Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Ref. Ares(2020)3785397 - 17/07/2020
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Commissioner Adina Vălean
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Date 16/03/2020
Place BERL, (including room)
City
Member of Cabinet responsible:
Member accompanying:
DG participant(s): (including contact number):
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
1/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Scene Setter
You will meet Mr Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG and CEO. The International Air
Transport Association (IATA) is a trade association of the world’s airlines founded in
1945.
Consisting of 290 airlines, primarily major carriers, representing 117 countries, the
IATA’s member airlines account for carrying approximately 82% of total available seat
miles air traffic. IATA supports airline activity and helps formulate industry policy and
standards. The organisation has however in the past been described as a cartel where
in addition to setting technical standards for airlines, it is known to have organized tariff
conferences that served as a forum for price fixing. It is headquartered in Canada in the
city of Montréal, with Executive Offices in Geneva, Switzerland.
In requesting a meeting with you, IATA has submitted a paper listing priorities identified
by the Association which are covered in your brief: Single European Sky reform (SES
2+), environmental aspects (CORSIA, SAFs, taxation), passenger rights, aviation
safety and security.
A number of technical aspects related to SES 2+ of interest to IATA are currently being
considered in the context of the amended legislative texts where our thinking is largely
aligned. On environment aspects, IATA is in favour of CORSIA being the only global
market-based measure and wants the EU to promote the production of Sustainable
Aviation Fuels (SAF) at prices comparable with current jet fuel. On taxation, IATA
considers that inefficient and burdensome tax measures that increase the cost of air
travel will have a negative effect on demand and on economic growth.
With respect to Passenger Rights, the recent evolution in position of stakeholders
(including Member States) indicates that positive developments can now be expected
under the Croatian presidency.
With respect to aviation security, IATA has called for a new aviation security strategy
that would consider a risk-based approach, coordination in cybersecurity, and improved
transparency on aviation security charges.
The meeting with Mr de Juniac is a timely opportunity to clarify some of the above
aspects and reassure your interlocutor on the thorough consideration and commitment
of the Commission.
Objectives
To inform and exchange views on the SES 2+, ongoing activities on energy taxation,
plans under the ETS Directive and CORSIA, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), and
aviation security.
Update IATA on the ongoing revision of the Slot Regulation and on the impact of
corona virus on airport slots.
To reassure IATA that consultation with and contribution from the industry
stakeholders is an essential tool for the Commission in defining the appropriate
policy in aviation.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
2/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Speaking points
SES 2+
The way capacity of the ATM network is managed today is outdated. It is often
done on local level without taking into account the capacity of the ATM network as
a whole.
The Airspace Architecture Study (AAS) confirmed that European ATM network
needs scalability. This means that if certain European ATM centre can’t manage all
the capacity in their area of responsibility, there will be others in the network
capable to step in to provide necessary service.
The AAS was one of the major inputs for the upcoming SES reform. Together with
the Wise Persons Group report, the AAS was a major strategic input into the
reform. We also of course considered European Court of Auditors (ECA) findings
on SESAR.
The plan is the following:
o A partial General Approach for SES was agreed in Council on the
SES2+ proposal at the end of 2014, but negotiations have stalled since
then.
o Due to the capacity crisis in 2018 and 2019 the political momentum
changed and there is a renewed commitment both from stakeholders
and Member States to work on the Single European Sky file and to
continue improving ATM in Europe. This was a clear outcome of the
Transport Council held in December 2019.
o We can’t put at risk what seems to be a common goal: to have SES
reform taking full effect with the start of a new economic reference
period on 1 January 2025.
o Therefore, the approach is that Commission amends the current
legislative proposal. It is our hope that the amended proposal could then
be adopted by the College in spring 2020.
The trilogue with Member States and the European Parliament would be hopefully
finalised under the German Presidency.
Our goal is the adoption in 2021 so we can subsequently amend the necessary
implementing regulations by the start of 2025.
Air Traffic Management (ATM) – Infrastructure
A highly efficient European air traffic management system, requires, two features:
o Defining, developing and deploying a modern interoperable ATM
infrastructure,
o People working together to achieve common objectives
SESAR is the result of a collective European effort that implement these two
features and that has become a worldwide reference for modernising ATM
infrastructure.
The Commission understands and supports the concerns of airspace users and
values their full involvement in reforming SESAR. In particular through:
o Implementation of the European ATM Master Plan to achieve the “Digital
European Sky”,
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
3/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
o Establishing a new “integrated ATM partnership” under Horizon Europe.
Economic Regulation and SES Performance Scheme in RP3
One key element of the necessary reform of the SES legislation is the introduction of
an economic regulator for air navigation services and I am grateful that IATA is
strongly favouring this position.
Such an economic regulator needs the right expertise and resources.
The current system with the Performance Review Body assisting the Commission to
prepare implementing Decisions that are subject to comitology rules is not adequate
for the necessary economic regulation of monopoly air navigation service providers.
Furthermore, a stable set-up with permanent staff and expertise is needed.
The discussion on the choice of economic regulation and the principles of risk-
sharing between air navigation service providers and airspace users will have to
take place between the co-legislators.
We have identified that almost all Member States propose targets that are not
consistent with the Union-wide targets for RP3 that were adopted in spring 2019.
This requires a revision of performance plans by Member States with national/FAB
targets that are more ambitious.
The regulated entities must be able to take higher risks (up and downside) and
receive the right incentives, which could also take the form of penalties in case
targets are not met.
It is not acceptable to increase costs by a significant margin and still not deliver the
right capacity that corresponds to the demand of airspace users. The capacity
targets are missed by a factor of 3 and the cost-efficiency targets by some 10%
each year. The targets proposed by the States significantly miss the environment
targets (by 5-10% each year).
We must be vigilant here.
CORSIA/ETS
I take due note of IATA’s position as regards CORSIA prevailing over other market-
based measures such as the EU ETS.
Aviation, as other transport modes, will need to contribute to the Green Deal.
To achieve the desired results we must increase our efforts through a basket of
measures:
o 1) Improve fuel efficiency of aircrafts and bring in new technologies
(hybrid, electric, hydrogen) as soon as they are ready.
o 2) Operational improvements, notably completing the Single European
Sky.
o 3) Market-based measures like ETS and CORSIA.
o 4) Sustainable aviation fuels.
We need swift policy action to create a market and green the aviation fuel mix as
soon as possible.
Many Member States are preparing SAF blending mandates at national level. An EU
approach would make more sense, to avoid market distortion.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
4/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
The support of IATA for a blending mandate would be important and very much
welcomed.
The EU remains committed to implement CORSIA from the start of its offsetting
phase. During the voluntary phases, almost 77% of the CO2 emissions from
international aviation would be covered. In the course of 2020, the Commission
should report to the EP and Council on the best way to implement CORSIA in the
EU.
Aviation Taxation
Taxation would not lead to direct decarbonisation. However, we cannot leave it out
of the debate.
Aviation taxes should not be looked at in isolation, but alongside other policy
measures, including emission trading, offsets, fuel and aircraft standards,
sustainable aviation fuels and operational improvements.
The mix of measures should be based on what is most effective in achieving
emission reductions without impacting connectivity or competitiveness.
Attention has recently focused on energy taxation. The 2019 evaluation of our
Energy Tax Directive noted inefficiencies and inconsistency with EU climate change
commitments. The revision of the Directive is for mid-2021.
Any tax related measure must take into consideration the international agreements
Member States and the Union have with third countries (way over 1000 agreements)
that make the equation even more complicated.
Slot Regulation Revision
The revision of the existing Slot Regulation to allow for an optimal use of scarce
capacity at many EU airports is important and we see an opportunity to re-launch
the file after Brexit.
Our aim is to enable EU airports to better tackle congestion. Air carriers and airports
have developed new business models and recent airline bankruptcies have raised
new questions on the economic role and value of airport slots.
Our new study assesses the relevance of the current proposal vis-à-vis the current
market situation - with a view to proposing a course of action to the College.
We expect that it will be for the 2021 Presidencies to deal with the file.
Waiver under Slot Regulation due to COVID-19
The Commission is currently assessing all available data regarding the significant
impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry. We are actively assessing all possible
options, including putting forward legislation, in order to address the rapidly growing
challenges.
I know my services, including DG Hololei, have been in close contact with you. We
will continue to remain in close contact with stakeholders on this issue.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
5/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Safety/EASA
We share the common vision that safety should remain the top priority. With the
new Basic Regulation, the Commission and in particular DG MOVE has
delivered in meeting the strategic objectives of ensuring safety and at the same
time achieving a deeper and fairer internal market. For this, we need to
maintain the legislative framework effective and balanced, by means of clear
technical rules.
DG MOVE and EASA in the last two years have worked closely and have
managed to clear the rulemaking backlog, thus facilitating the growth and global
competitiveness of European industry
Drones
The recently adopted European Regulations for drone operations should allow for
an increase of their number in the European airspace, with a need to address
safety, security and airspace integration issues.
A robust regulatory framework, supported by clear and simple rules, should permit
safe aircraft operations in all areas across the European airspace and for all types of
aircraft operations. Our goal is to maintain, if not increase, the same current high
safety levels.
Current drone EU Regulations already lay down a number of requirements on drone
operators, remote pilots and manufacturers. EASA and national authorities are also
contributing to reinforcing safety requirements.
Aviation Security
I acknowledge the valuable points you have raised, highlighting the need for a more
risk-based approach in the EU aviation security strategy, a higher rationalisation of
policy and actions in the context of cybersecurity, and your legitimate aspiration to
have a more transparent and fair involvement of industry in the discussions on
Security Charges in the EU.
On the first point, the Commission (DG MOVE) has just launched a formal
strategic
discussion on the future of aviation security. This stems from the
acknowledgment that modern security regimes consist of “a layer cake” of measures
within a continuously evolving threat and risk scenario. We are also questioning the
efficiency of the current approach while we look at the forecasted traffic demand in
the coming years.
Our current objective is to explore a new strategy that considers aviation security as
a better-integrated process through a network of connections between actors and
measures to deliver an outcome based security. We do not think that the current
system of a locally based, static, and cumulative set of requirements upon which
new measures are added is the right way to tackle the expected growth.
This has to be done maintaining the baseline and where necessary the higher-risk
security measures, as well as preserving the principle of mutual recognition and
One-Stop Security concept within the EU.
We see the great value represented by innovation, artificial intelligence, the use of
biometric data and devices, as well as exploring how we can make use of
passengers’ data to inform a more targeted security. We need nevertheless to be
mindful of the protection of fundamental rights and personal data.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
6/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
This is a priority work-stream for us and we consider it essential if we want to be
realistically able to cope with the forecasted traffic increase.
On
cybersecurity, DG MOVE is ensuring that the application of the Union
framework, the Directive on security of network and information systems (the NIS
Directive), is applied in a coordinated and effective manner in the transport sector.
The Commission adopted in 2019 a Regulation on aviation security that aligns our
rules with the ICAO policy. The rules will be complemented and completed with the
package being developed by EASA aimed at covering a wider spectrum of operators
from the safety standpoint.
Finally, in the area of
security charges, the principle of cost relatedness of security
charges is already embedded in the framework Regulation on aviation security,
whereby the charges shall be directly related to the cost of the service and be
designed to recover no more than the cost involved.
You know that the Commission presented in 2009 a proposal on a Directive on
security charges, which was withdrawn in 2015 due to the lack of progress. It
became clear at the time that it was not possible to find a common ground between
the Council and the Parliament, particularly in relation to who should bear the cost of
security.
We have no indications that the situation may have evolved, and in the current
climate it will be difficult to try to revitalise the discussion.
Air Passenger Rights (APR)
Air Passenger Rights (APR) are a flagship initiative of the EU. Despite substantial
progress made in this area in the last fifteen years, some major challenges remain.
As you know, the debate on the revision of Regulation 261 has been stalled for four
years because of Gibraltar (among other issues). But the recent evolution in the
position of stakeholders (including Member States) indicates that positive
developments can be expected in the coming months under the Croatian
presidency.
Meanwhile, the Commission launched a number of technical initiatives at policy
level, which should also support these regulatory discussions.
These initiatives included a fact-finding study on air passenger rights commissioned
by DG MOVE and conducted by an external consultant (Steer), published in January
2020. Its purpose was to update the information supporting the Commission
proposal of 2013 by assessing the current level of protection of air passenger rights
and their environment.
I would like to personally thank IATA (and its members) for contributing to this
exercise, by sharing views and data, which were very useful in shaping a balanced
picture of the APR’s state of play. IATA also participated in a workshop in Council /
AVIA WP on 10 October 2019, to present the views of airlines.
The study shows that the need for reform has become even more urgent since
2013. For passengers it is still rather difficult to enforce their rights, and for airlines
the burden has increased. The study was published on 13 January and presented to
all interested stakeholders, including IATA, on 30 January 2020. Many thanks to
Monique De Smet and Philippe Morin for their active participation!
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
7/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
The issues with the current APR rules seem unchanged compared to the situation in
2015 but may well have amplified. According to the study and recent discussions,
some provisions in Regulation 261 could be clarified (e.g. extraordinary
circumstances) and current rules are too compensation-oriented; national authorities
(National Enforcement Bodies, or NEBs) and courts are overburdened; the
framework on information to passengers needs to be improved, as well as on care
and assistance, and re-routing, i.e. the priorities for passengers.
The study confirmed that airports also play a major part in informing and assisting
passengers. Regulation 261 does not impose a legal obligation on airports, since
passengers’ direct relationship is with the airlines. But many airports routinely
provide support beyond their legal obligations to passengers, especially in case of
airlines not (fully) complying with these rules.
In view of the revision of Regulation 261, the COM’s objective is to improve the air
passenger rights regime, relying on a balanced system of simple and clear rules,
which can be easily and effectively applied.
Finally I would like to encourage airlines to continue with their efforts to implement
the APR legislation. The need for such an improvement was identified by many
NEBs and I understand that internal projects would be under development to
address this matter.
I thank you for your support in this important file!
Note on Better Regulation
Better regulation has become an integral part of the corporate culture of the
Commission. The Commission remains committed to evidence-based policy
making enshrined in its better regulation approach. We prepare and implement
the legislation in an open, transparent manner, backed up by the involvement of
citizens, business, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders.
In the transport area, we embraced and integrated the Better Regulation
agenda as an opportunity to improve the quality of our policy work. We consider
it as a useful tool in helping us to make clear strategic choices and focus on
issues where European solutions in transport are necessary and can add value.
We remain bound to the principle of proportionality of any new actions and we
regularly assess consistency and coherence of existing legislation through
evaluation of existing legislation.
Defensive points
Environment Aspects (CORSIA, SAFs, Taxation)
The ICAO Assembly adopted in October 2019 a resolution stating that CORSIA is
the only global market-based-measures addressing CO2 emissions form
aviation. Will you thus replace your Emissions Trading Scheme with CORSIA?
An ICAO Assembly Resolution is not strictly legally binding.
We oppose any broad and far-reaching interpretation of the exclusivity clause that
could imply that any national or regional market-based measure applicable to
international aviation (such as intra-EU flights), must fall under CORSIA. We insist
that CORSIA allows for regional schemes such as the ETS to exist or for other
legislation or taxation related to carbon-dioxide emissions to exist.
CORSIA – at least in its first years – is expected to provide less strong incentives to
reduce emissions than the existing ETS (due to a CO2 emission price that is lower
than the emission price of ETS). It is therefore highly unlikely that when the co-
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
8/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
legislators insert CORSIA into the ETS Directive, they would accept to only apply
CORSIA, but not ETS, to intra-EU flights.
The EU position on the ‘Exclusivity’ clause was set out in our declaration made at
the end of the last Assembly that preserves our own policy space for present or
future legal obligations under the Emissions Trading Directive (ETS).
In line with our positions taken at the 39th Assembly and the Council Sessions,
Paragraph 18 of the Resolution is to be read in line with certain Contracting Parties’
legal obligations to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase in line with the
Paris Agreement on climate change.
One of the principles of the Chicago Convention is that each Contracting State may
apply on a non-discriminatory basis its laws and regulation to all aircraft operating
within its jurisdiction. This principle also applies to environmental measures such as
the ones we have in the EU and its Member States.
ReFuelEU Aviation: what policy options will you explore?
SAF blending mandate: imposing a minimum share of SAF which would gradually
increase over time, to be supplied to airlines.
Revision of the multiplier of the Renewable Energy Directive: currently, the
multiplier is 1.2 for aviation.
A central auctioning system: whereby SAF producers would bid to produce
volumes of SAF over a period at the lowest price.
Funding mechanisms: both for research and to accompany the market, EU funding
instruments could be put to contribution (ETS innovation fund, Horizon Europe,
European Investment Bank, others)
Voluntary agreements: (non-legislative) to issue guidance on how to conclude
efficiently SAF purchase agreements;
Technical facilitation and support initiatives: a dedicated initiative to accompany
SAF producers along the fuel approval process. And an EU coordination platform
bringing together SAF/aviation stakeholders.
SAF are too expensive. How will you finance a SAF blending mandate?
SAF are more expensive today because there is no market. With the right policy in
place, the industry will react and the market will create itself. By scaling up SAF
production, costs will go down. Airlines must support that market development.
We are thinking of ways to contribute to the financing. Research funds will be
allocated to developing more cost effective fuels. EU funds like ETS innovation
fund, CEF, Horizon Europe, the European Investment Bank could play a role in
accompanying the market in the transition to SAF.
How will you ensure the availability of SAF supply to reach blending mandate
targets?
A SAF blending mandate would need to be carefully crafted. Targets should be low
enough at the start to ensure supply in sufficient volumes. Targets should be
ambitious enough in the long term to provide certainty to the market that SAF are
‘bankable’ in the long term.
What are the Commission’s views on taxing aviation?
The Commission has published an evaluation of the current rules around energy
taxation and President von der Leyen has committed to revise them. The idea is to
see if there is scope for more environmental-friendly policies that support the EU’s
climate change commitments.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
9/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
When revising the rules, we need to look at how to decrease GHG emissions from
aviation from a broader perspective and avoid that it limits citizens’ connectivity.
Slot Regulation
When do you expect the Slot Regulation be revised?
My services are undertaking a study to assess the relevance of the current proposal
vis-à-vis the current market situation - with a view to proposing a course of action to
the new College. The study should be concluded Q2 2020.
DG MOVE is assessing in which format these updates would best be addressed.
2020 EU Presidencies have not shown appetite to deal with this proposal, and
should most probably be dealt in 2021.
We are attentively monitoring the impacts of the Coronavirus outbreak on a daily
basis and is in close contact with the industry to determine how the situation is
evolving.
In the case of flights to/from mainland China and Hong Kong, it was agreed by the
EU slot coordinators that airlines could invoke the application of the Slot Regulation
regarding “force majeure” and this way they wil not lose the grandfathering right for
the next season, subject to some conditions.
Whether a more drastic response is needed (such as the amendment of the Slot
Regulation as was the case for SARS outbreak in 2003 will be decided in due
time and to the extent it is necessary taking into account the duration and the
actual geographic scope (i.e. the markets affected by measures taken in
response to the outbreak) of the outbreak.
Safety/EASA
Regulations should be less prescriptive, with more use of AMC.
The new EASA Basic Regulation has created a regulatory framework that is
meant to deliver more flexibility to all stakeholders, with requirements
developed in a performance-based manner, which focuses on objectives to be
achieved. At the same time, Regulations should be definite and clear, so
Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) will not replace the actual
requirements. The Legal Service of the Commission does not endorse EU
Regulations lacking the necessary legal certainty to ensure a robust single
market in the EU.
Drones
The additional costs of infrastructure and air navigation services to manage the
exponential growth in UAS operations must fall on UAS operators
ATM cannot be seen as the only appropriate mean to safely and efficiently manage
the upcoming drone traffic. Drone operators should rely on U-space airspace service
providers for the safety of their flights at a reasonable cost.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
10/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Large Commercial Aircraft operator should continue to rely on classic ATM, which
fees should not be affected by the operations in the U-space.
Air Passenger Rights (APR)
Why does the EU revise air passenger rights?
The current EU rules on air passenger rights form a vital part of the consumer
protection measures of the Union. They date from 2004; air travel has changed
considerably since then and therefore these rules need a revision.
What has happened so far?
Already in 2013 the Commission reacted and proposed changes to the current
rules. The aim was to arrive at a balanced system of simple and clear rules,
which can be easily applied and effectively enforced. The Commission’s
proposal was discussed in the Council and the European Parliament for two
years (2013 – 2015), but then was blocked.
In the end of last year the Finnish Council presidency managed to unblock the
files and the Council has now resumed the discussion of the Commission’s
2013 proposal under the Croatian presidency.
Why relaunch the discussions now?
The recent fact-finding study on air passenger rights (released on 13 January 2020)
has revealed that the need for reform has become even more urgent since 2013. The
issues with the current air passenger rights rules, enshrined in Regulation 261/2004,
are still the same but their magnitude has largely increased. According to the study and
recent discussions, the obligations for airlines to inform passengers as well as to
provide care and assistance when travel is disrupted need to be clarified, simplified and
made easier to be applied and enforced.
What will the reform bring to the passenger? Is the level of protection the same?
The proposal clarifies key aspects of EU law which have been a source of difficulty for
passengers and air carriers alike. It introduces new passenger rights where necessary.
It provides passengers with effective complaint handling procedures and strengthens
enforcement, monitoring and sanctioning policies to ensure a better application of all
passenger rights. It also ensures that the obligations remain financially realistic.
What are the next steps?
The Croatian presidency has taken over the file last month and is now discussing with
all the other Member States the revision proposal in detail. The Presidency aims at
reaching an agreement on the major issues by the end of its mandate in June.
What have you been doing on claim agencies?
COM knows about the campaign currently conducted by claim agencies to maintain the
status quo (which means a lot of profit for them)… Their recurrent statements against
the study and the revision are therefore not surprising.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
11/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
We were also informed about fraudulent practices by some claim agencies (information
forwarded by Monique De Smet). These include impersonating passengers in their
dealings with airlines: forged signatures, absence of power of attorney, etc.
Airlines, in view of the rapidly expanding claim agencies’ business (as also
demonstrated by the study) and these dubious practices, believe that clearer rules
would eliminate the need of these intermediaries whose practices should nevertheless
be regulated. According to IATA, ERA, AIRE, A4E… this could be done by amending
Reg. 261’s recitals and Article 16. COM has taken good note of this opinion.
Meanwhile, in 2017, COM published an Information notice on relevant EU consumer
protection, marketing and data protection law applicable to claim agencies' activities in
relation to Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights.
What is your line on flights cancelled due to coronavirus?
We understand the difficult situation that passengers and airlines are in. Nevertheless
we shouldn’t forget that according to Regulation 261/2004, in the event of flight
cancellation, the airlines have to re-route the passengers or to reimburse them.
Concerning the financial compensation -the situation which air carriers have faced
recently due to the COVID– the application of the extraordinary circumstances
exemption could apply in many cases, so that no compensation has to be paid to
passengers. However, as always in those circumstances, it will depend on the specific
case (i.e. flight cancellation or other travel disruption), as to whether the ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ exemption can be applied or not.
As regards any provisional exemption from the obligations of Regulation 261/2004, the
Regulation does not provide for such a possibility. Air carriers will have to invoke
extraordinary circumstances as in any other case and –if challenged by passengers–
will have to prove that they took all reasonable measures.
Regulation 261 covers events of a flight cancellation by the airlines. But the cases of
passengers cancelling their flight –due to COVID- do not fall under any EU legislation.
In those circumstances, we would advise the passengers to check the General Terms
& Conditions of Carriage of the airline.
What can be said about airlines insolvencies, from a preventive point of view?
Regulation 1008/2008 requires national licensing authorities to monitor carriers’
compliance with the financial requirements. If a carrier cannot fulfil its financial
obligations for the next 12 months the authority should revoke or suspend the license.
Under some circumstances it may grant a temporary licence.
The evaluation of Regulation 1008/2008 concluded that there is a need to reflect on a
better approach to the wind-up of air carriers. The Impact Assessment study that DG
MOVE is carrying out is looking at options to increase dialogue between airlines in
financial difficulties and licensing authorities to see whether this could help mitigate
some of the negative consequences that occur when carriers leave the market
suddenly.
What is the role of airports in assisting passengers?
As shown by the study, airports also play a major part in informing and assisting
passengers. Regulation 261 does not impose a legal obligation on airports, since
passengers’ direct relationship is with the airlines. But many airports routinely provide
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
12/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
support beyond their legal obligations to passengers, especially in case of airlines not
(fully) complying with these rules.
Outside of mass disruptions, some airports (particularly larger ones) are regularly
involved in providing care and assistance to passengers whose flights have been
delayed or cancelled as a backstop when assistance is not provided by the airlines.
Airports may intervene when airlines fail to fulfil their obligations and/or when
passengers have specific needs that airlines may not have been able to address. For
example, passengers affected by disruption who are connecting and do not have a
valid visa for the country in which they are connecting are not able to leave the airport
and so overnight accommodation cannot be provided. Airports in these cases have
provided mattresses, blankets, pillows and toiletries to such passengers.
What may be the effect of Brexit on APR in general, and for travellers from/to the
UK in particular?
UK became a third country on 31/1/2020, the future relationship between the EU and
the UK is still under discussion.
The APR acquis applies during the transition phase until 31/12/2020. The EU will treat
the UK as if it were a Member State, with the exception of participation in the EU
institutions and governance structures.
The transition period will provide time to administrations, businesses and citizens to
adapt; and it will provide the EU and the UK with time to negotiate the future
relationship.
Background notes
Air Traffic Management (ATM) – Infrastructure
IATA believes that the market uptake of mature SESAR solutions should be
accelerated through incentives for early movers. Capping of EU Funding of Airborne
related Projects and Equipage should be lifted.
IATA supports the rationalization of European Air Traffic Management an important
factor to achieve the high-level goals of the SES and would welcome a programme of
ATM rationalization at European level taking into account the human factor.
Hey also support increased Civil-Military Synergies and Dual Use.
They advocate for SESAR implementing bodies such as SJU, SDM, NM and EASA to
work in harmony with each other with the aim to deliver safe and efficient operations
serving the airspace users and their passengers and to ensure that the ICAO global
aviation context takes into account in the European region to ensure interoperability
and cost effective operations for airspace users/
The future SESAR project should focus on these areas:
1.
Increased capacity to meet growing demand
2.
Better predictability so we can plan and execute flights efficiently
3.
Improved ATM performance under stronger governance
4.
Effective, fair, safe and secure integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
13/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Economic Regulation and SES Performance Scheme in RP3
The SES performance and charging scheme (Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No
549/2004 and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004) provide for the economic
regulation of air navigation service providers over fixed reference periods. In the
implementation of the schemes, the Commission is assisted by an independent
Performance Review Body (PRB).
The performance scheme sets a regulatory framework for improving the performance
of air navigation services and network functions in the areas of capacity, environment
and cost-efficiency, while increasing safety. The scheme also foresees incentive
mechanisms, including the sharing of financial risks between air navigation service
providers and airspace users. The targets in the key performance area of cost
efficiency are the basis for the calculation of user charges under the charging scheme.
This is achieved through the adoption of Union-wide performance targets and binding
local targets for fixed reference periods.
The Union-wide performance targets for the third reference period (RP3, starting on 1
January 2020 and ending on 31 December 2024) were adopted by the Commission in
May 2019.
Member States then had 5 months to submit their local performance plans, which
include draft national or functional airspace blocks performance targets in each key
performance area and the measures for achieving those targets. They also had to
consult their stakeholders, in particular the airspace users. The results of the draft
performance plans assessments are covered in a separate item. A number of Member
States will be asked to submit revised performance plans. Several iterations are
foreseen for the approval of the performance plans and their targets, and the
achievement of the targets is then monitored throughout the reference period with
corrective actions to be taken when the targets are not met.
CORSAI/ETS
Aviation is the only transport sector directly covered by the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS) - since 2012, allowing the aviation sector to purchase allowances from
reductions achieved at lower cost in other sectors to compensate for aviation
emissions.
At the international level, the EU has been confronted with strong opposition and
threats of trade retaliation from third countries to the inclusion of international aviation
in the EU ETS. This led the EU to suspend the application of ETS for flights operating
outside of the EU (but departing or landing in the EU) to enable the conclusion of an
international agreement on aviation CO2 emissions (‘stop-the-clock’ until the end of
2023).
An international agreement was reached in 2016 in the context of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). It is the first ever global sectoral agreement to tackle
CO2 emissions: the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
(CORSIA). To date, 81 States, representing 76.63% of international aviation activity,
intend to participate in ICAO’s CORSIA voluntary pilot phase between 2021 and 2026.
The EU has started to put in place a legally binding framework based on the existing
EU ETS to implement CORSIA in EU legislation. Within one year of the completion of
the CORSIA rules in ICAO, the Commission is expected to present a report to the
European Parliament and to the Council to explain how it intends to implement
CORSIA into EU rules.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
14/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF)
As part of the European Green Deal, the Commission is required to carry out the
“ReFuelEU Aviation” initiative, i.e. to assess legislative options to boost the SAF
production and uptake. A stable policy framework is needed over a sufficient time
horizon to provide investors with the necessary confidence to invest in the production
of sustainable aviation fuels and for airlines to pursue an efficient fuels policy.
In the Commission Work Programme, the initiative is due to be delivered by Q4 of 2020
with the adoption of a legislative proposal. In the course of 2020, the Commission will
perform and impact assessment. Policy options under consideration are:
SAF blending mandate: it would consist of imposing a minimum share of SAF,
which would gradually increase over time, to be supplied to airlines and/or a
minimum share of SAF to be used by airlines. Sub-options to be considered could
include a mandatory volume-based minimum share of SAF uptake by a certain time
horizon or a minimum level of reduction of GHG-intensity of jet fuels used.
Revision of the multiplier under the Renewable Energy Directive: Currently, with a
1.2 multiplier for aviation, Member States where biofuel is supplied to the aviation
sector are allowed to count towards their national target 20% more than the SAF
volumes provided. The approach could be further specified ensuring a harmonised
implementation and the multiplier could be increased.
A central auctioning mechanism: SAF producers would be invited by a central
auctioning authority to bid at the lowest price to supply a certain volume of SAF to
the aviation market over a certain period. Such schemes have been used in the
field of renewable electricity.
Funding mechanism: The EU would channel funds through one or more EU
financial instruments with the aim of encouraging the deployment of SAF
production facilities in the EU and of accompanying the gradual uptake of SAF by
the aviation market at competitive prices by helping to bridge the cost gap and
upscale production.
Voluntary agreements: setting up of a collaborative platform to facilitate purchase
agreements between SAF producers and airlines. It could also issue guidance on
how to conclude efficiently purchase agreements.
Technical facilitation and support initiatives: a dedicated facilitation initiative for SAF
approval could be put in place in the EU. The objective would be to accompany
SAF producers along the approval process, by providing the necessary technical
support. The idea of an EU coordination platform could also be envisaged to bring
closer together aviation stakeholders, SAF producers and regulators with a view to
communicate and engage towards the common objective of developing the SAF
market.
An external study to support the impact assessment on a possible legislative proposal
on SAF will shortly be launched. In addition, DG MOVE will have organised a
roundtable on 4 March, gathering aviation and SAF industry representatives,
academics, environmental NGOs, Member States and international organisations.
IATA will have been present.
Aviation Taxation
Aviation is under political and public scrutiny to reduce its carbon footprint. There is a
growing claim from society that aviation does not do enough to mitigate climate change
and is unduly exempted from (kerosene and VAT) taxation.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
15/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Passenger/departure based taxes and charges are levied in several Member States.
VAT or other taxes on domestic aviation exist in 17 Member States.
Fuel is generally exempt from excise duty in international aviation. The 1944 ICAO
Chicago Convention requires tax exemption of fuel on-board when landing, whereas
fuel delivered to aircraft is exempted through most existing air services agreements.
Against this background, the Energy Taxation Directive provides for a mandatory
exemption of such fuel, while permitting Member States to tax fuel on domestic flights
or flights between Member States on the basis of corresponding bilateral agreements.
The US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Hong Kong tax fuel on domestic flights.
Current rules on energy taxation have been in place since 2003; they are outdated.
The revision of the Energy Taxation Directive with a focus on environmental issues is
part of the roadmap/key actions adopted through the European Green Deal, ensuring
in this way that taxation is aligned with climate objectives.
When revising the rules, we must look at how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from aviation while avoiding limiting citizens’ connectivity. However, aviation taxes
should not be looked at in isolation. They should be considered alongside other policy
measures, including emission trading, offsets, fuel and aircraft standards, the
introduction of sustainable aviation fuels and operational improvements. The choice of
measure or mix of measures should be based on what is most effective in achieving
emission reductions without impacting connectivity or competitiveness.
Nine EU countries – Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands – have called for proposals for cleaner aviation and a
specific pollution tax in Europe on 7 November 2019.
Slot Regulation
In 2011, the Commission proposed a revision of the existing Slot Regulation to allow
for an optimal use of scarce capacity at many EU airports. The file has been stuck
since 2013 because of the Gibraltar dispute. However, the Council reached a first
reading position in October 2012 (at the level of a general approach) while the
Parliament voted on the Commission's proposal in December 2012. Brexit is the
opportunity to re-launch the file (like for SES2+ and 261/2004)
Since 2011, EU airports have become more congested, air carriers and airports have
developed new business models and recent airline bankruptcies have raised new
questions on the economic role and value of airport slots. Therefore Commission
services are undertaking a study to assess the relevance of the current proposal vis-à-
vis the current market situation - with a view to proposing a course of action to the new
College. The study should be concluded Q2 2020. DG MOVE is assessing in which
format these updates would best be addressed. 2020 EU Presidencies have not shown
appetite to deal with this proposal, and should most probably be dealt in 2021.
Airlines hold slots at coordinated airports, and have to use them 80% during a season
in order to maintain the same permission for the next season (commonly known as
“use it or lose it” rule).
IATA asked that the Commission amends the Regulation alleviating air carries to taking
into account the 2019-2020 seasons when allocating slots for 2021. In the past, for
example as a response to the SARS outbreak in 2003 the Commission has taken
severe measures when it decided to amend the Slot Regulation allowing to alleviate
airlines from their obligation under the Slot Regulation.
Such a drastic response should only be taken if and to the extent it is necessary taking
into account the duration and the actual geographic scope (i.e. the markets affected by
measures taken in response to the outbreak) of the outbreak.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
16/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
The Commission is attentively monitoring the impacts of the Coronavirus outbreak on
airline operations on a daily basis and is in close contact with the industry to determine
how the situation is evolving.
In the case of flights to/from mainland China and Hong Kong, it was agreed by the EU
slot coordinators that airlines could invoke the application of the Slot Regulation
regarding “force majeure” and this way they wil not lose the grandfathering right for the
next season, subject to some conditions.
As regards the summer season 2020 the Commission considers that it is still too early
to make a robust assessment that could justify full alleviation from the Slot Regulation’s
use it or lose it rule, one that some airlines are requesting. The Commission will
continue to maintain close contact with stakeholders to be able to act in a timely
manner and as appropriate.
Safety/EASA
The new EASA Basic Regulation has created a regulatory framework which fosters a
better use of resources, mainly by reinforcing the risk- and performance-based
elements, and also eliminating unnecessary requirements – therefore capable of
delivering more flexibility to all the different sectors of the European aviation industry,
while maintaining high EU standards.
It follows the principle that requirements and procedures should be developed in a
manner which is performance-based and which focuses on objectives to be achieved,
allowing different means of achieving compliance with those objectives. The Basic
Regulation also calls for the use of recognised industry standards and practices, where
it has been found that they ensure compliance with the essential requirements set out
in the Regulation.
In this new regulatory framework, DG MOVE is fully engaged, with EASA and the
Member States, in the preparation and adoption process of new delegated and
implementing acts required under the Basic Regulation, and on the adaptation of
existing implementing rules (which should occur by 12 September 2023 at the latest).
Such regulations, which deal with every aspect of the different domains, are drafted by
EASA and adopted through Comitology (EASA Committee). The new Basic
Regulations requires that they are proportionate to the risk associated with the
activities they address, taking into account elements such as the complexity of the
aircraft and of the operation, the purpose of the flight, the involvement of passengers,
the safety risk, including for third parties on the ground.
Until 2018, DG MOVE faced a considerable backlog in the adoption of technical
regulations. A reason for this backlog was that the Commission Legal Service
requested major changes to the regulations that were drafted by EASA. Indeed, they
were assessed as not legally sound – one important comment was regarding the
misuse of Accepted Means of Compliance (AMCs), which should not replace binding
rules (AMCs are non-binding standards adopted by EASA to illustrate means to
establish compliance with the applicable rules). The industry (IATA in particular very
vocally) favours the replacement of prescriptive EU safety rules by a more lenient
performance-based framework, which would be ideally based on non-too binding
Regulations that would refer to AMCs for Member States and industry to comply with.
This approach is, with good sense, not accepted by the Commission Legal Service
since it would not comply with the requirements of legal certainty that EU Regulations
shall have in order to be clearly enforceable to Member States and industry, and to
ensure the robustness of the single market in the EU aviation policy.
The Commission has published in May 2019 its evaluation of the Air Safety List
Regulation (2111/2005). It shows this Regulation and its objectives remains fully
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
17/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
relevant after more than 10 years, and that it has proven to be an effective, efficient
and coherent tool to protect European citizens, with particularly high value added at the
level of the EU.
In the last five years, new instruments at EU level such as Part-TCO have been
adopted, reinforcing the EU international air safety system by allowing for a scrutiny
before operations are conducted within the EU, and therefore complementing the Air
Safety List measures. Part-TCO is implemented by EASA and requires third-country
operators willing to fly to EU destinations to obtain an authorisation from EASA,
following a safety assessment. However, the Air Safety List is the only means to control
operations conducted outside of the EU and thus affording higher protection of EU
passengers by extending it to flights outside of the EU. The Air Safety List remains the
only safety-enforcement means at the disposal of the EU with a worldwide scope of
action.
The evaluation found that the Air Safety List is largely consistent with Part-TCO.
However, the interaction between these two instruments could be fine-tuned, in
particular to avoid duplication of work, and to better exploit synergies. The Commission
and EASA are working closely with the aim of better harmonising the work of these two
instrument.
Better Regulation
Better regulation underpins all the Commission’s work. It is about policy measures that
go no further than needed, in order to achieve objectives and bring benefits at
minimum cost. It ensures that policy is prepared, implemented and reviewed in an
open, transparent manner, informed by the best available evidence and backed up by
the involvement of citizens and stakeholders.
The better regulation agenda became operational by Better Regulation Guidelines and
Toolbox. It contains detailed guidance for Commission services on effective
implementation of common standards at every step of the policy and law-making
process. In order to ensure quality control over the better regulation work, the
Commission established the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). The RSB is an
independent body made up of Commission officials and experts from outside the
Commission whose role it is to examine and issue opinions and recommendations on
all the Commission’s draft impact assessments, as well as major policy and
programme evaluations and fitness checks of existing legislation.
The Commission’s Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT) aims to simplify existing
legislation and reduce the costs of regulation while still achieving the foreseen benefits.
The “REFIT Platform” Plenary brings together the 2 high-level expert panels from (1)
Member States, and (2) from business, social partners, and civil society who present
their views on the impact of EU laws to the Platform and suggest how to improve the
legislation. The results and outcome of REFIT actions are also reflected in the REFIT
Scoreboard.
Air Passenger Rights (APR)
In March 2013, the Commission proposed a revision of the existing air passenger rights
(Regulation 261/2004); the European Parliament (EP) adopted its position in 1st
reading on 5 February 2014. Despite numerous meetings Council, however, has not
yet defined a common position.
The Commission's proposal mainly aims at confirming and clarifying existing rights and
ensuring a better application of the Regulation through:
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
18/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
-
Clarifying passengers' rights by introducing relevant case law into the text (e.g.
compensation for delay; definition of "extraordinary circumstances"; missed
connecting flight; rescheduling of flights);
-
Stronger general enforcement (sanctioning) via a clearer definition of the roles of
the national enforcement bodies (NEB) and via a stronger coordination of the
latter;
-
Better individual enforcement (for passengers) via clearly defined complaint
handling procedures for airlines and the creation of alternative dispute resolution
bodies.
At the same time, the proposal aims to ensure a more proportionate balance between
the interests of passengers and those of the industry by limiting the cost of complying
with the Regulation (for instance through a higher delay thresholds for compensation or
a 3-night limit to accommodation in extraordinary circumstances).
With regard to the positions held by stakeholders in aviation, airlines have since the
introduction of passenger rights taken a very negative attitude towards them, in
particular by repeatedly challenging them before courts (albeit with limited success).
They have generally welcomed the Commission's proposal for revision as it would
significantly reduce the costs. Consumer associations (especially BEUC – European
Consumer Organisation) have welcomed the proposed clarifications and stronger
enforcement, but are disappointed by the proposed reduction of compensation.
Case-law has had a decisive impact on the interpretation of the Regulation. Meanwhile
the Commission adopted Interpretative Guidelines on air passenger rights in 2016
aiming to explain more clearly a number of provisions contained in the Regulation and
in particular in the light of the Court’s case law.
Given the time that has elapsed since the drafting and adoption of the Commission
proposal in 2013, the overall context has evolved. The air travel market has not only
grown tremendously in the last years, but has also evolved in substance: new players
have entered the market with new business models; budget carriers are now directly
competing with legacy airlines on their market; new marketing and sales techniques
have become common; direct purchase of tickets has become the norm; traditional
travel agencies are being replaced by online ticketing portals; and the business of claim
agencies' is flourishing.
While sticking to its 2013 Proposal, the Commission welcomes the fact that the
discussion on the revision of Regulation 261 was resumed in the Council under the
auspices of the Finnish and Croatian presidencies, after 4 years of stalemate. A
number of meetings have taken place since autumn 2019 to discuss the principles of
the revision, and the Croatian Presidency stressed the objective to arrive at a balanced
system of simple and clear rules, which can be easily and effectively applied.
More concretely this means: ensuring an equitable balance of interests between
passengers and air carriers, providing the right incentives to air carriers so as not to
endanger EU connectivity, especially on routes between less connected airports,
keeping rules simple, improving predictability and codifying EU case law to make the
rules clearer and more effective.
In practice, 5 guiding principles are being followed:
1) Strengthening the airlines obligations in terms of care and assistance in case of
cancellation and delay;
2) Applying the same thresholds for compensation in case of rerouting in the event
of cancellation of a flight and in case of long delay at arrival;
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
19/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
3) Maintaining the current compensation amounts of Regulation 261/2004;
4) Making the payment of compensation more predictable and enforceable with
the establishment of an exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances;
Considering the possibility to grant a special treatment for routes between less
connected airports.
Aviation Security
Framework Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 on aviation security was designed to give
flexibility in adapting security measures to mitigate evolving threats.
Aviation security measures are essential in the current threat and risk environment.
However, they do have an impact on the cost of flying via aviation security charges,
additional airport procedures, as well as on passengers’ experience by increasing the
time needed to board an aircraft and via controls which are sometimes perceived as
too intrusive.
Over the last 10 years, the Commission has adopted more than fifty implementing
regulations or decisions. These implementing acts were adopted to clarify, harmonise,
simplify but also most importantly to strengthen our security measures in the face of
increased malicious intentions and capabilities of parties. To this end, the framework
has been successful. This is largely the result of the well-established cooperation
between the Commission, the Member States, observers and stakeholders within the
regulatory committee and the stakeholder advisory group.
However, our security system has also become “a layer cake” of security measures,
the overall complexity of which might create imbalances in the security system.
Moreover, while there is no doubt that the threat will continue to evolve with
increasingly sophisticated modus operandi, it is questionable whether we can continue
to rely on the continued accumulation of security measures to mitigate the threat.
As the number of travellers grows exponentially, we need solutions that ensure the
continued sustainability of the industry and the passengers’ experience, while at the
same time delivering the necessary security outcomes.
We cannot pile layer upon layer of security measures; on the contrary, we need more
flexibility in adopting security solutions in order to meet and mitigate evolving risks. We
are therefore looking into ways of improving aviation security measures in the future, to
make them more effective in more efficient ways.
In this context the Commission has seen the need to step back from the continuous
legislative process and to launch a strategic discussion on possible next steps for our
aviation security system. A discussion platform on the future of aviation security has
been launched and results are expected to be achieve by the end of 2020.
With the increased use of technologies and automation, cybersecurity becomes
increasingly important to address – without delay. We are building up the resilience of
our systems with robust rules applied in a consistent, effective but also flexible and
holistic manner. The Commission is working with EASA on the EU Cybersecurity (in
aviation) Strategy in full complementarity with the ICAO Global Cybersecurity (in
aviation) Strategy, which we fully support.
Drones are another issue high on our agenda. Drones create new services and bring
value to many businesses, including airports operations, but put in the wrong hands,
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
20/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
they can pose serious safety and security concerns – as recent high profile incidents
demonstrated.
As of this summer, EU-wide rules will make it easier for local authorities to restrict
operations in sensitive areas, next to airports or prisons for instance. They will also
greatly facilitate the identification and localisation of a drone and its pilot, with important
provisions such as mandatory registration, marking and remote identification.
We are also working with European airports to ensure they are well prepared to deal
with unauthorised drones’ incursions, so that closure and diversions remain a last-
resort measure only. This also raises the issue of counter-drones technologies, i.e. how
to “take-down” a hostile drone. But it is imperative that these technologies do not
threaten other legitimate airspace users, such as airliners.
Security Charges
The proposal for the directive - adopted by the Commission on 11 May 2009 - was the
by-product of difficult conciliation negotiations on framework Regulation (EC) 300/2008
on civil aviation security. The Parliament was pushing for a commitment by Member
States for more State support for the costs of providing security to protect air transport
against terrorism, whereas Member States categorically refused to do so.
A proposal was developed to improve transparency and to ensure cost-relatedness
and non-discrimination when levying security charges at Union airports (all airports are
covered). As such, it advocated the application of certain principles in levying security
charges: provision of information between airports and airlines, consultation of airlines
by airports, non-discrimination among airlines and passengers, and the possibility for
airlines to appeal to an independent authority, (which may be the same as that used
under the Directive on airport charges, adopted in March 2009).
The proposal does not address the question "who pays for security?" which is a matter
of tension between the Council and the Parliament. The matter is rather left to
subsidiarity.
The proposal was blocked in the Council following an attempt by the Swedish
Presidency in December 2009 to get a political agreement. In general, Member States
did not object to the principles laid down in the proposed Directive (transparency, non-
discrimination, consultation) which have already been accepted for the Directive on
airport charges.
However, the main outstanding issues were:
i.
the scope of airports covered: when last discussed (end 2009), some Member
States (representing 52 votes out of 345) wanted to cover all airports (the
Commission's proposal); whilst others want to cover only those under the Directive on
airport charges: airports with over 5 million passengers annually and the largest airport
of each Member States (165 votes out of 345).
In May 2011, the final ruling by the ECJ dismissed the case brought by Luxembourg
and Slovakia on the alleged discriminatory effect of the scope of the Directive on airport
charges (i.e. airports with over 5 million passenger movements annually and the airport
with the highest passenger movement in each Member State (even if ≤ 5 mil ion
passenger movements. This could have paved the way for the Council to employ the
scope of that Directive for the proposed Directive on aviation security charges.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
21/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
ii.
the financing: on 5 May 2010, the Parliament adopted its First Reading of the
proposal which required Member States to bear the costs of national aviation security
measures that are more stringent than EU measures. This position stemmed from the
long held position that aviation security measures counter threats against the States,
not against air transport itself. The Council almost unanimously rejected that position,
with only PL indicating that States should pay for more stringent measures.
No further progress being expected on this blocked file, the Commission in June 2014
identified, under its REFIT programme, this proposal for withdrawal. The Commission
decided on 7 March 2015 to withdraw the proposal.
With regard to the relationship between the public financing of security costs and State
aid rules, security is considered to be a "public policy remit" activity. This means that,
by nature, security is a non-economic activity pertaining to the essential functions of the
State which is procured to the airport operators.
The aviation state aid guidelines and the recent Commission decisions on airport cases
make it clear that the public financing of security costs can only fall outside of state aid
rules if there is no unjustified discrimination between airports subject to the same legal
order. In other words, when, in a given legal order (regional, national, etc.), some
airports have to pay for their own security costs while others do not, the latter are in
principle being given an advantage which amounts to State aid. This position is
intended to avoid circumvention of State aid rules by discriminating in favour of certain
airports.
Therefore, if Member States' central governments or regional authorities want to
finance security costs in airports, they can do so without being subject to State aid
rules provided that they cover those costs for all of the airports in their constituency.
Compiled by: Andrew Bianco (DG MOVE, A.1)
Annex: Biography Alexandre de Juniac, Director General and CEO
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
22/23
Commissioner Valean meeting Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
Commissioner’s Office, 16/3/2020
Biography Alexandre de Juniac, Director General and CEO
Alexandre de Juniac became the seventh person to lead the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) when he took on the role of Director General and CEO from 1
September 2016.
De Juniac has almost three decades of experience in both the private and public
sectors. This includes senior positions in the airline and aerospace industries and the
French government.
De Juniac served as Chairman and CEO of Air France-KLM (2013-2016) and prior to
that as Chairman and CEO of Air France (2011-2013). Under de Juniac’s leadership
Air France and Air France-KLM underwent a successful restructuring that improved
efficiency and strengthened performance. He has also served on the IATA Board of
Governors (2013-2016).
De Juniac has broad aviation sector experience, including 14 years at French
aerospace, space, defense, security and transportation company Thales, and its
predecessor companies Thompson-CSF and Thompson SA (1995-2009). In his last
position at Thales, de Juniac was responsible for the company’s operations and sales
in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
De Juniac has also held positions in the French government. His career began with the
Conseil d’Etat (State Council) from 1988 to 1993. Subsequently, he served in the
Department of Budget (1993-1995); and in the Ministry of Economy, Industry and
Employment as Chief of Staff to then Minister Christine Lagarde (2009-2011).
A French citizen, de Juniac was born in 1962. He is a graduate of the Ecole
Polytechnique de Paris and Ecole Nationale de l’Administration. At IATA he works from
both the association’s main offices in Montreal, Canada and Geneva, Switzerland.
Meeting with Alexandre de Juniac, IATA DG & CEO
23/23
