Earlier this week, ETF and aviation workers across Europe were surprised by the new airlines’ call for EU reforms for a competitive aviation sector, issued by the lobbying organisation Airlines for Europe (A4E). Although workers certainly agree with the need to boost the economic performance of European carriers, we believe that this statement misses that intent almost entirely.
In June 2025, ETF published its updated Vision for Civil Aviation. In this document, hundreds of thousands of aviation workers stand alongside their employers demanding reforms and investments that address the complete absence of a level playing field in the global aviation market. In short, European aviation workers demand the reforms that will see their employers succeed on the international stage.
Today, non-EU airlines are gaining market share by being able to do business in Europe without playing by European rules. To boost the economic performance of our airlines, we must start by requiring that non-EU airlines operating to and from airports in the EU comply with the established European standards, including those related to safety, social and employment aspects, environmental performance and restrictions on external airspace use, such as those currently applied to Russian airspace.
Out of all these aspects creating unfair global competition, A4E’s statement only mentions the environmental sustainability one. Instead of all the others, we were astonished to discover the reference to EU rules on compensations and cabin baggage, and air traffic management. Against the extremely challenging background described in the previous paragraph, these are two of the three priority areas for EU reforms selected by airlines to ensure “a competitive aviation sector tomorrow”. We doubt the seriousness of this prioritisation.
ETF highly doubts that EU rules on passengers’ compensations and baggage are limiting the competitiveness of any European airline in the global market. In comparison to the enormous challenges of global unfair competition and the scale of the costs associated with them, the matters of compensations and baggage seem so insignificant that we simply cannot take them seriously. The only possible explanation of this mention is the fact that these topics are currently under appreciation by the European institutions, high in the Brussels aviation agenda. Although we understand the reactive lobbying push, we would expect more ponderation on A4E’s side before placing these issues amongst the three priority areas demanding reforms to ensure the future of our industry.
The inclusion of air traffic management in this shortlist is also a cause of surprise to aviation workers. We do agree that mounting delays are a problem in our industry, and that their root cause is insufficient capacity. However, is this really a competitive disadvantage for airlines in the global market? In the absence of comparative data, we would refrain from taking such a conclusion. Furthermore, what really seems to motivate this reference to air traffic management is the attempt to curtail the fundamental right to strike of a whole segment of the aviation workforce. The proposals included in the airlines’ statement regarding this issue are blatantly beyond EU competence and would empty the substance of a fundamental right with no proportionate reason. European air traffic management does require reforms, and ETF has been taking fundamental steps to help building them. Unfortunately, the airlines’ fixation on strikes in this field looks more like a distraction tactic than a constructive effort.
ETF joins the call for “bold action today to maintain a resilient European airline sector tomorrow”, but we must also add that airlines are failing to identify the most crucial element of future resilience. For European aviation to have any future at all, it must be an industry that people want to work for. Today, chronic labour shortages expand within the industry. The attractiveness of civil aviation is jeopardised by degrading working conditions, decreasing wages, failing social dialogue and growing social dumping practices. To build resilience in the sector, we must urgently start inverting these trends. And these should be amongst the employers’ priorities too.
Lastly, we must say that the timing of this A4E public statement is an interesting one. In the last few weeks, the European social partners in Civil Aviation have been working closely on a joint statement targeting specifically the issue of level playing field and the competitiveness of European aviation. The officially recognised social partners on the side of airlines (ENAA, A4D, ERA and AIRE) have been involved in this process. This joint statement, which we hope to finalise at the annual EU social dialogue meeting taking place on 6 November, should cover all issues mentioned in this article, ranging from environmental sustainability to social standards, and including the perspectives not only of the airlines’ business but also of ground and air traffic management operations.
We believe the outcome will be a more realistic and comprehensive attempt at preparing our sector for the future than the one conveyed by A4E’s recent statement. We urge all social partners to stay committed to this truly industry-wide effort in the weeks to come. Only a common approach to growing challenges will give regulators the needed push for impactful reforms.