Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the information of air transport passengers on the identity of the operating carrier and on communication of safety information by Member States (COM(2005) 48 final — 08/2005 (COD))
Date: 2005-09-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air safety, air transport, consumer information, exchange of information, safety standard

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the information of air transport passengers on the
identity of the operating carrier and on communication of safety information by Member States’

(COM(2005) 48 final — 08/2005 (COD))

(2006/C 24/04)

On 30 March 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

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 1 September 2005. The rapporteur
was Mr McDonogh.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 28 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 161 votes with 5 abstentions.

1. Background

1.1
Safety oversight is regulated worldwide in the frame-
work of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil
Aviation and is based on standards developed by the Interna-
tional Civil Aviation Organisation created by that Convention.
In essence, air carriers are supervised, concerning in particular
their compliance with safety requirements, by their home
country.

1.2
Outside the EU, safety levels depend on the effectiveness
of oversight procedures applicable in third countries. In order
to ensure a high level of aviation safety of all aircraft flying
into, out or within the Community, the European Parliament
and the Council adopted recently Directive 2004/36/EC (1) on
the safety of third country aircraft using Community airports,
which provides for a harmonised system of
inspections of
foreign aircraft when they use European airports. Besides, this
Directive provides for the exchange of information between the
Member States and the possibility to extend to the whole Com-
munity measures taken by one Member State against a third
country aircraft or operator not complying with international
safety standards.

In summary, the ‘SAFA’ Directive obliges Member States
1.3
to put in place a mechanism to collect information enabling
them to identify potentially unsafe operators.

The accident in Sharm-el Sheikh and those accidents
rules are

1.4
which occurred in 2005 indicate that stringent
needed.

1.5
To make ramp inspections obligatory and to oblige
Member States to participate in a wider exchange of informa-
tion and apply common measures decided on the results of
these checks. The Commission should provide a European list
of airlines with safety problems.

1.6
To carry out random checks in the simulator of the
flight crew, flying into European airspace to see that they are
competent flying in congested air spaces.

Passengers must have access to the name of the operator
1.7
at the time of booking from an airline website or travel agent
and to be informed before travel if there is a change, e.g. wet
leased third party aircraft. They should be entitled to a full
refund if not satisfied.

1.8
The passenger should have access to the type, model
and age of the aircraft, if desired. Also the country of registra-
tion.

Adequate rest periods for crew between flights should

1.9
be insisted upon.

1.10
Adequate command of English or other European
language depending on the destination, among the cabin crew
to enable them to deal with passengers or emergencies should
be mandatory.

(1) OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 76 – EESC opinion: OJ C 241, 7.10.2002,

p. 33.

1.11
should also be barred from all.

Aircrafts barred from an EU country for safety reasons

C 24/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

2. Conclusions

The Committee agrees with most of the Commission docu-
ment, but it does not go far enough. In the future, with the
increase in air traffic movements, and more crowded skies, air

Brussels, 28 September 2005

safety will become a greater problem in the years to come.
Therefore the period for revision of the regulation can be
shorter than five years. There is also a need to tighten up safety
i.e. the amount of hand luggage allowed to
on EU airlines,
carry on board. Also the proficiency of English of the Air
Traffic Controllers, and a proper definition of crew rest periods,
etc.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
on Community measures for the control of Avian Influenza’ and the ‘Proposal for a Council Deci-
sion amending Council Decision 90/424 EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field’

(COM(2005) 171 final — 2005/0062 + 0063 CNS)

(2006/C 24/05)

On 14 June 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 September 2005. The rapporteur was
Mr Donnelly.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 28 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 160 votes to one with 5 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
Avian Influenza (AI) is a highly contagious viral disease
of poultry, which can also spread to other animals and occa-
sionally to humans. In recent months China has implemented a
major vaccination programme after migrating wild geese were
found killed by the virus in the western Qinghai province.

1.2
During recent outbreaks of the highly pathogenic form
of the disease which occurred in several parts of the world,
including some EU Member States, more than 200 million
poultry have died or have been killed and destroyed with the
aim to control the disease. This mass killing and destruction of
animals has raised major ethical, animal welfare, economic,
social and environmental concerns particularly among EU citi-
zens.

latter originate from a mutation of certain LPAI viruses, namely
those of types H5 and H7, and can cause a disease in poultry
with a very high mortality rate. Data available indicates that
HPAI viruses of types H5 and H7 have been responsible for the
vast majority of the cases of AI reported in humans and all
cases of human deaths due to AI viruses. Although there is
evidence regarding the transmission to humans of LPAI virus of
type H9 arising from pigs and poultry, the actual threat to
human health remains unclear.

1.4
Uncontrolled Avian Influenza outbreaks have the poten-
tial to lead to the emergence of a virus fully adapted to humans
and ultimately leading to an Influenza pandemic with devas-
tating health and socio-economic consequences for the world.

1.3
The Influenza virus' ability to rapidly mutate and adapt
poses a particular threat to animal and human health. Although
current knowledge indicates that the health risks posed by the
so-called Low Pathogenic AI (LPAI) viruses are inferior to the
ones posed by the Highly Pathogenic AI (HPAI) viruses, the

2.1
The first proposal sets out to repeal Directive 92/40/EEC
on Avian Influenza and to replace it by a new Directive
updating existing provisions.

2. Gist of Commission proposal