13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/110

—

welcomes the goal of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure but believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours;

—

calls for an improvement of inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network;

—

agrees that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives but considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate;

—

welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should however be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports;

—

welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports but stresses that the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed.

Rapporteur

Mr WERNER (DE/ALDE), State Secretary in the Saxon State Ministry for Economic Affairs, Labour and Transport

Reference documents

1.

shares the view that airports are an indispensable part of a modern and efficient transport network. They make an important contribution to economic development, employment and tourism in individual regions, while also strengthening the territorial cohesion of the European Union;

2.

shares the view that noise from aircraft is a nuisance for a growing number of European citizens, especially at night, and that an active noise management strategy is therefore necessary to mitigate the undesired effects;

3.

supports the Commission’s goal of making best possible use of and boosting the potential of air traffic, and in particular its predicted growth;

4.

stresses that the EU could promote investment in modernising the airport network and constructing new airports primarily through the use of innovative financial instruments, so as to achieve sustained economic growth in the EU and improve economic links to the rest of the world;

5.

shares the view that there is an increasing imbalance between airport capacity and the ever growing demand from tourism and need for transport. Some European airports are already overloaded or are operating at the limits of their capacity. Additional capacity – especially in major hubs – cannot always be made available in line with demand. It can therefore be expected that bottlenecks in capacity will become even more serious in the coming years;

6.

welcomes the goal of tackling the increasing number of bottlenecks and of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure. However, the Committee warns that the measures proposed in the Airport Package will not be enough to achieve this;

7.

notes that there is sufficient capacity in many regional airports to provide effective relief to airports that suffer capacity bottlenecks, and that regional connections can thereby be improved;

8.

believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours. Small regional airports must also receive meaningful support in order to complement the major airports and make optimum use of existing infrastructure;

9.

refers to the need to improve inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network;

10.

feels that more efficient allocation of slots is a suitable way of achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for this purpose, although the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed;

11.

approves of the proposal to revise the rules and procedures governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions. The goal of standardising the way the Balanced Approach is applied should enhance protection of people affected by aircraft noise in line with Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise;

12.

welcomes the goal of further liberalising the market for groundhandling services. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of service. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports. It must also be ensured that the regulation does not lead to any unequal treatment of service providers. The Commission’s goal of avoiding distortions of competition can only be achieved when the same conditions apply to all parties involved;

13.

is concerned by the proposals of the Commission, and the even further-reaching proposals of the Council’s ‘General Approach’, to regulate ground handling infrastructure fees in line with and beyond the provisions of the Airport Charges Directive (Directive 2009/12/EC). Such fees typically comprise a very small percentage of overall airport revenues, particularly at regional airports which are just over the new proposed two million passenger per annum threshold, and constitute small sums in absolute terms also. The administrative costs may well outweigh any potential benefits, given that airports are already obliged to set out such fees in an objective and transparent manner;

14.

stresses the importance of General Aviation to air transport in the EU. It allows the entrepreneurs who create wealth and employment to travel with maximum flexibility and increases the economic power of the peripheral and outermost regions. This is particularly important when considering the issue of slots and accessibility to airports;

15.

welcomes the goal of further specifying the procedures and rules governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions, and of making the assessment process more transparent. This will counter the Directive’s inconsistent application in the Member States, and will also afford a comparable level of protection to people affected by aircraft noise. However, the Committee observes that the draft regulation is not yet aligned with Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, especially in terms of the noise assessment and analysis of cost-effectiveness, and would therefore create a heavy administrative burden and in turn significant costs, and undermine public acceptance of air traffic;

16.

expects that turning the existing Directive into a regulation will boost the efficacy of noise-related measures and help to avoid distortions of competition in the European Union;

17.

agrees with the Commission’s view that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives. However, the health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport should also be taken into consideration to the greatest possible extent, and not merely on an optional basis. This will enable Member States to reconcile the economic impact of noise abatement measures with the legitimate need for protection of people affected by air traffic noise;

18.

approves in principle of the goal of raising the limit value for marginally compliant aircraft. This will make it possible to take into account technological advances in the development of light aircraft. However, the Committee points out that freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the stringent 10 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels) limit. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately. The Committee therefore recommends that the limit be raised by a smaller amount within an appropriate transition phase. Lifting the limit to 8 EPNdB would be enough to achieve a considerable reduction in aircraft noise;

19.

considers that an independent appeal body is needed at Member State level;

20.

welcomes the application of the Balanced Approach to reduce and limit the degree to which people are affected by air traffic noise. This will afford Member States the necessary flexibility in managing noise. At the same time, the Committee shares the Commission’s view that operating restrictions should be a measure of last resort;

21.

supports the goal of further specifying the rules for assessing aircraft noise and of making the assessment process more transparent. The planned consultation with people affected by aircraft noise will lead to greater acceptance of noise abatement measures that are implemented. However, the Committee recommends that Member States be given adequate room for manoeuvre when it comes to the composition of the ‘forums for technical cooperation’ provided for in the draft regulation. To the extent that similar bodies are already established in the Member States, it should be possible to recognise them rather than create additional bodies;

22.

believes that the noise assessment method based on the ECAC Report Doc 29 ‘Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’, which is mentioned in Annex I of the draft regulation, is unsuited to making noise assessment procedures more transparent. An additional assessment method will lead to a loss of comparability with the Environmental Noise Directive or with national calculation rules, for example, and create unnecessary red tape. Noise assessment should therefore be based on the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC);

23.

considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission, whereby it can review operating restrictions before their introduction and if necessary remove them, exceeds the powers of the Commission according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, under no circumstances will it help to achieve the regulation’s goal of reducing the number of people affected by aircraft noise;

24.

considers the definition of ‘aircraft’ and ‘marginally compliant aircraft’, the updating of the noise certification standards and of the certification procedure, and the amendments to the method and technical report, to be essential elements of the regulation. In this respect, these points are not appropriate for delegating to the Commission the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

25.

shares the Commission’s view that groundhandling services play a key role in the aviation chain. Efficient and high-quality groundhandling services make an essential contribution to securing an efficient and competitive aviation system;

26.

welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This can be expected to further raise the quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. This will benefit airlines, freight forwarders and passengers in equal measure. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports;

27.

is in favour of regulating the transfer of staff between service providers. In this connection, calls on the Commission to explore whether Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 already provides contracting authorities with the possibility to transfer staff, as determined by the Member States, without the need for additional transposing measures by the Member States, and whether parameters could be specified for the transfer of staff;

28.

notes that not all the rules governing the authorisation procedure are yet fit for purpose. In particular, there is room for improvement in the timing of steps in the procedure, in terms of a special regulation abolishing the unworkable suspensive effect of appeals, in terms of responsibility for carrying out the authorisation procedure, and in the award criteria;

29.

shares the Commission’s view that airports should have a determining role in coordinating groundhandling service providers. However, the Committee notes that airports can only perform this role when the necessary legal framework in the Member States is in place. These tasks also entail additional costs, which it will be difficult for airports to meet via the market;

30.

stresses that the further opening of the market must not have a detrimental effect on aviation security. In order to maintain the high level of security at Union airports, staff need to be adequately trained;

31.

feels that it is important that the duration of training be set at a level that guarantees the quality of groundhandling services. Given that the approval granted to groundhandling services is to be recognised in all Member States, the Committee recommends that the training be designed in a way that creates comparable qualifications, whilst also taking into account cost-efficiency and encouragement of employment;

32.

notes that subcontracting is reserved for third-party providers. Airport operators and users are not to be allowed this possibility. The Committee takes the view that this is discriminatory in a way that distorts competition, and that it contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition. Subcontracting should be allowed for all groundhandling service providers, according to precise rules;

33.

believes that revising the regulation will make a vital contribution to the more efficient use of scarce infrastructure capacity. In view of the predicted growth in air traffic and the fact that airport infrastructure is not expanding at a comparable rate, airlines face increasing limitations on their ability to meet demand for transport services. This is a barrier to the economic development of aviation and, therefore, of regions;

34.

believes that, in instances where the independent supervisory authority has been asked to decide on the level of fees being charged for use of centralised infrastructure, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure should be entitled to recover from users at the level initially proposed, until such time as the independent supervisory authority issued its final decision. This would reduce an incentive to raise vexatious challenges to fee level decisions;

35.

welcomes in principle the introduction of market instruments for allocating slots. This will ensure that slots are allocated to the airlines that can make best use of them. The regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed;

36.

notes that not all of the consequences of trading slots have been outlined. In particular, the Commission fails to mention how trading slots will affect regional airports and therefore regional connectivity;

37.

considers it possible that airlines will make the slots they own at overloaded hubs available for long-distance traffic first and foremost. This would weaken the link between regional airports and hubs. Therefore, the Committee calls for appropriate measures to ensure that regions are connected to the worldwide aviation network;

38.

is pleased with the intention to strengthen the independence of airport coordinators. The draft regulation will make it possible in future for airlines to transfer their slots, including for monetary compensation. Such transfers will require the approval and confirmation of the airport coordinator. That is why the Committee considers it all the more important that the airport coordinator be able to make independent and objective decisions;

39.

takes the view that allocating slots free of charge only to have them subsequently sold would be pointless. In particular, airlines should only be given approval to trade slots when they can show that the slots have been regularly used beforehand;

40.

feels that the change to the rule on minimum use of slots is reasonable. This measure will increase pressure to fully utilise slots that have been obtained. At the same time, it must be possible to allow for exceptional occurrences (such as strikes or volcanic ash). It can be expected that in future more slots will be returned to the slot pool or sold to another airline. This will facilitate market entry for other airlines at overloaded airports;

41.

welcomes the possibility created by the charging system for airports to influence the return of unneeded or reserved slots at as early a stage as possible. This will ensure that slots are not blocked and can be used by other airlines;

42.

recognises the importance of the provision for ‘local rules’ to ensure that the regulatory framework allows sufficient flexibility in those regions and their airports, where specific circumstances warrant due regard. In such circumstances regional input is necessary to ensure an optimal and efficient use of capacity at individual airports;

43.

considers that the proposed right of the European Commission to designate individual ‘network airports’, whereby it can require Member States to treat individual airports distinctly and separately, exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity.

44.

is concerned by the European Commission’s introduction of the ‘Network Manager’ concept, and in particular by the proposed allocation of significant and far reaching powers to this entity, in the absence of a clear definition of the entity’s governance;

1)

Freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the 10 EPNdB limit proposed in the draft regulation. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately.

2)

An appropriate transition phase will give airlines an opportunity to plan and carry out any necessary upgrades to their fleet in line with business conditions.

1)

Operating restrictions should only be imposed by the Member States, as is presently the case. The Council has already expressed an opinion on this matter and deleted the relevant article from the Commission’s proposal. The deletion above is also consistent with point 23 of this opinion.

2)

As currently worded, Article 10 could call regional mediation agreements into question. These agreements between airports, the relevant region and citizens are often reached after years of difficult and exhausting negotiations. The German Bundesrat, Austrian Bundesrat, French Senate and Dutch First Chamber concluded that the Commission’s right of scrutiny under Article 10 is in breach of the European Union’s principle of subsidiarity.

1)

The prohibition on subcontracting for airports and airport users discriminates vis-à-vis other suppliers of groundhandling services and distorts competition. This contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition.

2)

Requirements in terms of service quality and reliability are to be met by all subcontractors in equal measure, just as they are to be met by the contracting entities. Moreover, airports should be allowed to restrict the number of subcontractors when space is limited.