Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Single European sky II: towards more sustainable and better performing aviation {SEC(2008) 2082}
Date: 2008-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air law, air safety, air space, air traffic, air traffic control, air transport, environmental impact

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.6.2008 
COM(2008) 389 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better performing aviation 

{SEC(2008) 2082} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better performing aviation 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The massive increase in demand for air transport is straining the capacity of infrastructure: 
28 000  daily  flights  by  4 700 commercial  aircraft  are  pushing  airports  and  air  traffic 
management  (ATM)  to  their  limits.  The  fragmentation  of  air  traffic  management  hinders 
optimal  capacity  use  and  imposes  an  unnecessary  financial  burden  on  aviation.  Safety 
requirements  have  to  be  improved  in  parallel  with  the  increase  in  traffic.  Increasing 
environmental  awareness 
its 
environmental performance. 

is  also  putting  pressure  on  aviation 

to  demonstrate 

To tackle these issues, the Commission has come up with a package of proposals. 

Firstly,  the  existing  Single  Sky  legislation  needs  to  be  sharpened  to  deal  with  performance 
and environmental challenges. Secondly, the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) 
programme  is  to  provide  the  future  technology.  Thirdly,  the  competence  of  the  European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is to be extended to aerodromes, air traffic management and 
air  navigation  services.  Fourthly,  the  ‘action  plan  for  airport  capacity,  efficiency  and 
safety’ needs to be implemented. 

2. 

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY I: A BASIS FOR CHANGE

1 

The  adoption  of  the  Single  European  Sky  legislation  in  2004  (SES I)  brought  air  traffic 
management  under  the  common  transport  policy.  However,  a  truly  ‘single’  sky  was  not  yet 
achieved. 

2.1. 

SES achievements 

The ‘Community method’ (the standard EU decision-making procedure) has already delivered 
its  first  results.  An  institutional  framework,  embracing  the  Single  Sky  Committee,  the 
Industry Consultation Body, social dialogue2 and Eurocontrol3, has been set up and has been 
instrumental in establishing rules. 

The Single Sky has strengthened safety. Member States have begun separating oversight from 
service  provision.  The  safety  know-how  embodied  in  the  Eurocontrol  Safety  Regulatory 
Requirements  has  become  Community  law.  Since  20  June  2007,  air  navigation  service 
provision  has  been  subject  to  certification.  Competence  standards  for  air  traffic  controllers 
were set to ensure safe services and to allow a more flexible management of resources, also 
across national borders.  

1 
2 

3 

COM(2007) 845, 20.12.2007. 
The  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue  Committee  on  Civil  Aviation,  established  on  basis  of  Commission 
Decision 98/500/EC of 20 May 1998, extended to ATM. 
The European Community became a member of the Eurocontrol Organisation under Council Decision 
11053/2 Aviation 121 of 17.7.2002. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
Sound  accounting  standards  and  the  adoption  of  the  charging  regulation  represent  the  first 
steps towards economic efficiency4. 

Meanwhile,  measures  have  been  taken  to  speed  up  technological  innovation.  Going  beyond 
interoperability  rules,  the  SESAR  project  was  launched  as  the  technological  and  industrial 
component  of  the  Single  European  Sky.  The  project  is  organised  in  three  phases.  The 
definition  phase  (2004-2008  —  € 60m)  has  de livered  the  ‘SESAR  Master  Plan’  for 
introducing  the  future  air  traffic  management  system.  The  next  phase  is  the  research  and 
development  of  the  system,  managed  by  the  SESAR  Joint  Undertaking  (2008-2016 — 
€ 2100m). Deployment will follow from 2013. 

2.2. 

Yet another leap to take 

The  Single  European  Sky  has  not  delivered  the  expected  results  in  important  areas.  The 
process  of  integration  within  functional  airspace  blocks,  regardless  of  national  borders,  has 
encountered  numerous  hurdles,  in  particular  political  and  economic  obstacles.  Air  traffic 
control,  mistakenly,  is  identified  with  sovereignty:  the  Member  States’  responsibility  (and 
associated  liability)  for  their  airspaces  and  the  involvement  of  the  military.  Though  the 
complexity  of  this  argument  is  recognised,  instead  of  prompting  innovative  solutions  for 
exercising sovereignty, it has been used to block cross-border integration. 

Member  States  have  not  taken  steps  to  improve  cost-efficiency.  Hardly  any  progress  is 
evident in the overall efficiency of the design and use of the European air network. 

3. 

CHALLENGES FOR AVIATION 

A lot has happened since the launch of Single Sky in 2000. Enlargement policy, together with 
an  active  neighbourhood  policy,  has  extended  the  European  aviation  market  to  37 countries 
with more than 500 million citizens5. The expanding single aviation market is turning the EU 
into a global player. Since July 2002, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been 
in  charge  of  ensuring  a  high  and  uniform  level  of  safety.  Additionally,  global  warming  is 
raising environmental concerns. 

3.1. 

Sustainability of aviation 

Present science points to human activity as the main source of climate change. Aircraft have a 
noise and emission impact. Aviation currently accounts for about 3% of all CO2 emissions in 
Europe, but it grows very quickly. 
To complement  the  Community  Emissions Trading Scheme and research efforts6, air traffic 
management must also contribute to sustainable aviation. Aircraft should be able to follow the 
shortest routes with optimised flight profiles7. 

4 

5 

6 
7 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1794/2006  of  6 December  2006  laying  down  a  common  charging 
scheme for air navigation services (OJ L 341, 7.12.2006). 
Several  neighbouring  states  have  decided  to  enter  the  European  Common  Aviation  Area  to  gain  a 
stimulus for growth and employment. 
Including the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative 
At high altitudes engines perform better and airframes have less air resistance (drag). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Graph 1: The need for shorter routes 

A patchwork of national routes: Aircraft do not fly ‘as the crow flies’. 

Shorter  routes  will  save  nearly  5 million  tonnes  of  CO2  per  year.  On  average,  aircraft  fly 
49 km  longer  than  strictly  necessary  due  to  airspace  fragmentation.  63%  of  route 
inefficiencies  can  be  resolved  within  country  boundaries.  However,  Member  States  are 
reluctant to tackle airspace fragmentation. Routes determine income flows for air navigation 
service  providers8.  Member  States  have  to  allocate  exercise  areas  to  the  military,  but 
historically remote areas have evolved into areas with the densest traffic. The current process 
is not robust enough to improve network design. 

Traffic management in the vicinity of airports suffers from the ‘first come, first served’ rule 
and  the  inconsistency  between  airport  and  air  traffic  management  operations.  Airport  slots9 
are allocated independently from flight plans10. The lack of a holistic network approach leads 
to unnecessary noise and emissions. 

All  in  all,  improving  both  air  traffic  management  and  airport  operations  could  reduce 
emissions by some 7 to 12% for the average flight, or 16m tonnes of CO2 per year. 

Table 1: Savings in time (minutes) and fuel (kg) from improved flight operations 

Time 
4 min 
Shorter routes 
0.0min 
Improved flight profile 
2 – 5 min 
Better approach procedures 
Improved aerodrome operations  1 – 3 min 
Total savings on a flight 
Average intra-EU flight  

Fuel 
150 kg 
23 kg 
100-250 kg 
13 – 40 kg 
8 – 14 min 300 – 500 kg11  7 – 11% 
96 min 

3 000 kg 

Fuel as % of average flight  
3.7% 
0.6% 
2.5 – 6% 
0.3 – 0.9% 

100% 

Source: Performance Review Report, 2007, p. 58. 

8 

9 
10 

11 

Aircraft operators are charged on the basis of the distance flown through national airspace (multiplied 
by a factor for weight) according to the last filed flight plan. 
A slot is the time that an aircraft is allowed to use a runway or the airspace. 
Each pilot has to file a ‘flight plan’ before taking off. The number of flight plans indicates the demand 
for air navigation services. 
One litre of fuel translates into 3.15 kg CO2 emissions. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Performance of air navigation service provision 

The  current  self-regulatory  regime  leads  to  a  performance  patchwork.  In  general,  the  good 
performance of some actors is outweighed by the poor performance of others. 

3.2.1. 

Safety 

Safety can never be taken for granted. Europe can boast an excellent safety record, but safety 
processes vary widely among Member States and safe management of traffic and of services 
to air navigation must improve and find a common set of rules developed by a single authority 
and uniformly implemented obligatorily by all. For aerodromes, ICAO rules exist, but do not 
yield the required level playing field. In general, the aviation sector lacks a consistent safety 
approach.  This  also  impairs  effective  safety  oversight.  All  in  all,  despite  the  good  safety 
record, there is a need to increase safety levels in parallel with increasing traffic. 

3.2.2.  Flight efficiency 

The current European route network still is an amalgamation of national routes. The design of 
routes  is  in  many  cases  the  product  of  historical  national  considerations.  Routes  for  intra-
European flights are some 15% less efficient than domestic flight routes. In addition, the route 
network  is  not  always  well  aligned  with  European  traffic.  The  shortest  available  routes  are 
underused due to the lack of precise, real-time information12. 

Airspace is a scarce resource, which has to satisfy the requirements of both civil and military 
airspace  users.  Its  efficient  use  depends  on  how  all  flight  phases,  including  appropriate 
planning  and  preparation,  are  integrated  within  seamless  air  and  ground  operations  and  on 
how new users such as unmanned aerial vehicles or very light jets are served. 

Aircraft should thus use shorter and better routes to improve the sustainability of aviation. 

3.2.3.  Capacity/delays 

The  dramatic  delays  in  1999  were  the  direct  occasion  for  launching  the  Single  Sky.  The 
situation  has  since  recovered  following  the  traffic  downturns  caused  by  September 11  and 
SARS, but delays have been steadily mounting again in recent years: capacity is not keeping 
pace with increasing demand. Delays carry a heavy cost for operators, the flying public and 
the economy as a whole13. 

Delays  signal  a  lack  of  capacity  or  its  inefficient  use.  The  provision  of  capacity  requires  a 
long-term  strategy  with  effective  planning  and  commitment  to  timely  and  complete 
implementation.  Such  a  strategy  should  consider  all  causes  of  delays,  including  flow 
management, control capacity or airport scheduling. In addition, there should be a capacity to 
intervene to resolve choke points causing ripple effects throughout the network. 

3.2.4.  Cost-efficiency 

Air  traffic  control  is  a  service  of  general  interest  provided  by  a  natural  monopoly.  While 
competition in aviation has reduced costs and led to more affordable ticket prices, the relative 
cost of air traffic control has been growing. Air traffic control currently accounts for 8 to 12% 

12 

13 

Performance Review Commission, 2007, An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during 
the Calendar Year 2006, Eurocontrol, Brussels, p. 51 et seq. 
Longer delays have particularly disruptive effects: the two percent of cancelled flights account for 2/3 
of total delays. In 2007, delays amounted to 21.5m minutes at a cost of € 1 300m. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
of the ticket price. While Community law allows Member States to use incentives to improve 
cost-efficiency, none has done so since 200414. 

While  some  service  providers  are  becoming  more  oriented  towards  cost-efficiency,  there  is 
much  scope  for  improvement.  Fixed  costs,  mostly  support  costs,  should  benefit  from 
economies of scale. Above all, the productivity of air traffic controllers should improve15. 

Indeed, despite its technical nature, air traffic control remains craftsmanship. Controllers and 
pilots  still  use  voice  communication  by  radio.  While  cockpits  have  become  automated, 
controllers have not fundamentally altered their working methods. Increases in traffic are met 
by  a  proportional  increase  in  equipment  and  staffing  and  hence  cost:  capacity  is  mainly 
increased by opening new ‘sectors’ managed by two controllers. 

Within  the  constraints  under  which  ATM  has  operated  until  now,  there  have  been  also 
performance  improvements  thanks  in  particular  to  the  contribution  of  air  traffic  controllers 
and staff. 

3.3. 

Fragmentation 

The  American  air  traffic  control  system  manages double the  number  of flights for a similar 
budget from some 20 control centres. Fragmentation in the European system is the result of a 
history  where  air  traffic  control  has  been  closely  associated  with  sovereignty  and  hence 
confined within national borders. 

Fragmentation has several consequences: many of the 60 or so area control centres in Europe 
are below the optimal economic size; duplication of systems persists through unsynchronised 
adoption  of  technological  change  and  piecemeal  procurement,  leading  to  high  maintenance 
and contingency costs for equipment that is not interoperable; the costs of research, training 
and administration are disproportionately high. Fragmentation costs € 1bn  every year. 

4. 

CALL FOR ACTION: EUROPE MUST DELIVER A SEAMLESS SKY 

Airspace  users  and  passengers  pay  an  unnecessary  cost  for  inefficiencies  in  the  aviation 
chain,  in  time,  fuel  burn  and  money.  SES I  prompted  the  industry  into  action,  but  Member 
States  have  not  sufficiently  used  the  instruments  provided  to  improve  performance: 
designation  of  service  providers,  use  of  economic  incentives,  opening  up  to  the  market, 
changes in route structure, establishment of functional airspace blocks, etc.16. That is why the 
Performance Review Commission calls for quantified targets. 
The High Level Group on the future aviation regulatory framework17 calls for consistent use 
of  the  ‘Community  method’,  with  decisions  taken  at  European  level  by  qualified  majority 
voting, while leaving implementation to a strong partnership between the Member States and 
the Community. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

UK has a price cap system on en-route services and operates air traffic control in airports on a market 
basis.  Germany  has  recently  introduced  competition  in  air  traffic  control  at  some  regional  airports. 
Some other states intend to take similar measures. 
The Performance Review Commission calculated a productivity of 0.71 composite flight hours per air 
traffic controller hour in 2005. This means that a controller has only 0.7 planes to monitor at any given 
moment in time, with the best performing at 1.65 and the least performing at 0.35. 
Performance Review Commission, Eurocontrol, 2006, Evaluation of the Impact of the Single European 
Sky initiative on air traffic management performance, Brussels, p. iii. – independent evaluation at the 
request of the European Commission. 
High  Level  Group  on  the  Future  Aviation  Regulatory  Framework,  2007,  ‘A  framework  for  driving 
performance improvement’, Brussels, 47 p. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
In  order  to  make  the  European  sky  safer  and  more  sustainable,  the  Commission  has  put 
forward a package of proposals. The four SES regulations need to be amended to introduce a 
performance framework with quantified target setting. The extension of EASA competences 
to  cover  all  links  in  the  aviation  safety  chain  will  improve  safety.  The  endorsement  of  the 
ATM Master Plan will speed up technological innovation. The airport action plan will tackle 
capacity in the air and on the ground. 

The  success  of  these  proposals  depends  to  great  extent  on  the  intense  involvement  of 
stakeholders,  in  particular  the  military  and  staff.  A  common  transport  policy  for  air  traffic 
management is based on a civil system, in which Member States have to integrate the interests 
of  defence.  This  requires  close  involvement  of  the  military  in  the  institutional  framework. 
The  Single  Sky  Committee  with  adequate  military  participation  will  assume  a  strategic  role 
here. 

The  quality  of  air  navigation  services  depends  on  the  competence  of  personnel.  A  ‘just 
culture’  is  the  basis  for  safety  policy.  All  stakeholders  in  the  reporting  chain  need  to 
contribute  to  this  just  culture.  In  more  general  terms,  the  air  traffic  industry  will  undergo 
structural  change.  This  evolution  must  be  adequately  managed.  That  is  why  the  social 
dimension should be further promoted to ensure staff involvement. 

5. 

FIRST PILLAR: REGULATING PERFORMANCE 

Building  upon  SES  I,  the  proposals  here  strengthen  existing  instruments  and  provide  a 
regulatory  framework.  The  first  measure  introduces  a  system  of  performance  regulation 
through the setting of targets. The second accelerates initiatives to integrate service provision 
within  functional  airspace  blocks  as  a  way  of  reaching  performance  targets.  Thirdly, 
strengthening  the  network  management  function  will  directly  contribute  to  improving  the 
overall performance of the network. 

5.1. 

Driving the performance of the ATM system 

An  independent  performance  review  body  monitors  and  assesses  the  performance  of  the 
system.  It  develops  indicators  for  the  various  performance  areas  and  proposes  Community-
wide targets (delay, cost reduction, shortening of routes). Stakeholders will be able to provide 
input on the framing and selection of indicators to increase general acceptance. The National 
Supervisory  authorities  are  also  encouraged  to  comment,  possibly  forming  a  common 
representative meeting to exchange views. 

The  Commission  approves  the  performance  targets  and  passes  them  on  to  the  national 
supervisory  authorities.  These  organise  wide  consultations,  notably  with  airspace  users,  to 
agree on proposals for national/regional targets consistent with the network-wide targets. 

The agreed targets are binding. Route charges paid to air navigation service providers18 will 
be used as incentives to ensure the credibility of performance regulation. 

5.2. 

Facilitating the integration of service provision 

The  challenge  is  to  turn  the  wide  range  of  current  initiatives  for  functional  airspace  blocks 
into  genuine  instruments  of  regional  integration  to  achieve  performance  targets.  For  the 

18 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 on laying down a common charging 
scheme for air navigation services. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
time  being,  the  Commission  is  sticking  to  the  ‘bottom-up’  approach  to  establish  functional 
airspace blocks19. 

The Commission will support current initiatives to set up functional airspace blocks by: 

•  Setting firm deadlines for implementation (at latest by end 2012); 

•  Extending the scope to lower airspace up to the airport; 

•  Clearing national legal and institutional obstacles. 

5.3. 

Strengthening the network management function 

Network  management  function  helps  service  providers  and  users  find  optimal  gate-to-gate 
solutions  from  a  European  network  perspective  complementing  performance  regulation.  It 
comprises a range of tasks exercised by different actors including: 

•  European  Route  Network  Design:  Ensure  that  local  design  solutions  are  consistent  with 
European  network  efficiency  requirements  within  a  multi-modal  policy  and  that  airspace 
users can fly optimal trajectories; 

•  Management  of  Scarce  Resources:  Optimise  the  use  of  scarce  resources  through  a 
centralised inventory of these resources, with a view to overcoming sometimes conflicting 
local solutions; 

•  Traffic  Flow  Management,  slot  coordination  and  allocation:  slots  are  allocated  as  a 

function of the ‘required time of arrival’ to ensure predictability; 

•  Management of the deployment of SESAR technologies and the procurement of European-
wide infrastructure elements: ensuring consistent and synchronised availability of suitable 
equipment and management of information networks20. 

The  modalities  for  executing  these  functions  will  be  developed  in  implementing  rules, 
guaranteeing  public  interest  impartiality  and  ensuring  appropriate  industry  involvement. 
Network  management  should  also  provide  for  global  interoperability  and  cooperation  with 
neighbouring countries. 

6. 

SECOND PILLAR: A SINGLE SAFETY FRAMEWORK 

Continuous  growth  of  air  traffic  in  Europe,  induced  capacity  limitations,  congestions  of  air 
space  and  of  aerodromes,  as  well  as  the  progressive  use  of  new  technologies  all  call  for  a 
common  European  approach  for  a  harmonised  development  of  safety  regulations  and  their 
effective  implementation  to  maintain  or  even  improve  the  safety  level  of  this  industrial 
activity.  

However, differences in application of and compliance with non-binding aviation safety rules 
throughout  the  Member  States  lead  to  diverging  processes  and  different  level  of  safety 
standards. 

Europe has already decided in 2002 that the adequate answer to those safety challenges had to 
rest  in  the  establishment  of  one  single  European  safety  entity,  known  as  the  European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 

19 

20 

Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single 
European Sky of 10 March 2004 (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 20). 
In line with System Wide Information Management. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
Its competences have progressively developed since then to cover the fields of airworthiness 
of  aircraft,  aircraft  operation  and  air  crew  licensing.  Responsibilities  for  related  inspection 
mechanisms  to  check  compliance  by  Member  States  and  their  undertakings  enhance  this 
scope of competence.  

Following this approach the Commission proposes to extend the competence of the Agency to 
the remaining key safety fields of aerodromes and Air Traffic Management / Air Navigation 
Services.  This  pillar  therefore  provides  the  safety  element  of  the  Single  European  Sky 
endeavour. 

7. 

THIRD PILLAR: OPENING THE DOOR TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES 

The present air traffic control system is being pushed to its limits, working with obsolescent 
technologies and suffering from fragmentation. Europe must accelerate the development of its 
system to respond to the challenges and synchronise both airborne and ground deployments. 
SESAR is to increase safety levels by a factor of ten, capable of handling a threefold increase 
in  traffic  at  half  of  today’s  cost  per  flight.  The  future  operational  concept  represents  a 
paradigm change, creating a form of collaborative information system for aviation operations. 
The SESAR Master Plan, part of this package, is based on the results of the definition phase 
(2004-2008)  and  triggers  the  development  phase  (2008-2013).  On  the  basis  of  this  Master 
Plan  the  Commission  will  prepare  a  proposal  for  a  European  ATM  Master  plan,  to  be 
endorsed  by  the  Council  as  provided  for  in  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
219/2007 establishing the SESAR Joint Undertaking. 

7.1. 

A look to the future 

Aviation  operations  are  the  end  result  of  a  complex  series  of  interactions  between  aircraft 
operators  (civil  and  military),  airports,  air  navigation  service  providers,  and  regional  and 
central flow management. The degree to which these actors are able to integrate information 
on their operations to increase predictability determines the performance of the network. 

Predictability  requires  system-wide  integration  and  the  exchange  of  information  on  planned 
and real-time operations covering all phases of flights, from the moment that the engines are 
turned  on  until  they  are  switched  off  again.  The  starting  point  for  the  organisation  of  flight 
operations is the required time of arrival. 

The  system  calculates  the  optimal  route  to  fly  (‘business  trajectory’)  as  a  function  of  the 
required time of arrival at the airport. The trajectories are conceived as a continuum, covering 
all  phases  of  flight,  from  flight  planning,  until  unloading  the  plane  at  destination.  The 
management of air operations and ground operations is hence integrated to avoid any waiting 
time. Operators will have an incentive to stick to planned operations: on-time operations get 
priority in order to reduce the sensitivity of the system to secondary delays. 

Dynamic air traffic flow management adapts airspace structures to the density of traffic flows. 
It  is  embedded  in  a  broader  range  of  network  management  functions:  ensuring  an  optimal 
design of route network; enabling the necessary flow of information between all links of the 
operational  aviation  chain;  deciding  on  the  use  of  relevant  equipment  and  systems  and 
organising  procurement;  and  allocating  scarce  resources,  such  as  airspace,  runway  slots, 
transponder codes and frequencies. 

7.2. 

Towards the successful implementation of SESAR 

The  successful  implementation  of  SESAR  is  a  collective  responsibility  and  demands  the 
commitment  of  the  whole  aviation  community.  The  development  phase  lays  the  foundation 
for  the  more  advanced  tools  and  technologies.  The  Joint  Undertaking  coordinates  and 

EN 

9 

   EN 

structures  development,  overcoming  fragmentation  in  research  efforts,  also  by  screening 
ongoing projects for their SESAR relevance. Third countries may contribute to its activities.  

The real added value of SESAR will come with implementation, when SESAR products, once 
validated  at  European  level  with  support  of  some  sort  of  co-ordination  structure  of 
supervisory  authorities,  are  deployed  in  a  coordinated  and  synchronised  way  through  the 
Community  legal  framework.  This  will  overcome  fragmentation  in  equipment  for  both  air 
navigation  service  providers  and  airspace  users  and  speed  up  the  pace  of  technological 
progress. 

The  deployment  process  will  require  solid  governance  structures,  reflecting  the  nature  of 
activities and balancing the interests of the aviation community. The Commission will come 
forward with a proposal for such a structure. 

FOURTH PILLAR: MANAGING CAPACITY ON THE GROUND 

8. 
The  European  Parliament21  and  the  Council22  have  endorsed  the  ‘action  plan  for  airport 
capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe’23.  

The  necessary  investments  in  airport  capacity  need  to  be  made.  To  accommodate  growing 
demand  for  air  traffic,  airport  capacity  needs  to  remain  aligned  with  ATM  capacity  to 
preserve  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  network.  The  action  plan  therefore  contains  several 
measures to increase the output and optimise the planning of airport infrastructures, while at 
the same time raising safety and environmental standards. 

8.1. 

Better use of existing infrastructures 

New  technologies,  derived  from  SESAR,  will  increase  the  safety  and  efficiency  of  airport 
operations. In addition, the Commission will propose measures to ensure consistency between 
airport slots and flight plans. 

8.2. 

Improved infrastructure planning 

Economic  and  environmental  constraints, 
lead-times  for  new 
infrastructure, mean that priority should be given to optimising the use of existing capacities.  

together  with 

long 

These  measures  will  mean  that  land  planning  and  long-term  airport  planning  will  be 
conducted  simultaneously  to  take  better  account  of environmental  constraints.  To  this  end, 
the Commission will propose separately strengthening the rules on noise in EU airports24. 

8.3. 

Promoting intermodality and improving access to airports 

Congestion  at  airports  and  tighter  security  controls  make  high-speed  trains  increasingly 
competitive. However, airports could benefit from the rapidly developing high-speed railway 
network. Close coordination with planning for rail and road networks will ensure the design 
and construction of truly complementary transport networks at minimum cost. 

21 
22 
23 
24 

EP Resolution of 11.10.2007. 
Council Conclusions of 2.10.2007. 
COM(2006) 819, 24.1.2007. 
Directive 2002/30/EC of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the 
introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
8.4. 

The Community Observatory on airports capacity 

The Commission will set up an Observatory, composed of Member States, relevant authorities 
and  stakeholders,  to  exchange  and  monitor  data  and  information  on  airport  capacity  as  a 
whole.  This  Observatory,  which  should  start  working  by  mid-2008,  will  be  the  appropriate 
forum for qualified parties to present and discuss their views. It will be in a position to arrive 
at  balanced  and  consolidated  opinions  to  advise  the  Commission  on  the  development  and 
implementation of Community airport capacity. The Observatory will also assist in network 
management tasks. 

9. 

CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROCONTROL 

The  regulatory  structure  and  the  provision  of  some  central  network  tasks  for  air  traffic 
an 
management 
intergovernmental framework cannot produce a level playing field where aviation can thrive 
as rules cannot be enforced. 

arrangements.  However, 

intergovernmental 

subject 

remain 

to 

Eurocontrol currently contributes to some network management tasks. The internal reform of 
the organisation should align governance structures with the Single European Sky with a view 
to  (i)  complying  with  the  requirements  for  network  tasks;  and  (ii)  reinforcing  industry 
involvement in line with the common transport policy. 

Assuming  the  reform  is  implemented,  the  Commission  intends  to  enhance  cooperation  with 
Eurocontrol  to  implement  its  policies.  A  first  step  towards  achieving  this  would  be  a 
framework  agreement.  This  will  take  into  account  the  pan-European  nature  of  the 
organisation. 

10. 

CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS A TRULY SINGLE SKY BY 2012 

European  citizens  are  entitled  to  the  best  performing  air  transport  system.  A  Community 
framework needs to replace the overlapping regulatory structures inherited from the past to 
cover all flight phases in the air transport network. It is time to prepare for the future. 

EN 

11 

   EN