EU / USA open skies negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
akerosid's view from Jersey .......
quote ....
"It is a cruel (but much deserved - and even more enjoyable ) irony that the deal, if it is done, to end the SNN stop could be signed a mere 8 miles from Shannon itself!"
strong words "akers" ...... for all of us who have valued Shannon over the years, lets hope your cruel dreams do not come true
quote ....
"It is a cruel (but much deserved - and even more enjoyable ) irony that the deal, if it is done, to end the SNN stop could be signed a mere 8 miles from Shannon itself!"
strong words "akers" ...... for all of us who have valued Shannon over the years, lets hope your cruel dreams do not come true
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry; reading it back, it was a bit cruel, BUT what I was trying to get across was that for years, Dublin wanted a break, but at every step, there was bleating, gnashing of teeth and of course, thinly veiled threats to the invertebrate holders of the transport portfolio of electoral disaster if the government didn't say "how high" when the Shannon lobby shouted "jump". I really have a lot less respect for the successive governments and their complete lack of vision than the SNN lobby which, however ruthless they were, were protecting what they saw as their patch.
Dublin never wanted to destroy SNN and despite what I said, neither do I. I want to see SNN grow and develop, but the way to do that is not - and never was - to hold Dublin back; it was always more about what DUB had than what SNN needed, more dog in the manger than anything else and it's for that reason and aimed more towards the more inflexible (of which there were very many) SIGNAL type lobbyist, that my comment was aimed. I'm sorry if I caused offence, but if there's one thing that really bothered me about the SNN issue, it was the casual attitude with which growth opportunities were squandered.
(Incidentally, I am Irish, from Dublin originally and still, obviously, very much in touch with the old country!)
Incidentally, just picked this up from RTE\'s Aertel:
Negotiations for an \'open skies\'
airline pact with the US will not be
completed in time for the EU-US summit
in Ireland this weekend.
This is according to EU Transport
Commissioner Loyola de Palacio.
In the words of Capt. Blackadder, "I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell".
Dublin never wanted to destroy SNN and despite what I said, neither do I. I want to see SNN grow and develop, but the way to do that is not - and never was - to hold Dublin back; it was always more about what DUB had than what SNN needed, more dog in the manger than anything else and it's for that reason and aimed more towards the more inflexible (of which there were very many) SIGNAL type lobbyist, that my comment was aimed. I'm sorry if I caused offence, but if there's one thing that really bothered me about the SNN issue, it was the casual attitude with which growth opportunities were squandered.
(Incidentally, I am Irish, from Dublin originally and still, obviously, very much in touch with the old country!)
Incidentally, just picked this up from RTE\'s Aertel:
Negotiations for an \'open skies\'
airline pact with the US will not be
completed in time for the EU-US summit
in Ireland this weekend.
This is according to EU Transport
Commissioner Loyola de Palacio.
In the words of Capt. Blackadder, "I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell".
Transparency International
Summer is over.... but then there is the US election so maybe not...
Anyway, why did this tread end up in A, A & R ? Sure it has to do with routes - but it is also politics and for many of us, jobs ! Back to R & N, please.
I picked this off Association European Airlines site. AEA in turn seems to have it from Wall Street Journal Europe.
...And the Stalled `Open Skies' One.
After seven inconclusive rounds of talks about a new international "Open Skies" aviation agreement, frustrated EU and U.S. negotiators have been blaming each other in the last few weeks for the perceived failure to achieve a breakthrough. America claims that the Europeans can't move because of unresolved quarrels over jurisdiction between the Commission and EU members. The Europeans accuse the U.S. of not having made sufficient concessions to be able to go beyond a traditional aviation agreement.
Both sides need to realize they have a common interest here. In the past, all governments regulated all aspects of commercial airline activity, from routes to prices. But the Europeans now realize the time has come to rethink its approach. The U.S., in the meantime, has pushed an "Open Skies" doctrine that seeks to deregulate access to airline markets. Open Skies agreements enhance competition among airlines; that's good for consumers. For its part, the EU wants not only to deregulate market access but agree on other matters -- such as state aid or competition policy -- that affect airlines.
Certain aspects of international aviation today are absurd. The EU has its Competition Rules and the U.S. its Sherman Act. Both are intended to stimulate market competition, but each arrives at a different conclusion. So the U.S. gave the green light to innovative strategic airline alliances with only minor undertakings for the applicants, whereas the Commission felt obliged to impose inhibiting conditions on the very same alliances between the very same airlines on the very same routes. The Europeans felt that only an entirely new regulatory framework such as Open Skies could entice both the EU and the U.S. to gradually make their policies meet.
And meet they must. After 9/11, a new comprehensive regulatory framework is urgently needed that goes further than just market access. September 11 sparked the international war on terrorism. The vulnerability of civil aviation called for far-reaching and sophisticated security measures that provide the greatest possible degree of protection, whilst at the same time attempting to minimize any adverse effects on ordinary citizens, and hassle for the traveling public. We are still far from having achieved these objectives. Common, internationally-agreed standards of security are still absent. And given the declared intention of insurers to terminate coverage against bio-chemical terror attacks, agreement is needed in order not to leave civil aviation without risk protection.
But it doesn't stop there. To what extent, for example, should anti-terror measures be financed by governments or by passengers? As long as there is no consensus, competition will remain distorted and governments will have an endless number of excuses to go on bailing weak airlines out. We badly need an international agreement on state aid. Granted at whatever level -- regionally, nationally or internationally -- state aid either protracts the illness or prevents the market from finding a cure.
It's ironic that the two champions of airline liberalization -- the United States and Europe -- should fail to grasp the opportunity to mend such obvious deficiencies. Since 1978, the U.S. has been in the forefront of national and international aviation liberalization. The Europeans followed suit and liberalized their internal airline market in the 1980s. Both sides have the valuable experience needed to close the ranks and come up with a joint framework that fits the post-9/11 world.
Such an agreement would not only be security-related -- as important as that in itself is. It would be a response to fresh global challenges. At a time of de-industrialization in Europe, and emerging economic powers in Asia, traffic patterns will dramatically change. Airlines will need greater opportunities to operate worldwide. They need to gain access to international finance markets, which they are currently denied by bilateral air-service agreements that restrict foreign ownership of national carriers, to enable them to become truly global players. Future success will depend on an international regulatory framework that provides sufficient stability for growth, irrespective of extraordinary events.
The EU should not fall into the trap and publicly drag its internal EU institutional quarrel out much longer. The Commission is convinced that bilateral aviation agreements involving member states violate the principle of non-discrimination, because they don't offer all carriers equal market access. The European Court of Justice recently sided with the Commission, giving it broad power over aviation. But member states are questioning how far its mandate extends. The U.S. has its own domestic difficulties in reaching a new international agreement ahead of national elections.
And yet, despite these domestic woes on both sides of the Atlantic, the fact remains that the world has changed. Bilateral market access agreements are showing their age. Europe and the U.S. are economic and political superpowers. By assuming leadership they can create a template other nations can follow, so that, eventually, a new market-oriented framework will emerge which allows passengers to benefit from undistorted global competition within the aviation industry.
---
Mr. Schulte-Strathaus is secretary general of the Association of European Airlines.
874 words
19 August 2004
The Wall Street Journal Europe
Anyway, why did this tread end up in A, A & R ? Sure it has to do with routes - but it is also politics and for many of us, jobs ! Back to R & N, please.
I picked this off Association European Airlines site. AEA in turn seems to have it from Wall Street Journal Europe.
...And the Stalled `Open Skies' One.
After seven inconclusive rounds of talks about a new international "Open Skies" aviation agreement, frustrated EU and U.S. negotiators have been blaming each other in the last few weeks for the perceived failure to achieve a breakthrough. America claims that the Europeans can't move because of unresolved quarrels over jurisdiction between the Commission and EU members. The Europeans accuse the U.S. of not having made sufficient concessions to be able to go beyond a traditional aviation agreement.
Both sides need to realize they have a common interest here. In the past, all governments regulated all aspects of commercial airline activity, from routes to prices. But the Europeans now realize the time has come to rethink its approach. The U.S., in the meantime, has pushed an "Open Skies" doctrine that seeks to deregulate access to airline markets. Open Skies agreements enhance competition among airlines; that's good for consumers. For its part, the EU wants not only to deregulate market access but agree on other matters -- such as state aid or competition policy -- that affect airlines.
Certain aspects of international aviation today are absurd. The EU has its Competition Rules and the U.S. its Sherman Act. Both are intended to stimulate market competition, but each arrives at a different conclusion. So the U.S. gave the green light to innovative strategic airline alliances with only minor undertakings for the applicants, whereas the Commission felt obliged to impose inhibiting conditions on the very same alliances between the very same airlines on the very same routes. The Europeans felt that only an entirely new regulatory framework such as Open Skies could entice both the EU and the U.S. to gradually make their policies meet.
And meet they must. After 9/11, a new comprehensive regulatory framework is urgently needed that goes further than just market access. September 11 sparked the international war on terrorism. The vulnerability of civil aviation called for far-reaching and sophisticated security measures that provide the greatest possible degree of protection, whilst at the same time attempting to minimize any adverse effects on ordinary citizens, and hassle for the traveling public. We are still far from having achieved these objectives. Common, internationally-agreed standards of security are still absent. And given the declared intention of insurers to terminate coverage against bio-chemical terror attacks, agreement is needed in order not to leave civil aviation without risk protection.
But it doesn't stop there. To what extent, for example, should anti-terror measures be financed by governments or by passengers? As long as there is no consensus, competition will remain distorted and governments will have an endless number of excuses to go on bailing weak airlines out. We badly need an international agreement on state aid. Granted at whatever level -- regionally, nationally or internationally -- state aid either protracts the illness or prevents the market from finding a cure.
It's ironic that the two champions of airline liberalization -- the United States and Europe -- should fail to grasp the opportunity to mend such obvious deficiencies. Since 1978, the U.S. has been in the forefront of national and international aviation liberalization. The Europeans followed suit and liberalized their internal airline market in the 1980s. Both sides have the valuable experience needed to close the ranks and come up with a joint framework that fits the post-9/11 world.
Such an agreement would not only be security-related -- as important as that in itself is. It would be a response to fresh global challenges. At a time of de-industrialization in Europe, and emerging economic powers in Asia, traffic patterns will dramatically change. Airlines will need greater opportunities to operate worldwide. They need to gain access to international finance markets, which they are currently denied by bilateral air-service agreements that restrict foreign ownership of national carriers, to enable them to become truly global players. Future success will depend on an international regulatory framework that provides sufficient stability for growth, irrespective of extraordinary events.
The EU should not fall into the trap and publicly drag its internal EU institutional quarrel out much longer. The Commission is convinced that bilateral aviation agreements involving member states violate the principle of non-discrimination, because they don't offer all carriers equal market access. The European Court of Justice recently sided with the Commission, giving it broad power over aviation. But member states are questioning how far its mandate extends. The U.S. has its own domestic difficulties in reaching a new international agreement ahead of national elections.
And yet, despite these domestic woes on both sides of the Atlantic, the fact remains that the world has changed. Bilateral market access agreements are showing their age. Europe and the U.S. are economic and political superpowers. By assuming leadership they can create a template other nations can follow, so that, eventually, a new market-oriented framework will emerge which allows passengers to benefit from undistorted global competition within the aviation industry.
---
Mr. Schulte-Strathaus is secretary general of the Association of European Airlines.
874 words
19 August 2004
The Wall Street Journal Europe
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is blame to go around and personally, I put most of it on the EU side. They had the chance to go for open skies and threw it away, because they wanted something that (a) wasn't - and won't ever be - on the table and (b) even if it could be gained, would it ever be used? Would any EU carrier actually want to set up in the US - and be cut to pieces. The sad reality is that the main proponents of the drive for cabotage is the UK, driven on in turn by the UK carriers, which know that "no news is good news" as far as their position in LHR is concerned.
Having been in correspondence with the EU Commissioner's office, I was told that Regulation 847/04 relates to the right of EU states to enter into direct negotiations with the US (or indeed any other state) and (to paraphrase), it says that where community negotiations are ongoing, they must await the approval of the EU to enter into and conclude negotiations.
So, basically, having messed up their own negotiations, the EU is also messing things up for others too.
Does anyone know if any new EU/US negotiations are scheduled this side of the November election? (Somehow I doubt it).
Having been in correspondence with the EU Commissioner's office, I was told that Regulation 847/04 relates to the right of EU states to enter into direct negotiations with the US (or indeed any other state) and (to paraphrase), it says that where community negotiations are ongoing, they must await the approval of the EU to enter into and conclude negotiations.
So, basically, having messed up their own negotiations, the EU is also messing things up for others too.
Does anyone know if any new EU/US negotiations are scheduled this side of the November election? (Somehow I doubt it).
Transparency International
From the DG 7 homepage.
Brussels, 14 December 2004
The Commission defends the “Open Skies” rulings
The European Commission today decided to send reasoned opinions to four Member States following the measures it took in July to enforce the Court of Justice’s “Open Skies” rulings (IP/04/967). Despite the Court’s judgments of 5 November 2002,[1] Finland, Germany, Italy and Portugal still have discriminatory bilateral international air transport agreements. By reserving transport rights for national carriers (“nationality clauses”), these agreements hinder freedom of competition for the provision of international air transport services between the European Union and third countries to the detriment of the airline industry and users.
The Commission today decided to send reasoned opinions to four Member States for failure to comply with European law and to observe the EU's exclusive external competence with regard to certain aspects of air services agreements concluded by Member States with third countries.
Following the “Open Skies” judgments handed down by the Court on 5 November 2002, about 2000 agreements need to be brought into line with European law, in particular to abolish nationality clauses.
The Court’s judgments also mean that, given the EU's exclusive competence with regard to certain aspects of international air services, the Member States may no longer enter into international agreements themselves.
However, the Commission has found that the above four Member States have entered into new commitments with some of their partners outside the EU. By doing this, they are in breach of European law and in contravention of the internal market in aviation, in particular the principle of non-discrimination between European air carriers.
Brussels, 14 December 2004
The Commission defends the “Open Skies” rulings
The European Commission today decided to send reasoned opinions to four Member States following the measures it took in July to enforce the Court of Justice’s “Open Skies” rulings (IP/04/967). Despite the Court’s judgments of 5 November 2002,[1] Finland, Germany, Italy and Portugal still have discriminatory bilateral international air transport agreements. By reserving transport rights for national carriers (“nationality clauses”), these agreements hinder freedom of competition for the provision of international air transport services between the European Union and third countries to the detriment of the airline industry and users.
The Commission today decided to send reasoned opinions to four Member States for failure to comply with European law and to observe the EU's exclusive external competence with regard to certain aspects of air services agreements concluded by Member States with third countries.
Following the “Open Skies” judgments handed down by the Court on 5 November 2002, about 2000 agreements need to be brought into line with European law, in particular to abolish nationality clauses.
The Court’s judgments also mean that, given the EU's exclusive competence with regard to certain aspects of international air services, the Member States may no longer enter into international agreements themselves.
However, the Commission has found that the above four Member States have entered into new commitments with some of their partners outside the EU. By doing this, they are in breach of European law and in contravention of the internal market in aviation, in particular the principle of non-discrimination between European air carriers.
Transparency International
ATWOnline, Thursday February 24, 2005 :
AF CEO Spinetta urges phased approach on US-EU OAA
AF CEO Spinetta urges phased approach on US-EU OAA
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabotage!
I have to agree strongly with what M. Spinetta says; the whole cabotage thing has been a waste of time; had this not been brought into the equation, we might well have achieved a deal long before now. I've long suspected that this was brought into the mix by those who were opposed to a deal, solely on the basis that they knew it was something the Americans would never agree to.
There is apparently a new round of talks coming up in June (why wait so long; wouldn't now be an ideal time, so that airlines can take advantage of a good Summer season), so hopefully some sense can be achieved. Even if those countries (how many actually - just the UK?) insisting on cabotage could be left to one side, so that everyone can make some progress, it would be a move in the right direction.
There is apparently a new round of talks coming up in June (why wait so long; wouldn't now be an ideal time, so that airlines can take advantage of a good Summer season), so hopefully some sense can be achieved. Even if those countries (how many actually - just the UK?) insisting on cabotage could be left to one side, so that everyone can make some progress, it would be a move in the right direction.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akerosid, do you have a copy of the USA/Ireland biltateral?
Also, once the airports become independant from 1st May do you see the way open at all for a judicial type review of the fairness of the stopover in that Shannon will then have a competitive edge over all the other airports in trying to attract traffic on the North Atlantic market? Or am I just being fanciful and that treaties between one state and another are not open to court challenge?
Thanks.
Also, once the airports become independant from 1st May do you see the way open at all for a judicial type review of the fairness of the stopover in that Shannon will then have a competitive edge over all the other airports in trying to attract traffic on the North Atlantic market? Or am I just being fanciful and that treaties between one state and another are not open to court challenge?
Thanks.
Transparency International
I have available as follows:
Exchange of notes at Washington February 3, 1945, with text of agreement and
Agreement amending the agreement of February 3, 1945, as amended.
Sorry to say that I'm not up-to-date on the teaties anymore but I don't think that any newer agreement exists.
Exchange of notes at Washington February 3, 1945, with text of agreement and
Agreement amending the agreement of February 3, 1945, as amended.
Sorry to say that I'm not up-to-date on the teaties anymore but I don't think that any newer agreement exists.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dusk2dawn, thank you so much for the link to the Ireland USA bilateral agreements 1945 & 1990. Reading the detail is very illuminating and provides much food for thought. Clearly, charters from Cork and Knock to America are exempt from the obstacle of having to stop at Shannon. As things stands this is the only way for Cork to ever hope for direct flights to America and my hope would be that we should aim for a series of "Scheduled charters" like Aer Lingus are doing between Dublin and Orlando, the only difference would be that a Cork bound flight will would not have to stopover at Shannon unlike the eastbound EI flight from Orlando.
Transparency International
The Shannon arrangement is regulated in Agreement on preinspection of aircraft passengers and crew at Shannon airport. Signed at Dublin June 25, 1986; entered into force June 25, 1986. It should be available at a US Embassy near you. TIAS number is 11379.
You never know - there might be some provisions you can use in Cork.
You never know - there might be some provisions you can use in Cork.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article 847/04
The big obstacle to progress is, at present, Regulation 847/04, which acts to prevent EU member states negotiating or concluding individual bilateral agreements without the EU Commission's green light. As I understand it, negotiations between Ireland and the US have been under way, but these cannot be concluded because the EU will not allow Ireland to conclude a bilateral, even to correct the anti-competitive effects of the current position.
My question is this: to the extent that it is repugnant to EU Competition Law, can a regulation of the EU be regarded as not having effect; in the current case, the effect of Regulation 847/04 acts to protect a position where Ireland and Irish carriers are put at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other countries, which have sane bilaterals in place. I wonder does EU Law provide for a position where the effect of enforcing a regulation actually puts the commission at risk of flouting EU (Competition, for example) law and if this is the case, could the Irish government take the view that to the extent that the regulation was repugnant to EU law, it didn't have any effect and consequently, the government could proceed to conclude its negotiations with the US.
This is particularly the case when, due to its insistence on cabotage, something which would not be of interest to most EU carriers (and certainly not the Irish ones), the EU is not acting in good faith and continuing to maintain the competitive disadvantage faced by Ireland longer than is necessary.
I think I'll put that one to the EU ...
My question is this: to the extent that it is repugnant to EU Competition Law, can a regulation of the EU be regarded as not having effect; in the current case, the effect of Regulation 847/04 acts to protect a position where Ireland and Irish carriers are put at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other countries, which have sane bilaterals in place. I wonder does EU Law provide for a position where the effect of enforcing a regulation actually puts the commission at risk of flouting EU (Competition, for example) law and if this is the case, could the Irish government take the view that to the extent that the regulation was repugnant to EU law, it didn't have any effect and consequently, the government could proceed to conclude its negotiations with the US.
This is particularly the case when, due to its insistence on cabotage, something which would not be of interest to most EU carriers (and certainly not the Irish ones), the EU is not acting in good faith and continuing to maintain the competitive disadvantage faced by Ireland longer than is necessary.
I think I'll put that one to the EU ...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: ireland
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great links. Well done. Tom I think the decision to scrap the Airbirdges due to cost overruns is a real downer on the USA airlines using ORK for USA flights. People in ORK need to make more noise on this. SNN will screw you everytime at present unless you fight real hard. John Smyth is burning up the miles to get you new flights and there should be more good news next week. But he is starting to fight with one hand tied behind his back.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Neidin, you are of course correct. There is not enough pressure at all by Cork people on the airbridges issue. People fail to realise how strategic this matter is.
Regretably it appears Cork people are at best clueless on how the lack of airbridges will effect the outcome of the airport in the years ahead when it comes to any kind of US longhaul operation.
The sooner Mr Gantley, the Cork Airport Authority and the Dublin Airport Authority go before the Oireachtas Committe on transport the better. I hope Mr Gantley is put under pressure here and asked the right questions and that he is not out of his depth and that he can perform outstandingly for Cork Airport and not just well. The Dublin Airport authority need to dealt with very hard on this matter and Mr Gantley and Cork's new board need now to prove themselves and I am hoping they are up to it.
I am also concerned by the performance of the Cork politicians. Sure, they are organising the Transport Committee hearings and that is good but I feel they too should be leading here and making more noise putting the case about the airbridges in the public eye more often.
You know how it has been for the past six or seven years with little or no action on the proposed new Cork School of Music. It has been weak wills all around I regret to say and the irony of that is the rental costs of so many places to keep the different departments of the School of Music going in Cork would more than fund the building of the new School.
I fear we may be looking at similar situation at Cork Airport unless we get the airbridges. The story about two years, five years down the line etc - it would then never happen.
Popular talk has the over-run on the new terminal being approximately 40 million euro(!!??). However, a large engineering project is always kind of likely to overun somewhat. It is what you end up with when you have dealings with builders etc? But the marginal costs of the 3 airbridges is said to be 1.5 million euro. If this is the case all I can is - Come off the stage, Mr Gantley and Cork Airport Authority or put another 5h!t or get off the pot!
Regretably it appears Cork people are at best clueless on how the lack of airbridges will effect the outcome of the airport in the years ahead when it comes to any kind of US longhaul operation.
The sooner Mr Gantley, the Cork Airport Authority and the Dublin Airport Authority go before the Oireachtas Committe on transport the better. I hope Mr Gantley is put under pressure here and asked the right questions and that he is not out of his depth and that he can perform outstandingly for Cork Airport and not just well. The Dublin Airport authority need to dealt with very hard on this matter and Mr Gantley and Cork's new board need now to prove themselves and I am hoping they are up to it.
I am also concerned by the performance of the Cork politicians. Sure, they are organising the Transport Committee hearings and that is good but I feel they too should be leading here and making more noise putting the case about the airbridges in the public eye more often.
You know how it has been for the past six or seven years with little or no action on the proposed new Cork School of Music. It has been weak wills all around I regret to say and the irony of that is the rental costs of so many places to keep the different departments of the School of Music going in Cork would more than fund the building of the new School.
I fear we may be looking at similar situation at Cork Airport unless we get the airbridges. The story about two years, five years down the line etc - it would then never happen.
Popular talk has the over-run on the new terminal being approximately 40 million euro(!!??). However, a large engineering project is always kind of likely to overun somewhat. It is what you end up with when you have dealings with builders etc? But the marginal costs of the 3 airbridges is said to be 1.5 million euro. If this is the case all I can is - Come off the stage, Mr Gantley and Cork Airport Authority or put another 5h!t or get off the pot!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU sees sense on cabotage!
Irish Times, 4th March
EU Commissioner travelling to Washington on 21-22 March;
The main obstacle now seems to be increase on ownership; Americans have already offered up to 49%. Can they reasonably be expected to offer more? Furthermore, how much does EU permit non-EU countries/bodies to own? This should, hopefully, be dealt with fairly quickly.
The EU's concession on cabotage is most important, but as welcome as it is, does mean that it has effectively wasted a year (actually two years, because it's too late now for any action in time for Summer 2005) on this. Not sure what is expected to be gained in March, but hopefully, we can achieve something in time for 2005.
It's obviously too early to get very excited, but I'd hope something can be done this year, even if not in time for this Summer. HOWEVER, what annoys me is that the EU has (as I understand it) exercised its power to stop the govt from concluding negotiations with the US, while at the same time it has been seeking something it now accepts is not a runner. Surely, as a matter of good faith, at least, it should now permit Ireland to readjust its bilateral to allow a change in the ratio of flights between DUB/SNN, as well as unlimited access to all other airports, ORK, KIR, NOC, etc.
EU Commissioner travelling to Washington on 21-22 March;
The main obstacle now seems to be increase on ownership; Americans have already offered up to 49%. Can they reasonably be expected to offer more? Furthermore, how much does EU permit non-EU countries/bodies to own? This should, hopefully, be dealt with fairly quickly.
The EU's concession on cabotage is most important, but as welcome as it is, does mean that it has effectively wasted a year (actually two years, because it's too late now for any action in time for Summer 2005) on this. Not sure what is expected to be gained in March, but hopefully, we can achieve something in time for 2005.
It's obviously too early to get very excited, but I'd hope something can be done this year, even if not in time for this Summer. HOWEVER, what annoys me is that the EU has (as I understand it) exercised its power to stop the govt from concluding negotiations with the US, while at the same time it has been seeking something it now accepts is not a runner. Surely, as a matter of good faith, at least, it should now permit Ireland to readjust its bilateral to allow a change in the ratio of flights between DUB/SNN, as well as unlimited access to all other airports, ORK, KIR, NOC, etc.
Transparency International
Air transport: an ambitious external relations agenda
Two years after the “open skies” rulings confirming the EU's external competence with regard to certain aspects of international air services agreements,[1] the Commission is today presenting a strategic approach to develop the external aspect of the internal aviation market. The European Commission wishes to create a common airspace with neighbouring countries by 2010 and is therefore recommending that the Council authorise it to start negotiations aimed at ambitious air agreements with China and Russia without further ado. “International air traffic regulations are in need of modernising. By creating a single aviation market, the European Union has opened up new opportunities for airlines and passengers. Common markets have yet to be created between the European Union and third countries,” said Vice-President Jacques Barrot, adding, “Europe’s capacity to build new markets, in relationships of trust with its partners, will give air traffic worldwide a major boost.”
Read the full text: EU press release of Mar. 14, 2005
Two years after the “open skies” rulings confirming the EU's external competence with regard to certain aspects of international air services agreements,[1] the Commission is today presenting a strategic approach to develop the external aspect of the internal aviation market. The European Commission wishes to create a common airspace with neighbouring countries by 2010 and is therefore recommending that the Council authorise it to start negotiations aimed at ambitious air agreements with China and Russia without further ado. “International air traffic regulations are in need of modernising. By creating a single aviation market, the European Union has opened up new opportunities for airlines and passengers. Common markets have yet to be created between the European Union and third countries,” said Vice-President Jacques Barrot, adding, “Europe’s capacity to build new markets, in relationships of trust with its partners, will give air traffic worldwide a major boost.”
Read the full text: EU press release of Mar. 14, 2005
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad to see this development and I hope other countries will follow; the agreement with China will be particularly significant. Hopefully India and Canada will be next.
However, I don't think that the EU nations should give this authorisation to the EU without some concessions. The EU's stance on the EU/US negotiations has caused unnecessary delays and as I've mentioned, it's use of 847/04 while it was holding up negotiations with its demands has not been helpful. I'd like to see some negotiation on this; true, the US is the first nation with which the EU has held negotiatons as a single unit, but lessons need to be learned.
However, I don't think that the EU nations should give this authorisation to the EU without some concessions. The EU's stance on the EU/US negotiations has caused unnecessary delays and as I've mentioned, it's use of 847/04 while it was holding up negotiations with its demands has not been helpful. I'd like to see some negotiation on this; true, the US is the first nation with which the EU has held negotiatons as a single unit, but lessons need to be learned.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU moves on bilaterals
The EU has written letters (yeah, that'll scare 'em) to seven individual countries, as well as warnings to others, all of them having signed individual bilaterals with the US. See report from Airwise, below:
The European Commission on Wednesday launched legal action against seven member countries to force them to scrap bilateral aviation pacts with the United States.
The EC has now taken action against the 20 EU countries which had signed such deals with Washington.
The Commission argues it has the sole right to conclude a pan-European aviation deal with the US following a 2002 court judgment which condemned eight EU states for signing bilateral pacts with Washington.
It says the bilateral deals limit competition as they only guarantee national airlines traffic rights and therefore prevent carriers from offering the best deal on a transatlantic flight.
The Commission is using this legal precedent to force the other members of the 25 nation bloc with bilateral agreements with the US to rip them up.
The Commission sent warning letters to Spain, IRELAND, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Malta on Wednesday, urging them to scrap the deals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I can't imagine the Irish govt being in any hurry to act on this (for a start because three other govts have only been sent second warning letters). However, it does raise a question: if the govt(s) were to go ahead and scrap deals with the US, what would happen? Since the EU has the right to grant permission under Reg 847/04, would it simply be a case of revoking the present agreement and bringing a new, albeit transitional (pending the OAA) agreement into being?
I haven't seen the EU comment on what will happen if/when any of these countries does what the EU says and this is what may be causing the delay; if the effect is that there is no agreement and therefore no flights, then clearly the EU can get stuffed, so it needs to set out what will happen if these countries do comply with its request to end the bilateral agreements.
The European Commission on Wednesday launched legal action against seven member countries to force them to scrap bilateral aviation pacts with the United States.
The EC has now taken action against the 20 EU countries which had signed such deals with Washington.
The Commission argues it has the sole right to conclude a pan-European aviation deal with the US following a 2002 court judgment which condemned eight EU states for signing bilateral pacts with Washington.
It says the bilateral deals limit competition as they only guarantee national airlines traffic rights and therefore prevent carriers from offering the best deal on a transatlantic flight.
The Commission is using this legal precedent to force the other members of the 25 nation bloc with bilateral agreements with the US to rip them up.
The Commission sent warning letters to Spain, IRELAND, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Malta on Wednesday, urging them to scrap the deals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I can't imagine the Irish govt being in any hurry to act on this (for a start because three other govts have only been sent second warning letters). However, it does raise a question: if the govt(s) were to go ahead and scrap deals with the US, what would happen? Since the EU has the right to grant permission under Reg 847/04, would it simply be a case of revoking the present agreement and bringing a new, albeit transitional (pending the OAA) agreement into being?
I haven't seen the EU comment on what will happen if/when any of these countries does what the EU says and this is what may be causing the delay; if the effect is that there is no agreement and therefore no flights, then clearly the EU can get stuffed, so it needs to set out what will happen if these countries do comply with its request to end the bilateral agreements.
Transparency International
I take it, akerosid, that your are not pro EU 
As the court have passed its verdict and the membercountries subsequently have given the commission the mandate to negotiate new agreements, it seems only to be a logic step to drop the existing agreements. It might help to clarify the situation for the counterpart(s).
Official press release: The Commission continues to take action against illegal "Open Sky" agreements
As the court have passed its verdict and the membercountries subsequently have given the commission the mandate to negotiate new agreements, it seems only to be a logic step to drop the existing agreements. It might help to clarify the situation for the counterpart(s).
Official press release: The Commission continues to take action against illegal "Open Sky" agreements