All-inclusive air fares just around the corner as MEP back legislation on transparency

July 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm | In Aviation Law | Leave a Comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From the EU Parliament:

All-inclusive air fares just around the corner as MEP back legislation on transparency
Transport – 09-07-2008 – 12:44
Airplane tickets ©BELGA_MAXPPP_RIEDINGER Philippe

All-inclusive air fares – MEP back legislation on transparency

Air travellers will soon be able to see at a glance exactly what they have to pay for their tickets, as the European Parliament approved new EU rules. Air fares as displayed will have to include all taxes, fees and charges added to the basic ticket price and known at the time of publication. Parliament approved a deal on this legislation reached with the Council, as it takes on board the EP’s key first-reading amendments.
The price you actually have to pay

Booking via Internet – often the only possibility with low-cost air carriers – is a particular concern. Under the EU regulation, all carriers will in future have to provide the general public with comprehensive information, “including on the Internet,” on their air fares. Air fares that are “addressed directly to the travelling public” will have to include all applicable taxes, non-avoidable charges, surcharges and fees known at the time of publication.

The following information, at least, must be specified: air fare or air rate, taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees, such as those related to security or fuel. Optional price supplements must be communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process and their acceptance by the consumer must be on an “opt-in basis”.

According to Arūnas DEGUTIS (ALDE, LT): “This regulation promotes price transparency for the passenger and fair prices. The passenger has a right to know the actual price of the ticket, including taxes and extra charges. It is misleading to advertise a ticket at 1 or 2 euros, when the actual cost is actually much higher.”

Brian SIMPSON (PES, North West Labour, UK) said:” Apart from flight delays, the most complaints that I receive against airlines concern the way that they lure people with what appear to be low fares and conveniently tell them the true cost only at the very end of the process. Low fare airlines have perfected this art over recent years.

Now, not only will the customers see the true price, but also the security taxes levied by national governments will have to be highlighted separately. This transparency has to be a good thing, and I hope it will end what has been over recent years an exercise in deceit by some airlines which try to con the travelling public into believing they are buying a very cheap ticket when the opposite is true.”

Security taxes and charges

With security charges on the rise, MEPs successfully argued that the consumer has a right to know how high these costs are, and what they are used for. Where airport or on-board security costs are included in the price of an air ticket, these costs will have to be shown separately on the ticket or otherwise indicated to the passenger. And, whether levied by the Member States or by air carriers or other entities, security taxes and charges must be transparent and be used exclusively to meet airport or onboard aircraft security costs.

A wide-ranging regulation

The new rules on transparency of air fares are part of a regulation which updates existing EU legislation on a range of matters to do with the operation of air transport services in the Community.

Among other things, it aims to establish a level playing field for leasing aircraft and to clarify who has administrative responsibility for revoking or suspending licences.

In addition, stricter controls on the financial situation of airlines should ensure that, if a carrier is on the verge of going bankrupt, passengers’ rights can be safeguarded.

Moreover, Member States must now ensure the proper application of Community and national employment legislation to employees of any Community carrier operating air services from an operational base outside the Member State where that carrier has its principal place of business. In the past, the use of bases outside the country of origin has made it difficult to determine which territory’s employment laws apply to crews.

The new regulation should enter into force later this year or early next year.

EU Parliment on the Air Force Tanker Contract

July 9, 2008 at 3:20 pm | In Aviation Law | Leave a Comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The EU Parliament has weighed in on the ongoing dispute over the Air Aerial aerial refueling tanker contract:

MEPs support the defence of EU interests in the pending dispute settlement proceedings before the WTO, in a resolution adopted with 589 votes in favour, 53 against and 64 abstentions. Airbus/Boeing disputes over subsidies should be ruled out in the coming weeks. Implementing fair competition rules is among the recommendations sent by MEPs to the European Commission.

According to MEPs, the contract award to the Northrop Grumman Corporation EADS team for the US aerial tanker recapitalization program was based on “neutral criteria” to identify and place “the best and most suitable equipment” in the hands of the US Air Force (USAF). . . .

GUEST BLOGGER: Parviz Tarikhi on the New Iranian Space Law

July 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm | In Guest blogger, Space Law | Leave a Comment

Parviz Tarikhi heads the Microwave Remote Sensing Department at the Mahdasht Satellite Receiving Station. He has been involved with the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) since 2000, including as second vice-chair and rapporteur in 2004-06 of the committee bureau. Since 2001 he has co-chaired Action Team number 1 of UNISPACE-III with the mission ‘to develop a comprehensive worldwide environmental monitoring strategy’. From 2004-07 he conducted the Office for Specialized International Co-operation of the Iranian Space Agency. He is also a freelance journalist and technical writer.
————-
by Parviz Tarikhi, guest blogger

The important role of space science and technology in the destiny of humankind, as well as its immediate and continuous impact on sustainable development of various aspects of societies, is evident. It is because of this vital reason that Iran joined the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) as one of its first 18 members in 1958. In recent decades this was followed by intensive activities in this field including establishment of research centers and several academic aerospace institutions. However, the increasing demand in this respect was felt by the authorities that led to the final approval of a bill submitted by the Government to the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran to establish a new regime for outer space issues. After necessary evaluation the final approval was issued by the Parliament in the form of new law on 10 December 2003. It received the approval of the Guardian Council of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 18 June 2005. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran officially took the first step in implementing the new law on 1 February 2004 by assigning the first President of a new establishment named the Iran Space Agency (ISA). The new Agency is now on the way towards establishing its organizational structure. To continue further development and implementation of the statutes and bylaws of the Iranian Space Agency, the Council of Ministers of the Islamic Republic of Iran approved amendments to the existing law on 15 June 2008. That was followed by the investigations of the Guardian Council and led to final approval on 2 July 2008.

These actions are believed to be a long and practical step forward not only towards concentrating the country’s efforts in advancing relevant science and technology for effective use of outer space for peaceful purposes but also to enhance Iran’s cooperation at the international level for such important purposes.

ISA authority includes and supports all the activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the peaceful applications of space science and technology under the leadership of the Supreme Council chaired by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The relevant core part of the approved bill is as follows:

“Aiming at applying space technology and peaceful uses of outer space, and protecting national interests and sustainable exploitation of space science and technology for economic, cultural, scientific and technical development of the country, the Space Supreme Council with the leadership of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is established. The Council’s main goals include,

I. Policy making for the application of space technologies aiming peaceful uses of outer space
II. Policy making in manufacturing, launching and use of the national research satellites
III. Approving the space related programs of state and private institutions and organizations
IV. Approving long and short-term programs of country’s space sector
V. Promoting the partnership of the private and cooperative sectors in efficient uses of space
VI. Identifying guidelines concerning the regional and international cooperation in space issues and clarifying the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the above-mentioned bodies”

To follow and implement the strategies authorized by the Space Supreme Council, the ISA is affiliated with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. But it is organized in the form of an autonomous organization. The President of ISA holds the position of the Vice-Minister of Communications and Information Technology. The secretariat of Space Supreme Council is based in the ISA, and the President of the ISA acts as the Secretary and Member of the Space Supreme Council at the same time.

Air Force awards General Dynamics a $9 million satellite encryption contract

July 9, 2008 at 12:58 pm | In Space Law Current Events | Leave a Comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz wit the blog faculty

San Antonio Business Journal

The Air Force Headquarters Cryptologic Systems Group in San Antonio has awarded a $9.2 million add-on contract to General Dynamics C4 Systems.

This contract will support the continued development of a National Security Agency-approved encryption technology for Department of Defense satellites. The contract is being awarded through the U.S. Air Force’s Telemetry, Tracking and Commanding KG-327 program and it is part of the National Security Agency’s effort to modernize information security technologies on future satellite programs.

General Dynamics C4 Systems, a business unit of defense contractor General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) in Falls Church, Va., will use the funds to create an encryption module that can be used to secure telemetry, tracking and control over satellites. This additional contract builds upon an earlier award to General Dynamics in July 2006, bringing its total value to $19.3 million.

The program’s initial critical design review already is complete and the current contract phase is now focused on system development, qualification and certification of the technology. The encryption module should be complete during the fourth quarter of 2009. The production phase is anticipated through a subsequent contract, which should be awarded in 2009.

General Dynamics C4 Systems is the prime contractor on the program. The company specializes in integrating secure communication and information systems and technology. SafeNet Mykotronx in Belkamp, Md., is the subcontractor on the program.

Source: San Antonio Business Journal

S. 3229: A bill to increase the safety of the crew and passengers in air ambulances

July 9, 2008 at 9:20 am | In Aviation Law | Leave a Comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. 3229: A bill to increase the safety of the crew and passengers in air ambulances was introduced on July 8, 2008 by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). The text is not yet available on Thomas.

Update: Sen. Cantwell’s words as she introduced the bill:

Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]: [Introducing S. 3229] Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask for my colleagues’ support for the Air Medical Service Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a measure that redefines our commitment to improving the safety for the flight crews, flight nurses, and passengers aboard emergency air medical service helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

These EMS aviation operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. Each year, on average, air medical companies transport about 350,000 patients by helicopter and 100,000 by fixed wing aircraft.

Providing emergency air medical service is dangerous work. Unfortunately, we have been reminded of this fact all too many times this year, most recently by the tragic crash in Arizona.

I first became involved in the issue of emergency air medical service safety when an EMS helicopter crashed near my hometown in Washington state. On September 29, 2005, an Airlift Northwest EMS transport helicopter crashed into the waters of Puget Sound at Browns Bay, just north of Edmonds, Washington. On board were pilot Steve Smith, and nurses Erin Reed and Lois Suzuki. There were no survivors. Over time, I have communicated with both Erin’s mother and sister about their loss.

The cause of the crash remains unknown as EMS transport helicopters are not required to have a “black box” or flight data recorder on board, and only part of the helicopter could be recovered from Puget Sound. Some in the area think the wind, rain, and heavy fog were to blame. Others claim that the helicopter sounded like it was having engine trouble.

All we do know is that three people dedicated to saving lives were lost in the ocean that night. And sadly, their story is not uncommon.

According to a study by Johns Hopkins University, one in four medical helicopters will crash during its 15 years of service. In just the last six months, there have been nine medical helicopter crashes and 16 deaths.

This alarming epidemic of accidents has opened the eyes of the Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and policymakers in recent days. But the recent spike in accidents is not a new trend. In fact, between January 2002 and January 2005, there were 55 crashes of medical helicopters. On January 25, 2006, the NTSB released a report identifying recurring gaps in safety that must be addressed, including: Less stringent requirements for emergency medical operations conducted without patients on board; a lack of aviation flight risk-evaluation programs; a lack of consistent, comprehensive flight dispatch procedures; and no requirements to use technologies such as terrain awareness and warning systems that have the power to enhance flight safety.

At my request, Section 508 of S. 1300, a bill to reauthorize the FAA incorporated the NTSB recommendations for addressing these gaps. Subsequent to that bill’s introduction in the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to discuss with stakeholders how to improve upon the language. The bill I am introducing today is essentially the amendment I filed this May when the FAA reauthorization bill was on the floor. Given the uncertain status of that legislation, and in light of the recent events, I felt the urgency to transform the amendment into stand-alone legislation.

This bill will implement new procedures and improve standards already in place through strengthened safety requirements, comprehensive flight dispatch and flight following procedures, improved situation awareness of helicopter air crews, and better data available to NTSB investigators at crash sites.

It is time to put black boxes in these helicopters.

It is time to require the same safety standards regardless of whether or not a patient is on board.

It is time to evaluate potential risks before take-off.

It is time to improve the situational awareness of air medical flight crews.

If not, we are bound to witness more tragedies.

I am committed to these changes and I ask my colleagues to lend their support in making the skies safer for the men and women who dedicate their lives to getting critically injured patients the medical attention they need.

Interview: Franceska Schroeder

July 9, 2008 at 8:48 am | In Interview | 1 Comment

Franceska O. Schroeder is a Principal in the Washington, D.C. office of Fish & Richardson P.C. She is a member of the firm’s Regulatory and Government Affairs Group. Her practice emphasizes regulatory, administrative, commercial and government contracts, risk management, insurance, legislative, and policy matters in the areas of space, defense, security and satellite communications. Ms. Schroeder’s clients include space and defense contractors, satellite manufacturers and operators, launch services providers, systems engineering firms, and investors in satellite communications and other high-technology projects. She also is Legal Counsel to the American Astronautical Society and has served as a Private Sector Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

____________
Res Communis: Tell us about your practice. Do you consider yourself a space lawyer?

Schroeder: I consider myself a regulatory and transactional lawyer who serves the space industry.

Res Communis: What is a typical day in your practice? If there is such a thing as a typical day.

Schroeder: Well, there really isn’t. However, almost every day includes addressing trade compliance issues. This work includes helping clients identify whether the activities in which they want to engage trigger requirements of the U.S. export control regimes, namely the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security or the International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR) administered by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. It also involves the economic sanctions or trade embargo programs administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). A typical day also could include reviewing a commercial or government contract involving a satellite, launch vehicle or some other space system and advising on the regulations of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. I also help clients with liability and risk management issues, such as satellite launch and in-orbit insurance and understanding the scope of government-based indemnification programs.

Res Communis: Are they the same issues every day or does it vary depending on whom your client is?

Schroeder: My work varies because clients’ needs vary. For example, and staying in the export control world for a minute, a client that is a large company may be engaged in multiple international activities. That client could have issues under the EAR, ITAR and one or more of the OFAC programs, or it could have multiple issues under only one of the regimes. Also, a client that is engaged in both commercial and government activities, might ask me to review a satellite purchase or launch services agreement with a commercial customer one day, and a contract with the U.S. government on another day – or sometimes both in the same day.

Res Communis: If you have a client that comes to you for the first time wanting to deal with ITAR issues, what do you typically have to tell them? What is the education process you have to engage in for your client?

Schroeder: Often, the first thing I do is explain that just because they are called the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the term “arms” is construed broadly. An item might not be something that one immediately would consider “arms” or “munitions”, but if it is listed on the United States Munitions List (USML), it is controlled by the ITAR. I then explain that technical data and “defense services” (for example, training on the system or troubleshooting) related to the item that is on the USML also are controlled by the ITAR. The example that I often use is the commercial communication satellite. Even though the satellite is going to be functioning exclusively for commercial purposes — let’s say it’s a satellite that is going to be providing digital audio radio or direct broadcast television – satellites are on Category XV of the USML. Therefore, the satellite and technical data and “defense services” related to the satellite are ITAR-controlled.

Res Communis: Do you get some surprised clients?

Schroeder: Yes.

Res Communis: Do they come to you after they find out something they are trying to sell is on the list, or do they come in before?

Schroeder: Usually before, which is very good. The types of clients that I am privileged to serve range from highly sophisticated multinational defense contractors who are extremely knowledgeable in this area—and I serve in a support capacity and help with the trickier issues—to very small start up companies for whom this is a brand new area. That is where the need for education comes up the most. The good news is, at least in my experience, that clients in the space and defense industries are extremely receptive. They want to know how to do things right.

Res Communis: The way you describe it makes it sound like you have been involved as a preventive measure. Whereas, most people only go to lawyers after they are already in crisis and something is already wrong. You sound like what your practice is about is trying to prepare the client to go through a process to avoid those crises in the first place.

Schroeder: That is definitely true, but there is a mix. A lot of what I do is to help clients identify the potential problem before it might arise and then completely avoid the problem by being compliant. In other cases there might be a situation where a client inadvertently failed to comply, and I help manage that process as well. Another very important aspect of my work in this area is helping clients to establish, administer and maintain an internal trade compliance program. This includes drafting a manual and specific work procedures and helping to train employees — that includes everyone from the chief level officers to the people shipping the goods.

Res Communis: Very interesting. You were talking about small versus large companies. The big defense contractors have a lot of in-house expertise. Is it more difficult for small companies to comply?

Schroeder: I wouldn’t say more difficult to comply, but perhaps it’s more burdensome because a smaller company might not have the same level of in-house resources as a large company. But, if you are engaged in international trade you must comply with these rules, regardless of whether you’re a large or small company. So, some of your resources, no matter how limited they may be, must be dedicated to trade compliance. It tends to be a little more manageable for the larger companies who have or who are able to hire extra resources to apply to these issues.

Res Communis: The ITAR is a big issue in space law right now, at least at the national level. There has been a lot of discussion recently about changing them. From your experience what, if anything, would you recommend be done with the regulations to be more client friendly. What is your view on this debate?

Schroeder: To the extent change is possible, I think a positive change would be for the regulations to be clearer. By that I mean, the way the ITAR is promulgated now, many of the provisions are drafted in such a way that results in multiple interpretations. If there were a way to narrow or tighten definitions or provide additional guidance on other provisions – like brokering –I think that would be a big help.

Res Communis: One of the viewpoints that is often expressed is that it is not the regulations themselves but the implementation of the regulations that need to be improved, would you make a comment on that?

Schroeder: Regarding implementation, I would say one of the issues is resources. The regulatory agencies that are tasked with implementing these complex rules have limited resources. The people in these agencies are tasked with answering day-to-day questions, processing license applications, dealing with compliance issues, speaking at industry events, responding to the Congress. There is only so much a limited number of people can do.

Res Communis: At the Center’s Galloway event last December you spoke about an ITAR agreement between Great Britain and the United States. Can you tell us about that? What is its current status?

Schroeder: There are actually two bilateral agreements. They are called Defense Trade Cooperation agreements. One is between the United States and the United Kingdom and the other is between the United States and Australia. Both of those agreements would focus on defense projects, not commercial projects. The agreements have been signed by the governments of the involved countries but in the United States, the Senate has not yet ratified them.

Res Communis: So they have to go through a formal treaty ratification process.

Schroeder: Yes.

Res Communis: What benefit would they provide to the parties?

Schroeder: The goal would be the streamlining of trade compliance requirements for eligible U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-Australia defense projects.

Res Communis: Would that mean less work for you?

Schroeder: No, because most of the work I do in the export control area is on the commercial side. So, I don’t expect it would have a significant impact on my practice.

Res Communis: In addition to export control issues, what other kinds of things come across your desk?

Schroeder: There is a lot of work on contracts, both on the government and commercial sides. These include contracts for the purchase of satellites and launch services and satellite transponder sales and leases. On the government side, the contracts involve planetary missions and other civil space projects. I also work on non-export control regulatory issues that affect the space industry. This includes FAA launch licensing and range safety, as well as NOAA licensing of privately-owned commercial remote sensing satellite systems.

Res Communis: When somebody comes to you as a launch provider do you think in different terms than if somebody comes to you as a satellite operator?

Schroeder: Yes, there are unique issues to satellite purchase agreements and to launch service agreements. Very often the kinds of contracts I work on are called “delivery in orbit” (DIO) contracts where the customer will purchase the spacecraft delivered in orbit. The contract will include the manufacture of the spacecraft and the launch of the spacecraft. I often think about satellite-unique issues and launch-unique issues simultaneously because if it is a DIO contract, I want to make sure that all the issues are covered from the moment the manufacturer starts manufacturing the satellite to the moment the satellite is delivered into the designated orbit.

Res Communis: What would you tell a law student who wants to do what you are doing? How should they prepare themselves? What advice would you give them?

Schroeder: I think it is very important, first and foremost, to be truly passionate about the industry. Much of what I do involves working with engineers, scientists, and businesspeople who have been in the space industry for a long time and who are very dedicated to the field. Sharing that passion makes the working relationship really terrific. As a practical matter, I would advise taking courses in contracts, administrative law, international trade and negotiations. I also think it is extremely important that young lawyers understand the relationship between law and policy.

Res Communis: Can you say something about that? That is very interesting.

Schroeder: The law often is informed by policy objectives that Congress wants to make sure are carried out. Understanding the logic or policy behind the rules makes it easier to understand how to follow them.

For example, law governing commercial space transportation came about because the U.S. government wanted to encourage development of the industry in the U.S. A law needed to be passed to authorize the licensing and regulation of commercial space transportation activities. The legal regime established a means to limit the liability of the private party launch participants and to protect the public. It also provides a means for the U.S. government to fulfill its international treaty obligations.

It’s also easier to understand U.S. export control laws and regulations when you keep in mind that the intent behind these controls is to achieve U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.

Res Communis: How did you find your way into this kind of practice?

Schroeder: I started my career working on space issues in the government. I was fascinated by them. I took a course that the government offered on various space issues, one of which was space law. I thought if I could go to law school and work in the space industry as a lawyer, I needed to do that. So I went to law school with being a space lawyer in mind.

Res Communis: You weren’t a lawyer in the government?

Schroeder: That’s right.

Res Communis: You went to school with the intention of becoming a space lawyer?

Schroeder: Correct. I feel very fortunate that things worked out this way. I had some great mentors. And I was driven, or as I said earlier – I was passionate about it.

Res Communis: Did you go immediately into private practice or did you go back to the government?

Schroeder: I stayed in the government as a summer associate and then had an opportunity to move into the private sector as a law clerk in my third year of law school. Then I accepted an associate position in that law firm.

Res Communis: What would you say are some of the most important issues today in space law, either national or international?

Schroeder: Export control is certainly a top-tier issue. Another issue that likely will need to be addressed as the “space tourism” industry matures is the licensing and regulation of on-orbit activities. Currently, there is no statutory authority for the licensing and regulations of on-orbit activities.

Res Communis: Do you ever get involved with a client who either sells or purchases a satellite that is already on orbit?

Schroeder: Yes. And that’s a transaction that could trigger U.S. export control issues. For example, if the satellite is U.S.-origin and the owner wants to sell it to a non U.S. entity, the transfer cannot occur until the ITAR license has been issued.

Res Communis: Is there anything you would like to raise that hasn’t been raised or addressed?

Schroeder: Yes. It also would be very important for any law student or new lawyer in this field to have a solid understanding of the five multilateral treaties that govern outer space activities. These are the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention, the Registration Convention, the Rescue and Return Agreement, and the Moon Treaty. I also would recommend becoming familiar with the work of the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). The Legal Subcommittee is responsible for addressing international legal issues arising from the use of outer space.

Res Communis: Thank you.

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.