Brussels, 20/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - Exceptional circumstances require exceptional responses and the closure of European airspace due to a dramatic event and its unpredictable consequences has been recognised as a necessity by the majority of MEPs who spoke in the emergency debate in Strasbourg on Tuesday 20 April. Some of them (such as British Conservative Philip Bradbourn) thought that the ban went too far and were relieved at the partial re-opening of airspace. For the majority, however, security remains a priority. Many MEPs considered that this crisis should also provide an occasion for looking further ahead and examining the shortcomings in transport policy and protecting passenger rights in the Union.
The president of the Council, Diego Lopez Garrido, immediately declared that air transport was strategically important and also said that they needed to realise that in this domain, the European Union has fewer competencies than in other areas. He affirmed that it was not easy taking action in this extremely serious situation, but said that the EU had responded on the basis of information provided by the Scientific Committee in London and that it had chosen to prioritise safety and caution. Eurocontrol had taken into account these technical recommendations. At a political level, transport ministers held a special meeting at the weekend (see other article) and had discussed: - updating a “model” that identifies three zones that had been affected by volcanic ash very differently (epicentre, a zone that had not been affected at all and an intermediate zone); - alternative means of transport having to be used in member states; - economic consequences. A group led by Commissioner Kallas (Transport), together with his counterparts Mr Almunia (Competition) and Mr Rehn (Economic and Monetary Affairs), is preparing a report on this question.
Tens of thousands of flights have been cancelled and hundreds of thousands of passengers have been left stranded. Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Siim Kallas declared that it is clear that a national response is not sufficient for tackling a crisis that has affected the whole of Europe. Security remains an absolute priority, pointed out Kallas, who also indicated that a gradual re-opening of airspace for intermediate zones was a possibility. Eurocontrol is committed to presenting a cartographic analysis of the situation every six hours. Airlines are getting impatient and would like to begin flying again. Passengers are also protesting against the closing of airspace. Kallas criticised what he described as “deliberate attempts to confuse” and concluded that the current difficulties are a powerful argument in favour of adopting a second “Open Skies” agreement.
The president of the environment committee, the German Social Democrat, Jo Leinen, announced that a rapporteur had already been nominated (João Ferreira, GUE/Nordic Left, Portugal), so that the EP would quickly be able to give its point of view on providing an appropriate response to the crisis.
The feeling that Europe should be able to respond more quickly and effectively to unexpected crises is shared by many MEPs (five days before being able to a make a decision is too long, protested several speakers). Corien Wortmann-Kool (EPP, Netherlands) criticised the fact that member states proved hard-headed over the “Open Skis” and said that it was essential that progress was made in this area if they wanted to prevent air traffic paralysis. According to the Dutch MEP, Joaquín Almunia had said that he was prepared to authorise state aid to airlines. He asserted that they should definitely prevent member states taking advantage of this situation to help their “national champions”. The Commission should be flexible in this area, according to Martin Schulz, the president of the S&D Group. Nonetheless, he did say that that they had to examine past mistakes: if the trans-European networks that had been proposed 20 years ago existed (Delors Plan), the crisis would have been managed more effectively. Gesine Meissner, speaking for the ALDE Group (Germany) said that interoperability and the possibility of making grater demands on the railway transporters (which has been possible in some countries) would have helped mitigate the understandable discontent felt by citizens. Meissner was one of the MEPs who criticised the use of mathematical risk assessment models rather than using tests, later used on the initiative of certain airlines. The airlines, however, were criticised by German Green Michael Cramer, “they only think of profits”, he exclaimed, pointing out that they had already received a “present” because they were not paying tax on kerosene. Cramer, however, paid homage to senior officials at Eurocontrol, defence ministers and the pilots' association Cockpit, who had put passenger safety first. The same verdict came from the GUE/Nordic Left: Lothar Bisky (Germany) who also called for airline personnel not to have to have wage cuts or shortened holidays due to the suspension of flights. The decision to ground flights was “wise and prudent” declared Christine de Veyrac (EPP, France), who condemned, on the other hand, the “irresponsible” decision of French railway workers to continue their strike. Ms de Veyrac said that
possible state aid should be decided on according to the exemplary behaviour criteria of airlines that had compensated their customers (passenger rights had been mentioned by almost all the speakers). In the same group, the former Polish commissioner, Danuta Hübner, asked whether aid from already depleted national budgets was the best solution. She called on the European institutions to provide the Union with a greater capacity for tackling crises. Anne Delvaux (EPP, Belgium), asked about the future and whether this phenomenon would, “continue, get worse or repeat itself”. She believed that the model proposed should contain greater coordination and the possibility for providing efficient aid to help passengers return home.
In reply to criticism, the president of the Council protested that the European Union had taken swift action that had allowed for balanced decisions to be taken by taking the different factors into account. Mr López Garrido defended the risk assessment model chosen, which takes into account the information provided by the Scientific Centre in London regarding test flight results, in addition to the conclusions made by the Aviation Safety Agency in Cologne. In the medium term, he recognised that a rethink was necessary on the situation affecting passengers in exceptional circumstances, as well as the need to implement a European emergency plan and structural reforms that would facilitate alternative transport.
“I was operational all this time”, exclaimed Siim Kallas, explaining that on Thursday, the Commission had already published declarations on passenger rights. The vice president of the Commission insisted that the rules in this area were quite clear but that it was in the area of application where problems sometimes arose. He also said that with regard to economic repercussions for airlines, the Commission would be putting forward proposals but “we must be careful” because “money doesn't come from nowhere” and that they had to be fair to other economic sectors hit by the crisis. (L.G./transl.fl)