Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.6.3-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their speeches, which have shown differences on certain points, but which in any event support the idea of improving the quality of service in air transport. As several of you have pointed out, we are all significant users of this type of transport and therefore victims of low quality service.
With regard to Amendment No 43, which would exclude third-country flights, we cannot accept it since it would disadvantage Community operators.
Finally, Amendments Nos 5, 35 and 37 propose measures which are outside the scope of the Regulation we are discussing. Although we identify with the objectives they pursue and we are preparing proposals in relation to them, we regret that we cannot accept them and I would point out that, as Mr Vairinhos said a moment ago, information to users is absolutely essential if these rights are to be effective; hence the campaigns we have carried out to date with the support of the airports and the tour operators, but also – and I must make this very clear – with the support of the airlines, which cooperated significantly in relation to the objective of improving the quality of service.
I would like once again to thank Mr Lisi and the honourable Members and hope that we can achieve a good result which will be of benefit to the consumers.
I would like in particular to thank Mr Lisi for the effort he has made to find common ground between all the various positions.
Certain amendments are intended to exclude passengers of combined journeys from the scope of the Regulation. We believe that it is also necessary to protect this type of passenger. It is true that the specific Regulation provides for this protection, but not in an automatic way, but following a series of very complex procedures, including in some cases hearings before the courts.
What we need to do is provide a simple, immediate and automatic solution for users of combined transport; we cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 13 and 15.
With regard to the sums of compensation, I said at the beginning that we are prepared to be flexible in relation to our initial position and, in this regard, the Commission cannot accept amendments such as No 23 and part of No 24 and No 31, which eliminates compensation in cases of slight delay. For the same reason, we cannot accept Amendment No 44 or Amendment No 45. However, we can accept Amendment No 40 – which Mrs Maes mentioned a moment ago – because it makes our position more flexible and means that we offer quantities which may be more balanced.
Furthermore, it should be made very clear who is responsible for compensating passengers and offering them assistance in airports. We have chosen a simple solution: the responsibility falls to the company that has made the contract with the passenger, whether that be an airline or a tour operator.
The Transport Committee has recommended joint responsibility between the company and the carrier, but this could create uncertainty for passengers. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendments Nos 16, 17, 18, 19 nor part of Nos 28, 29, 30 and part of No 31.
Amendments Nos 4 and 21 could restrict the flexibility that airlines need to negotiate with possible volunteers and Amendment No 7 and part of Nos 14, 17, 20 and part of No 22 could hinder the practical application of the rules.
A significant proportion of Amendments Nos 25 and 33 would unnecessarily restrict the rights of passengers and we therefore reject them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples