Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.7.1-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, firstly I should like to thank Mr Stockmann, the rapporteur, for meeting with me and organising the seminar last December in Brussels. It was clear then that all sides of industry, including airlines large and small, airports and others, fully supported the update of Regulation 95/93, in other words the technical revision, but believed that changing the rules on market access at this stage were premature and the consequences had not been thought through.
This proposal is both complex and contentious. It is obvious that there is a gulf between us on some of the key elements. It is the point that attempts to deal with these proposals, slot definition, market access issues, slot transferability and new entrants, etc., that should have been considered in a second phase. I will highlight some of the particular difficulties later.
Not only is the inclusion of these elements uncalled for in Phase I, but some will also reduce the much-needed flexibility required in the system. The amendments initially submitted by myself and some of my colleagues were designed to maintain and enhance the flexibility in the system that all airlines currently have, which works to the advantage of passengers. To remove those rights, as proposed by the Commission, would be severely detrimental to the system and cause it to break down.
I and others have re-tabled three key amendments, which will be voted on tomorrow. These deal with the slot allocation process and the slot exchanges between carriers. I hope the House will support them.
On a general point, it is worth reminding the Commission that the definition and use of a slot cannot be decided in isolation by the European Union. There are 168 slot-coordinated airports worldwide and many third country carriers operating into Europe. Any changes to definition and use would need to be agreed at international level in order not to cause chaos. There is no reference to that in the Commission's proposal.
Initially I deliberately did not get into the argument of slot ownership, not least because it is highly contentious and will, I believe, encounter serious legal challenges. But, whatever the argument, I find it naive to say that the Commission's view that slots belong to the people is bizarre. Perhaps the Commission believes that it should own them on behalf of the people. The fact is that the ownership of the slots should be determined by contracts between parties.
That brings me to my final point. I believe that a slot is a commodity which should be traded if necessary. This is also the view of the AEA, IATA and fourteen Member States in recognition of the future shortage of airport capacity across the EU.
I also strongly disagree with the myth – which is perpetuated – that only the major airlines benefit. This is not the case. It has been proved by the fact that at Heathrow BA's share of slots has declined since secondary trading began over ten years ago. The choice for consumers has drastically improved.
We need a proposal that will produce a more transparent, more practical, more efficient and effective slot regulation, one that does not harm the legitimate interests of the aviation industry. Unfortunately this is not it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples