German President refuses to sign law for ATC privatisation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
German President refuses to sign law for ATC privatisation
Read more here.
I am interested, how is the situation in other European countries?
Where are ATC organisations fully privatised, fully state-owned or partially state-owned?
In that regard I am also wondering about the statement from the article that
which is claimed to be false by the German controllers' union.
Regards,
Robert
I am interested, how is the situation in other European countries?
Where are ATC organisations fully privatised, fully state-owned or partially state-owned?
In that regard I am also wondering about the statement from the article that
The planned sale would have allowed Germany to meet European Union requirements limiting the role of governments to that of a regulator.
Regards,
Robert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, nobody of the 130 readers either being ATC or interested in ATC know about the situation in their respective countries, or EU regulations?
Regards,
Robert
Regards,
Robert
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now that I have read the 'brief' article, I would offer the following.
Under SES (draft?) legislation, it is necessary to separate service provision from regulation. The rationale is that an organisation cannot self-regulate. Each SES state is responsible for ensuring that there is a National Supervisory Authority (NSA) that is 'approved' by the European Commission. Ordinarily, this NSA will be the relevant CAA. Consequently, it is necessary to 'sell-off' any NSA's majority interest in service provision. The way I read the article is that Germany, as an SES state, has refused to comply with legislation that it has already committed to under the SES Framework Regulations.
In the UK, the Govt part privatised NATS such that it (the CAA) does not hold a majority share. However, UK legislation allows the Govt to still direct NATS on matters relating to sovereignty or national security. Indeed SES legislation also allows this as the articles specifically recognise the rights of states to maintain their own interest regarding National Security and Sovereignty. Furthermore, the EC holds no 'competence' on matters of defence and therefore they are unable to issue legislation that would interfere with matters of state.
If this is really Germany's stance (and I suspect that key elements of German law are the sticking point), the whole SES concept could disappear down the drain. If any SES state is unwilling to sign-up to this, then other stuff such as FABs etc could be dead in the water.
Under SES (draft?) legislation, it is necessary to separate service provision from regulation. The rationale is that an organisation cannot self-regulate. Each SES state is responsible for ensuring that there is a National Supervisory Authority (NSA) that is 'approved' by the European Commission. Ordinarily, this NSA will be the relevant CAA. Consequently, it is necessary to 'sell-off' any NSA's majority interest in service provision. The way I read the article is that Germany, as an SES state, has refused to comply with legislation that it has already committed to under the SES Framework Regulations.
In the UK, the Govt part privatised NATS such that it (the CAA) does not hold a majority share. However, UK legislation allows the Govt to still direct NATS on matters relating to sovereignty or national security. Indeed SES legislation also allows this as the articles specifically recognise the rights of states to maintain their own interest regarding National Security and Sovereignty. Furthermore, the EC holds no 'competence' on matters of defence and therefore they are unable to issue legislation that would interfere with matters of state.
If this is really Germany's stance (and I suspect that key elements of German law are the sticking point), the whole SES concept could disappear down the drain. If any SES state is unwilling to sign-up to this, then other stuff such as FABs etc could be dead in the water.
Last edited by London Mil; 24th Oct 2006 at 17:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Mil, thank you for your reply.
So I understand correctly that NATS is owned by private organisations by more than 50%?
What I find interesting is a statement in this video by Loyola de Palacio, European Commissioner for Energy and Transport.
At 4:57 into the video, she states that neither she nor the project are seeking to privatise ATC systems (implying that this is not necessary for SES to work).
I haven't yet found the actual text of the SES legislation (especially since the EU pages seem to be full of server errors
), but this seems to contravene your interpretation.
Since the German ATC union's view also contravenes yours, note that I sent them a mail inquiring about this specific aspect of the privatisation discussion.
Should I get a reply, I'll post their insights here.
Still I am interested in other views from people here, of course.
Regards,
Robert
So I understand correctly that NATS is owned by private organisations by more than 50%?
What I find interesting is a statement in this video by Loyola de Palacio, European Commissioner for Energy and Transport.
At 4:57 into the video, she states that neither she nor the project are seeking to privatise ATC systems (implying that this is not necessary for SES to work).
I haven't yet found the actual text of the SES legislation (especially since the EU pages seem to be full of server errors
), but this seems to contravene your interpretation.Since the German ATC union's view also contravenes yours, note that I sent them a mail inquiring about this specific aspect of the privatisation discussion.
Should I get a reply, I'll post their insights here.
Still I am interested in other views from people here, of course.
Regards,
Robert
Guest
Posts: n/a
Robert, go to the following link and look at Article 4 para 2.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses/galle...regulation.pdf
This document is known as the Framework Regulation and it acts as the backbone for all other SES activity. You are right about privatisation. The regulation only requires adequate separation between service provision and regulation; it does not define how this should be achieved.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses/galle...regulation.pdf
This document is known as the Framework Regulation and it acts as the backbone for all other SES activity. You are right about privatisation. The regulation only requires adequate separation between service provision and regulation; it does not define how this should be achieved.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah excellent, thank you for the link London. 
The way I read this, how it is currently organised in Germany is already sufficient for SES - the national supervisory authority rests with the "Luftfahrt-Bundesamt" (the German CAA), from which the DFS is functionally independent.
That would mean BusinessWeek indeed is wrong.
Regards,
Robert
The way I read this, how it is currently organised in Germany is already sufficient for SES - the national supervisory authority rests with the "Luftfahrt-Bundesamt" (the German CAA), from which the DFS is functionally independent.
That would mean BusinessWeek indeed is wrong.
Regards,
Robert
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And by the way , RobertK, I've heard about a project in which some European countries (where ATC is still partly state owned) would create a single entity for their sky. (I'm summing up and I may have written mistakes ).
Cf http://www.project-mosaic.eu/documen...IC_english.pdf
Here, the main ATC union backs this project.
Have you heard of that in Germany ? What's your opinion about that ?
Regards
).Cf http://www.project-mosaic.eu/documen...IC_english.pdf
Here, the main ATC union backs this project.
Have you heard of that in Germany ? What's your opinion about that ?
Regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
The global organisation of Air Navigation Service Providers is called CANSO (name with a solid aviation pedigree, that). Their website is:
www.canso.org
There are links there to all their members (ie the national ANSPs)
www.canso.org
There are links there to all their members (ie the national ANSPs)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And by the way , RobertK, I've heard about a project in which some European countries (where ATC is still partly state owned) would create a single entity for their sky. (I'm summing up and I may have written mistakes ).
Cf http://www.project-mosaic.eu/documen...IC_english.pdf
Here, the main ATC union backs this project.
Have you heard of that in Germany ? What's your opinion about that ?
Regards
).Cf http://www.project-mosaic.eu/documen...IC_english.pdf
Here, the main ATC union backs this project.
Have you heard of that in Germany ? What's your opinion about that ?
Regards
At first glance it looks interesting, albeit according to the German union, there are still some differences about how ANSPs should be organised in that framework.
I'll have to look more into this, thanks for the link.
Regards,
Robert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my understanding, regulation (done by the Luftfahrtbundesamt, a government institution) and provision (done by DFS, state owned) are already separated.
Additionally, Skyguide would then face the same problem, as they are also state owned.
Regards,
Robert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my understanding, regulation (done by the Luftfahrtbundesamt, a government institution) and provision (done by DFS, state owned) are already separated.
Additionally, Skyguide would then face the same problem, as they are also state owned.
Additionally, Skyguide would then face the same problem, as they are also state owned.