Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Proposes Open Aviation Area Talks With Canada  
User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Brussels, 9th January 2007

Commission proposes to open aviation negotiations with Canada
The European Commission has proposed today to open negotiations with Canada on a comprehensive aviation agreement. The aim is to establish an open aviation area between the EU and Canada, to open market restrictions and to achieve a high level of regulatory convergence.
Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot, in charge of transport said: "Canada is a key partner of the European Union. This agreement will facilitate the travel of people and goods between the EU and Canada and will establish a high level of regulatory standards, in particular in the fields of safety and security."

With its market-oriented economic and transport policy and high regulatory standards, Canada is a strong candidate for a new-generation of air transport agreement with the European Community. Air traffic between the EU and Canada has doubled between 2000 and 2005 and Canada is a leading aviation partner of the EU.

An Open Aviation Area Agreement with Canada would create significant benefits for consumers and for the industry. According to a study launched by the Commission, the number of passengers between the EU and Canada would increase from now 8 to 14 million by 2011. In addition, an Open Aviation Area may generate consumer benefits of at least € 72 million through lower fares and could create 3 700 jobs already in the first year. The agreement would create the basis for connections between all EU Member States and Canada. Currently, Canada has bilateral air services agreements with 17 Member States.

As a priority, the agreement is aimed at restoring legal certainty for air services between the EU and Canada. All existing bilateral air services agreements are not in conformity with Community law. The Commission has therefore proposed to Canada a specific agreement to solve that problem.

The Commission has already received a mandate for the creation of a transatlantic Open Aviation Area with the United States, and for the development of a Common Aviation Area with Ukraine. It has successfully finalised negotiations on Siberian overflights with the Russian Federation. The Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Morocco and the European Common Aviation Area with the Western Balkans were signed in 2006.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Let's see if the EU demands Cabotage in Canada in order to have open skies, or if it's only something that America is required to concede...  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

I think cabotage is off the table as far as the US is concerned as well; so too is ownership.

Personally, I'd like to see this happen (Open Skies between EU and Canada), because our bilateral r'ship with Canada is incredibly backward.

How Canada will respond will be interesting. I know it has a Blue Skies policy, so hopefully it will accept this, but will it be too much all at once. And what about fifth freedom rights? Can Ireland, for example, award SQ the right to fly from DUB to YYZ; would the Canadians accept this?


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

It will probably be a starting point. As we saw with the U.S., it is not necessarily a deal breaker -- especially if Europe really is interested in actually getting a deal.

User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

How Canada will respond will be interesting. I know it has a Blue Skies policy, so hopefully it will accept this, but will it be too much all at once. And what about fifth freedom rights? Can Ireland, for example, award SQ the right to fly from DUB to YYZ; would the Canadians accept this?

Well per Blue Sky, it "should" be included but I believe an agreement with Singapore also would be required under that scenario and Canada doesn't currently even have a formal agreement with Singapore.

This is a new policy though, from a new government working with an old bureaucracy. It remains to be seen how serious the government really is in implementing liberalization: Not just when it's easy (i.e. backed by Canadian carriers) but also when it is hard (i.e. opposed by Canadian carriers).


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
I think cabotage is off the table as far as the US is concerned as well; so too is ownership.

That's not my point. My point is I doubt they will even demand it in the first place.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

That's not my point. My point is I doubt they will even demand it in the first place.

Got the point. And cabotage will probably be on the EU side of the table as a starting point. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how badly Europe wants a deal, how much it cares about cabotage and ditto for Canada.

Every situation is different and it is completely understandable that the EU would approach an agreement with the U.S. much differently from how it will approach a deal with the U.S. There is much more at stake for both sides in the EU-U.S. scenario. And ultimately the EU and U.S. were able to reach an agreement that both sides thought they could live with.....(without cabotage)

That's how bilateral negotiations. And don't forget that a Canada-EU deal arrangement would not be reached inside a vacuum. It surely is not a coincidence that Canadad is right next door to the U.S.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Let's see if the EU demands Cabotage in Canada in order to have open skies, or if it's only something that America is required to concede...

IIRC Canadians allow up to 49% ownership of their airlines by non-Canadians. This is what the EU wants from the US, not cabotage.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
How Canada will respond will be interesting.

Actually this isn't the first step. Some months ago the EU approached Canada seeking to renegotiate the Community Air Carrier Clause into existing bilaterals. Canada responded that they would prefer to enter into much broader issues - for example a EU-wide open skies agreement.

What wasn't said in the EU press release is that the Commission does not have the mandate from the Member States to do this. They only have the mandate to negotiate the community air carrier clause. So it is up to the Member States to decide if they want the Commission to do this. We shall see.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Here is the press release from the Canadians. As you can see the European Commission needs to obtain a 'Manadate' from the Council of Ministers before proceeding.

It appears the Canadians are willing and able, lets see about the Europeans.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Here's an article from this week's Flight International on this issue; the EU is (according to this article) hoping to use the talks with Canada to persuade the Americans to move forward:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...uld+help+revive+US+open+skies.html

Canada is obviously and understandably enthusiastic about the prospect of air travel between the two "jurisdictions" (if I can use that word for the EU) increasing from 8m to 14m. From an Irish perspective, as someone who has lobbied for a long time to update our pathetically outdated bilateral with Canada, I'm very pleased. However, what I'm not seeing is the connection with the EU/US talks. In relation to the talks with Canada, can we assume safely that the EU will not seek anything stupid, like cabotage or the right of EU carriers to buy into Canadian carriers? If not and if it's just a simple case of "any EU airline from anywhere in the EU to anywhere in Canada" (and vice versa, of course!!), then that should be fairly straightforward. From a Canadian perspective, what obstacles do you see?

As far as the effect on the EU/US talks, the only link I can see is that the Europeans have learned from their experience of these talks not to seek things which are only going to delay matters, i.e. if you want Open Skies, go for Open Skies; yes, I know there are problems over LHR, but I think that if the EU cuts back its requests for things which won't be granted, I think things will go a lot further. I'm actually quite pleased that the US airline ownership issue was taken off the table, because it was only of interest to one country (and frankly, I don't think it was genuinely of interest even to them, but just a means to derail and delay the negotiating process) and with it off the table, things are much clearer.


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 7):
IIRC Canadians allow up to 49% ownership of their airlines by non-Canadians. This is what the EU wants from the US, not cabotage.

25% foreign control (based upon voting interest not capital interest).

The Canada Transportation Act (the "Act") is the legislation pursuant to which the Canada Transportation Agency (the "CTA") regulates transportation industries in Canada, including the air transport industry. The Act requires that holders of licenses be "Canadian", meaning they must be controlled in fact by Canadians, and that at least 75% of their voting interests be owned and controlled by "Canadians" (as defined in the Act).


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

The Canada Transportation Act (the "Act") is the legislation pursuant to which the Canada Transportation Agency (the "CTA") regulates transportation industries in Canada, including the air transport industry. The Act requires that holders of licenses be "Canadian", meaning they must be controlled in fact by Canadians, and that at least 75% of their voting interests be owned and controlled by "Canadians" (as defined in the Act).

Yes. The Liberals proposed increasing that level to 49% but it didn't happen before the government died.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

That's all very well, but aren't we falling into the danger of complicating things unnecessarily? Have EU carriers actually expressed any interest in buying into Canadian airlines? Is the issue necessarily inherent to or inseparable from the basic concept of Open Skies: any of your airlines can fly to anywhere in Europe and any European airlines can fly to anywhere in Canada (from anywhere in Europe). Why complicate things? Getting bogged down in percentages, voting rights etc etc is really only complicating things; as annoying as it was at the time, the US Congress probably did a big favour by saying "no", so that the EU and US could focus on the real, core issue.

And if the EU Commission doesn't arse it up, there could be a deal; the more it tries to put other issues into the mix, the more troublesome it becomes and the more it will delay things.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EU-US Open Skies Talks posted Fri Apr 2 2004 16:50:55 by FlyPIJets
US Seeks Open Skies Deal With Canada posted Sun Jan 25 2004 21:47:36 by CanadaEH
MIA In Talks With Kenyan Aviation Aut. For MIA-NBO posted Thu Mar 13 2003 00:19:00 by MAH4546
Boeing In Serious 747 Talks With 3 Or 4 Airlines posted Thu Dec 7 2006 21:10:31 by NoWorries
AF-KL Revive Merger Talks With Alitalia. posted Thu Nov 23 2006 22:22:37 by 777jaah
Southend In Talks With KLM posted Wed Sep 27 2006 20:50:27 by Humberside
Australia Seeks "Open Skies" Agreement With US posted Thu Aug 10 2006 08:21:19 by Biddleonia007
Boeing's Bair: Talks With QR Continue About 787 posted Mon May 29 2006 08:15:20 by Leelaw
EU-US Open Skies Delayed Again posted Tue May 16 2006 23:28:59 by Concorde001
EU/US Open Skies: Why Is CO Against It? posted Wed May 3 2006 07:19:06 by Scotron11