The Revised Special Recovery Issue Commission Work Plan
A new version of the Commission’s Work Plan has surfaced. Oh but it makes fascinating reading, some of it actually about the work, much of it about the planning that must have gone into it.
Of particular relevance to aviation is item 15 (on page 6, if you are following along). It says:
There will be considerable pressure to help mitigate the economic impact of the crisis on the air transport sector. This could completely change the narrative and content of these two proposals: e.g. relax ownership and control rules, reduce airport charges; more public service obligations for resilience/connectivity, etc. So these proposals may be packaged into an ‘air transport rescue/recovery initiative’ and given political priority.
The two proposals referred to specifically are the on-going review of the airport charges directive and the revision of general scheme for the provision of air services, directive 1008/2008. Relaxing ownership and control is only relevant if it reciprocal – it is not an issue for Europe. More PSO flights and resilience are good things.
But, the reference to lowering airport charges makes that one seem like a slam dunk for the airlines. Clearly, a lot of time and money can be saved thinking about things like considering the evidence, working out where the balance of market power lies, or, heaven forefend, letting the market work some of this stuff out. Who needs evidence and markets when faced with airport charges?
To be fair to DG MOVE they are not alone in this knee-jerk. ICAO has been talking about reducing charges, the World Bank has long seen charges as a lever for traffic and the UNWTO cannot be stopped talking about it – although meta-comedy alert – the UNWTO last week also formed a committee to how to respond to the crisis that, no doubt after much complex deliberation, released a statement calling for action, not words. Yes, it was a written statement, using, er… words.
DG MOVE feigns ignorance, but that is the wrong approach. Get behind your principles!! Does this go far enough? Why not make en-route charges free too? Subsidies for staff? Oh, wait, no, they are doing that in some member states. Demanding that aircraft are made much, much cheaper for European carriers? Fuel? Much too expensive. Lower that too! Why should airlines be required to pay for the electricity their offices use?
Not one person, not even the airlines that stand at the front yelling the loudest about the need to obviate charges can explain why they think that airports and ANSPs should be economic operators that work for free. We should not be rescuing air transport; we should be seizing the chance to reform it, to make it better, to make it work for everyone! IATA’s own slide deck shows that there are thirty, count them, 30 profitable airlines in the world. We need to save the 250 loss makers, why? ‘Air transport rescue/recovery’ stinks of back to business-as-usual.
An incumbents’ picnic, at everyone else’s expense.