Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-05-Speech-4-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021205.3.4-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Over the course of time, flying has become ever cheaper, and is, in many cases, also cheap in relation to the distance covered. This is because the environmental and social costs are not passed on to the passengers. There is no tax on fuel and the routes taken require no infrastructure outside the airports. Flight travel is set to put medium to long distance rail travel out of business, despite the investments in high-speed rail links for distances up to 1 000 km and despite the Commission communication ‘Air Transport and the Environment’ from 1999 and the 2010 White Paper on transport policy.
The prices at which airline companies sell seats are at a record low, non-European companies carry passengers within the EU virtually for free and price-fighters elbow out old, national airline companies. Despite the low fares, which cannot compensate for the negative effects on air pollution and noise, there is still a political majority in favour of yet lower fares. Is it a political priority to reduce the travel expenses of the highest paid? The compromise that has been reached between the parliamentary majority and the Council stipulates that the authorities should cover some of the security costs entailed by the fight against terrorism. This money would be better spent on mass public transport, namely city transport and local transport, which is experiencing cutbacks everywhere. This is why I reject this compromise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples