Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

The report paints a sobering picture of the present economic situation in the European - and world - air transport industry, which suffers under the combined effects of a weakened world economy, the abiding threat of terrorism and fears of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). It goes on to describe an industry in rapid structural change, in which many established carriers are experiencing major losses and are losing ground to low-cost carriers whose rise have important economic and social consequences.

Major improvements in European air traffic management have caused a reduction in delays, but further gains in efficiency must be reached for when demand rises again. The European Union’s recent joining of Eurocontrol can usefully contribute to this process and to the realisation of the EU’s own Single European Sky (SES) project.

The report welcomes recent measures to enhance security against terrorism but points to new threats, such as that from ground-to-air missiles. Finally, the report expresses the hope that Russia will soon be able to join the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), thereby adding further to the pan-European stature of an organisation established by the Council of Europe half a century ago.

I. Draft Resolution

1. Europe’s air transport industry has - similar to that at world level - suffered greatly since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, as public apprehension over terrorist attacks in the air has risen and persisted. Other factors which have dampened demand for air transport include the slowdown in world economic activity resulting from, inter alia, the crisis in the ‘new economy’; the political tension and the resulting rise in energy prices associated with the Iraq crisis and its aftermath; and reduced tourism and business travel following the feared spread of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).

2. These developments have left many major European air carriers in a precarious economic situation, especially to the extent that any overcapacity or organisational inefficiency they may have incurred during the preceding years of strong demand has now been exposed. Stiff competition from new low-cost carriers, offering much reduced prices, has brought about an entirely new market situation. The arrival of these new carriers presents advantages for travellers who can henceforth have access to air transport at a modest price. This should not, however, be to the detriment of either social rules or security.

3. Air traffic delays – considered a major problem before the developments referred to above - have eased considerably not only as a result of reduced air transport demand but also following strenuous efforts by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), Eurocontrol and the European Union to improve air traffic management (ATM). In anticipation of expected resumed strong growth in air transport demand in future years, the Assembly welcomes the ratification by fourteen countries of the Revised Eurocontrol Convention and the gradual implementation of Eurocontrol’s ‘ATM 2000 Plus Strategy’, which will increasingly use satellite navigation technology. It calls for the Convention’s rapid ratification by all member states to permit it to enter into force.

4. The Parliamentary Assembly believes that the European Union’s recent joining of Eurocontrol can usefully assist in this process and in the realisation of the EU’s own Single European Sky (SES) project, provided due regard is given to Eurocontrol’s prerogatives and expertise in the running of the project on the basis of its wider European membership, as well as to national sensitivities of a military or social nature. The Assembly draws attention to the human factor behind many air accidents, such as that over southern Germany in August 2002 when two planes collided in mid-air, and stresses the corresponding need to ensure common, pan-European professional standards among air safety personnel such as air traffic controllers. The search for positive financial results cannot be obtained by socially regressive policies.

5. The Assembly, recalling its Recommendation 1549 (2002) on ‘Air Transport and Terrorism: how to enhance security?’, welcomes the implementation of stringent security measures against terrorism under the European Union’s 2002 Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and ECAC’s ‘Document 30’ and Audit Programme using on-site inspections at airports. It also draws attention to new threats such as portable missiles fired against aircraft in the vicinity of airports and to the need for Council of Europe member states and others to counter this menace, such as via missile-deflecting installations on planes.

6. Finally, the Assembly hopes that Russia, a Council of Europe member state, will soon be in a position to join ECAC and Eurocontrol and thereby make its full contribution to European civil aviation.

II. Explanatory Memorandum by the Rapporteur

Contents

Page

I Introduction and background 3

II The air transport industry today. A dent in demand and lower profits for airlines: the legacies of 11 September and of the collapse of the “new economy” 4

III The airline industry. Overcapacity for the major carriers. Increased competition from low cost carriers 7

IV Transatlantic flights. The “Open Skies” battle between the European Commission and certain EU member states 8

V Air Security against Terrorism. Real progress made, but new threats emerge 8

VI Concluding Remarks: ECAC’s and Eurocontrol’s outreach. Who should manage what in civil aviation Europe? 10

* *

I. Introduction and background

1. The present report aims to describe the present situation in Europe as regards air transport, to examine the state of the overall air transport industry and to take up certain other aspects such as security against terrorist attacks. The report does not purport to describe all aspects of European air transport policies, in the interest of brevity and conciseness. Thus, little will, for instance, be said about air transport and environment protection and public health, even though these issues are highly important, too.

2. The report has been drawn up within the special context of the Parliamentary Assembly’s serving as a parliamentary forum for, in particular, the European Civil Aviation Conference. ECAC, it will be recalled, is an intergovernmental organisation which today includes 41 member states. It was created in 1955, following an initiative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and aims to promote the development of a European air transport system which is safe, efficient and lasting.¹

3. The present report, once adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly, is foreseen to be presented at the ECAC Triennial Session, to be held in July 2003. It follows on two recent texts adopted by the Assembly in this field. The first was Resolution 1217 (2000) on “European air transport policies - - the need for a truly ‘One Sky Europe” and the second, drawn up in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, was Recommendation 1549 (2002) on “Air transport and terrorism: How to enhance security?”

4. The Rapporteur wishes to thank his predecessor, Mr Knut Billing of Sweden, who served as Rapporteur for the reports just mentioned and for several reports preceding them. Shortly before retiring from the Assembly and political life in general at the end of 2002, Mr Billing met representatives of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in November 2002 and was able to communicate to your Rapporteur his conclusions from that meeting. In preparation of the present report, your Rapporteur held meetings in early 2003 with representatives of ECAC, followed by encounters in Brussels with representatives of the European Commission and Eurocontrol. The Rapporteur thanks his interlocutors for the valuable insights they provided. He is also grateful to his colleagues on the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development who at the adoption of the report at its May 2003 meeting in Lido di Camaiore in Italy subjected the first draft of the present report to intense and knowledgeable scrutiny. He wishes to point out, however, that he remains fully independent, as is the tradition in the Parliamentary Assembly, in the analyses and conclusions presented in the Explanatory Memorandum forming part of the report.

II. The air transport industry today. A dent in demand and lower profits for airlines: the legacies of 11 September and of the collapse of the ‘new economy’

5. At the time when Resolution 1217 (2000) on “European air transport policies - - the need for a truly ‘One Sky Europe” was drawn up, the talk was, in the language of the Resolution of “a time of rapidly growing demand for air transport and a “critical situation of long, and worsening air traffic delays”. A “One Sky Europe” was seen as an urgent necessity.

6. However, then came the tragic events of 11 September, when four US commercial airliners were hijacked by terrorists and then used as missiles to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in downtown New York leading to the deaths of close to 3,000 people - crews, passengers, occupants of the buildings, firemen and people on the ground. An additional airliner crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers tried to overwhelm the hijackers, while a fourth plane crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, leading to many further deaths. Not only was commercial air transport shut down in the US and many other parts of the world immediately after the attacks, but the general public was seized by fear, leading to many cancellations. The fears last up until this day, even though much has been done to enhance security in the meantime.

7. A second factor that has reduced air transport and demand has been the bursting of the ‘new economy bubble’. This has put a brake on economic growth, on which demand critically depends.

8. In early 2003, the Iraq crisis dampened demand for air transport due to public fear and to the chilling effect this conflict is having, at least temporarily, on business and consumer confidence and thereby on economic prospects generally. In the lead-up to the conflict, the price of oil - and hence that of kerosene - has increased, adding to the cost of airlines to keep planes aloft, even if prices are likely to come down again as prospects improve for a resumption of Iraqi oil exports in the post-conflict era. Finally, the SARS epidemic (Severe and Acute Respiratory

Syndrome) has led to reduced tourism and business travel, not just to and from South-East Asia where it started and is most widely spread, but across the world. As a result of all the above, airlines have been obliged to cancel many flights.²

9. The result has been a further loss in the profitability of airlines and of the air industry as a whole, in which latter term we also include airplane manufacturers, the air traffic management sector, maintenance, national authorities responsible for civil aviation, international organisations dealing with air transport, airports and many other actors. IATA – the International Air Transport Association representing the world’s airline companies - reports overall losses in 2002 of about 13 billion dollars, while the Association of European Airlines (AEA) estimates the losses of European airlines in 2001 (the most recent year documented) to have been over 3 billion dollars.

10. These overall figures do not prevent certain airlines from doing reasonably well, to the extent that they have managed to make their operations more cost-efficient or are based in countries that have suffered less from the world economic downturn. Nor does it prevent many airports from making profits, even as the duty free era is now over inside the European Union area. Sales at shops in airports seem not to have suffered unduly, as passengers still appear to be led to many extra purchases as they enjoy their ‘outside-of- time’ periods spent in airports while waiting for their flights.

11. Another prediction made in the report (Doc. 8759) accompanying Resolution 1217 (2000) was that annual growth in demand would increase by about 5% per year, so that the number of passengers would double within the coming decade. Due to the above-mentioned developments in the intervening years, however, demand in 2003 is reported to be only at around the 2001 level - with increases of only between 2 and 3% annually predicted until the economy picks up again.

12. One consoling consequence of these tidings is, however, that we now have many fewer delays. While we still have some 25,000 ‘air movements’ over the ECAC area per day, the average delay in commercial aviation is now reported to be down to only 3 minutes, with Eurocontrol aiming for delays of only one minute in 2006!³ This, Eurocontrol argues, is due to its so-called ‘ATM 2000 Plus Strategy’, which is meant to serve as a ‘comprehensive road map for future air traffic management’, established in cooperation with Eurocontrol member states, service providers, air space users, airports, the military and industry. Without wishing to go into undue detail, suffice it here to say that the strategy foresees the establishment of satellite navigation via the so-called Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), which will be able to use a forthcoming European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) and the Galileo system, as from 2008. The improvements also flow from the Revised Eurocontrol Convention now ratified by fourteen Eurocontrol member states⁴, which the Assembly’s Resolution 1217 (2000) saw as a “major step forward in the direction of an integrated air traffic management (ATM) system” and which it asked all member states to ratify. The Assembly, on this occasion, also encouraged the European Union to rapidly join Eurocontrol, considering the latter’s active

role in favour of an integrated European ATM system.⁵ Another factor contributing to the reduction of delays has been increased flexibility on the part of military authorities to enhance the use of military air space for civilian use.

13. The European Union (or, legally speaking, the European Community) in October 2002 became a member of Eurocontrol in its own right. The EU’s membership is widely seen as helping to significantly improve the regulatory impact of Eurocontrol and forms part of the EU’s attempts to reach greater coordination of the existing patchwork of air navigation systems via its ‘Single European Sky’ (SES) project. This is so because Eurocontrol does not have the necessary institutional and legal powers for effective rule making or enforcement. The ‘Single European Sky’ project is meant to overcome the present fragmentation and to reduce the cost of air traffic delays in the EU, which before the recent downturn was estimated at over 4.4 billion euros per year in the form of higher fuel costs, lower aircraft utilisation rates, and passenger inconvenience. The European Commission cites studies purporting to show that the American uniform system is able to handle a number of flights twice as high as that of the EU, but at a similar cost. It will of course be necessary to ensure that social rules applying to the staff concerned are being upheld, as regards the level of qualification, the level of remuneration and trade union rights.

14. The airline industry as a whole is in favour of a more coordinated EU policy on air traffic management. In 1999, the European Commission presented a report outlining the key aspects of the ‘Single European Sky’, with a key role foreseen for itself in pursuing and sustaining this objective. The creation of the SES, foreseen for the end of 2004, aims to ensure that ATM is managed on a truly EU-wide basis, while using infrastructure that is to remain nationally owned. In particular, the management of ‘upper level traffic’ - that is, the handling of all parts of a flight except take-offs and landings - is to fall under the agreement. The SES also sets out guidelines for cooperation with military authorities, the goal being a gradual integration of civilian and military management of the EU air space.

15. The reaction by EU member states to the SES project has been generally welcoming. However, still unclear is the precise division of tasks between Eurocontrol, the so-called ‘Single Sky Committee’ consisting of national representatives of civil, and possibly military, users, and the Commission itself. Some member states are still reluctant to give the Commission the final say as regulator. Furthermore, serious misgivings remain within the military about the coordination of the use of civil and military air space. Furthermore, there is legal controversy over whether these issues fall within the context of EU rules or form part of the more intergovernmental defence policy framework. Finally, there is considerable opposition on the part of ATM trade unions in some member states. They see a danger to air safety arising from what they consider to be creeping privatisation and excessive liberalisation of the air traffic management sector.

16. The European Parliament has broadly endorsed the Commission’s SES project and has presented only relatively modest amendments seeking to clarify the role of Eurocontrol and the relationship between military and civil authorities. A final hurdle remains the EU’s Council of Ministers, where national interests are most strongly represented. All in all, it remains to be seen whether the deadline of the end of 2004 to introduce the Single Sky concept can be realised. Eurocontrol for its part supports the project in the sense that it considers it to be its own brainchild since many years. However, it wants to realise and execute the project itself and doubts that the Commission can do the job with sufficient expertise. Eurocontrol points to its own expertise built up over many decades and fears this would be lost if it was deprived of managing the new system.

17. A system called Free Route will be introduced progressively in Europe over the next few years under the auspices of Eurocontrol. Free Route foresees aircraft equipped with the required navigation equipment, on-board computers and collision-avoidance tools and will enable pilots to navigate their own routes with the assistance of accurate area navigation systems, instead of following ground radio beacons that define corridors. With improved airborne equipment, controllers have been able to reduce the vertical separation between aircraft heading in the same direction at high altitude from 600 to 300 metres, thus increasing the number of pathways that can be used simultaneously.

III. The airline industry. Overcapacity for the major carriers. Increased competition from low cost carriers.

18. Up until recent years - before 11 September and before the bursting of the ‘new economy bubble’ – many of the major airlines could still make a considerable profit due to high and rapidly rising demand. Even though cost-cutting was undertaken continuously by many of them, the fact that there were too many major, national airlines suffering various internal inefficiencies was obscured by the high demand.

19. Today, however, when demand has weakened considerably and fuel costs are high, the overcapacity in the industry, at least as far as the flag carriers are concerned, is becoming increasingly evident. The collapse of companies such as Swissair and Sabena were early indicators of this and further restructuring in the industry may yet occur.⁶To the more traditional and by now well-established charter phenomenon must now be added a more recent one, namely that of low cost carriers. Low cost carriers may offer a price of say, only 20€ on a short-to-medium distance where a major carrier may charge something like a tenfold. While low cost carriers today represent only around 8% of total civil aviation in ECAC member states, this percentage is an impressive 35% in the United Kingdom and all of 60% in Ireland. The proportion may still grow considerably, not least because it tends to ‘create traffic’ by making many people who previously could not afford to fly pick up the habit. The lower prices offered can therefore be considered to be of general social benefit, especially since safety in all its aspects - due to the requirements of ECAC, Eurocontrol and IATA – is as guaranteed as it is on any regular flight.

20. There are many reasons why low cost carriers can offer the prices they do, and some of these reasons should not be exempt from either scrutiny or criticism. Commercial crew work for less money. More rotations, or round-flights, are possible in a single day, as congestion, and therefore delays, are less pronounced at the more remote airports normally used, and as the staff often help to clean the aircraft between flights thereby saving time (and reducing costs). Low cost carriers normally offer few or no frills. Landing fees at the airports used are lower or non-existent, as the local communities concerned often offer special advantages in order to have any air connections at all – a vital prerequisite for them to attract business The elected representatives are thus expressing their political determination in the regional planning field.

21. Passengers may also pay indirectly due to longer and more costly transport from remote airports to the major cities where they are headed. Finally, reservations are often done via the Internet - obligatorily so in the case of many low cost carriers – signifying lower costs for operators. There can be no objection to this, but it must be borne in mind that the practice may disfavour older people who are less familiar with computers in contrast to, say, technology-savvy students.

22. It will be interesting to see how the battle between low-cost carriers and traditional carriers will play out. Traditional carriers could, for instance, create low cost subsidiaries of their own, or could introduce a shuttle service, say, every hour, with financial support from the parent company, and thereby effectively shut out competition from companies with fewer resources. Many members of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development were at any rate quite positive to the low-cost carrier phenomenon, feeling that it had instilled a new sense of competition into the market, while also believing it worthwhile to follow it attentively from the social, consumer protection and regional development perspectives.

IV Transatlantic flights. The ‘Open Skies’ battle between the European Commission and certain EU member states

23. The European Commission’s quest for EU management of civil aviation, and the resistance waged against this ambition by certain EU member states, is illustrated by the ongoing battle over ‘Open Skies’ agreements concluded by various EU countries and the United States. In the course of the 1990s, eight EU member states – Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Britain and Germany – concluded accords with the United States for bilateral traffic rights. The Open Skies agreements allow US airlines to fly into the EU countries concerned from anywhere in the United States and let European carriers fly to anywhere in the Untied States, on condition that they do so from their European national bases. For example, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines can fly to American airports only from Amsterdam but not from Madrid or Rome. The home bases of European airlines are thereby protected.

24. In 1998, the European Commission sued the eight countries in question, accusing them of violating the EU’s founding principles by discriminating against airlines from other EU member states. The Commission argued that the 1957 Rome Treaty gives it exclusive powers to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of EU members, that the deals had the effect of keeping the EU market fragmented and discouraging European airlines from merging. As a result, the Commission maintained, EU members are left with many ailing national carriers, while the US air industry can, indeed must, pursue consolidation. A final Commission argument was that the elimination of the bilateral deals would ultimately increase competition on lucrative transatlantic routes and thereby bring down airfares.

25. In November 2002, the European Court of Justice ruled that the eight member countries concerned had violated EU law since they infringed on the power of the EU to regulate and negotiate air transport accords with non-EU nations. The Court confirmed the powers of the Commission in areas where EU legislation already existed and where the Commission could in consequence be said to have authority.

26. However, the Court added that the Commission did not have any extensive competencies when it came to the conclusion of air traffic deals with third countries. We are therefore at present in a situation where the Commission argues it should be given greater competencies in new areas such as the allocation of slots at airports, electronic reservation systems and intra-EU tariffs. (The Commission says that this also holds for environment and consumer protection.) Following the Court’s verdict, the United States is revising its bilateral agreement with the eight countries concerned but has taken a stand against annulling them, warning that this would lead to delays in reaching deals on transatlantic traffic overall.

V Air Security against Terrorism. Real progress made, but new threats emerge

27. The Assembly’s Recommendation 1549 (2002) on Air transport and terrorism: how to enhance security?” (set out in the Appendix to this report) called for a whole series of security measures against terrorist acts on the ground and during flight. The Rapporteur is glad to be able to announce that, following this Recommendation, the institutions mainly called upon to carry out the various measures - ECAC and the European Commission – have made major progress in this domain. Building on rules proposed in ECAC’s so-called ‘Document 30’ of 2001, the EU in December 2002 passed a Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation.⁷ They are chiefly concerned with:

- control of access to sensitive areas of airports and aircraft;

- control of passengers and their hand luggage;

- control and monitoring of hold luggage;

- control of cargo and mail;

- training of ground staff;

- definition of specifications for the equipment for the above controls;

- classification of weapons and other items which it is prohibited to bring on to aircraft or to sensitive areas on airports.

28. The measures are to be implemented gradually given the need to train staff and change infrastructure. Member states can also adopt special measures in the event of more specific threat if they deem them necessary.

29. As for the European non-EU area, ECAC makes sure that all its 41 member states apply the security provisions laid down by ICAO (in an appendix to the Chicago Convention). In addition, ECAC has drawn up its own complementary measures, designed for European requirements and uniformly applied in all its member states. The security provisions are kept up to date and modified as security and circumstances may require. Their effective implementation is checked via the ECAC Audit Programme which benefits from the expertise of more than 50 highly trained and certified auditors. ECAC also organises workshops and training courses at the European Aviation Security and Training Institute (EASTI), located in Brussels. Some parliamentarians have stressed the nit-picking searches conducted when passengers cross control lines in airports, while others mention technological developments which might eventually lead to unpiloted commercial aircraft. Passengers might well be wary of such a prospect, particularly at the beginning.

30. The Rapporteur was informed by several of his interlocutors about the special American concern for aviation security following 11 September, as shown for example in the establishment of a new Homeland Security Department. It is a source of some friction between US and European authorities whether passenger checks prior to departure should go as far as the Americans wish. The American side now insists on access to all kinds of data, such as whether passengers boarding transatlantic flights have paid in cash or not. Certain European countries have sought assurances that the tracing of personal data - such as those that can be identified via credit cards - should not be such as to violate the privacy rights as enshrined, for instance, in the European Convention on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Council of Europe. The European Parliament has recently voted a resolution in this direction.

31. The Americans, for their part, assure the Europeans that privacy will not be violated and that long waits on arriving at US airports can be considerably shortened if their requests are accepted. Conversely, were Europeans to refuse, this could conceivably result in impeded air traffic flows across the Atlantic, with costs for all sides. It looks as if important aviation partners such as Australia, Canada and Japan will agree to the US requirements, thus making it even more difficult for Europe to resist. The European Commission is at present engaged in negotiations with the US government over this issue.

32. Meanwhile, a new threat is emerging in the form of portable ground-to-air missiles fired against aircraft in the vicinity of airports. In November 2002, two shoulder-fired missiles barely missed an Israeli airliner departing from the airport of Mombassa, Kenya. The UN Security Council the following month adopted Resolution 1450, in which it reaffirmed the “need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”. (Responsibility for the Mombassa attack was claimed by Al Qaeda.)

33. What presumably saved the airliner was the unsophisticated nature of the 30-year-old missiles, the inexperience of the terrorists or a combination of both factors. It could also have been that the airliner was equipped to deflect the missiles. The attack nevertheless caused several countries in Europe and elsewhere to increase surveillance of the vicinity of airports and gave rise to a debate as to whether the time had come to equip aircraft with anti-missile equipment. The cost would be considerable – between one and ten million euros per plane, but given the stakes involved – first and foremost in loss of human life but also in the paralysing effect any successful attack could have on world aviation and the world economy - the investment may still be worthwhile.

34. A few words are due also with regard to air safety, that is, the avoidance of accidents either due to faulty air traffic management, the plane or the pilots. The catastrophe over southern Germany in August 2002 - when two planes collided due to faulty air traffic management by a control centre in Switzerland – shows that much remains to be done. The work of Eurocontrol to enhance the reliability of air traffic management, ECAC’s implementation of ICAO’s worldwide safety oversight programme and ECAC’s own Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) programme, seem, however, to have made considerable progress since. ECAC also gives policy advice to its associate body the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The Rapporteur would nevertheless recommend that there be ECAC-wide professional requirements for such categories as air traffic controllers.

VI Concluding Remarks: ECAC’s and Eurocontrol’s outreach. Who should manage what in civil aviation Europe?

35. The EU enlargement, foreseen to include 10 new members in 2004, places ‘aviation Europe’ before new challenges. It must be ensured that enlargement does not place the new members at a disadvantage, in that richer airlines in western Europe out-compete smaller and less wealthy ones in the new member states. With enlargement, EU member states will also form a majority in both Eurocontrol and ECAC, thereby making the EU the dominant partner also when it comes to policy shaping. The European Union is to some extent divided between a supranationally inclined European Commission and a Council of Ministers which tends to defend national prerogatives. If it can content itself with formulating overall principles, while leaving practical applications and more specialised tasks to ECAC and Eurocontrol, then this could permit Europe to continue building pragmatically on the impressive results achieved so far. This is also in line with democratic principles, since the Commission is not directly accountable before the peoples of the EU in the same way as national governments are. It is not certain that a non-specialised bureaucracy such as the European Commission, which has so many other tasks to fulfil, can acquit itself better of the complex tasks required than can ECAC and Eurocontrol, which each have built up decades of expertise.

36. A final word on Russia. Russia – a member state of the Council of Europe – is, unfortunately, not yet a member of either ECAC or Eurocontrol, in spite of many years of fruitful cooperation. The Rapporteur hopes that various reports he has heard about Russia’s joining both organisations in the foreseeable future are true - not only because this would further accelerate Russia’s integration with other parts of Europe, but also because of the tangible contribution that Russian technological and policy-making expertise could make to Europe’s civil aviation. He hopes that any remaining hurdles can soon be overcome and that his next report on European air transport policies no longer needs to include this particular wish.

APPENDIX

PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Recommendation 1549 (2002)¹

Air transport and terrorism:

how to enhance security?

1. The hijacking of four US airliners in the United States on 11 September 2001, resulting in the killing of nearly 3 500 people in New York and Washington, highlights the need for reinforced security measures in air transport.

2. The Assembly acknowledges the long-standing work against air terrorism pursued by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) on behalf of its thirty-eight member states and recalls its own steadfast support for this work, as expressed in its Recommendation 1099 (1989) on aviation security.

3. The Assembly welcomes the close co-operation established since the events of 11 September between ECAC and the European Union, and the latter’s subsequent draft legislation, largely based on ECAC’s aviation security measures (Avsec).

4. The Assembly takes note of the considerable impact the adopted measures have already had on reinforcing security in air transport, but reinforcement of the security should be permanently accompanied by appropriate activities to inform the public about the progress achieved.

5. The Assembly recalls the importance of the following guiding principles underlying the new security level required:

On the ground

i. “100% reconciliation” between checked-in luggage and passengers to ensure that no luggage travels unaccompanied;

ii. reinforced security control of passengers and their hand luggage, as well as of all those with access to restricted areas (for example, catering, duty free and in-flight service items);

iii. 100% screening of checked-in luggage introduced as early as possible, at the latest by the end of 2002;

iv. pre-flight checks of the interior and exterior of aircraft;

v. implementation of the special security regime developed by ECAC for cargo, mail and express parcels;

In the air

vi. prevention of any attempt by an unauthorised person to gain access to the cockpit, for example by the instalment of doors equipped with bars and locks capable of withstanding bullets and explosives, while at the same time permitting crew members to access and control the rest of the aircraft, and to escape in the event of an emergency;

vii. maintenance of contact at all times between the ground and the aircraft through vocal communication; transponder communication giving the aircraft’s location, under the authority of Eurocontrol as the “European regional focal point” for civilian and military air traffic management information; and a press-button alarm function at the start of terrorist attacks;

viii. presence, at each country’s discretion, of armed in-flight security personnel, and the international acceptance of such presence through international agreements;

Implementation

ix. the implementation and continued enforcement of the new security level should be ensured by European and global audit (inspection) teams, preferably through the development of the ECAC Aviation Security Airport Audit programme already in operation.

6. In view of the fact that air terrorism knows no national frontiers, the Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which includes all European Union, ECAC and Eurocontrol member states as well as five additional countries, to ensure that the totality of the above measures, as called for in ECAC’s Avsec recommendations and in the forthcoming European Union legislation, are introduced as a matter of urgency in the territory of all the forty-three member states of the Council of Europe.

7. The Assembly furthermore calls for the rapid development of further means to identify passengers, such as computer recognition of facial and eye (iris) characteristics and handprints.

8. Finally, in recognition of the global impact of terrorist attacks in the air, the Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers, ECAC, Eurocontrol and the European Union to work towards the earliest possible worldwide introduction of the above measures, through the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

_____

1. Assembly debate on 23 January 2002 (5thSitting)

(see Doc. 9296, report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Mr Billing).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 January 2002 (5thSitting).

Reporting committee: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development

Reference to committee: Standing mandate.

Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 9 May 2003.

Members of the committee: Mrs Zapfl-Helbling (Chairperson), Mr Kirilov, Mrs Burbiene, Mrs Pericleous-Papadopoulos (Vice-chairpersons), Mr Açikgöz, Mr Adam, Mr Agius, Mr Agramunt, Mr I. Aliyev, Mr Anacoreta Correia, Mr Andov, Mr Arnau, Mr Assis Miranda, Mr Ates, Mr Berceanu, Mr Braun, Mr Brunhart, Mr Budin, Mr Çavusoglu, Mr Cosarciuc, Mr Crema, Mr Djupedal, Mr Duivesteijn, Mr Elo, Mr Eyskens, Mr Figel, Mr Floros (Alternate: Mr Koulouris), Mr Galchenko, Mr Galoyan, Ms Griffiths, Mr Grignon, Mr Gusenbauer, Ms Hakl, Mr Haupert, Mr Högmark, Mr Jonas, Mr Kacin, Mrs Kestelijn-Sierens, Mr Klympush, Mr Korobeynikov, Mr Kraus, Mr Lachnit, Mr Le Guen, Mr Leibrecht, Mr Liapis (Alternate: Mr Pavlidis), Mr Makhachev, Mr Masseret, Mr Melcak, Mr Mikkelsen, Ms Milicevic, Mr Naumov (Alternate: Mr Umakhanov), Mr Öhman, Mr O’Keeffe, Mrs Patarkalishvili, Mrs Pintat Rossell, Mr Podgorski, Mr Popa, Mr Puche, Mrs Ragnarsdottir, Mr Ramponi (Alternate: Mr Rigoni), Mr Reimann, Mr Riccardi, Mr Rivolta, Lord Russell-Johnston, Mr Rybak, Mr Schreiner: Alternate: Mrs Durrieu), Mr Severin, Mr Seyidov, Mr Slakteris, Ms Smith (Alternate: Mr Banks), Mr Stefanov, Mr Tepshi, Mr Torbar, Mrs Vadai, Mr Voog, Mr Walter (Alternate: Baroness Hooper), Mr Wielowieyski, Mr Wikinski, Mr Zhevago, Mr Zvonar.

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics

Head of Secretariat: Mr Torbiörn

Co-Secretaries to the committee: M. Bertozzi, Ms Ramanauskaite and Ms Kopaçi-Di Michele

¹ ECAC is composed of the following 41 member states: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and the United Kingdom. Future ECAC membership may extend to Georgia and Belarus. Russia is not yet a member but has signed a Protocol of Intention to this effect with ECAC in February 2002; but it would of course greatly assist European aviation if she were. Indeed, ECAC member states pay some $200 million per year in over-flight royalties to Russia and it is the organisation's hope that the bulk of this money will be devoted to improved ATM (air traffic management) facilities.

² According to figures from the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA), its seventeen member airlines by April 2003 were cancelling 650 flights per week, or 25% of capacity.

³ Eurocontrol – the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation – has 31 member states: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the "former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia" and the United Kingdom. It provides technical insight and expertise to the European air industry and air operations. Its primary objective is to develop a seamless, pan-European air traffic management (ATM) system that fully copes with the constant growth in air traffic, while maintaining a high level of safety, reducing costs and respecting the environment.

⁴ Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Finland, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Czech Republic

⁵

Eurocontrol is still based on 73 air control centres in its 31 member states. The centres use 35 different systems and employ some 25,000 air traffic controllers. This should be compared to only 25 centres using a single system in the United States.

⁶ Certain members of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development also expressed regret at seeing the last Concords being withdrawn from a service dating back to the 1960s and let it be said that this French Rapporteur share their emotion. Others, on the other hand, felt that the end of the Concord era was long overdue, considering the pollution, including that of noise, that the aircraft produce and the cost of maintaining the air safety of the fleet.

⁷ Regulation (EC) 2320/2002