Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-92)
5 MAY 2004
MR ANDREW
CAHN AND
MR BARRY
HUMPHREYS
Q80 Mr Stringer: Would you define it
by environmental impact or in some other way?
Mr Cahn: Well, in many different
ways. I think that you of course need to look at the environmental
impact of aviation and aviation must deal with the environmental
issues that its operations create, but then so must the rail industry.
I was simply saying that the presumption that the rail industry
is somehow environmentally green and the aviation industry is
somehow environmentally polluting is simply a mistaken assumption
which is often made by policy-makers. If I may give another example,
the Denied Boarding Compensation Regulation apply to aviation
and they do not apply to rail, but why should they not? They do
not apply to ferries, but why should they not? There are many
other forms of regulation which apply to the aviation industry
alone and it is that sort of level playing field we are looking
for.
Q81 Mr Stringer: You said previously
in answer to Mrs Ellman that the current system of dealing with
third countries' Air Service Agreements was not working because
the mechanism had not been put in place properly. Do you think
it should be at the Member State level rather than the European
level?
Mr Cahn: I think that there is
potentially real value in the European Commission on behalf of
all Member States negotiating with some third countries. We supported
the mandate to negotiate with America and, in principle, I still
do, but I just wish they would do it better, but I think it is
right and proper that they should because they should be able
to negotiate a better agreement. In the same way, we in the industry
have a real problem with Russia where we are all charged overflight
charges when we fly across Russia and this is against international
conventions, it should stop, and the European Commission has much
more power to stop this happening than the individual Member States.
In the same way I think there is something to be said for Europe
at a European level negotiating with its neighbouring countries
in an attempt to enlarge its single market, so it can have a larger
free market. I think, on the other hand, there is absolutely no
point Europe trying to negotiate, say, with Australia and New
Zealand where liberalisation has been achieved by Member States
and they are like-minded countries. I see no value in trying to
negotiate with countries like Gabon where there is only one carrier
interested in flying, so the Commission should focus its energies
and efforts on those areas where it can really add value.
Mr Humphreys: I think the negotiations
with the United States are very big negotiations. We would like
to see the Commission focus very much on that single negotiation
in addition to the example of Russia and the peripheral countries
around Europe. If they reach an agreement with America, that will
account for something like 60 or 70% of worldwide aviation, a
very big bloc. I think what you would then see very rapidly are
other countries wishing to join that club and that would have
a dramatic impact on aviation globally. So the focus, we believe,
should very much be on the United States. Get that right and most
of the rest will fall into place.
Q82 Mr Stringer: Will the European Aviation
Safety Agency result in better safety standards which are applied
throughout the EU or will they be unevenly enforced by national
authorities?
Mr Humphreys: Well, we already
have very high safety standards and the one thing we do not want
is any diminution in those standards, but we do see EASA as potentially
beneficial in reaching common standards and possibly potentially
also reducing the costs to the industry. Providing the safety
standards themselves are maintained, that has to be a good thing.
I think we have in the past expressed some concern that national
safety authorities have not addressed the implications of the
creation of EASA as much as they might have done, but certainly
the UK airlines were very pleased that the Civil Aviation Authority
has now set up a joint working group with the industry to examine
that issue.
Q83 Mr Stringer: "Maintaining standards"
is a very interesting phrase because in previous inquiries we
have had, I think we have managed to establish that because we
do have high standards in this country, actually things have come
to a halt at our level while other countries catch up with us.
Do you think that is satisfactory when there have been recommendations
after various air disasters that certain standards should be improved?
Mr Humphreys: I do not think the
search for safer aviation ever stops, either with the regulator
or the airlines. I really do not. It goes on constantly.
Q84 Mr Stringer: But that is not quite
true, is it? It is stopped at the present time because there have
been no new agreements across Europe, have there? We are stuck
at the levels of four or five years ago, or ten or fifteen years
ago.
Mr Humphreys: I honestly do not
recognise that statement. There is constant striving for improvement
and I do not believe—
Q85 Chairman: Give us just one example
in the last five years.
Mr Humphreys: It is very difficult.
On a day-to-day basis airlines are constantly looking at their
safety standards with the regulator, and it is difficult to pick
on any—
Q86 Mr Stringer: That is about quality
of procedure and doing it properly; it is not about having higher
standards of the internal design of the fuselage.
Mr Humphreys: Sorry, I misunderstood
what you were meaning. I am afraid I find it difficult to comment
on that—I am not an expert in that area—but certainly
I do not recognise the statement that safety standards in the
United Kingdom are necessarily far in advance of many other European
countries. I think most European countries have a very similar
standard of safety these days.
Q87 Mr Stringer: That will be less true
now than it was a week ago, I assume. What regulatory standards
do you believe should be left to Member States, and do you not
think that, while there is a divide, you as an industry will end
up paying twice both for the European regulations and for national
regulations?
Mr Humphreys: That is precisely
one of the points that we raised with the regulator. We were concerned
that there would be double charging, and what we were looking
for was increased efficiency, not increased charges. I think the
regulators are aware of that and are doing their best to address
it, but it is a difficult issue to address.
Q88 Mr Stringer: The Commission reached
agreement with the United States on security arrangements last
month, and as soon as they reached agreement the European Parliament
decided to take it to the European Court of Justice, in effect
challenging it. What problems is that causing for you?
Mr Humphreys: It is not causing
us any problems at the moment but it could do. Basically we want
to be told what to do. We can meet the European rules and the
American rules; what we cannot do is meet both rules if they are
inconsistent, so what we encourage the governments to do is get
together and agree among themselves. The Commission and the United
States government did that and from purely our commercial point
of view we can live with the agreement they came to. There is
a disagreement with the European Parliament, as you say, and we
hope that will be sorted very quickly.
Q89 Mr Stringer: Currently are you implementing
that agreement or are you waiting for the decision of the European
court?
Mr Humphreys: We are implementing
it, yes.
Q90 Mr Stringer: Does that apply to you?
Mr Cahn: That applies to us, too.
We would not be allowed to fly to America if we did not.
Q91 Chairman: So you are transmitting
all the credit card details and all the personal information you
are asked for?
Mr Cahn: We are providing the
information that the government and regulators require of us.
It would be very improper of us not to do so.
Q92 Mr Stringer: Does that not mean that,
if you were going to implement what the American government said
anyway because you wanted to fly into Washington, New York, San
Francisco or whatever, the negotiations would be bogus?
Mr Cahn: Not at all. We have been
talking very closely with the British authorities and with the
European Commission and have followed their guidance. We are in
a position where the Commission negotiated a solution with the
Americans and, of course, we have followed them. We have done
what our regulator tells us to do with the knowledge and approval
of the British government.
Mr Humphreys: This is not just
the United States and Europe. Governments around the world are
introducing these demands. It just seems to us common sense that
those governments get together and agree a common standard, and
then we can comply with that.
Chairman: Gentlemen, you have been very
helpful. If we have other questions I think we should direct them
to you by letter—with gold lettering! Thank you very much
for your help.
The Committee suspended from 4.00 pm to
4.20 pm for a division in the House.
| 
