Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.4.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) Mr President, Commissioner, I think there is some ambiguity regarding the expression “single European sky”, because air traffic control is in fact, as you are well aware, already a European field of activity. There is already a European system for controlling the air space with Eurocontrol and there is already a body, the Central Flow Management Unit, based in Brussels. This is not perfect, of course, but they do already exist.
The situation must therefore be improved starting with the statement, which is patently obvious, that delays have increased and that with traffic on the rise, they will become worse. It is recognised that there are many causes of delays but, in the end, I find that we are facing an offensive presenting air traffic control as the only reason for delays. I believe it would be sensible also to concentrate far more on the problems of types of plane, types of flow, stopovers and of course the continuing defence-related problems.
I feel as if we are involved in a headlong pursuit to implement solutions that seem obvious, but that do not take account of the specificity of air traffic control. Mr Zimeray said this earlier: yes, a plane journey is divided into different areas and the denser the traffic, the more divisions there are. Why? Because dividing things into different areas is the human way of controlling or managing a number of aircraft. Therefore, in my opinion, thinking that there would be too many control centres is nonsense. Why not say in that case that there are too many aircraft? In addition, as far as I know, there are no specific air traffic control hold-ups at borders either.
The great proposal that is put to us for improving traffic consists of separating regulatory and control functions. But what is the value of such a measure? It may well be necessary to consider more relevant divisions, why not? But that is not what is being proposed. The separation of functions would lead to the liberalisation of air traffic service provision, establishing, as indeed the Atkins report states, a liberalised internal market. Air traffic control is not an airline, nor is it a market sector. Let it not be forgotten that its main function is to ensure safety. I believe, however, that it is contrary to the interests of safety to subject aircraft control and monitoring bodies to market pressure.
The ability to invest in new technological tools and training must therefore be safeguarded. In France – and I am not trying to make France a model – there is a general directorate that governs everything and, in the past few years, investments have been made and air traffic controllers have been recruited. The system is highly effective. On what grounds would you want to break..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Ainardi (GUE/NGL )."1
"FR"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples