bears. The firm applied to
exploit Fonfría on the grounds that Feixolín was exhausted. There was indeed a significant reduction in
activity, which even came to a standstill once work started on exploiting Fonfría in early 2002, and the
mine was therefore considered to be in the restoration phase. However, MSP resumed intensive
exploitation of Feixolín in spring 2003, and the mine continues to be worked at full throttle.

This mine lacks all the requisite permits and statements of environmental compatibility. It was tolerated by
local people because they were unaware of its adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and because
MSP had undertaken to preserve jobs. This undertaking was broken, since the number of jobs has fallen
from around 2 500 to 1 000. In spite of this, MSP continues to threaten local and autonomous community
authorities with the definitive cessation of activities if it is not granted authorisation for open-cast mines.

MSP still receives enormous amounts of economic aid to maintain the mine’s viability (4), when in fact it is
reducing costs by operating open-cast mines and at the same time closing underground mines. The profits
obtained both from the reduction in costs and the aid received are channelled to other companies in the
same group, through investment in machinery and outsourcing services. This machinery, which is required
is also used for other types of work not connected with mining such as road-
for open-cast mining,
building etc., activities which happen to coincide with the activities of the companies referred to above.

How much European aid has MSP received and for what type of activities? Can the Commission

1.
investigate whether there has been any illegitimate use of the European aid received by MSP?