RAT5,
Without doubt there has been likely lobbying from certain areas to see this put forward and agree with you. Also a contributing factor is the policy of the EU on aviation within Europe, I have the PDF documents here but obviously unable to post them (besides in their entirety, would take up too much space).
Quote from the EU policy document: The overall objective is "
to improve the competitive nature, effectiveness, performance and stability of the aviation industry within Europe but also conversely also states the desire to protect citizen with the highest levels of safety standards."
The EASA FTL proposal document does not do this.
Also within the EU, the objective is set (quote from separate EU document from the above) "
to make flying cheaper and more performing." In hard reality and practice. The EASA FTL proposal document does not do this.
Two separate EU departments both presenting cases on the aviation industry in the latter part of 2010, but are also contradictory to the proposals themselves. In the first case above the document sets forth the need to improve performance, competitiveness, effectiveness and stability but also states "
the need to pursue a comprehensive approach toward aviation's impact on climate change through: Pursuing market-based measures through the inclusion of aviation in the EU’s Emissions Trading System from 2012 onwards".
So the essence there is to make the aviation industry more competitive internationally, by "
introducing market based measures on Carbon Trading" for operators!
Say Again?
In the second document which sets forth the proposal of "making flying cheaper and more performing", the presentation directs toward operators making cost efficiencies and to promote use of "
greener" transportation particularly at congested times and locations.
Uh! Run that by me again?
Both of these documents cite respectively: "
The EU is committed to achieving the highest safety and security performance" and "
a maintained or even enhanced level of safety."
Essentially, we can look at the proposals, the hot air and presentations and determine that the EU is aware that the industry is suffering in Europe with a saturated market that is regulated to the point that existing operators and new entrants are dissuaded from entering new and future market places; and with profit margins so small that the slightest market fluctuation could see the difference for operators going from profit to debt; so to adjust the regulatory failures of the EU they are passing the cost saving to be made (to be competative and more performing [
sic]) on the professional flight crews who are already fatigued and low paid.
Yet they wave the flag of safety?
This is illustrative of the endemic failures of the EU to support the industry and have buck passed their failures around the EU and now to EASA, who with the EU aviation safety mandate [
sic] have drafted a fantasy proposal which does everything the opposite of the data, studies, actions of the FAA to alleviate fatigue and prior regulations support.
All in the name of safety ? You got to be f
king kidding me ?
EASA's own mission statement:
Our mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation in Europe and worldwide.
As one poster previously suggested:
Not fit for purpose. Both EASA and the EU Euro-crats.
The worry is that it is blatantly obvious the dark hole commercial operations in Europe are headed toward and when it comes apart at the seams; We'll be left with a bunch of agencies and Eurocrats with their thumbs jambed tightly up their backsides not understanding what happened, what went wrong and why.
EASA and the EU need to
listen to those with experience at the hard end; not draft fantasy, contradictory proposals from a beech 'effect' desk in Brussels/Bruges/Strasbourg/Koeln
