United States-European Union Air Transport Agreement Of April 2007

B. The Kingdom of Belgium: air services agreement to be implemented by the exchange of banknotes in Washington on 23 October 1980; Changed on September 22 and November 12, 1986; Amended on November 5, 1993 and January 12, 1994. 3. Equity and Equal Opportunity: All airlines – designated and un designated – in both countries can set up sales offices in the other country, convert profits and transfer them into strong currency immediately and without restrictions. Designated airlines are free to offer their own stopover assistance services – self-help – or to choose from competing providers. Airlines and cargo solidifiers can arrange ground air cargo transport and have guaranteed access to customs services. User fees are not discriminatory and are cost-based; Computerized reservation system screens are transparent and non-discriminatory. On 2 May 2000, Turkey concluded a bilateral air services agreement with the United States in New York. This agreement, based on the “open skies” approach that came into force on 13 August 2001, contains most of the provisions relating to regulatory cooperation, market access and investments found in the new AIR Services Agreement between the United States and the EU. However, it is still a fairly liberal agreement that, from the perspective of the United States, would not warrant renewal at this time. Notwithstanding Section 1 of this annex, areas not covered by the definition of “territory” in Article 1 of this agreement, the agreements covered in paragraphs (e) (Denmark-United States), (Denmark-United States) and (v) (United Kingdom) of this section continue to apply in accordance with their provisions. With the advent of the new Congress, the issue of ownership will inevitably be controversial, and it could threaten the second stage talks and possibly stop the Level I agreement.

The EU has included the language in the Phase I agreement, which stipulates that any party would have the right to suspend rights if progress in the Phase II negotiations (ownership issue) is not completed within a specified time frame. This appears to be a threat of full termination of the Level I agreement if no progress is possible on the issue of ownership.