the vast majority of MEPs will vote as directed by their political grouping, irrespective of their personal views or those of their constituents.
That could be very true on matters where the underlying political theme is clear. However, the least you can say is that some political groups don't have a strong view about the matter at hand.
I've seen opposition to this proposal from the Greens, the Conservatives, Labour, NI's such as UKIP, Liberals and Christian Democrats.
I've seen many diverse points of views across parties and across countries. I've also witnessed quasi-continuous disinformation from EASA and the Commission, so it comes as no surprise to me that MEP's are still in the process of forming an informed opinion.
If they did change the system allowing an easy transition from FAA to EASA in one swoop would kill off alot of the European training system.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to look at the precise reasons behind this (assuming what you're saying is true) ? What exactly makes the European Training System inefficient / expensive ?
- taxes on fuel : In USD / Volume, European fuel costs about 3 : 1 compared to the States.
- a ridiculous theoretical training programme with 3rd rate instruction syllabi and training materials (as opposed to first rate online materials for free at the FAA website)
- a bulky set up of Registered Facilities and Flying Schools, even at private pilot instruction level.
- expensive landing fees, even for training purposes
- higher wage cost, mainly due to social security payments
- higher maintenance cost of planes, mainly due to excessive paperwork that can only be done by a few oligopolistic operators that work at anticompetitive rates.
Some of these can be fixed through regulation or deregulation, others are more difficult to amend. Nevertheless I think it should be possible to organise training system in Europe which is competitive against having to fly across an ocean and stay at a hotel in the US for the duration.
But that is of course not what EASA wants. EASA wants to kill off private flying and general aviation and thrives on bureaucratic and financial barriers preventing citizens from enjoying private travel by airplane.
Airlines in europe work on the fact there is an over supply of fresh meat out of the training establishments. If the schools go bust there will be a lack of supply which will mean that the industry will not be able to expand at short notice.
Here's Economics 101 for you : if a cheaper training system becomes available and mutual license conversion is automatic, then the airlines will have
more recruitment potential thus lowering the cost of expansion. So if I were BA, (or Ryanair or Flybe or Lufthansa or whomever) and I had a vague idea about economics, I would lobby against the proposal.
By contrast, if I were BALPA or Oxford Aviation, I would lobby very much in favour of the proposal, using every dirty trick in the book, because such protectionist measures would advance my members' interests or my business interests, even if this were to the detriment of aviation in Europe as a whole.