Preview document (🔗 origineel)

---

Answers by Peter Wichtel, Member of the German Bundestag

Rapporteur on Aviation of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German
Bundestag

1.

Can you state the extent to which issues of sovereignty in your member
state, of whatever kind, are hindering further integration of European
airspace, and in particular in the FAB in which your member state is
active? Can you say where exactly the areas of sensitivity lie, and what
could or should be done in order to eliminate such areas?

According to the definitions accepted in international law, the air
column above the Federal Republic of Germany is part of the country’s
territory, and therefore indivisibly connected with the concept of the
state and state sovereignty. The exercise of control over its territory
is a function of the state and therefore, from the German point of view,
may only be entrusted to an organisation that is equipped with sovereign
powers. Otherwise, there are no sensitivities concerning the application
of the provisions on the Single European Sky, the cross-border
performance of air traffic control duties or the like. However, there
are sensitivities concerning the manner in which the European Commission
deals with state sovereignty. In particular, this refers to targets that
have been established Europe-wide, irrespective of the previously
achieved operational successes. 

2.

Can you describe the role of the air traffic control organisation(s) in
your member state, and their willingness to quickly reach agreements
concerning the consistent and prompt implementation of existing EU
regulations and to take other steps that will bring unification of the
European airspace closer?

Can you state which factors affect the degree of such willingness,
including with regard to the FABs in which every member state is working
with its neighbouring member states on achieving the current Single
European Sky performance targets?

In this context, can you describe any social aspects in your member
state that constitute an obstruction to further development of the
Single European Sky? Possible examples here include the risk of job
losses as a result of changes to the structure of air traffic control
organisations.

To date – as intended by the European regulations –, the air traffic
control organisations have been the drivers behind the advances that
have been made.  Unfortunately, these advances are being thwarted again
and again, especially within FABEC, by delays and structural,
organisational changes in other FABEC Member States. These difficulties
are attributable to either public administrations, governments, air
traffic control organisations themselves or their trade unions. Other
obstacles to progress are the losses of revenues suffered by the air
traffic control organisations and the aviation policy interests of hubs
in individual Member States, which play a decisive part in the success
and failure of cross-border projects as vital economic actors.

In Germany, the largest air traffic control organisation has an interest
in the success of the ‘Single European Sky’. After all, this
organisation made decisive contributions to the formulation of the SES
regulations adopted in 2004. From the German point of view, social
aspects have not prevented cross-border requirements being put in place
so far. The obstacles mentioned above have not been encountered to date
in Germany either.

The irrelevant and unrealistic fashion in which the air traffic control
organisations’ work is being regulated, as has become apparent with
the application of the SES II standards, must be put into question. In
view of this, it would be welcome if the experience of the last twelve
years could be drawn on for a properly conducted analysis of the impact
regulation has had. On this basis, the EU could then also answer the
question of what strategy it is actually pursuing when it comes to the
implementation of a Single European Sky. For hitherto it has been
attempting to achieve its goals by imposing both competitive and
cooperative elements at the same time.  However, competition and
cooperation are contrary and contradictory instruments.

The positive experience gained with the (de)regulation of the
telecommunications markets, for instance, could also be taken as a model
for air traffic control in this analysis. The framework would be set by
the EU, but fleshed out and given concrete form by the Member States.

3.

Can you describe the status of military-civil collaboration in your
member state, with regard to the Single European Sky? In doing so, can
you say whether there are any obstacles to further military-civil
collaboration, and if so what they are, including in the FAB in which
your member state is active?

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH is an integrated civilian-military air
traffic control organisation, the only one of this kind in Europe.
Against this background, the operational projects that have been begun
within FABEC are being supported with great commitment by German
civilian and military agencies, which are working hand in hand to do so.
As far as Germany is concerned, areas of airspace used for military
exercises will be made available to the civilian authorities on very
flexible terms if they are not being used. Nonetheless, the current
airspace structure in Central Europe is still dominated by a large
number of areas reserved for military exercises that were established
following the Second World War. Making these areas available for
cross-border civilian use as well continues to constitute a major
challenge.

However, there have also been first positive results in this field under
the auspices of FABEC, for example in the course of trials intended to
improve routing between City Pairs such as Paris/Munich.

4.

Can you give your views on the current lack of progress with regard to
the SESII+ package? In doing so, can you state whether you also believe
it important that progress should be made with regard to the package?

The deliberations on SES II+ are currently suspended (solely) due to the
issue of Gibraltar. A fundamental, substantive position has been arrived
at for the Council that is also supported by the Federal Republic of
Germany. Irrespective of this, it is necessary to address the question
of whether further deepening of integration by means of SES II+ would be
worthwhile before a careful analysis of the obstacles to, or problems
with, the implementation of SES II has been carried out. In fact, it may
not be SES II+ that is needed, but a fundamentally new approach under
SES III, which would be elaborated jointly with air traffic control
organisations and airspace users. Just as a high level group did
preparatory work on matters of principle in 1999, this could be a
possible solution. In this respect, it is not progress on SES II+ that
is necessary, but genuine progress towards realistic, and therefore
effective, harmonisation across European airspace.

5.

Can you state whether there are any other obstacles to the creation of a
Single European Sky? If so, can you say where exactly these obstacles
are located, and what the reason is for their being apparently
insurmountable or, as the case may be, why they cannot be eliminated in
the very short term?

See the answers to questions 2 and 4.