Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-10-Speech-4-068-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110310.5.4-068-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Hahn, I naturally consider your response to be the response of the Commission, and I also do not expect you to go into the specific questions put forward by the Committee on Transport and Tourism today.
One thing was clear: more than 100 000 flights were cancelled and 300 airports and more than 10 million passengers were affected. We must learn lessons from such an event. That is also the reason for the question that we are raising today, because there was a very quick call for coordination and this was clearly not forthcoming. It is not possible to improvise coordinated action in the space of 24 hours. These are the questions that we want answers to today, and it is not only Parliament that wants these answers; the citizens of Europe want them, too.
The first thing we want to know is has the information relating to both the effects and the location of such phenomena improved or not?
Secondly, what role will EU bodies play in this regard in future and what powers of decision will they have? Will we continue to have 27 simultaneously existing decisions, or does the Commission already have other proposals, and to what extent will the airlines be involved here? This question has come up very often.
The Crisis Committee is supposed to meet – it does meet and will also carry out tests. It would be extremely important for this Parliament and therefore also for European citizens to be informed of the results of these tests.
When it comes to coordination, it is important for this to be established outside the EU, too. We also need to agree on structures at international level, as the airspace and also certain disasters know no boundaries in this context.
Another important factor as far as we are concerned is the passengers. We talk about 10 million passengers, but these 10 million passengers were not only tourists who had to or were happy to extend their holidays; there were also people who had to get home or had to get somewhere urgently. In this case, we cannot simply refer to passengers’ rights; rather, we are under obligation to work in a coordinated way and to provide alternatives and greater use of other modes of transport. For example, we need a more rapid allocation of rail routes when this is necessary. This is also not possible to improvise in the space of 24 hours. These are questions that we want to raise on behalf of citizens and passengers, too. It is not just a question of explaining their rights.
Last but not least – and you mentioned this – the airspace blocks, or what are referred to as FABs: the proposal is to have seven instead of 27. That could work. However, I would simply venture to predict today that we will not manage to do this by 2012, because the Member States do not want it. In this regard, we must also send a very clear outward signal that a reduction in the number of airspace blocks is absolutely necessary. It can work, too. Mr Hahn, I invite you to come to Maastricht – it is not very far for you to come. There, cooperation between three or four countries in respect of the upper layer of the airspace is already in place. That is where all of the problems that the countries bring up are solved. Go there, suggest it to the Commission, and use it as a model for Europe, for the seven FABs. We will then be able to regulate this within twelve months."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples