Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.6.3-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr Sterckx on his excellent report. It has come, I believe, at a time when the aviation industry is very much in the limelight, what with the takeover agreement between Swiss Air and Sabena, the breakdown of the marriage between KLM and Alitalia, as well as the vicissitudes surrounding Malpensa. One could therefore say that there is a lot of commotion in the industry and this makes the report all the more topical.
Despite the many advantages described by Mr Sterckx, the liberalisation of aviation has not given us heaven on earth – or not yet anyway. Just as Europe and EMU will need to be restored ecologically and socially, we will have to assimilate liberalisation with measures designed to better organise the airspace, increase safety and improve consumer and environmental protection.
It became apparent during the Strasbourg debate on night flights only two weeks ago that European legislation on aviation leaves a great deal to be desired. Liberalisation without a common aviation policy and without a unified airspace will inevitably lead to problems. It is estimated that air traffic will double in the next fifteen years. At present, one in three flights is delayed and 450 000 flight hours are lost annually, and unless far-reaching measures are taken, the situation will only get worse.
What is actually preventing us from taking a number of additional measures, except for a powerful lobby of airline companies and a misconceived concept of sovereignty in some countries which refuse to let go of the management of their own national airspace? We have a unified market, free movement of people and a single currency. Why can we not move towards a single European airspace more rapidly? Moreover, I fully endorse the idea of a common transatlantic air space, provided that this is not subject to unilateral European concessions. This is most certainly a lesson we need to learn from the vicissitudes of the hushkits affair.
As far as the allocation of slots is concerned, I believe that more consideration should be given to environmental criteria, such as noise and exhaust fumes. In addition, the government should invest more in measures which improve the quality of life of those living near airports. This is often the case and is most needed at smaller, regional airports.
In summary, and by way of conclusion, I would like to advocate a
. The ingredients of the
which we need to pursue are a unified airspace, a common aviation policy, viable airports in a comfortable environment, increased safety and strong, European airline companies. My home town of Ostend, with its noisy and unsafe, regional airport, will not fully understand the meaning of the European Union until we have achieved this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"pax avianautica"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples