Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-02-05-Speech-3-017-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140205.5.3-017-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as the original shadow rapporteur for the PPE Group on the 2004 legislation, I believe that the initial regulation brought a number of benefits for our passengers across Europe and raised standards of service in many of these areas. However, as has been mentioned, following the Icelandic ash cloud incident and the ECJ rulings, it was quite right that we looked at this legislation again to see if we could redress that balance.
I would like to pay tribute to Georges Bach, our rapporteur, who has worked tirelessly to find a way forward, and I am sure that after this he will be taking a welcome holiday. But regrettably, we are in a position where some of the areas have been changed from the Commission proposal, which could lead to some unintended consequences for passengers by, I believe, possibly reducing choice, putting up prices and damaging the competitiveness of our regional carriers.
There are clearly benefits and we fully support some of the changes, such as those on the 90-minutes grace, changes on tickets and making sure that airlines’ websites are clear and concise before people press the pay button. However, we fought hard in this Parliament to raise the profile of, and support, our regional airports, which benefit local communities, generate economic growth and create jobs throughout the supply chain, and there are parts of this report which, if adopted, we have concerns about. These include reducing the trigger points from five to three, which may seem to benefit the consumer but perhaps could see many more air cancellations, and that would be regrettable. As a consequence, this could lead to a reduction in feeder flights from regional airports, which in turn could destroy some of the long-standing inter-line agreements, a practice which has taken place for decades.
The increase in compensation levels, certainly at the lower level, quite often does not reflect the very cheap ticket costs that people are sometimes able to get. I would like to have seen a more actual cost there, dependent on what somebody paid for the ticket. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that a number of these issues can be sorted out.
Finally, I would just like to say that I tabled a number of amendments regarding Gibraltar. It was in the original regulation, I asked for it to be removed, and that was not the case. I would just like to clarify that, in 2006, the governments of the UK, Spain and Gibraltar signed the Cordoba Agreement, which means that Gibraltar is part of the single market. It is a British Overseas Territory and part of the EU and it must be extended the same rights as any other country in the European Union. We lost the vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, but I have retabled these amendments and I do hope that the committee, and not just the committee, but also the Members of the European Parliament as a whole, will support them."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples