"[air navigation control, […] is a task involving the exercise of public authority and is not of an economic nature, since that activity constitutes a service in the public interest which is intended to protect both the users of air transport and the populations affected by aircraft flying over them". (Extract of decision C.364/92 of the European Court of Justice).
Attending for ATCEUC Francois Burgues
Future of aviation regulation in Europe
This information meeting was held in the commission buildings in Brussels on the 20th of September.
1- Introduction by DG DGTREN Today air transport is one of the safest means of transport; it has made enormous progresses in the last 15 years, in terms of safety, ATM and airports. This system is complex and costly with a lot of responsibilities and time has come now to develop an efficient framework for regulation. He raised the following questions that the different players tried to answer in the meeting: How to simplify the existing regulatory system? How EASA role should be built to take a comprehensive approach to aviation safety? What regulators should do to improve the system? Evolutions of Eurocontrol? How to ensure the whole Europe is in the process?
2- Airlines industry expectations IATA 15 years ago, the fragmentation of the system was highlighted; we are still confronted to it. Airlines want to reduce the 4 billion costs of inefficiencies. EASA needs to be strong and harmonisation will bring cost-efficiency and simplicity. The 22 M€ budget allowed to EASA is not enough and looks ridiculous compared to the 21M€ budget for maritime security. There is a need for a single vision implying then a single legislation but we have to act urgently. AEA There are too many regulatory structures so the system cannot deliver what Europe expects. EASA is under funded to perform correctly its tasks and airlines sector needs one European safety agency. Cross subsidies from commercial aviation to non commercial aviation should be avoided. There is a need for a body with co-ordinating functions as Eurocontrol.
Secretariat : ATCEUC/CRNA SUD-EST - 1, rue Vincent Auriol - 13617 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1 (France) Tel : (33) 442 33 77 66 - Fax : (33) 442 33 78 95 - Email : head@atceuc.org Web: www.atceuc.org AATCU (Serbia and Montenegro) ATC Branch of IMPACT (Ireland) ATCOR (Romania) ATMPP (Italy) BATCU (Bulgaria) CATCU (Croatia) GATCA (Greece) GdF (Germany) IATCU (Serbia and Montenegro) LIFSZ (Hungary) MATCA (Malta) SKYCONTROL (Switzerland) SINCTA (Portugal) SNCTA (France) SSKL (Slovenia) TUEM (Eurocontrol) USCA (Spain) ZZKRL (Poland)
ERA “bitter regulation to be changed to better regulations” There is a lack of business sense in the regulation today According to ERA, we should follow the 7 basic steps to better the current regulation Identify the problem and outline the current issues Assess the significance of the problems Identify who needs to be consulted and who is affected Outline the objectives to be achieved (establish realistic timescale) Establish whether the regulatory is necessary Identify the minimum legislative action necessary Conduct impact assessment ELFAA The best regulatory agent is competition then there is a potential conflict between regulation and competition. A simple example is the new regulation on passengers’ rights that is a burden for airlines. ELFAA would like to see the outcomes of the PRC to be followed by concrete actions.
3- Service Provision from national services to a European market CANSO Some centres in Europe exceed US ones in terms of efficiency. There are weak results because of duplication of efforts, lack of coordination and lack of politic harmony that could be solved by a global governance. For example, in ATM the part of national regulation is very important when in airports it is mainly driven by ICAO, in US it is a national regulatory system and in the rest of the world it is ICAO driven. Further steps between government and industry remain essential DFS ”From national services to a European market” -> SES - single market? This is left to MS appreciation There is a contestable market only airports. Dieter Kaden is convinced that the deregulation of the market of ATS will happen like in telecoms or energy; DFS is in the definition phase of a project including Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and MUAC; What is certain for DFS is that number of ANSPs and ACCs will be reduced by 2020 ->About SESAR they don’t understand what is the JU and how does it work ->European aviation regulation embedded in EU policies and institutions Community institutions as single legislation on European level complemented by national authorities They support the extension of EASA
Page 2 out of 6
->Future of Eurocontrol -support to regulation The support to safety regulation has to be transferred to EASA since only 2% of the Eurocontrol budget is dedicated to support regulations. -support to service provision Cooperative network design Pan-European functions How can we ensure that competition is not distorted? There is a need for a clear cut between competencies and responsibilities Commitment to reduce fragmentation in ANS through cooperation, alliances, joint-ventures or merging of ANSP!! DFS is closing the 2nd ACC at the end of this year, the creation of a business unit and “The Tower Company” those actions being supported by the German government “ANS will become a business soon or late but a business is a business!”
4- Manufacturing and technology perspectives SESAR 1 single sky can be achieved with one or 2 agencies dealing with it. According to C.DUMAS users fly, ANSPs furnish the service and supply industry will have to create the framework for it.
5- Airports ACI Airports have experienced tremendous changes in the past and are no longer supported by public finances. There is a need to develop a EU framework in consistency with ICAO Eurocontrol should in due course become a European agency Aviation in Europe will be increasingly EU leaded This should not cause an exclusive encompass in European competences but rather share competences.
6- Social aspects and operational expectations ETF They are not against a single market but they ask for SD to be promoted at European level. A Social Impact Assessment must be compulsory before any initiative from the EC. The silent attitude of the EC on the consequences of the SES on the social aspect is not acceptable.
Page 3 out of 6
ECA/IFATCA Safety policy should be set according to this scheme
EC Safety policy
EASA
Eurocontrol
Accident/Inci -dent investigation
ANSP
Airports
Operators
7-Industry Expectations
ICB Industry fully supports SESAR SESAR needs to be accompanied by changes to airspace design to be successful ICB has some reservations on the 9th Ministers council - Co management political/administrative board of the JU is not acceptable since it will create incompatibilities. - Industry should not be outvoted when they support the full risks of investments Challenges to be addressed by the ICB in the next 12 months -- Need for additional IR under the SES legislation -- The new institutional framework shall ensure the success of the SES and implementation of SESAR must be part of it -- Need to extend the SES in the Lower airspace -- Need to reduce fragmentation -- All legislations should not distort competition -- Need for a regulatory Impact assessment and cost benefits analysis.
Page 4 out of 6
Afternoon Session
8- Member states expectations UK CAA According to the UK civil aviation, the needs are: Clarity of roles Cooperation Plans to success Clarity must be made on the objectives of the SES, on the role of EASA, on the structure and functions of Eurocontrol. The economic regulation must take into account the fact that each state is different and then be careful on the implementation of new rules. For the Structures and functions of Eurocontrol: Separation of pure service provision Support to EU regulator clearly separated from support service Civil military cooperation Bear in mind that EASA is not just an agency it is a system Need for a sound governance French DGCA Since the beginning of the conference each speaker has presented the system as a binary one, actually it is a ternary one composed by the ones who make the regulations, the ones who enforce the regulations and the oversighters. We must not forget that each actor of the chain is and will be responsible from the Civil Aviation DGs to the ATCOs passing by airlines (cf Colmar) The safety of citizens is a state task then it is difficult to imagine that everything must be delegated to one entity. The airspace is a state property and France wouldn’t think of delegating it to a structure in which she wouldn’t have the control. Contrarily to what was said by Dieter Kaden air navigation cannot be compared to telecoms since it can only be one operator in one airspace. We are talking about a doubling of traffic but we’ve already dealt with it 15 years ago. The legislation made at a European level must be applicable at national level We must give the tools to EASA to perform its job and we talk about thousand of people! Oversight and certifications must be under the control of national authorities supervised by the EASA France is working with northern countries for FABs If we decide not to keep Eurocontrol as it is we shall keep its concept
Page 5 out of 6
ENAC Need for a single European aviation regulatory system Regulatory framework must be comprehensive The regulatory system should integrate NAA Eurocontrol should be part of the system BMVBW Air navigation relies on 3 pillars airlines, airports and safety Thanks to a better efficiency FABs will avoid fragmentation The safety can only be guaranteed if each actor knows its duties Eurocontrol has to support the EC in safety process and airspace management CFMU: some tasks could be delegated to ANSPs to be less expensive
Page 6 out of 6