Flyge- og arbeidstidsbestemmelser - Europa

Last week, just days after over 300 pilots and cabin crew demonstrated in front of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), calling for rules on fatigue to be based on science and safety, EASA’s rulemaking meeting on the subject ended in deep disagreement.

In a statement ECA said that “Air crew fatigue experts were alarmed by proposals brought to the table on behalf of airlines, which will lower the protections even further in EASA’s current proposal. Some of the worst existing practices, which are in stark contrast to EASA’s scientific advice, were supported by the airlines in the name of commercial benefit”.

“Sadly, despite the attempts of pilots, cabin crew, scientists and national aviation regulators to improve the proposed rules, this meeting has made it abundantly clear that airlines’ commercial wishes are driving the creation of these regulations” said Nico Voorbach, ECA’s President.

ECA’s Secretary General, Philip von Schöppenthau, added “It was apparent during the meeting that the agenda of these two days had been hijacked by airlines trying to push EASA into letting them avoid many of the proposed protections against fatigue. The airlines sought to water down rest requirements on long distance flights, and to invoke an absurd concept of ‘cultural specificities’ as a flimsy justification to evade some of the fatigue protections. They also insist on longer night duties and multiple flights beyond those deemed safe by science. We clearly expressed that putting profits before safety will not be tolerated by us.”

Meanwhile the ETF (European Transport Federation) also added its criticism “The airlines’ objective to degrade cabin crews’ in-flight rest facilities on long haul flights to economy seats has no scientific basis whatsoever. EASA must not give in to commercial requests but has to stick to science-based arguments…. We strongly call on the Agency to listen to their scientific advice and fulfill their duty to champion safety in the face of such blatant commercial pressure. Passenger safety must govern EASA’s proposal, not cost cutting for airlines”.