92003E0836

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Alterations to the technical and administrative structure of Genoa airport

In 1980 there came into being in Italy a flight-handling authority which in 1981 was succeeded by a flight-handling company organised as follows:

- four regional flight-handling centres, each run by an executive director;

- two main airports (Rome-Fiumicino and Milan-Linate), each run by an executive director;

- all other airports, large or small, each run by non-executive staff.

When the technical and administrative structure of the Directorate-General was recently overhauled (on 11 February 2003), airports were subdivided into different categories, even though they all had the same role and tasks:

- four ACCs (Rome, Milan, Padua and Brindisi regional control centres), each run by an executive director;

- three SAAVs (Rome-Fiumicino, Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports), each run by an executive director;

- eight CAAVs (Bari, Bologna, Catania, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Turin and Venice airports), each run by an executive director;

- fifteen UAAVs (all other airports which provide control-tower services, including Genoa), each run by an official;

- thirteen NAAVs (airports at which control-tower services are not provided, only an information service).

The exclusion of Genoa from the CAAVs defies all logic:

- Genoa is one of the few Italian airports at which comprehensive services (including a radar service) have always been provided;

- although the airport is not one of the busiest it should undoubtedly be regarded as one of the most important on account of the fact that it provides comprehensive services, is conveniently situated and enjoys a good weather record (which means that it has always been used when necessary as a diversionary airport in northern Italy);

- of the eight CAAVs, Bari airport has no radar and in terms of movements is no busier than Genoa, Catania, although busier, has no radar and provides only control-tower services, whilst Olbia is similar to Genoa in terms of facilities and number of aircraft movements.

Would the Commission say why it was thought that such restructuring was called for?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Normally CAAV airports (Centri Aeroportuali di Assistenza al Volo, Airport Centres for Flight Assistance) are chosen on the basis of volume and complexity of traffic as well as of their geographical location.

It is true that according to these parameters, Genova is well equipped and enjoys more movements than other airports that have retained the CAAV qualification, such as Olbia, Bari and Catania. However, these airports serve wider areas due to their geographical location than Genova could have done as it is close to other major centres like Milano and Torino.

Therefore, the determination by the Italian authorities not to retain Genova as a CAAV airport appears to be reasonable. The Commission should point out that in any event there is no basis in law for it to intervene in Member States' decisions on these matters.