'Qatargate' and the aviation equation

It is with a heavy heart that I am watching the so-called ‘Qatargate’ narrative unfold.?First came a cash-for-influence scandal in the European Parliament. Then, scrutiny of the European Commission’s acceptance of complementary travel for official duties. The common denominator is a small but wealthy country in the Middle East - with which the EU is currently applying an aviation agreement which some are now eager to label as imbalanced and contrary to the European interest.

It’s not my place to offer up opinion on the swirl of accusations surrounding the EU Institutions.?About aviation agreements, however, I have views aplenty.

At the heart of my concern is the fact that the heat and noise potentially discredits not just the EU-Qatar aviation agreement but the entire EU external aviation policy. In many ways, that is reflective of how today’s public and political debates tend to be?driven by the tyranny of immediacy and the lack of thorough analysis. In other words, the easy optics trump it all. A little context seems somewhat overdue.

Just like all EU aviation agreements, the EU-Qatar agreement was negotiated by the European Commission, based on a mandate approved and given by EU States. Large EU countries needed this mandate because issues such as fair competition and environmental matters cannot be addressed at bilateral level. Indeed, this mandate set the objectives for the negotiations, which were supervised and accompanied by EU States. The content of the agreement is similar to all other EU aviation agreements – a dual focus on improving market access for airlines of both parties and securing regulatory convergence. The results of the negotiations and the agreement itself were duly approved by EU States. So if the EU-Qatar agreement is imbalanced and contrary to the EU interest, that would imply that all EU aviation agreements are, and that by association all EU States would be complicit. ?

?But where is precisely the EU interest in pursuing these agreements?

Well, first and foremost, it’s not all about seats on planes, as some of the reporting would lead you to believe.?The benefits of these agreements go far beyond any business opportunities they might offer to airlines.?What’s being lost in the debate is the opportunities they offer to airports and their communities to develop air connectivity - with significant positive impacts for consumers and the economy. Which, I would argue, is actually the point of them.

This is why the airport industry through ACI EUROPE has been extremely supportive of EU aviation agreement including the one with Qatar, as they allow EU airports to diversify their route network and connectivity.

This is true for all airports, including large hub airports which are eager to diversify their airline portfolio and traffic. But this is of course especially the case for secondary airports and large regional airports.?As EU network airlines focus their long-haul route network on their hubs, these airports are keen to attract non-EU airlines - and often see them as their only opportunity to develop their long-haul network.

EU aviation agreements with third countries are always about opening-up market access for airlines on both sides, irrespective of the differences in the size of the markets involved. Aside from Qatar, the EU has many other similar aviation agreements with countries commanding much smaller aviation markets than its own – including Israel, Morocco,?Tunisia or Jordan. None of these has been considered as imbalanced and contrary to the European interest.

This is not a new argument.?Here’s language from ACI EUROPE’s Policy Briefing: “[Air Transport Agreements] should be based on the full spectrum of interests involved, in particular consumers, regions and local communities as well as businesses that depend on aviation and job creation. Air transport – as with any mode of transport – is just a tool not a goal in itself.”?

And this, in a nutshell, is why I find the current narrative so deeply troubling.?Have misplaced negative perceptions attached themselves permanently and erroneously to the notion of an aviation agreement??If so, our ability to reap the rewards of these agreements has been put in jeopardy. This, in turn, would fly in the face of a core EU objective: ensuring territorial and social cohesion.

‘Qatargate’ will run its course.?Aviation agreements need to stand strong long after this is yesterday’s news.