The role of the European Social Dialogue in the implementation of the Single European Sky

Good morning and thank you Volker.  It's good to be on the same side of the table for once.  It's a real pleasure to be here in Venice - my first visit to this beautiful city.

It's also a pleasure to be invited to talk to this audience and on such an important topic.  We're not part of the Commission but we work closely with them.  The Single European Sky is the future - the decision is made, the die is cast.  We now all have a responsibility to make it happen and to make sure we can reap the benefits.

Because we need those benefits - the system is close to its limits even now.  We've seen this year how any disruption can have an impact across Europe. On efficiency, there's a lot of pressure to reduce our costs and of course there is growing environmental pressure for improvements to the system. 

Now I haven't forgotten safety but that of course is the risk - that safety is compromised because of economic and capacity pressures.  We have an excellent safety record here in Europe and that needs to be maintained or even improved.

So we clearly need the Single European Sky and EUROCONTROL is keen, determined, to play its part - indeed there are strong similarities to the original vision for EUROCONTROL when it was set up fifty years ago, a vision that was very much ahead of its time.

Back in the sixties, though, the Single Sky would have been rather limited - just covering some of northwest Europe.  Not the EU27 of today and certainly not EUROCONTROL's 39 states. 

So what roles do we actually play in the Single European Sky? Well, quite a number - very much based on our technical expertise, our pan-European nature and our independence.  We seek to provide unbiased information - something that you might otherwise call "the truth" - for example about the current situation, the prospects for a technical improvement or our experience of putting improvements into action.

So I will briefly run through the Single European Sky and see where we fit in.  As Matthew Baldwin said, it is, in essence, a performance-driven system with binding targets.  In just forty-six days' time, as we move into 2012, we enter the first reference period of the Performance Regime.

In the process of setting up this regime, the Commission is advised by the Performance Review Body - a role that EUROCONTROL has gladly taken on, acting through our existing Performance Review Unit.  There's been a lot of work involved in agreeing the targets and reviewing each country's performance plan for the first reference period - 2012 to 2014. 

And now we're already looking forward to the second reference period starting in 2015.  Last week we hosted a major workshop on this, as several of the participants here today will know.  And on top of the agenda was safety. 

I say that because there has been understandable criticism of the fact that the first reference period does not have a safety target - but safety hasn't been forgotten.  There are three key performance indicators on safety to be monitored during the first reference period.  These will help set the stage for concrete targets to be set for the second reference period. And EASA has a real obligation to monitor the application of safety regulations during the first period.

It's also the case that significant improvements have already been made in improving the safety maturity of Air Navigation Service Providers - an initiative that we have very much been a part of.  We've also been heavily involved in the concept and the practice of a "Just Culture" - something of particular interest to this conference.

All this is important because whenever you have a set of targets, you have to make sure they're balanced.  And as traffic grows, helped by the performance improvements on capacity, the safety risk grows as well.  So we have to be even better at safety in order to maintain or reduce the low number of accidents that we currently see.  You may know the saying "An old pilot is one who can remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe."  Let's keep it just a memory, well at least the flying part…

And where will these performance improvements come from - and not just on capacity but also on safety, on cost efficiency and on the environment?

In part, the existence of the regime will itself help.  Those of you with children will recognise my view that looking out for what they do helps, a bit. Not of course that I am comparing Europe's Air Navigation Service Providers to naughty children  - although the analogy is tempting as regards one or two - but it's generally clear that organisations will normally perform better if they know what they are supposed to achieve and if their performance is being monitored. 

But more than just setting targets, the Single European Sky legislation also sets out a number of ideas that should help improve performance - Functional Airspace Blocks, SESAR and finally Network Management.

The first big element is Functional Airspace Blocks.  At present, Europe's airspace is a patchwork, with each country having its own airspace, all operating pretty much independently.  This fragmentation in and of itself leads to major inefficiencies, both operationally and also in terms of the duplication of many of the support functions. 

To use an old example, but a valid one, if you compare Europe with the United States then you find that we have similar numbers of controllers on both continents but that in the States they have less than half the number of support staff.  And they control 80 per cent more flights than we do.

Now while the FABs are a step in the right direction to address this fragmentation, they are currently a long way from producing the kind of performance improvements we need. 

This is in part because they are a compromise.  If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper, you would design them around the traffic flows - perhaps with one FAB focused on the ‘diamond' of London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam rather than being based on FIRs.  But we are where we are.  And FABEC will handle some 50% of European traffic, covering the most congested parts of Europe, so that's a very good start.

Another challenge facing the FABs is making them work.  At the moment most of the benefit comes from better route design and improved coordination at the national boundaries.  That's not enough.  There are real benefits to be gained from joint procurement, shared support and, ultimately, full integration of the service providers.  Just look at the one example of ARTAS to see the benefits of a joint approach.  Now all this won't be quick - indeed it shouldn't be too quick because we need to get it right and because we're talking about the careers and the lives of a lot of people.

That's why there is a real need for social dialogue - for realistic discussions between you, the social partners.  I use the word realistic deliberately because I honestly cannot believe that there is anybody in this room who believes that ATC in 10 or 15 years' time will look, or indeed should look, exactly like today - in terms of the technology, in terms of the way that controllers work and in terms of the way that the industry is organised.

But it will be difficult, especially regarding the support functions where we can expect to see people looking for savings.  I mention them in particular because the focus tends to be on the air traffic controllers and, if anything, they are not the ones who can expect to see the greatest changes.

In fact, we don't anticipate a massive decrease in the numbers of controllers.  Indeed, some people claim that there are not enough even now.  I'm not sure about that on a global basis. But it is certainly true that we have seen shortages this year in some places and at some times.  I won't go into detail on the causes - we're all well aware of the issues.  But what we need is controllers that have the right training, are motivated, are fairly remunerated and that there are enough of them to do the job at any one time and in any given centre. 

And more mobility can help here.  That doesn't mean enforced mobility but why not voluntary mobility?  Not easy at present - as we found when some of our Maastricht controllers agreed to help out in Austria.  But why is so difficult?  I'm not a controller but I've talked about this to many of you and it seems to me that we could overcome many of the hurdles if we are prepared to work together.  I'll come back to this point in a minute.

But all this change to the industry - making it fit for purpose - is possible and it is worth it.  And here I come to EUROCONTROL's main role regarding FABs.  Our principal involvement is through the Upper Area Centre at Maastricht.  It is becoming part of FABEC.  It is also an example of how cross-border operations can function. 

Because Maastricht - covering upper airspace in four separate countries - works.  In fact it works extremely well - it's among the very top performers in Europe, a leader on new technologies and with excellent civil-military cooperation.  Ultimately I would hope to see FABEC as a whole performing at an even higher standard - building on the experience and excellence of its members; in particular, that of Maastricht.

Coming back to controller mobility, here new technology may help - why isn't there a more instantly familiar Human Machine Interface wherever you go?  An Airbus A340 cockpit isn't so very different to that of an Airbus A320 - and deliberately so - in order to help pilots make the transition between types. 

I realise that this isn't a new idea and that harmonising the interface actually means changing the way that some controllers work at present.  But I do believe it's worth looking at this again.  Just as for the family of Airbus aircraft, it wouldn't mean that a controller can move from a centre in Berlin to one in Geneva overnight.  But it could help to make that change quicker and easier.

Technology is of course the second part of how the SES performance improvements can be made a reality.  Here EUROCONTROL is a joint founder, with the Commission, of the SESAR Joint Undertaking - now approaching its fourth birthday.

We were also heavily involved in the creation of the ATM Master Plan and we will be involved in updating it over the next few months.

In fact, we're involved in two-thirds of the SJU projects and we lead several of the top level work packages.  Now I won't go into detail on the technical developments being worked on but it is worth noting the extent of the changes envisaged and the amount of investment that will be required - both in the air and on the ground. 

Coordinating and managing that deployment will be a huge task.  We've seen first hand the challenges presented by introducing projects such as changing radio frequencies to a separation of 8.33 kHz.  There are a lot of conflicting interests, and an understandable desire to be one of the "last movers" - after everyone else has taken risks on introducing new systems and technologies.  In that respect, I'm pleased to see that there is an acceptance at European level that some public money will have to be spent to stimulate investment in SESAR Deployment.

In any case, we must make sure that an effective governance approach is developed for the deployment of this new technology - and that it is well thought through and robust enough to cope with the tensions and arguments that will surely come.  Here I'll just raise one issue that we at EUROCONTROL are acutely aware of - how do we handle the position of non-EU states.

Are they treated the same as EU states?  And how are they represented in the governance process?  I can foresee cries of "No taxation without representation" if we're not careful.

Because even if there's no taxation, there will be money needed.  Indeed we all need to spread the word at national level that investment will be necessary - indeed it may even be compulsory.

Here the compulsion, or mandation as it's called in Eurospeak, may come not just through new regulation at a European level - courtesy of our friends in the Commission - but also at a global level.  Next year ICAO will host its twelfth Air Navigation Conference.  These conferences only come around every ten years or so, and this one will make decisions and set the tone for the next decade.  We at EUROCONTROL are working with the Commission and with all our stakeholders to make sure that there is a single and effective European voice at that conference.

The third way that the Single European Sky is intended to result in performance improvements is through network management.  Now, EUROCONTROL has for years been operating a flow management unit, which has had a significant impact on reducing congestion in the skies.  Our appointment as Network Manager is a real opportunity to take this further and to play a much more pro-active role in managing the network and making sure that traffic operates as smoothly as possible.

Because as I mentioned at the beginning, aviation is naturally interconnected and with the current traffic levels a problem in one area can cause disturbances elsewhere.  And we've seen real problems during the last summer and in particular the summer before that.  The combination of an economic downturn at the same time as genuine concern about the future has led to very real social tensions.  In this we try to be independent.  We do not, indeed we cannot take sides.  What we can do, however, is to minimise the impact that industrial action has on the network as a whole.

But the real solution to all of this lies in your hands.  If you can defuse the industrial tension and if you can make sure that controllers are deployed in the right places and at the right time, then we can bring delays right back down.  But until then, all we at EUROCONTROL can do is to put a bandage on the wound - to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

I've gone through a good number of EUROCONTROL's roles.  We perform all those, and others, not just because our stakeholders want us to do so but because we ourselves believe the Single European Sky is the right way forward.  It's here to stay and, while nobody would pretend that it's perfect, it's not "too daft", as we say where I come from.  It is clearly the route we should be taking.

That doesn't mean the exact path is completely clear but at least we know where we should be aiming.  And I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us to work together to get there.Indeed it's not only our responsibility, it's also in our interests to do so.  That's because, as I said at another conference recently, politicians don't really think about ATM - unless and until there's a problem.  At which point they react rapidly and instinctively, imposing a "solution" without always having the ability to think it through, to understand all the consequences.  So it's far better to agree a course of action first.

If you can work together - management and staff - and make a joint case to the politicians then there's much more chance of them accepting it - even if it requires investment.  If not, then I think you can expect unpredictable and probably unpleasant changes being rapidly forced upon you.

And on that cheerful note of warning, I'd like to thank you for your attention.

• Address by David McMillan pdf - 19.426 kB