The European Parliament's transport committee has adopted a report drafted by Ana-Claudia Tapardel (S&D, Romania) on the revision of regulation 1008/2008 on the hiring of aircraft with third country airline crews. This adoption took place on Wednesday 25 April at the end of a session where the rapporteur called for a vote against its own report.
The voting session did not begin in the best conditions and some MEPs complained about receiving the voting lists late during the previous evening. At the end of February this text had already been the subject of significant disagreements from the different political camps during the first debate (see EUROPE 11970).
It should be recalled that the report is part of the European Commission’s proposal from December 2016, according to which European airlines will be able to introduce derogations to hiring limitation periods (this is currently set at seven months and can be renewed on one occasion) for aircraft with flight crews from airlines outside of the EU to deal with exceptional circumstances (specific increases in demand, breakdowns, etc.), when there is a leasing agreement with a third country.
This involves adapting the current text to the EU/US aviation agreement and allowing derogations in all aviation agreements.
Although the forces of the left (S&D, Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL) reached a compromise that called for equivalent social standards to be applied to European airline companies and those from third countries, in order to authorise this sort of derogation to be applied to the duration of this kind of agreement, the compromise was not actually voted on.
A second compromise (including the draft voting lists demonstrating support from the EPP) from an ongoing consultation at the Commission could lead to a general revision of the entire text at a later date (see EUROPE 11983). This calls for the scope of the current revision of the regulation to be limited to making EU standards comply with international obligations. This compromise was also rejected.
According to the information we have received, Ms Tapardel was aware that this compromise could be rejected and just a few seconds before the vote advised her counterparts in the S&D not to vote in favour of the report if the second compromise was indeed rejected.
Despite the rejection of the second compromise, a technical error at the EPP Group, however, appears to have been the reason for an identical amendment vote to this.
Although the amendment, which substantially complies with the second compromise, was voted on, Ms Tapardel, nevertheless, deemed it necessary to vote against her own draft report. She was not, however, totally followed in this approach by her group.
Ultimately, the report as amended, was voted on at the end of a lively session, by a small majority.
Ms Tapardel subsequently requested that they do not hold a vote on the negotiating mandate with the Council of the EU. This request was accepted despite a disagreement publicly expressed by Jacqueline Foster (ECR, United Kingdom). The dossier is now expected to be included in the agenda of the next Parliament plenary session. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)