Fourteenth Meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee Record of Meeting January 8, 2014

Other Releases
Washington, DC
January 8, 2014

1. The fourteenth meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee took place in Washington, D.C., on 8 January 2014. The list of participants is at Attachment 1. The approved agenda is at Attachment 2.

2. The Heads of delegation for each side signed the official Record of Meeting of the 13th Joint Committee meeting, held at Reykjavik on 5 June 2013.

3. The European delegation updated the U.S. side on the status of the ratification of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement (ATA). Belgium has now ratified the ATA, and Germany is the only member state that has not ratified the ATA. The U.S. delegation acknowledged receipt of the EU proposed protocols for incorporating Croatia into the ATA to reflect Croatia’s accession to the EU on 1 July 2013. The U.S. delegation accepted these proposals in principle, while noting the need for further scrutiny of the documents. The U.S. delegation then stated its interest in exploring use of a single agreement rather than covering the accession as regards Norway and Iceland separately, considering the likely future expansion of the EU. The European delegation said that could be considered, and requested the U.S. to send a formal proposal for review. The U.S. delegation indicated that it would do so.

4. The EU delegation reported the change of status of Mayotte as of July 2012, when it ceased to be a territory of France and became instead a Department of France, making it an overseas part of the EU. The U.S. delegation opined that more action than this notification is required in order to formalize Mayotte’s status under the ATA, noting the need for agreement between the parties when a Party proposes a change to the geographical scope of the agreement. It accordingly proposed using a formal exchange of letters. The European delegation said this would be taken back to Brussels for consideration.

5. The U.S. delegation noted its pleasure with progress at ICAO’s General Assembly in autumn 2013 regarding support for a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation, including developing a proposal for a global market-based measure (MBM), but expressed concerns about the pending European Commission proposal to apply its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to EU airspace. The U.S. noted serious concerns that the proposal would interfere with efforts to make progress on the global MBM at ICAO. The U.S. delegation highlighted the previously unprecedented negative vote at ICAO on the notion of a separate “airspace approach” as clearly demonstrating the lack of international support for such a move, and questioned why the EU would continue to move forward when such action could lead to missing a great opportunity to get other nations on board with the overarching approach to mitigate CO2 emissions from aviation, including the global MBM proposal. The U.S. delegation also noted that several nations have already contacted the U.S. asking to reactivate the “coalition of the unwilling” and have indicated their intentions not to comply with any airspace ETS regulations enacted by the EU. The U.S. delegation recognized that the decision to enact a system within the EU is entirely an EU choice, but emphasized that if a system is enacted with which no one else complies, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to comply, and work towards development on the global measure will be undermined. Finally, the U.S. delegation noted with concern recent remarks by senior EU officials implying U.S. support for an “airspace approach” to the EU ETS. The U.S. clarified it does not support the European Commission's proposal to move forward with applying the airspace ETS to aviation given the results of the Assembly.

6. The EU delegation thanked the U.S. for this information and said that such issues are precisely what the Joint Committee is intended to discuss. Noting strong European support for the global MBM work at ICAO, the EU delegation added that there will always be parties that do not wish to comply with any proposed measures to reduce emissions, and that we need to work together on goals, modalities and processes, even if such work is not done publicly. On the regional airspace approach, the EU delegation underlined that this was a proposal from the European Commission and that the legislative process was still underway and therefore the final shape of the legislation had not yet been decided by the European Parliament and the Council. A decision is expected in April at the latest as that is when the current “stop-the-clock” legislation expires. The next step in this process will be for the European Parliament to hold a vote on 30 January 2014 regarding the details of the position (mandate) it will defend in negotiations with the Council ("trilogue"). The EU delegation noted that under international law states have the ability to regulate their own airspace, and despite the ICAO vote it is difficult to tell EU member states that they cannot now do so. Non-compliance will not be tolerated, and carriers can re-route around EU airspace if they feel that strongly. Finally, delaying until 2020 to take any action with regard to aviation emissions is unacceptable to the EU, which is why it intends to continue with a regional measure as long as no action is taken at the global level. According to the proposal, the EU's approach would be reviewed and if necessary adjusted in 2016 to take into account the progress at ICAO on a global MBM.

7. Regarding work on a global MBM at ICAO, the U.S. delegation again noted satisfaction with work thus far by ICAO to develop a global MBM by 2016. ICAO has moved very quickly to establish a Task Force within ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to launch some of the key technical work items. The U.S. delegation supports formation of an advisory group that would include stakeholder representation to oversee the global MBM work. Building on work that the industry has already done can also make it easier to achieve a global MBM. The EU delegation agreed that the participation and commitment of industry is an important element, and also noted that DG CLIMA has made resources available to move things forward. Once a policy is determined, resources would then be moved towards implementation efforts. The EU delegation said that CAEP is the most suitable body to address the technical issues on the global MBM and cited the good EU-U.S. cooperation in that venue. The big challenge, the EU delegation said, will be buy-in from other countries, and industry could be helpful here as well. The EU delegation looked forward to the 23-24 January, 2014 meeting in Montreal aimed at setting up a new CAEP global MBM Task Force, noting that the ambitious timetable will require swift and concrete progress in the work.

8. The U.S. delegation expressed satisfaction regarding the recent CAEP/9 meeting, noting that a new noise standard has been agreed for 2017 and that work on carbon dioxide and particulate matter standards as well as MBM technical issues continues. The U.S. delegation further noted appreciation to the EU for its support of the U.S. wish to include all stakeholders and have industry and non-government observers, e.g. IATA, be part of the MBM conversation. The EU delegation also welcomed the outcome of the CAEP/9 meeting, recognising that the decision on a new noise stringency had been difficult for many parties, but that the compromise reached sent a positive signal to communities in the vicinity of airports and provided certainty and incentives to industry to use the state-of-the art technology in the design of quieter aircraft and engines. More generally, the EU agreed that CAEP is a useful forum and that the combined U.S.-EU resources devoted to CAEP encourage other states to step forward as well. The EU delegation noted the very important work ahead on the CO2 standard and Particulate Matter, as well as the global MBM tasks.

9. The U.S. delegation expressed concern over learning via media headlines that a new incentive program that could potentially contribute to noise reduction at Frankfurt Airport had recently been implemented. Not enough information was available to determine if the U.S. had any issues, so the U.S. asked the EU delegation to provide more details. The EU delegation acknowledged the need for prompt notification of any new noise measures, and added that since inception of the Joint Committee there has been a marked decrease in this sort of problem. The EU delegation did not have further details but undertook to provide them as soon as possible, adding that the U.S. was welcome to contact the Germans directly as each member state is also a separate signatory to the Agreement. The German representative also agreed to research the U.S. questions and provide more information, noting that the incentive program had been undertaken by the regional Hessen government and not at the Federal level.

10. The U.S. delegation provided an update on the request at LAX to introduce aircraft noise and access restrictions for night operations. Specifically, the U.S. delegation noted that the LAX application was incomplete, and that while Los Angeles World Airports has signaled its intent to revise the application such revision had not been submitted. The EU delegation thanked the U.S. delegation for the update.

11. The EU delegation mentioned that the EU and U.S. continue to move forward on shared objectives in air traffic management and aviation security, such as inter-operability and the mutual recognition of various screening systems. The EU delegation then noted that industry perceives the convergence of NextGen and SESAR efforts as moving too slowly, and proposed more active efforts to convey the actual progress being made. The U.S. delegation agreed this is a good idea, and provided an update on progress of key NextGen programs, including ADS-B deployment and the FAA’s Metroplex initiatives.

12. On cyber security, the EU delegation noted that this is a topic of great interest to member states, and highlighted discussions ongoing in Europe about whether to expand U.S.-EU cooperation in this area. The U.S. delegation noted good cooperation with EU counterparts through Annex 1 to the Memorandum of Cooperation in civil aviation research and development, and the expectation that the Europeans will be sending a draft to work from at the next meeting of the Coordination Committee in February. The European delegation acknowledged this and added that the U.S. and EU should consider whether cooperation in Annex 1 is sufficient, or if it should be more expansive. The U.S. delegation opined that continuing the cooperation under Annex 1 would be best, as enlarging the scope to areas beyond aviation could mean that discussions will get unwieldy.

13. On aviation security, the delegations expressed their satisfaction with the progress made towards removing restrictions on the carriage of duty-free liquids, aerosols, and gels (LAGs) and replacing them with LAGs screening. The change will take place on 31 January 2014. The delegations reaffirmed their commitment to work towards a complete lifting of the restrictions on LAGs as laid down in the LAGs Statement of Intent.

14. With regard to air cargo security, the sides acknowledged the success of the mutual recognition program. Moreover, the sides recognize the importance of easing the burden, where appropriate, of duplicative and redundant measures and allowing for greater facilitation of goods and commerce. The ongoing collaboration and cooperation between TSA and DGMOVE underscores the importance of ensuring the highest level of security is maintained. The sides continue to share relevant updates and/or changes to our air cargo security programs and agree that enhancing cooperation for cargo inbound from third countries would bring additional security benefits.

15. As to the conclusions on aviation security from the recent ICAO assembly, the sides expressed their satisfaction, notably with regard to the encouragement given to strengthen international aviation security measures for mitigating threats related to liquid explosives and air cargo and mail. The sides also noted the Assembly’s wish to see that security measures are risk-based, proportionate to the threat, operationally sustainable, and that they mitigate the impact on passengers and trade.

16. On the issue of the Foreign Repair Stations, the U.S. delegation stated that the issue would be resolved very soon. The EU delegation noted that it has been considering suspension of further EASA approvals to U.S. repair station applicants until the effective lifting of the moratorium on the issuance of FAA approvals to European Union repair station applicants. Both delegations noted that they hoped the issue would be resolved before the EU felt it necessary to take action.

17. The U.S. delegation requested additional information regarding EU rules on use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) throughout the duration of flights. Specifically, U.S. industry wonders whether the new standard automatically applies in each of the member states or if applications, similar to the FAA’s PED filings, will be required for each separate civil aviation authority. The European delegation noted that EASA worked with FAA in 2013 regarding expanded use of PEDs, and emphasizes the importance of such cooperation for the purposes of setting global guidance by ICAO based on FAA/EASA input. In December 2013, EASA updated its guidance for airlines when determining safety of PEDs during flight. EU operators may be allowed to use non-transmitting PEDs during any phase of flight on the condition that the operator has carried out hazard identification and has demonstrated to its authority that identified risks have been mitigated; transmitting PEDs may be used during the cruising portion of the flight if the aircraft is certified as PED-tolerant. The EU delegation confirmed that U.S. operators do not need to apply separately to the civil aviation authorities of each member state, but they would be expected to respect a Member State's telecommunication rules, if any. The EU delegation further noted that although member states may not enact legislation in the field of flight safety where there are EU-wide rules as is the case with PEDs, they may introduce local telecommunication-related rules on mobile phone use in the air. The EU delegation undertook to provide additional information to clarify this point. Based on feedback on the implementation of the new PED policy, EASA will update its guidance where necessary, by 4Q 2014.

18. The U.S. delegation updated the EU delegation regarding the U.S. Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, which was signed into law on 2 December 2013 by President Obama. The Act is intended to advance the safety and continued development of small airplanes while reducing certification and modification costs for those aircraft, and industry selected ASTM as the consensus standards body. ASTM has established Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft to develop consensus standards, and the FAA expects the final rule to be issued by November 2017.

19. On Passenger Name Record (PNR) issues, both delegations noted ongoing success in sharing PNR data. The U.S. delegation noted concerns regarding other countries now requiring PNR data, due to the requirement by the EU that U.S. carriers may not share PNR data for EU citizens with a third country unless the EU and that third country also have an agreement on protection of personal information. This is especially difficult with regard to Mexico, but is also starting to affect Brazil, Russia and others. The EU delegation acknowledged that PNR matters are governed by EU law and that consumer privacy is becoming an ever more important issue. Any EU/third country agreement would have to be ratified by the European Parliament and this grows ever more difficult. That said, with regard to Mexico, their requirement was postponed from 01 January 2014 to 15 January 2015. The European Commission indicated that it intends to start technical discussions with Mexico in Spring 2014. On Russia, the EU delegation explained that EU carriers began sending passport data for direct flights as of 01 December 2013 without incident; however, Russia now wants PNR for over flights starting 01 July 2014, and this will likely be a problem. The EU delegation will also check with the South Korean authorities the actual state-of-play. However, initial contacts indicate that this issue may become more urgent later during the year. Regarding Brazil, this likely will become ever more important with the World Cup coming up. Mattias Johansson at DG HOME is the lead on these issues. The EU delegation undertook to follow up with him on their return to Brussels, and encouraged the U.S. delegation to do the same.

20. The United States delegation requested clarification on possible revisions to EU Regulation 868. The European delegation noted that it was introduced initially in response to what was felt to be unfair assistance to U.S. carriers by the U.S. in response to business issues resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks. The EU delegation noted that Regulation 868 has so far not been used successfully, and that a number of member states and some industry members wanted to be sure that they could keep unfair practices by aviation partners in check. The comment period is open online until 25 January 2014 and the EU delegation undertook to provide the web link. Due to the EU elections timetable, the issue will not come before the current Commission, but rather will go before the next one. The U.S. delegation thanked the European delegation for the information, and offered to provide a briefing on its International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act (IATFCPA) process, which authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to act in cases of unfair practices. The EU delegation accepted readily.

21. The U.S. delegation noted several concerns with proposed changes to EU Regulation 261/2004 regarding passenger rights, the main concern being the partial ban on no-show policies, under which passengers can be denied boarding on the return portion of a round-trip flight if the outbound ticket was not used nor a fee paid by the passenger in lieu of using the outbound portion. Proposed modifications to 261/2004 would require carriers to compensate passengers for denied boarding in those instances, and the U.S. delegation believes that there is a strong case that this would be inconsistent with the pricing article of the Agreement. In addition, the change could ultimately work to passengers’ disadvantage by raising fares. The European delegation noted that the European Parliament is very interested in this, and in September 2013 the committee reviewing 261/2004 took a very pro-consumer stance, voting for modifications even more stringent than the Commission expected. Achieving agreement among the EP, the Commission and the Council would be difficult. The European delegation recognized the U.S. delegation’s point about the economics of airline pricing but stated that the matter is seen as a populist issue. The European delegation further pointed out that the proposal only refers to return journey when the passenger did not take the outward journey, not individual segments on multi-sector one-way itineraries. The proposal also does not exactly ban the imposition of a "no show" rule by the air carriers, but rather links it with denied boarding and imposes care and compensation obligations. The U.S. delegation thanked the European delegation for the update and stated that, although the intent may be to protect passenger rights, the concern is with the overall effect, which may constitute a violation of the U.S.-EU Agreement. While this is the most pressing issue for the U.S. on proposed revisions to 261/2004, others remain. Without detailing all of them, the U.S. delegation mentioned the 2(d) definition of cancellation; 2(m) definition of extraordinary circumstances; Article 4 regarding misspelled names; 6(2) and 6(5) on delays; new article 6(a); and others, which had been communicated to the Commission by U.S. industry.

22. The European delegation acknowledged U.S. concerns and noted that the best time to discuss this would have been before the committee made its recommendations. It will be difficult to present U.S. concerns now to the European Parliament, but the EU delegation undertook to inform Brussels of the U.S. position.

23. The U.S. delegation raised the issue of wet-lease licenses, noting that the issue had arisen during both first- and second-stage negotiations, with the European side expressly urging the U.S. to loosen its rules. While Article 10,Paragraph 9, is broadly worded and does not prohibit limits on either side, the U.S. is increasingly concerned that U.S. carriers, when leasing to EU carriers, are given a single lease term of seven months, with a single extension of seven months. The U.S. has no such limits, but has now had to consider limiting wet leases by EU carriers in return. This makes for an unsure market, which is not good for either side. The U.S. therefore would like a more open exchange on wet leases. The European delegation noted the U.S. concerns but pointed out that, as far back as 1992, the EU considered wet leasing a temporary, short-term solution for extraordinary circumstances, although the seven-month timeframe became formalized in 2008. The EU delegation also made a reference to the ATA which refers to the "laws and regulations normally applied" with regard to wet leasing. The U.S. delegation noted that it takes a different view of that particular phrase and also understands Article 10, paragraph 9, of the ATA to allow broader authority. The U.S. delegation noted that the seven-month policy is fairly new and will result in a formalization of wet lease terms rather than the current case-by-case basis. The U.S. delegation wondered if it would be possible to come up with a reciprocal scheme for open wet leasing between U.S. and EU carriers. The European delegation said this point had been proposed to be added to the agenda at a very late stage preventing the conduct of an in-depth evaluation but added that it understood the U.S. concerns and would look at EU policy carefully. The EU delegation also suggested that this could be a candidate topic for the TTIP discussions as well. The U.S. delegation noted that it does not view TTIP as the correct venue to resolve a situation arising under the ATA. Both delegations looked forward to discussing the matter further at the summer 2014 meeting in Vienna.

24. The U.S. delegation informed the European delegation that the preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi has been completed but there is no firm date yet for commencement of operations. A bill has been introduced in Congress to require a study and possibly limit the ability of Customs and Border Protection to bring the Abu Dhabi and any future facilities online. The European delegation thanked the U.S. for the update and requested that we keep this matter on the agenda in future, as industry members on both sides have concerns about this allocation of CBP resources.

25. The U.S. delegation gave an overview of the status of the proposal to collect fingerprints of departing passengers. Biometric entry/exit requirements have been mandated by Congress, and many options—fingerprints being one—are being considered. The major impediment currently is that domestic and international travellers are not separated in most U.S. airports as they are in European airports. Customs and Border Protection will be exploring different technologies throughout 2014 and will engage airlines and airports for input and reactions as pilot programs are rolled out. CBP is also working with European and other global counterparts to see which concepts have proven useful.

26. On competition, the U.S. delegation noted that recently Congress had expressed concern over the regulatory burden on the industry and the possibility that the U.S. aviation industry is overtaxed. This is likely to be an ongoing issue which deserves continuing attention. The European delegation noted that there is an ongoing internal debate regarding the challenge from Gulf carriers and that increased Gulf-based investment in EU carriers is becoming a concern. For example, Etihad is proposing to purchase 49% of JAT, and the EU delegation was interested in the U.S. view on their codeshare application. The U.S. delegation noted that the application is open and contested, so it cannot be discussed, but did acknowledge that the application raises questions of nationality, and also noted that the U.S. does not have an agreement with Serbia at present. Disposition of applications by foreign carriers owned or controlled by nationals of third countries is a discretionary matter, and the U.S. authorities will carefully consider the facts in the case. The European delegation noted that the EU is still negotiating with Serbia and thus asks member states to exercise caution regarding such codeshares. Both sides agreed to remain in close contact going forward.

27. The U.S. delegation acknowledged the hard work on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being done by negotiating teams for both the U.S. and the EU, adding that the U.S. takes seriously European concerns that have been raised. The EU delegation concurred that talks thus far have been friendly and constructive, and commented that one reason the issue of ownership and control is being pressed so strongly is that the EU is feeling the pinch from Asia-Pacific carriers and Gulf-based carriers. The EU delegation added that the negotiations were a useful opportunity to discuss—with an eye towards reducing or eliminating—the remaining barriers between us. An agreement with the U.S. on this matter is too important an opportunity to miss, so the EU will continue to raise the matter in TTIP discussions. The U.S. delegation noted this and reiterated its commitment to the TTIP process.

28. The EU delegation requested guidance for EU carriers and banks regarding payment of overflight charges to the government of Iran. EU banks did not want to handle these payments due to concerns of running afoul of U.S. sanctions policy, and this causes problems for EU carriers. The U.S. delegation replied that Executive Order 13608 is concerned with circumvention of sanctions and that it is not intended to prohibit payment for legitimate transactions. Thus EU carriers can pay in euros via any non-sanctioned bank. If they wish to pay in dollars via a U.S. bank, that bank would need to get a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to allow processing. The EU delegation thanked the U.S. delegation for this information and noted that EU banks cite concern over the issue as a reason not to process these payments. Could the U.S. send some kind of signal or guidance, short of a change in legislation, to clarify the process? The U.S. delegation undertook to seek clarification and requested a formal letter from the EU to initiate the process. The EU delegation agreed.

29. The U.S. delegation gave an update on several business matters. The merger between American Airlines and US Airways has been cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice to proceed, with certain conditions. Among those are divestiture of slots at some airports and realignment of global alliance membership. The EU delegation asked for the U.S. evaluation of implications of the merger on the U.S. market and on how the slot divestiture will be implemented. The U.S. delegation replied that divestiture is done as with any other industry—proposals are reviewed and evaluated for compliance and recommendations are taken into account. The talks between the companies in question and the Department of Justice are confidential. The objective is to retain market competition. Consolidation is at this point largely completed, but only time will tell how things play out in both the domestic and international markets. The U.S. delegation appreciates cooperation from DG COMP in making this possible.

30. Regarding the Delta-Virgin Atlantic joint venture, the U.S. delegation stated that anti-trust immunity was granted in autumn 2013 and the joint venture is currently operating, with the requirement to report any material changes that applies to any transatlantic joint venture. The United States did not treat this as a merger, as opposed to the EU where a merger clearance had been given without prejudice to the O&C provisions under 1008/2008. The EU delegation indicated that it was interesting to note the differences between the clearance processes on both sides and underlined that the Commission's assessment had been made without prejudice to the O&C provisions.

31. At the request of the U.S. delegation, a government-to-government session (i.e., with industry and others asked to leave the room) was held to discuss current and planned long-haul operations of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA and its affiliated companies, Norwegian Long Haul AS and Norwegian Air International Ltd., and the questions raised and views expressed by both U.S. and European industry in the context of the docketed application to the U.S. DOT. The EU Delegation made factual points in a spirit of close cooperation with the U.S. authorities in the light of Article 17bis of the EU-U.S.ATA. It requested the U.S. delegation clarify its specific legal concerns as to the envisaged operations. On the basis of the information given by Norwegian Air Shuttle, the European Delegation gave the Joint Committee some detailed information about the company's plans. It also explained that Norwegian Air International (NAI) had applied for an AOC and operating license in Ireland, and has submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) for economic authority to operate to the United States upon receipt of the Irish AOC and operating license. The summary of that discussion prepared by the U.S. delegation has been placed into the official docket of the U.S. DOT and is reproduced here as Attachment 3.

32. The U.S. delegation, in an addition to the agenda, raised concerns about the proposed EU Travel Package Directive, as it appears to place an undue burden on businesses to ensure the viability of other businesses. The U.S. delegation noted that a full discussion is not possible at this time but wanted to make its concerns known. The EU delegation thanked the U.S. delegation for the information and said that because the point had been added to the agenda at the last minute, and as it was a file on which DG MOVE is not the lead department, they would look into this matter and be prepared to discuss it at a later meeting.

33. On noise issues, both delegations noted increased cooperation and information regarding use of the Balanced Approach. The EU delegation updated the U.S. on progress in Helsinki, noting that the Balanced Approach process is still underway and hopefully will be completed in time for a full report at the next Joint Committee meeting.

34. The EU delegation asked whether the IATFCPA filing regarding fees at Italian airports would be withdrawn now that the issue is resolved, noting that it is an excellent example of Joint Committee success. The U.S. delegation responded that no action had been taken yet, and requested a formal notification from Italian or DG MOVE authorities noting the normalized fee structure so that the matter may be closed out. The EU delegation agreed to provide such notification.

Signed on 02 June 2014.

For the U.S. delegation:
Krishna R. Urs

For the European delegation:
Matthew Baldwin


  • 1– List of Participants
  • 2 – Approved Agenda
  • 3 – Docket Filing Regarding Discussion of Norwegian Air International

Attachment 1

U.S. Delegation

Department of State

  1. Mr. Krishna Urs, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs
  2. Mr. Stephen Cristina, Director, Office of Aviation Negotiations
  3. Ms. Megan Walklet-Tighe, Director, Office of Transportation Policy
  4. Ms. Ellen Dunlap, Aviation Team Leader, Office of Transportation Policy
  5. Ms. Alina Eldred, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser
  6. Ms. Kristin Westphal, Office of Aviation Negotiations

Department of Transportation

  1. Ms. Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
  2. Mr. Paul Gretch, Director, Office of International Aviation
  3. Mr. Brian Hedberg, Assistant Director for Negotiations, Office of International Aviation
  4. Mr. John Kiser, Chief of Pricing and Multilateral Affairs, Office of International Aviation
  5. Mr. Christopher T. “Kip” Tourtellot, Attorney Advisor, Office of International Law
  6. Ms. Jennifer Thibodeau, Attorney Advisor, Office of International Law
  7. Mr. Todd Homan, Director, Office of Aviation Analysis
  8. Mr. Peter Irvine, Office of Aviation Analysis

Federal Aviation Administration

  1. Mr. Carl Burleson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs, and Environment
  2. Ms. Pamela Whitley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for NextGen
  3. Dr. Lourdes Maurice, Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy
  4. Mr. Pat Moran, Acting Senior International Advisor, Office of Environment and Energy
  5. Mr. Kevin Welsh, Acting Manager, Environmental Policy and Operations Division, Office of Environment and Energy
  6. Ms. Minh Favila, Office of Environment and Energy
  7. Mr. Ian Ross, NextGen International Affairs Officer
  8. Ms. Rebecca Barthel, Office of International Affairs

Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration

  1. Mr. David Gordner, Regional Manager Europe, Office of Global Strategies
  2. Ms. Lauren Beyer, Desk Officer Europe, Office of Global Strategies

Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection

  1. Ms. Kim Mills, Director, Entry/Exit Transformation Office Planning, Program Analysis and Evaluation Office of Field Operations

Department of Commerce

  1. Mr. Eugene Alford, Air Transport Specialist

Environmental Protection Agency

  1. Mr. Maurice LeFranc, Jr., Senior Advisor, Office of Air and Radiation

Industry Associations

  1. Mr. Russell Bailey, Air Line Pilots Association
  2. Ms. Cecilia Bethke, Airlines for America
  3. Ms. Rosalind K. Ellingsworth, Independent Pilots Association
  4. Ms. Diane Peterson, Airports Council International – North America
  5. Mr. Timothy Daudelin, Allied Pilots Association
  6. Mr. Ed Smith, Senior Vice President for International and Environmental Affairs, General Aviation Manufacturers Association
  7. Mr. Paul Doell, Director of Government Affairs, National Air Carrier Association
  8. Mr. Chip Hancock, Governmental Affairs, Southwest Airlines Pilots Association

Environmental Organizations

  1. Ms. Annie Petsonk, Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund

EU Delegation

European Commission

  1. Mr. Matthew Baldwin, DG MOVE, Director, Aviation and International Transport Affairs
  2. Ms. Elina Bardram, DG CLIMA, Head of Unit
  3. Ms. Deniz Bayraktutar, DG MOVE, Policy Officer, International Transport Affairs
  4. Mr. Daniel Beoshertz, DG COMP, Head of Unit
  5. Mr. Timothy Fenoulhet, DG MOVE, Policy Officer, Aviation Safety
  6. Mr. Christian Holzleitner, DG CLIMA
  7. Ms. Rasa Sceponaviciute, DG CLIMA

European External Action Service

  1. Dr. Felix Leinemann, First Secretary-Transport, Delegation of the European Union to the United States
  2. Mr Julian Hall, European Aviation Safety Agency, Representative to the United States

EU Member States

  1. Ms. Verena Brendl, Austrian Civil Aviation Authority
  2. Mr. Thorkild Saxe, Senior Adviser, Danish Transport Authority
  3. Ms. Päivi Jämsä, Special Advisor, Finnish Transport Safety Agency
  4. Mr. Francois Theoleyre, Deputy Director, French Civil Aviation Authority
  5. Mr. Bruno Fulda, Advisor, French Civil Aviation Authority
  6. Mr. Helge Pols, Embassy of Germany, Washington
  7. Ms. Ethna Brogan, Principal Officer, Irish Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
  8. Mr. Hans de Jong, Chief Negotiator, Netherlands Directorate General of Civil Aviation
  9. Mr. Žiga Kotnik, Director General, Slovenian Civil Aviation Agency
  10. Mr. David Benito Astudillo, Head of International Agreements, Spanish Directorate General of Civil Aviation
  11. Ms. Monica Junquera Lantero, Embassy of Spain, Washington
  12. Mr. Mark Bosly, Head of International Aviation Negotiations, United Kingdom Department of Transport
  13. Ms. Judith Ritchie, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Washington
  14. Mr. Øyvind Ek, Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications
  15. Mr. Anders Stoltenberg Slettvold, Senior Advisor, Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority

Industry Associations

  1. Mr. John Hanlon, Secretary General, European Low Fares Airline Association
  2. Mr. Athar Husain Khan, CEO, Association of European Airlines
  3. Mr. Nico Voorbach, President, European Cockpit Association

Attachment 2


  • Introductions and Adoption of Agenda
  • Adoption and signature of the Record of Meeting of the 5 June 2013 Joint Committee in Reykjavik, Iceland


  • Implementation of Agreement
    • Accession of Croatia
    • Provisional Application / Final Ratification
    • European Council Decision Amending the Status of Mayotte




  • Environment
    • ETS – Status of EU Legislation
    • ICAO Climate Work – Development of Global MBM
    • CAEP Collaboration
    • Noise – Updates from the Field


  • Air Traffic Management & Aviation Security
    • NextGen/SESAR
    • Foreign Repair Stations – Update on Rulemaking
    • Liquids – Duty Free carried in cabin
    • Cargo – Mutual Recognition of U.S./EU security programs
    • ICAO Progress on Security
    • Portable Electronic Devices
    • Mutual Recognition of EU/U.S. passenger security programs




  • Legislation Updates
    • PNR Rules – EU Exemptions
      • Mexico
      • Russia
      • Brazil
      • Korea
    • EU Regulation 868 – Protection against unfair practices by non-EU countries
    • EU 261 – Passenger Rights
      • EU Wet Lease Rule
      • U.S. Preclearance Facility in Abu Dhabi & HR 3488
      • U.S. Immigration – Fingerprinting Departing Passengers
      • U.S. Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013
      • U.S. Fair Competition/State Aid/Level Playing Field


Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

  • Recap of negotiations round(s)
  • Ownership and Control


Payment of Overflight Charges to Iran by EU Carriers

  • U.S. Executive Order 13608
  • Effect on Competition




Market and competition developments

  • American Airlines / US Airways
  • Norwegian Air Shuttle
  • Virgin Atlantic / Delta joint venture



Next Meeting:

Tuesday, 10 June, 2014 / Vienna, Austria


Closing Remarks


Reception – Willard Intercontinental Hotel

Attachment 3

Summary of Information provided by the European delegation

On the basis of information provided by Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (“NAS”), the European delegation gave the Joint Committee some detailed factual information about the company’s plans.

The European delegation first stated that NAS and its subsidiary Norwegian Long Haul AS (“NLH”) each holds an Air Operator’s Certificate (“AOC”) and operating license issued by the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority. NLH operates two Irish-registered aircraft under its Norwegian AOC.

NLH has been relocated in Ireland as Norwegian Air International Limited (“NAI”) and has applied for an Irish AOC and operating license. The European delegation conveyed that NAI chose Ireland because as an Irish carrier it would have access to significant additional traffic rights not available to it as a Norwegian carrier, access to additional financing options under OECD rules, and access to insurance and financing rebates because Ireland is a Cape Town Convention signatory. In addition, Ireland has a considerable aviation cluster in Europe and a highly regarded aviation authority. The Irish government is currently processing the applications pursuant to EC Regulations 965/2012 and 1008/2008. The application for an AOC is being processed by the Irish Civil Aviation Authority, and the application for an operating license is being processed by the Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation. A decision on the AOC application, which is at a more advanced stage, is expected in the next few weeks.

Under Norwegian regulations, an airline is allowed to operate an aircraft registered in another ECAA state for a total of 12 months. The current licenses issued by the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority to NLH to operate two Irish-registered aircraft are set to expire in February 2014 and April 2014, respectively. NLH could apply to the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority for extensions of the licenses that would allow it to continue to operate the Irish-registered aircraft until 24th June 2014 and 24th August 2014, respectively. If the Irish regulatory process is still pending for NAI after February 2014, it is likely that NLH would request extension of its Norwegian-issued licenses.

The NLH/NAI business model will focus on using operating bases in the United States and Asia to serve several European destinations, with most having just one or two weekly flights in each city-pair market. Given this business model, basing crews outside of Europe makes more sense economically. In order to address the related and complex staffing issues, the carriers intend to hire and domicile crews at operating bases outside of the Europe (e.g., in Thailand generally for Bangkok-Europe flights, in the United States for U.S.-Europe flights, etc). In each case, the local labour laws of those countries would apply.

For the start-up period, NLH and NAI use local hiring agencies at operating bases because recruitment is quicker, the agencies are familiar with local laws and regulations, and the practice minimizes the companies’ investment costs. In accordance with EU regulations, the pilots employed by NLH and NAI must hold EASA licenses. NAI intends to hire U.S. pilots in the future and would prefer to have crew bases in the United States for its U.S. operations. It is currently training cabin crew members that will be based in the United States, under U.S. law. Currently, long-haul pilots are employed by Global Crew Asia (Singapore) and cabin crew members are employed by Adecco (Thailand).

In connection with the discussion about hiring, the European delegation offered the salary information below. These figures reflect dollarized average gross payments:





United States






First Officer





Senior Cabin Crew





Junior Cabin Crew





The European Delegation also indicated that company employees are organized in labour unions and that NAS had no tradition of discouraging unionization.

The European Delegation objected to any characterization of Ireland as a “flag of convenience,” and stated that Ireland’s safety and fitness oversight meets all applicable ICAO and EU standards. They stated that, under Article 6 bis of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement (Reciprocal Recognition of Fitness and Citizenship Determinations), the U.S. should recognize Ireland’s determinations regarding NAI. The European delegation further stated that the European Commission welcomed the competition that NAS/NLH has provided in the EU market and noted that its business model, if successful, will benefit competition, U.S. consumers and U.S. manufacturers.