Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.4.4-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to warmly thank Mr Atkins for his effort and the serious and rigorous work which he has done over the last few months and which, as the rapporteur for the Industry Committee, Mr Zimeray, has pointed out, illustrates the fragmented situation of our air space both with regard to the existing administrative borders as well as technological fragmentation, which is due to the different systems which are applied in different countries.
Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, we must think in terms of a strong European common regulator and we must forget – because, of course, it is not going to appear in the Commission’s communication or proposals – the controversy, which in my view is artificial, between privatisation and non-privatisation. Let us not get into this argument. That is not the aim of this initiative. Countries may deal with this within their own competences, but it is outside of this ‘Single European Sky’ initiative. This initiative will allow us to guarantee a strong European regulator. That is what we are dealing with; creating a common airspace which can be used flexibly.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would thank all of you for your work, especially the rapporteur, Mr Atkins, and I would like to say that I hope that between us we will manage to improve the management of air traffic in one of the areas, which is not the only one, which leads to delays. We are also working to solve the problem of slots and other problems, but there is a time and a place for everything.
On this basis, we have to take account of a fact which is pointed out in the report: the increase in air traffic, the increase in delays. Of course, nobody knows better than the honourable Members what a problem this is.
We must make it very clear that not all delays are due to the management of air traffic; almost half of all delays are due to air companies, airports and sometimes weather conditions.
However, it is the case that 50%, or perhaps a little more, of delays are due to problems in the management of air traffic. I also wish to make it very clear that this does not mean it is the fault of controllers. It is not a problem involving the practices of people who carry out their work in conditions of great tension, difficulty and complexity, and who do everything possible to guarantee the highest possible level of safety. This is the main problem: how to guarantee the highest possible level of safety. The controllers sometimes have to do their work despite excessive numbers of flights, and a lack of human resources, which forces them to work longer hours than they should, and also with certain methods, certain technologies and certain technological supports which are not sufficiently developed.
I wish to make it very clear that this is not a problem with people, with the controllers, who, I insist, do wonderful work. I must say that it is truly impressive to see them at work because they are responsible for everybody’s lives, for the lives of anyone in a plane at any one time.
As the ‘Single European Sky’ illustrates , I believe that what is failing is the management system, since it is in a fragmented situation, divided up by administrative barriers, by administrative borders – in a European Union which has been able create so many common elements – and because of the artificial divisions between sky for military use and sky for civil use which persist in many countries, even though we left the cold war behind some time ago. Furthermore, this does not reflect the countries’ real defence needs. This is because the majority of defence flights take place in low altitude areas of the airspace and not in the high areas. Furthermore, these areas of airspace are used for very few hours of the day, not every day, and in many cases just a few times a year.
What we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is create a common airspace above a certain height, and manage it jointly – as one speaker said a moment ago – forgetting about borders in that high area of the airspace. We should stop talking about British, Spanish, French or Swedish airspace, and simply talk about European airspace in this high area, and leave the area below 29 500 feet, or 31 000 feet – we will have to specify which area – to national management because there are other types of problems there and its military use is more obvious. In any event, we must make the military and civil use of airspace more flexible, improve the efficiency of management and provide air traffic controllers, who are currently working in very complicated circumstances, with an easier environment which will allow them to do their work more effectively.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have asked me about timetables. In principle, the High Level Group, to which I am going to communicate Parliament’s conclusions at the next meeting on the 14th, will finish its work by October. Therefore, the resulting specific proposals will be presented during the subsequent months and we hope that the specific proposals will be under way by the next European Council in the Spring, under the Swedish Presidency. That is the timetable.
The ‘Single European Sky’ initiative in no way implies the removal of Eurocontrol. On the contrary, Eurocontrol is absolutely essential; it is an essential element which must be strengthened and supplemented since, within the European Union, we can go much further than the scope of Eurocontrol."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples