Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Single European Sky II+’ (exploratory opinion)
Date: 2013-04-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Eurocontrol, air space, air traffic, air traffic control, information system, transport safety








C_2013198EN.01000901.xml










10.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/9





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Single European Sky II+’ (exploratory opinion)
2013/C 198/02
Rapporteur: Mr KRAWCZYK

On 24 January 2013 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Single European Sky II+

(exploratory opinion).
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 3 April 2013.
At its 489th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 April 2013 (meeting of 17 April), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 188 votes to 2 with 3 abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations







1.1


The completion of the EU Single European Sky (SES) is an inherent part of the process of improving the competitiveness and growth of the EU economy by further strengthening the European single market. Its objective is to provide better, more effective and reliable conditions of air travel to the European citizens.










1.2


The continuing crisis in the EU aviation sector and particularly in the airline industry calls even more for the urgent implementation of the SES. Bringing European Air Traffic Management (ATM) services to a level of efficiency, in terms of performance, economics, quality, security and environmental protection that is comparable with global best practices is of utmost importance.










1.3


In line with its previous opinions TEN/451 (20/06/2011) and TEN 354/355 (21/01/2009), the EESC fully supports the need for a timely and comprehensive implementation of the SES and its Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) initiatives within the scope originally agreed upon in 2004 and 2009. The legal instruments provided to the European Commission by the EU regulations are sufficient to this goal. Due to the continuing crisis in the EU aviation sector and particularly in the airline industry, the objectives for 2025 could be reflected upon.










1.4


The EESC regrets that most Member States to whom the performance targets were addressed have failed to comply with these targets without facing any effective legal consequences. The EESC also regrets that most of the Functional Airspace Block (FAB) initiative failed to deliver and that the binding deadline of 4 December 2012 was not met.










1.5


In this context the EESC welcomes the Commission's plan to give further impetus to the SES through a new so-called SES II+ initiative.










1.6


The EESC considers that the revision of the present SES legislative framework should not only focus on institutional developments and on improving legal clarity, but also on strengthening the following elements:






—


top down components to complement the bottom-up approach;










—


better enforcement of timely and substantial SES implementation through penalties for non-compliance;










—


unbundling of ancillary ATM services, opening them up to greater competition and market forces;










—


defining objectives that target service quality and enhancing efficiency in equal measure;










—


greater involvement of airspace users.














1.7


The European airline industry is in a very difficult economic situation which has already led to thousands of jobs being lost. The implementation of the SES and its improved efficiency are therefore also important for safeguarding jobs in this part of the aviation value chain. The 5th pillar of the SES is fundamental here in terms of adequately addressing the challenges regarding employment, worker mobility, changes in staff management and professional training. Social dialogue should, as a consequence, be strengthened and look beyond the pure ATM sector and be opened to the participation of other social partners than only Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) representatives, and should extend its scope to discussing the social consequences for workers in ATM, airlines, airports, and ways of safeguarding jobs in the wider EU aviation industry.










1.8


Member States, including those being slow on SES implementation, should present their strategies towards the future development of their air transport sector.










1.9


The EESC believes that the high level of safety achieved by EU aviation should remain of the utmost importance. It is vital to ensure that the necessary action to reach the economic goals further support the development of the safety level.




2.   Introduction







2.1


The completion of the Single European Sky (SES) project is an inherent part of the process of improving the competitiveness and growth of the EU economy by further strengthening the European single market. The SES aims to improve the overall efficiency of the way in which the European airspace is organised and managed. This includes reducing costs, improving safety and capacity and limiting the impact on the environment. Its objective is to provide better, more effective and reliable conditions of air travel to European citizens.










2.2


Following the recent reports of Eurocontrol (ACE Benchmarking Report 2010, draft ACE Benchmarking Report 2011 and draft PRU Report 2011) it should be stated that the period 2007-2011 saw numerous changes. Consequently, any analysis of the overall variation in cost-effectiveness should not be done without taking into consideration the main events during this period.










2.3


In 2010, the annual cost caused by the fragmentation of Europe's airspace amounted to EUR 4 billion. This includes 19.4 million minutes of delays due to en-route air traffic flow management (ATFM); in addition, each flight was on average 49 km longer than the direct flight route. At European level, the economic cost per composite flight-hour increased slightly from 2006 to 2009 (i.e. +1% p.a. in real terms); it rose significantly in 2010 (i.e. +4.6% in real terms) before falling in 2011 (-4.3%) prior to the SES II First Reference Period. In 2010, ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -4.8% in real terms, which was consumed by a sharp increase in the unit costs of ATFM delays (+77.5%), which, in contrast, fell by 42% in 2011.










2.4


The significant variation in the total costs incurred by airlines for air navigation services, which in 2010 ranged from EUR 849 to EUR 179 i.e. a factor of over five, is of particular importance. In addition, the five largest Air Navigation Service Providers ANSPs, all of which operate under broadly similar economic and operational conditions, showed significant differences in their unit costs, which ranged from EUR 720 to EUR 466. This distribution sends out a clear signal that ATM is not optimised across Europe.










2.5


The results of the SES I and SES II schemes (introduced in 2004 and 2009 respectively) demonstrate that the principles and general direction of the SES initiative are valid and that efforts have been made to optimise the ATM rules, which are beginning to bear fruit. However, these schemes have also revealed a number of weaknesses, largely due to the Member States' failure to provide a clear outline of their current aviation priorities. Their priorities range from such issues as creating value added for airspace users to maximising their own income from air operations as well as using aviation as a tool for regional and micro-economic development. As a result, ANS provision in Europe still shows major deficiencies in terms of its efficiency and quality, yet there is a lack of any clear explanation regarding this situation. In addition, the current institutional set-up is less than optimal as it includes numerous overlaps, gaps and a lack of any common direction among the various stakeholders. The SES institutional framework therefore needs to be strengthened.










2.6


SESAR is the technological element of the SES. According to a study from the SESAR Joint Undertaking, the macroeconomic impact of SESAR could generate additional GDP of EUR 419 billion for the European economy and create some 320 000 jobs. The completion of the SESAR programme will require major investments from all parts of the aviation value chain participants, which are difficult to justify unless an acceptable return on investments can be established based on the synchronised deployment of air and ground elements including airspace users, ANSPs and airports. The institutional framework needs to evolve to ensure the successful deployment of SESAR; at the same time, robust cost-benefit studies have to be conducted by all co-operating parties for the sequence of investment projects along the complete aviation value chain.










2.7


The European Commission therefore plans to issue a legislative package (SES II+) which builds on the existing SES initiatives and which will seek to further improve cost efficiency, capacity, safety and regulatory quality.










2.8


Based on the information received from the European Commission, the SES II+ initiative will aim to:






—


enhance the low performance of ANS Services by revitalising Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), secure financing for SESAR deployment, update the ATC charging scheme, modernise technology by completing SESAR and establish more efficient performance targets;










—


improve the current sub-optimal institutional set-up by a variety of measures, these include: concentrating economic regulation at the European Commission while making EASA responsible for technical regulation and oversight; recognising Eurocontrol as a supporting body for these institutions, updating Network Manager governance and clarifying SES and EASA frameworks by eliminating overlaps and ultimately developing a European Aviation Agency (EAA) which would encompass all aspects involved in the oversight of the European aviation industry – including technical, economic and safety issues;










—


recast the regulatory instruments into one consistent act;










—


invite Member States to adapt Eurocontrol to the new institutional environment.








3.   General comments







3.1


In line with its previous opinions TEN/451 (20/6/2011) and TEN 354/355 (21/1/2009), the EESC fully supports the need for a timely and comprehensive implementation of the EU Single European Sky and SESAR initiatives: The sense of urgency ought to be much higher, since the economic situation of many European airlines is currently very bad.










3.2


The EESC expects, that the implementation of the SES package will be fully completed, i.e. within the scope originally agreed upon in 2004 and 2009. The legal instruments provided to the European Commission by the EU regulations are sufficient in this respect.










3.3


In this context the EESC welcomes the Commission's plan to give further impetus to the SES initiative. It will be essential for all EU Member States to honour their earlier political commitments to timely deliver full implementation of the SES. It is also of fundamental importance that the European Commission maintains strong leadership and responsibility throughout the entire implementation process.










3.4


Considering relatively poor results of the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) following the entry into force of SES I in April 2004 and of SES II in December 2009, the EESC considers that the revision of the present SES legal framework should not only focus on institutional developments but also on strengthening the following elements:






—


top down components to complement the bottom-up approach;










—


clear presentation of Member State strategies, in particular those that may run counter to SES implementation;










—


strengthen timely and substantial SES implementation through penalties for non-compliance;










—


mandatory unbundling of ancillary ATM services, opening them up to greater competition and market forces;










—


defining objectives that target service quality and enhancing efficiency in equal measure;










—


greater involvement of airspace users;










—


broader participation of the social partners - other than only Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) representatives - as part of a social dialogue within the SES II+ framework.








4.   Specific comments







4.1


The EESC regrets that a significant number of Member States to whom the targets were addressed have failed to comply with the performance targets without any effective legal consequences. The recently submitted national performance plans demonstrate that these Member States have watered down their targets even further. Therefore, in order to ensure that the Member States create bigger synergies within their Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), and ultimately between those, there is clearly a need for ambitious performance targets combined with an effective sanction mechanism as well as unambiguous and clear Member State strategies which are supported by the necessary pan-European harmonisation of the law in this area. The SES should stimulate the development of the necessary common European legal instruments (i.e. civil law) and a common approach the towards the European air defence sector.










4.2


The EESC feels that more powers should be given at EU and FAB level to help overcome the current problem whereby Member States focus on protecting their own national ANSPs or using them as national economy tools rather than on creating value added for airspace users and customers/passengers. EU-wide performance targets should help ensure that the SES high-level goals for 2020 are achieved; (namely, compared to 2005, a three-fold increase in capacity where needed, a 10% reduction in the environmental impact of flights and a reduction of 50% in the cost of ATM services for airspace users) and lead to progress towards the defragmentation of national air spaces.










4.3


The EESC stresses the need to safeguard the independence of the EU Performance Review Body (PRB). Its activities should be detached from those of Eurocontrol and be transferred to a full EU body under the Commission's responsibility. The EU should also give the PRB a stronger role in the process of establishing EU wide performance targets and national performance plans. Overrepresentation by ANSPs should not be continued.










4.4


The EESC feels that penalties and incentives should be established at EU level to prevent non-compliance with performance targets and to ensure that such targets remain separate from national interests. In particular, it should be envisaged to link the rate of return on investments made by the ANSP and equity of their shareholders to the achievements of the Performance Scheme.










4.5


The EESC regrets that most of the Functional Airspace Block (FAB) initiative failed to deliver and that the SES II legal deadline of 4 December 2012 was not met. New impetus should be given to FAB initiatives through more top-down steering at EU level. A more top-down approach should ensure that FABs deliver real benefits rather than the current window dressing exercises. In this context, the SES Network Manager should be given the power to propose and implement specific projects from FABs to optimise FAB governance, airspace, along with technical and human resources, based on clear deadlines. Penalties should be established in cases of non-compliance. The Network Manager and interested airspace users should also be given an observer's seat at the FAB's main bodies.










4.6


The contribution of the Member States to the EU Single European Sky Committee has been dominated by national interests rather than EU goals. The latest decision of that Committee on the 2015-2019 performance and charging scheme is another setback in SES implementation. The EESC proposes that both airspace users and ANSPs should be given an observer's seat and the right of initiative in all SES Committee activities.










4.7


The EESC once again welcomes the Commission's intention to take a fresh look at the unbundling of ancillary ATM services as a way of improving customer focus and efficiency. The EU regulatory tools should be used to speed up the unbundling process. In this context, the EESC regrets that the Commission failed to meet the legal deadline of 4 December 2012 to prepare and submit a study to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating the legal, safety, industrial, economic and social impact of the application of market principles for the provision of communication, navigation, surveillance and aeronautical information services and taking into account developments in the functional airspace blocks and in available technology.










4.8


The EESC feels that the SES II+ legislation should address the separation between core bundled ANSPs and ancillary services such as Communication Navigation Surveillance (CNS), Meteorological Services (MET) and training, opening up the market for these services, which could result in increased efficiency, higher quality and an overall reduction in costs. The EESC notes that the importance of further liberalising ancillary services was also stressed in the impact assessment of the SES II+ legislation and the High-Level conference on SES in Limassol. Although current legislation allows for unbundling at national level, Member States are still rather hesitant about using this tool to increase performance. Wherever possible, the provision of CNS and MET services should be subject to market conditions and tendering procedures. In addition, market conditions should not be combined with a designation mechanism on the same market, otherwise the latter will dominate. All local and substantial cross subsidies should be prohibited.










4.9


Eurocontrol's new concept of centralised services should be given due consideration, provided these services are based on acceptable business cases that have been endorsed by the operational stakeholders (airlines, ANSPs and airports) and they are based on open calls for tender in view of fixed-term contracts being awarded to those companies that have provided the best offer.










4.10


The EESC highlights the fact that the defragmentation of ANS facilities could be made possible through the use of consolidating centres. The so-called "Virtual Centre" concept could represent a useful starting point. This approach provides for the use of fully standardised methods of air traffic service units operating from different locations which use fully standardised but scalable methods of operation, procedures and equipment in such a manner that airspace users consider them to be a single system. This effect has also been clearly visible in the current set of SES programmes, such as SERA and SESAR. These arrangements support full technical and operational interoperability among participating ANSPs, which, in turn, allows sectors assigned to a specific unit to be temporarily transferred under the operational responsibility of another. Consequently, this would make it possible to optimise the use of Area Control Centres (ACC) overnight and to ensure optimum performance at any given time.










4.11


The EESC therefore feels that the SES II+ legislation should provide an appropriate regulatory framework to lead and steer the implementation of standardisation measures in a consistent and coherent manner. A common steering body should be established within the FABs in order to ensure consistent and coordinated deployment. Standardisation measures represent a realistic and effective means of achieving the EU-wide performance targets.










4.12


The EESC welcomes the Commission's plans to increase the tasks and powers of the SES Network Manager. In this context, it will be essential to allow airspace users to participate in strategic decisions affecting network performance and to give ANSPs a role in decision-making on local performance.










4.13


The EESC takes note of the fact that the Commission plans to expand the scope of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to deal with all technical regulation and oversight including areas not related to safety. The EESC agrees that this may be the right approach but expresses concern that, even with the support of the risk-based priorities concept, overloading the EASA with new tasks could create more problems than benefits and focus the EASA's attention away from its core safety mission. The EESC therefore feels that the expansion of EASA's scope of activity should not be a priority at this point in time. Instead, the EESC feels that potential overlaps between the EASA and SES frameworks could be solved through appropriate coordination mechanisms between the EASA, Eurocontrol and the Commission without necessarily changing the institutional framework.










4.14


The role of Eurocontrol in operational SES implementation is very important. To ensure the future efficient performance of centralised services like those provided by the Network Manager, a revision of the current Eurocontrol convention will be required.










4.15


With regard to SESAR, the EESC stresses the importance of securing sufficient public funding to support the synchronised deployment of ground and air elements. Moreover, the operational investors (airspace users, ANSPs and airports) should be given a prominent role in the governance of SESAR deployment when deciding on the priorities, based on clear business cases. The EESC stresses the importance of the implementation of SESAR as a European key infrastructure project. The Committee expresses it highest concern about possible cuts in the Connecting Europe Facility budget that may influence the ability to carry this implementation forward. It is also of utmost importance to work out possible future financing models for the military deployment of SESAR.










4.16


The EESC does not support the Commission's proposal to introduce price modulation for congested routes. This would not actually lead to any improvement in the use of airspace capacity; moreover, as its introduction could force aircraft operators to fly longer routes it would also run counter to the EU's goals of curbing emissions as a means of combating climate change. Furthermore, such a system would also be unfair since aircraft operators already pay a price for congestion due to the indirect costs of delays. Such an approach would lead to a dual penalty which would be totally unacceptable especially since aircraft operators use route charges to finance infrastructure upgrades, which should ultimately reduce congestion.










4.17


Instead, the EESC believes that price modulation should focus on motivating aircraft operators to purchase the equipment needed to improve the overall performance of the Air Traffic Management System. This could be achieved by using public funds to reduce user charges for those aircraft operators which invest early in SESAR technologies. This approach could then be accompanied with further measures such as the Best Equipped, Best Served Concept, which is fully supported by EESC.




5.   Social dialogue







5.1


The European airline industry is in a very difficult economic situation which has already led to thousands of jobs being lost. The implementation of the SES and its improved efficiency are therefore also important for safeguarding jobs in this part of the aviation value chain. The 5th pillar of the SES is fundamental here to adequately addressing the challenges regarding employment, worker mobility, changes in staff management and professional training. Social dialogue should, as a consequence, be strengthened and look beyond the pure ATM sector and be opened to the participation of other social partners than only Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) representatives, and should extend its scope to discussing the social consequences for workers in ATM, airlines, airports, and ways of safeguarding jobs in the wider EU aviation industry.










5.2


The EESC strongly believes that effective on-going social dialogue is essential to help the transition process. If staff members are not fully engaged in this transition, the risk of failure will increase significantly. In particular, new technologies and operational concepts developed by SESAR will change the traditional role of air traffic controllers, who will act as air traffic managers.










5.3


It is important that the social dialogue within the SES framework reflects the concerns of all the parties involved in the implementation. The current dominance of ANSP representatives is therefore not justified and risks to further discriminate other important industry players.





Brussels, 17 April 2013.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE