Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.6.3-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the rapporteur. In our view, the compromise that was struck in the committee constitutes a significant step towards greater consumer protection. At long last we have legal security on additional issues and not just voluntary commitments from the airlines. Moreover, the regulation is of course also being extended to cover severe delays and flight cancellations. I was not infrequently the victim of cancellations by the former airline Sabena. No doubt other Members have had similar experiences with other airlines. Last but not least we are doubling the current levels of compensation, which will also be more subtly differentiated than hitherto and divided into three bands.
Clearly, the issue that we most need to discuss is the level of compensation. The objective of the regulation cannot be to abolish the practice of overbooking, but it can be to ensure that this procedure is used in a more reasonable, customer-oriented way. Of course, we could also eliminate overbooking, as the low-cost carriers have done, if, on the other hand, flights were non-exchangeable and a no-show meant that a flight was automatically forfeited. But this is neither consumer-friendly nor justifiable on environmental grounds. Consumers need flexibility when they are planning their journeys and half-empty planes make no sense at all from an environmental point of view.
The economic argument is even more persuasive. If overbooking were abolished, air prices would inevitably rise and we cannot expect either consumers to put up with this or indeed the airlines, which are up against international competition.
A further reason why we can support the compromise struck in the committee on compensation levels is because we think it is important for consumers to benefit from these improved and binding rules as quickly as possible and not have to wait for them for years because the legislation is, as is so often the case, still sitting in the Council.
In the interests of consumers, my group will be voting against part of Amendment No 29, because we think that compensation only for flights that are cancelled up to 48 hours before departure is unreasonable. At least two weeks is required here and this should be negotiated afterwards with the Council and the Commission. In addition, we think that the inclusion of package tours in the Commission proposal is unnecessary, because they are covered by the directive on package tourism.
The fact that the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has advocated the introduction of a scheme to rank airlines by user-friendliness is a strong vote in favour of the consumer. A ranking system of this kind, as is quite usual in the USA, can help to stimulate competition between the airlines on quality and on which provides the most consumer-friendly overall service. I hope that this proposal is also upheld in the plenary.
Against the background of the current situation, this report represents a determined step towards greater consumer-friendliness. Many a consumer dream may fly on, but they are hopelessly overbooked."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples