On Wednesday 26 and Friday 28 November, the Member States’ representatives to the Council of the European Union (Coreper) discussed the negotiations with the European Parliament (trilogue) on air passenger rights, which are due to resume on Monday 1 December.
Despite some progress made at the last meeting (see EUROPE 13757/10), the discussions are likely to be complicated, as the two institutions are defending opposing positions on the most political points, namely the scope of application and the thresholds for compensation in the event of delays (see EUROPE 13732/8).
According to several European sources, the Danish Presidency of the Council has been unable to agree a new negotiating mandate with the Member States, despite bilateral discussions.
On the one hand, MEPs are very united and very firm in their position (see EUROPE 13747/5). They want third-country airlines to be included in the directive, whereas the Presidency considers that this is not applicable in practice.
As for the thresholds, MEPs are defending the three-hour limit, in line with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU. However, on the Council’s side, the required majority, which is arguing for four and six hours, depending on the distance of the planned flight, is so small that the slightest change could bring it down.
Germany, for example, has agreed to lower the threshold to three hours, but only if reimbursement is set at €300. Ireland, on the other hand, is in favour of thresholds calculated on the basis of the price of airline tickets, so as not to penalise airlines that only operate short or medium-haul flights. For its part, Spain is very firm on measures relating to hand luggage, as it wants small backpacks and hand luggage to be included in ticket prices (see EUROPE 13710/9).
“The discussions are complicated, because there are a lot of red lines on the part of the Member States, so they have not given the Presidency any room for negotiation”, stressed an EU source.
Notwithstanding the absence of a new mandate, the Presidency has decided to maintain the trilogue, in order to study the possibilities and flexibilities on the Parliament’s side. (Original version in French by Anne Damiani)