Pierre Jeandarin, a retired aviation journalist and general manager of the AEROPA pro-liberalisation lobby, reminds us that reforming the bilateral system is almost as old as commercial aviation itself.
When rummaging through my library recently, I came across a European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) file in which I discovered a fascinating document entitled "Multilateralism versus Bilateralism". The most remarkable aspect of the document was its date - 11 November 1955.
This document, which makes reference to the 1954 ECAC meeting in Strasbourg, reflects the urgent need for moving from the constraints of bilateralism to a more logical and sensible multilateralism, as perceived half a century ago.
The 1955 document is the text of a speech delivered by Dr LH Slotemaker, the then vice-president of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and president of the Air Transport Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce, to the Centre for the Development of Air Transport in Rome. I knew Dr Slotemaker in those days, but I must confess I forgot how advanced his ideas were.
Dr Slotemaker started his speech by detailing the restrictions on the "freedom" of the air, reminding his audience that "the three [basic] freedoms of the air should perhaps be more accurately described as restrictions on the freedom of the air".
With reference to the Strasbourg meeting, he says that its main objective was "to bring about a greater liberalisation of European air transport and to promote co-operation between airlines". He adds: "Some reasonable recommendations on this subject, and in particular about the liberalisation of all-freight services and of non-scheduled services, were adopted but were not put into practice by the governments concerned".
On the "difficulties in liberating air transport", Dr Slotemaker notes that "the strongest argument against liberalisation is the reasoning that every national airline that wants to operate air services, should be able to do so and should not be frustrated in its efforts by too strong competition". But, he asks: "Can one base an ideal system for an activity in the economic field on national prestige?" And he points out there are "some outstanding facts in support of the need for a change of policy É at least if one wants to avoid the national airline being permanently dependent on taxpayer's money." Emphasising that, "there is no point in speaking about a state's own traffic", he adds "the airline industry can only prosper on the basis of a common market".
As for proposed solutions, Dr Slotemaker was critical about an ICAO draft that proposed "the exchange of rights on a quid pro quo basis, which is in direct contradiction to the principle of multilateralism". His own proposal is "for a self-regulating system based on purely economic considerations, leaving out the aspects of national prestige and other nationalistic factors." He summarises his ideas as follows:
Adoption of a common market; Traffic restrictions to be imposed only temporarily and as a last resort, and only on the grounds that there is no proper balance between the traffic volume on local and regional services on the one hand and on the services of the foreign carrier on the same route on the other hand; Rate differentials as an alternative to restrictions in order to restore a balanced market; Ample opportunity for the airlines to arrive at some form of co-operation before governments impose restrictions.Even if solutions to these issues today are based on simpler "free market" ideas, the views of experts nearly half a century ago deserve respect - if only to remind us that the saying "nothing new under the sun" applies to air transport as well.
Source: Airline Business
