Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.6.3-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am broadly in agreement with the rapporteur, certainly with regard to the Commission’s original proposal. It was high time to draw up better regulations, particularly with regard to overbooking. In my opinion, however, the Commission proposal is seriously lacking when it comes to flight cancellations and delays. In this context, the airline companies are being held responsible for a problem that is overwhelmingly caused by air traffic control and the aviation authorities. My objections are based on the following reasons.
The Commission proposal is not based on a proper evaluation of the economic effect, and it has not considered the consequences of the measure for the sector and in particular for ticket prices. Although it provides increased protection, the proposal will limit the consumer’s free choice. The definition of a superior power or force majeure, given by both the Commission and our own Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, does not contain enough certainty to be able to properly distinguish between delays and flight cancellations which fall outside the responsibility of the airline companies. It can be argued that the airline companies ought to recover the damage from the appropriate party themselves, but that is not feasible in practice. Where we are talking about regional or low-cost airlines, it would probably be preferable to let consumers themselves choose whether to pay a premium above the price of the ticket. They could probably then cover themselves against flight cancellations. This option could easily be introduced by the sector itself. I have a couple of remaining questions for the Commission.
Can the Commission confirm that it intends to carry out a thorough economic analysis of the consequences and the effects of its proposal, of the increasing costs for the airline companies and of the new flight tariffs in the different segments of the aviation market? Can the Commission confirm that it intends to investigate the real reasons for flight cancellations and delays, so that we can have a better understanding of which causes are indeed the responsibility of the airline companies and which are not? Has the Commission also considered other policy measures which might ensure better rights for passengers than the ones presently included in their proposal? Travel insurance aimed specifically at flight delays and cancellations might be a possible solution.
We have had further debates and further discussions here in Parliament. My amendments are a necessary supplementary measure intended to provide a decent balance between ticket price and compensation. The first amendment relates to denied boarding and flight cancellations. I propose a supplementary measure to the sound compromise, i.e. that there should be a different arrangement for an additional category of tickets below EUR 200. This applies to both denied boarding and cancellation. The other amendment relates to incoming flights, to which Mrs Foster referred and does exactly what she wants. This is exactly what my amendment is about, and I look forward to your support tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples