It’s worth noting that easa hasn’t been in operation that long as a governing body . Uts only been about 5 years since easa has been issuing common licenses etc . Before was the joint aviation authority which harmonised all the different authorirties. Despite easa they still operate there own variances . For example the German caa quite difficult to deal with that’s why many airlines reg in Ireland and Austria . If it gets to the point where fights stop that will be the least of our worries as everything will stop. Another example is that most major insurance and financial policies for many European organisations are underwritten by London . If nothing happens by March much of Europe will be affected as much as the uk . This is not a one way street . The eu as much as uk gov needs to step up to sort this out.

VSMUT wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

You are forgetting a very major point, for aviation technical areas, the UK IS A MEMBER OF ICAO, independently of the EU. It can simply use existing EASA rules/regulations by adopting them under UK law. As an ICAO member ALL other members HAVE to recognise them, under ICAO rules unless they are shown to be deficient. The EU is NOT a member of ICAO.
Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage

Gemuser
.

They still need to adopt them though, which means passing them through the parliament. Given how many laws would have to be adopted (and not just in aviation), there is a pretty good chance that there could be disruptions in case of a hard brexit. The Economist had an article on this subject a while ago. Back then, the British parliament would have to pass something like 500 laws each day in order to achieve it by the exit date, quite impossible.

Either way, I will make sure to stay far away from British airports and airlines in those days, regardless of what deal is or isn't made.

That is probably a very wise decision. And I will make sure to visit Brittain before the Brexit.

Arion640 wrote:

Amazing how the EU is a big organisation for “freedom” yet there’s no freedom to do your own trade deals or control your borders. Irony.

Irony? Enjoying the four freedoms and at the same time having the freedom to do your own trade deals, is called the "Norway option". EU has offered this option to the UK, but the UK turned it down.

Following the news in British media, I'm puzzled and amazed of the UK focus on trade and tariff free access to the EU market. EU tariffs are not high. Norway has had two referendums concerning EU membership and both times the majority (52% against 48%) said 'no' to joining the EU. The main reason is that we want tariffs and customs borders. Norway has high tariffs in order to protect a higher average standard of living and a significantly higher salary level than the EU. Without tariffs it would be impossible to stay competitive in sectors like agriculture.

But, there is a huge majority in Norway that supports the four freedoms, the implementation of EU law and its agencies, including oversight by the EU court. Having a common aviation market and letting the EU agency (EASA) handle certification and safely regulations, is unproblematic for Norwegians. The same goes for all sectors, like energy, nuclear, medicines, financial etc. where there are EU agencies. People just want flying to be cheap and safe, and that medicines are tested, works well, and a safe to use etc. In the UK politicians talk about "taking back control". What they mean is removing the cooperation, influence and authority of EU governmental agencies like EASA. At the same time the UK is unprepared to handle the workload and functions these agencies provide. See the irony?

Dutchy wrote:

LTU330 wrote:

However, back on topic, there is no way that flights will simply have to stop or RR Engines suddenly become unusable. The UK will still be part of EASA. You don't just get kicked out of an organization like that because of Brexit, just like British Airways won't just get kicked out of the IAG Group.

The European Aviation Safety Agency or EASA is an agency of the European Union. So that means that when Brittian has left the EU, they are also out of all its agencies, thus also the EASA. They aren't kicked out, they decided to leave. And that's why there will be administrative problems with real-world consequences if there is no-deal Brexit: flights will stop and Airbus's wings will be unusable. That is the simple but harsh answer to the question of the OP.
After a marriage of 40 years, you need to work something out or you will have problems, new spare parts and new engines of RR (if made in the UK) will be unusable. All these kind of agencies were EU, not local, for good reasons, with Brexit, Britain needs to form their own agencies and they need to be validated as a 3rd country agencies if no deal is reached. The no-deal option isn't a real option for all involved, but mostly to the UK itself, hence the cliff edge.

Dutchy: You are forgetting a very major point, for aviation technical areas, EASA/EU itself has no authority in international civil aviation, its authority is derived from the membership of ICAO by the various nation states of Europe, including the UK. The UK is still a member of ICAO and Brexit will/can not change that. They can simply use existing EASA rules/regulations by adopting them under UK law. As an ICAO member ALL other members HAVE to recognise them, under ICAO rules unless they are shown to be deficient. The EU is NOT a member of ICAO.
Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage

Gemuser
.

Duplicate removed

f4f3a wrote:

It’s worth noting that easa hasn’t been in operation that long as a governing body . Uts only been about 5 years since easa has been issuing common licenses etc . Before was the joint aviation authority which harmonised all the different authorirties. Despite easa they still operate there own variances . For example the German caa quite difficult to deal with that’s why many airlines reg in Ireland and Austria . If it gets to the point where fights stop that will be the least of our worries as everything will stop. Another example is that most major insurance and financial policies for many European organisations are underwritten by London . If nothing happens by March much of Europe will be affected as much as the uk . This is not a one way street . The eu as much as uk gov needs to step up to sort this out.

Sure, all parties stand to lose quite a big deal. Although Brittian is the party whom got more to lose. The UK needs to make this choice, they are the one's leaving. They know perfectly well what the EU stands for and what is possible or not, cherry picking is out, they signed the damn agreements when they were in. The Brits continue to believe in fairytales, I that doesn't change, we are heading towards a hard Brexit, it is inevitable. The EU isn't going to tear the four pillars down, just to reach a deal mrs. May wants.

All the countries that have joined the EU have benefitted from it tremendously. When I flew to the UK the first time when I was 12 in 1975 (remember UK joined 1973 and btw it was on a BEA Trident) it was a visibly poor country, significantly poorer than my EU home country. The UK have benefited so much from EU membership it is now really on par with the rest of its Neighbors.

To me there is nothing wrong and everything right with further European integration until - yes - it’s one federal state.

Any negative impact of Brexit on the UK is 100% the resonsibity of the UK, its politicians and its people. All the UK needs to do to avoid building up a whole new bureaucracy and any negative consequences of Brexit is to stop Brexit. I would welcome that.

But again the choice is for the UK to make and to live with.

It's their choice to make but you don't want them to make that choice?
Brexit does not have any contagion, the EU will remain, no other nation will ever leave, the UK leaving means they have to set up their own regulatory bodies, it is that simple. The EU fell back on its legal foundation when they attempted to implement their worldwide carbon trading policy, that legal framework showed that the EU still recognized the treaties previously signed by nation states, however within the EU, they control their members.
So could UK flights to the EU be affected, yes, if the EU deems it to be.

reidar76 wrote:

Irony? Enjoying the four freedoms and at the same time having the freedom to do your own trade deals, is called the "Norway option". EU has offered this option to the UK, but the UK turned it down.

Following the news in British media, I'm puzzled and amazed of the UK focus on trade and tariff free access to the EU market. EU tariffs are not high. Norway has had two referendums concerning EU membership and both times the majority (52% against 48%) said 'no' to joining the EU. The main reason is that we want tariffs and customs borders. Norway has high tariffs in order to protect a higher average standard of living and a significantly higher salary level than the EU. Without tariffs it would be impossible to stay competitive in sectors like agriculture.

But, there is a huge majority in Norway that supports the four freedoms, the implementation of EU law and its agencies, including oversight by the EU court. Having a common aviation market and letting the EU agency (EASA) handle certification and safely regulations, is unproblematic for Norwegians. The same goes for all sectors, like energy, nuclear, medicines, financial etc. where there are EU agencies. People just want flying to be cheap and safe, and that medicines are tested, works well, and a safe to use etc. In the UK politicians talk about "taking back control". What they mean is removing the cooperation, influence and authority of EU governmental agencies like EASA. At the same time the UK is unprepared to handle the workload and functions these agencies provide. See the irony?

48% of the voting population is not a "huge majority" no matter how you try to spin it.

RobK wrote:

48% of the voting population is not a "huge majority" no matter how you try to spin it.

....or their 52% is respected versus others.......or maybe the result negates the percentage.....interesting.

I think some deal will be done by the UK and EU as done by the EU and non-EU members like Switzerland, closer to a 'soft Brexit', so certain EU-UK relationships are kept to prevent major problems including aviation operations. Besides, lets face it, the UK was never a 100% EU member anyway as kept its own border controls, money and other exemptions.

One aviation related issue in the Brexit and perhaps it intent by those that voted for it, is to limit movement of EU country citizens post-Brexit, That could mean fewer flights to/from UK and EU countries as the UK tightens up the ability of EU nationals from working in the UK.

As of today, or better, since triggering Article 50 of the EU-Treaty, no-deal brexit is the default result if no deal is reached by march 29, 2019. The deal has to be ratified by the European Parliament and each of the 27 remaining countries (in Belgium even by subdivisions). So time is running out.
The best option now is to revoke the Art. 50 notification, where unanimity by the 27 governments should be sufficient or to restart the clock/expand the time-period.

Gemuser wrote:

Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage

But the disruption will be extrem, for Germany-UK Traffic the old bilateral will be back in force. It was not cancelled by the common aviation area, only superseded. And the German government will not negotiate a separate bilateral with the UK. That is the task of the EU-Commission. That is at least the formal position of the German Government.
That bilateral allows only limited city pairs to be served. The bilateral does not allow marketing alliances, joint ventures and such. Those are governed by the community law. So for example a United/Eurowings Flight DUS-LHR-LAX can not longer be sold. Or any Virigin/Delta, American/British Airways combination, according to statements by US airline lobbyists.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

(at all cost, right?)

Yes. I don’t want to live in a superstate 10 years down the line.

So this is the real reason you want a Brexit at all cost: being afraid of something that might happen in 10 years?

Do you want Brittian to fall apart? Then you are part of even a smaller state, England I presume. Or perhaps a county is the right size for you? Or perhaps only a city with some surrounding farmland?
Some problems can't be tackled at a national level, so on a supranational level it might be solved, so why not do this at this level in a permanent structure? You have to deal with problems at a so low level as possible.

If Britain falls apart, I will not be living in the state of England.

We tried re-negotiating the free movement of people, it didn’t happen. Britian is prepared to take the risk.

VSMUT wrote:

[They still need to adopt them though, which means passing them through the parliament. Given how many laws would have to be adopted (and not just in aviation), there is a pretty good chance that there could be disruptions in case of a hard brexit. The Economist had an article on this subject a while ago. Back then, the British parliament would have to pass something like 500 laws each day in order to achieve it by the exit date, quite impossible.

It's already been done. "European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018" has been passed through both houses and received Royal Assent on June 26th.
It transfers all applicable EU law to UK law on 'exit day' (defined as 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m).

Essentially, the laws remain the same until the UK changes them.

VSMUT wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

You are forgetting a very major point, for aviation technical areas, the UK IS A MEMBER OF ICAO, independently of the EU. It can simply use existing EASA rules/regulations by adopting them under UK law. As an ICAO member ALL other members HAVE to recognise them, under ICAO rules unless they are shown to be deficient. The EU is NOT a member of ICAO.
Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage

Gemuser
.

They still need to adopt them though, which means passing them through the parliament. Given how many laws would have to be adopted (and not just in aviation), there is a pretty good chance that there could be disruptions in case of a hard brexit. The Economist had an article on this subject a while ago. Back then, the British parliament would have to pass something like 500 laws each day in order to achieve it by the exit date, quite impossible.

Either way, I will make sure to stay far away from British airports and airlines in those days, regardless of what deal is or isn't made.

Why would you stay away from British airports and airlines ? the staff, procedures etc would be exactly the same as before, the only thing that would change is signature on the safety certificate.

The The UK parliament has already passed a bill to write all EU legislation into UK law, thus there is no need to pass something like 500 laws each day, one bill covered the lot !!

The vast majority posting one here fail to appreciate that a "no deal brexit" would have a significant impact on EU airlines as well, if UK airlines would be unable to operate in EU airspace the same would be true of EU airlines in UK airspace, due to the requirement to divert round UK airspace some routes to North America would no longer be viable or the aircraft would not have sufficient range.

As to the certification of aircraft parts, the scenario suggested by some will result in both Airbus and Boeing closing down production, does anyone really think this will happen ?

This was the most recent story I saw on the UK - US air service agreement:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... agree-key/

Key points are:

- British overseas territories to be included, if you are unsure as to which those are see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_O ... erritories
- Deal on the table right now that UK could sign but holding out for extra concessions
- UK wants agreement to allow more airlines to enter and boost competition
- All major transaltlantic airlines will be included

vs millennium bug any current continuation of the current agreements/legislation requires no action rather than years of technical preparation, just a matter of resuming the status quo. EU law will be absorbed into UK law on the Brexit date, this has already been approved by parliament. Sure, EU could cease to recognise the UK, safety, air services agreements, ability to fly over UK airspace, recognition of aerospace parts build in UK etc if it wanted but the disruption this would cause would be enormous, who would want to take responsibility for that?

The EU-US air service agreement was signed in 2007 but still hasn't been ratified by all member states, even so it's been applied provisionally until such time it is. No need for a raft of major legislation all the levers exist for the current arrangement to exist until legislation says otherwise.

Dutchy wrote:

So in conclusion, everything will stop on the Brexit date without a deal.

Not necessarily. Who knows what will happen. Maybe an agreement will be made to allow business continuity.

Trouble with anti Brexit folk, they do look to the worst of things.

JayBCNLON wrote:

All the countries that have joined the EU have benefitted from it tremendously. When I flew to the UK the first time when I was 12 in 1975 (remember UK joined 1973 and btw it was on a BEA Trident) it was a visibly poor country, significantly poorer than my EU home country. The UK have benefited so much from EU membership it is now really on par with the rest of its Neighbors.

To me there is nothing wrong and everything right with further European integration until - yes - it’s one federal state.

Any negative impact of Brexit on the UK is 100% the resonsibity of the UK, its politicians and its people. All the UK needs to do to avoid building up a whole new bureaucracy and any negative consequences of Brexit is to stop Brexit. I would welcome that.

But again the choice is for the UK to make and to live with.

What a strange desire. The EU to be one federal state.

Like I posted, fear mongering about a no deal is benefiting no one and government departments (including my own) have made or are in the process of developing detailed contingency plans.

RobK wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Irony? Enjoying the four freedoms and at the same time having the freedom to do your own trade deals, is called the "Norway option". EU has offered this option to the UK, but the UK turned it down.

Following the news in British media, I'm puzzled and amazed of the UK focus on trade and tariff free access to the EU market. EU tariffs are not high. Norway has had two referendums concerning EU membership and both times the majority (52% against 48%) said 'no' to joining the EU. The main reason is that we want tariffs and customs borders. Norway has high tariffs in order to protect a higher average standard of living and a significantly higher salary level than the EU. Without tariffs it would be impossible to stay competitive in sectors like agriculture.

But, there is a huge majority in Norway that supports the four freedoms, the implementation of EU law and its agencies, including oversight by the EU court. Having a common aviation market and letting the EU agency (EASA) handle certification and safely regulations, is unproblematic for Norwegians. The same goes for all sectors, like energy, nuclear, medicines, financial etc. where there are EU agencies. People just want flying to be cheap and safe, and that medicines are tested, works well, and a safe to use etc. In the UK politicians talk about "taking back control". What they mean is removing the cooperation, influence and authority of EU governmental agencies like EASA. At the same time the UK is unprepared to handle the workload and functions these agencies provide. See the irony?

48% of the voting population is not a "huge majority" no matter how you try to spin it.

The "Norway option" is joining the EEA (EU single market), but not the EU customs union. Norway has had referendums twice, and both times the result was 'no' to joining the EU (52% voted 'no', 48% 'yes'). In other words, a very similar result as the UK where the population is divided.

There hasn't been any referendum concerning joining the EEA, but after being a member of that for about 25 years or so, opinion polls suggest that almost 80% thinks the EEA is good for Norway. That is a huge majority.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So in conclusion, everything will stop on the Brexit date without a deal.

Not necessarily. Who knows what will happen. Maybe an agreement will be made to allow business continuity.

Trouble with anti Brexit folk, they do look to the worst of things.

Yes, necessarily. If no deal or agreement is reached.

I don't think no agreement/deal will be reached, but if no deal is reached, then everything will stop by law apparently.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So in conclusion, everything will stop on the Brexit date without a deal.

Not necessarily. Who knows what will happen. Maybe an agreement will be made to allow business continuity.

Trouble with anti Brexit folk, they do look to the worst of things.

Yes, necessarily. If no deal or agreement is reached.

I don't think no agreement/deal will be reached, but if no deal is reached, then everything will stop by law apparently.

That is an opinion.

Lets see what happens.

Regards

N

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Not necessarily. Who knows what will happen. Maybe an agreement will be made to allow business continuity.

Trouble with anti Brexit folk, they do look to the worst of things.

Yes, necessarily. If no deal or agreement is reached.

I don't think no agreement/deal will be reached, but if no deal is reached, then everything will stop by law apparently.

That is an opinion.

Lets see what happens.

Regards

N

Yes, that is my opinion, I believe both sides of the North Sea can't be that stupid that nothing will be fixed and thus aviation will stop. Don't you think so?

Gemuser wrote:

Dutchy: You are forgetting a very major point, for aviation technical areas, EASA/EU itself has no authority in international civil aviation, its authority is derived from the membership of ICAO by the various nation states of Europe, including the UK. The UK is still a member of ICAO and Brexit will/can not change that. They can simply use existing EASA rules/regulations by adopting them under UK law. As an ICAO member ALL other members HAVE to recognise them, under ICAO rules unless they are shown to be deficient. The EU is NOT a member of ICAO.
Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage.

Gemuser

No, Gemuser. That is totally wrong.

ICAO is a UN organisation which makes recommendations to UN member states about how civil aviation rules are made in individual countries or groups of countries. And they recommend as much harmonisation a possible.

EASA is the agency which makes the rules for certification and licensing for EU countries, including the UK as long as she is still an EU member.

There is of course no reason the EASA after Brexit cannot certify or license UK companies which are overseen by a future UK civil aviation agency. Problem is that the UK goverment so far has wasted 26 months with only 7 months to go. With no sign of going to work. Until the UK has a working and capable agency like the FAA, or the TCCA in Canada etc, and the EU has a bilateral agreement with it, then there is a huge problem. A problem which has to be solved by the UK, not by EU27.

How, dear Gemuser, will you avoid the cliff with much less than 7 months to go? Dutchy is right.

I don't know how you feel it, but here on the eastern side of the Channel the UK seems more and more like a laughable banana republic, not because of Brexit, but due to the way she manages Brexit. "Laughable" may not be the right word, because there is nothing to laugh about, certainly not in Britain, but also not in EU27. But Brexit wasn't our choice, and we can't produce a civil aviation agency for Britain.

prebennorholm wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Dutchy: You are forgetting a very major point, for aviation technical areas, EASA/EU itself has no authority in international civil aviation, its authority is derived from the membership of ICAO by the various nation states of Europe, including the UK. The UK is still a member of ICAO and Brexit will/can not change that. They can simply use existing EASA rules/regulations by adopting them under UK law. As an ICAO member ALL other members HAVE to recognise them, under ICAO rules unless they are shown to be deficient. The EU is NOT a member of ICAO.
Undoubtedly there will be disruption but not the fall off a cliff you envisage.

Gemuser

No, Gemuser. That is totally wrong.
ICAO is a UN organisation which makes recommendations to UN member states about how civil aviation rules are made in individual countries or groups of countries. And they recommend as much harmonisation a possible.

There is of course no reason the EASA after Brexit cannot certify or license UK companies which are overseen by a future UK civil aviation agency. ... Until the UK has a working and capable agency like the FAA, or the TCCA in Canada etc, and the EU has a bilateral agreement with it, then there is a huge problem.

How, dear Gemuser, will you avoid the cliff with much less than 7 months to go? Dutchy is right. .

I have snipped the quote and will only address the points above.
ICAO IS NOT a UN Treaty Agency! It operates under its own treaty [the Chicago Convention & subsequent] and is NOT responsible to the General Assembly, It is only administratively part of the UN. A country can be a member of ICAO WITHOUT being a member of the UN. ICAO makes the rules not recommendations which are approved by a majority of the membership.. Individual members can opt out of individual parts of the rules if they wish.

The UK already has a working & presumably capable "national aviation authority", the CAA. As detailed above all existing EASA laws, regulations etc have ALREADY been adopted by the UK, effective on exit date. Given that, it would take very little to get it up and running, a little bit of recruitment, and the UK has a large aviation sector to draw on. I really doubt other countries [at least outside the EU] will have any problem with the CAA.

Nothing I have said applies to traffic rights [ASAs]. They are outside the convention. I have no real knowledge of these outside Australia, however given the amount of money involve IMHO there will NOT be any real, widespread problem with non EU countries, at least.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

I have no real knowledge of these outside Australia, however given the amount of money involve IMHO there will NOT be any real, widespread problem with non EU countries, at least.

Gemuser

Gemuser, if there will be no widespread problem is an opinion. If nothing is done, there will be just that. So all I am saying is that something needs to be done fast. A deal needs to be negotiated or an extension needs to be granted. This is becoming ridiculous and is toying with a lot of lives and companies in this way. Aviation is only a small part of the equation. I do not see the UK government coming to any realistic proposal, as of now. Many options on the table, it is up for the May government to choose one an negotiate a deal which she thinks will be acceptable for parliament.

Dutchy, of course it an opinion, that's what I said 'IMHO' [In My Humble Opinion]. It also, as I said, applies only to traffic rights, technical matters I see no rea problem given 1) the UK remains a member of ICAO & 2) the UK has already adopted in to UK law all EASA requirements.

Gemuser

I was away for the weekend, so sorry for starting a contentious subject and abandoning it.

But I would think that the likes of FR and U2 need to be making planning decisions for Summer '19 schedule now as far as where to put their fleet, where they need crew, etc... U2 will need to know exactly how many aircraft will be registered with the Austrian AOC and FR still doesn't even have their UK AOC.

So even if there is an 11th hour agreement, a major airline like that would be daft to accept the sort of long tail risk of keeping flights as they are now. Considering a deal needs to have basically already been negotiated at this point, or at least at the final stages I suspect we may already be past the point of no major impacts and the summer schedules to come out soon may be quite shocking.

Dutchy wrote:

A deal needs to be negotiated or an extension needs to be granted.

I honestly believe that this has always been the basic plan of the opponents of Brexit, if nothing is negotiated by end March 2019 the public will be forced to accept an extension of the EU membership by paying the agreed price, which is most quarters is accepted as the price for actually giving and taking a vote.
The extension and the ultimate re-vote is to be expected, it has been thus in other member nations the UK should be no different, just more difficult.
Like Andy Capp zig zagging all over the place to get across the road to his house....

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A deal needs to be negotiated or an extension needs to be granted.

I honestly believe that this has always been the basic plan of the opponents of Brexit, if nothing is negotiated by end March 2019 the public will be forced to accept an extension of the EU membership by paying the agreed price, which is most quarters is accepted as the price for actually giving and taking a vote.
The extension and the ultimate re-vote is to be expected, it has been thus in other member nations the UK should be no different, just more difficult.
Like Andy Capp zig zagging all over the place to get across the road to his house....

Might be the plan, on the other hand you could say that there is so little time left to negotiate a deal or whatever because of the hard-Breixteers frustrating the process, that a hard Brexit is inseverable. And this was their true intention all along.

Neither views a true in the end: or might be true for a small minority of the Brexiteers on one side and remainers on the other.

I know it's slightly off topic, but it's still something that flies...I'm talking about Galileo. The EU have no business expelling us (the Brits) from this project. We put in the majority of the expertise and have paid a vast amount of money to finance it. I voted Remain but when the EU use politics to interfere with a perfectly normal cross-border security agency/project, I begin to wonder. It smacks of petulance and is no way to behave in this day and age, especially with the numerous threats that Europe faces. Barnier, Juncker et al are no better than the Redwoods, Rees-Moggs and Johnsons on this side of the Channel. I really don't want to put my future, or that of aviation, in the hands of the likes of any of them. Bastards I think John Major called them. Referenda are the tool of despots, and are NOT democratic. Democracy works by entrusting Governments to work on behalf of the people, not having a vote every five minutes on issues that the general public cannot possibly have a detailed grasp of. The situation we find ourselves in now is ample demonstration of that. We have all been royally shafted, CONNED. And it probably serves us right - for ever going on to repeat the mistakes of the past, over and over again. Reminds me of the last scene of Planet of the Apes, when Charlton Heston's character says 'the stupid bastrds, they finally did it' or words to that effect. Boy, we're going down that road fast..

londonistan wrote:

I know it's slightly off topic, but it's still something that flies...I'm talking about Galileo. The EU have no business expelling us (the Brits) from this project.

Galileo is a EU project, since the UK is leaving the group they can no longer receive the benefits of the project, if they made financial commitments they have to continue to meet those obligations. Probably better to move that thought to the Non-Av section.

As it relates to traffic between the UK and the EU after Mar-2019 if no deal, even if a last minute extension is granted, I would expect some disruption at local secondary airports frequented by FR for example, as some authorities may not have gotten the "memos" and may refuse to clear or release a flight.

EASA is not a Problem, the European Common Aviation Area includes a number of countries which are not member of the EU, whoch means that "Third Countries" which the UK will be then, can be members.

The real Problem is the single markez whoch the UK is about to leave. Even when associated with the EU, the facilitation of shipments by rail, road and air will no longer be available. The best for the UK would be an association whoch allows a simple documentation /(T2, T2L) which certifies the origin of the goods as "EU". That however requires Special customs tratment ( handling at origin and at Destination. Something which had become obsolate with the single market. saving millions of manhours and billions in costs.

Knowing the facilities at LHR, there simply won't be enough spaces at the LHR horseshoe, just to mentione one Location. The result would be instant melt down for air cargo throughout he UK . Same would happen at the trucking borders. Even of clearance is diverted to Inland customs facilities, But even checking the T1 (third Country( and T2 (single market EU Transit documents would take time, man power and use of facilites which are simply not available.

Either way you look at it, if the UK does not pull the emergency brake and Exit the Brexit asap, the damages to the national economy of the UK will be huge.

Loew wrote:

EU commission has already issued a notice to stakeholders in januray 2018 in connection with air transport in a case of a no deal hard brexit.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/tr ... nsport.pdf

Bottom line is, if the UK leaves the EU without an aviation agreement, flights would immediately cease between the UK and the EU since EU issued operating aviation licenses would no longer be valid in the UK, and British airlines would no longer have the right to fly to EU countries, because UK issued operating aviation licences would no longer be valid in the EU. The UK would also cease being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which issues the certification and licenses EU aircraft require. Third country airlines could be hit too, as those carriers will no longer benefit from access to traffic rights to or from the UK, or any other rights where these have been granted to their country under any air transport agreement to which the EU is a party. An example of such agreement is EU-US open skies agreement.

What about overflight and ATC? Will TATL traffic have to be routed from Ireland to the continent without entering UK airspace if there is a no deal Brexit?

Loew wrote:

EU commission has already issued a notice to stakeholders in januray 2018 in connection with air transport in a case of a no deal hard brexit.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/tr ... nsport.pdf

Bottom line is, if the UK leaves the EU without an aviation agreement, flights would immediately cease between the UK and the EU since EU issued operating aviation licenses would no longer be valid in the UK, and British airlines would no longer have the right to fly to EU countries, because UK issued operating aviation licences would no longer be valid in the EU. The UK would also cease being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which issues the certification and licenses EU aircraft require. Third country airlines could be hit too, as those carriers will no longer benefit from access to traffic rights to or from the UK, or any other rights where these have been granted to their country under any air transport agreement to which the EU is a party. An example of such agreement is EU-US open skies agreement.

What about overflight and ATC? Will TATL traffic have to be routed from Ireland to the continent without entering UK airspace if there is a no deal Brexit?

Reading about the track system (on wikipedia, admittedly), it appears that the European side of ATC function is handled out of Shanwick Oceanic Control Centre, in Scotland... does this mean that the entire TATL track system dies without an agreement?

PanHAM wrote:

That however requires Special customs tratment ( handling at origin and at Destination. Something which had become obsolate with the single market. saving millions of manhours and billions in costs.

Obsolete within the EU yes, but used elsewhere, and since the UK has not been building up its resources to cater for this change after they filed Article 50, we can assume they will not be leaving any time soon and will continue to function under the EU banner for the foreseeable future.

PanHAM wrote:

Knowing the facilities at LHR, there simply won't be enough spaces at the LHR horseshoe, just to mentione one Location. The result would be instant melt down for air cargo throughout he UK . Same would happen at the trucking borders. Even of clearance is diverted to Inland customs facilities, But even checking the T1 (third Country( and T2 (single market EU Transit documents would take time, man power and use of facilites which are simply not available.

Either way you look at it, if the UK does not pull the emergency brake and Exit the Brexit asap, the damages to the national economy of the UK will be huge.

Same as the first, they just approved the building of a new runway at LHR, those funds could have been spent preparing the airport for its new reality, so same old same old.

The Brexit vote was rigged in so many ways, based on lies and manipulated by interest groups and foreign governments. It can not be taken seriously. The same circles that are in favor of Brexit would never accept the so-called referendum as valid.

I am really shocked how far the British political system and the political cast have gone down the drain.

I wonder how Britain can maintain a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Theough Brexit the UK has lost credibility, has become an unreliable player without an basis of power.

But let’s return to aviation: what if ownership of BA is not British but EU? Who says it has to change to a majority British ? Are we maybe seeing the end of BA?

par13del wrote:

londonistan wrote:

I know it's slightly off topic, but it's still something that flies...I'm talking about Galileo. The EU have no business expelling us (the Brits) from this project.

Galileo is a EU project, since the UK is leaving the group they can no longer receive the benefits of the project, if they made financial commitments they have to continue to meet those obligations. Probably better to move that thought to the Non-Av section.

As it relates to traffic between the UK and the EU after Mar-2019 if no deal, even if a last minute extension is granted, I would expect some disruption at local secondary airports frequented by FR for example, as some authorities may not have gotten the "memos" and may refuse to clear or release a flight.

Galileo will have major implications for ATC. And if we are no longer members of the 'Club', how is it that other 'third countries' like Switzerland and Morocco (Morocco???) and recently until they pulled out, China are able to share in the project? Which of them contributed 1.4 billion Euros...? and the expertise? The UK government needs to grow a pair, fast or we are buggered, big time. The rationale as quoted by Barnier is that the UK 'may be vulnerable to secrets being leaked'...give me strength....

par13del wrote:

Galileo is a EU project, since the UK is leaving the group they can no longer receive the benefits of the project, if they made financial commitments they have to continue to meet those obligations/

.
Wouldn't that be a perfect example of cherry picking by the EU? Something that the UK (possibly rightly) is also being accused of.

You're leaving the EU so everything you've contributed to it so far is written off, but, but the way, you still have to pay for future commitments you made in the past.

:

Virtual737 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Galileo is a EU project, since the UK is leaving the group they can no longer receive the benefits of the project, if they made financial commitments they have to continue to meet those obligations/

.
Wouldn't that be a perfect example of cherry picking by the EU? Something that the UK (possibly rightly) is also being accused of.

You're leaving the EU so everything you've contributed to it so far is written off, but, but the way, you still have to pay for future commitments you made in the past.

YYZYYT wrote:

What about overflight and ATC? Will TATL traffic have to be routed from Ireland to the continent without entering UK airspace if there is a no deal Brexit?

Overflight rights are governed by the International Air Services Transit Agreement which the UK, US and the rest of the EU are members of. I can't see that being anymore of an issue than it is now. The CAA website specifically states that a foreign carrier permit isn't required for UK overflights nor is one required for "Flights exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of the European Market Access Regulation".

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-indust ... r-permits/

I mean I suppose the EU could block UK flights overflying to non-EU destinations but that would just get us all in a very nasty legal battle wouldn't it? Especially if both parties are signed up to an agreement governing said rights.

JayBCNLON wrote:

The Brexit vote was rigged in so many ways, based on lies and manipulated by interest groups and foreign governments. It can not be taken seriously.

I mean both sides are guilty of that but whatever makes you feel better.

JayBCNLON wrote:

I am really shocked how far the British political system and the political cast have gone down the drain.

Sheesh, you better not visit some of those countries on the continent. Months on end without governments, nutcase far right parties getting into power, dysfunctional electoral systems, separatists trying to break countries up with dodgy declarations of independence etc.

JayBCNLON wrote:

I wonder how Britain can maintain a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Why is this question never asked of the other SC members? I know as a committed EU Federalist you'd like to see France and Britain removed and the EU replace them but why not ask why Russia is still a member or China?

PanHAM wrote:

EASA is not a Problem, the European Common Aviation Area includes a number of countries which are not member of the EU, whoch means that "Third Countries" which the UK will be then, can be members.

Well, not quite.
True, non-member states can and do participate in EASA. But that does come at a price: limited voting rights, and "membership fee". Which is exactly what Brexiteers don't want: pay for membership, but have no/limited power within such legal structure.
EU has already made very clear, that there will be no free rides on this. So until there is an agreement, it will be very much a Problem.

JayBCNLON wrote:

The Brexit vote was rigged in so many ways, based on lies and manipulated by interest groups and foreign governments. It can not be taken seriously. The same circles that are in favor of Brexit would never accept the so-called referendum as valid.

I am really shocked how far the British political system and the political cast have gone down the drain.

I wonder how Britain can maintain a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Theough Brexit the UK has lost credibility, has become an unreliable player without an basis of power.

But let’s return to aviation: what if ownership of BA is not British but EU? Who says it has to change to a majority British ? Are we maybe seeing the end of BA?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

YYZYYT wrote:

What about overflight and ATC? Will TATL traffic have to be routed from Ireland to the continent without entering UK airspace if there is a no deal Brexit?

Overflight rights are governed by the International Air Services Transit Agreement which the UK, US and the rest of the EU are members of. I can't see that being anymore of an issue than it is now. The CAA website specifically states that a foreign carrier permit isn't required for UK overflights nor is one required for "Flights exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of the European Market Access Regulation".

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-indust ... r-permits/

I mean I suppose the EU could block UK flights overflying to non-EU destinations but that would just get us all in a very nasty legal battle wouldn't it? Especially if both parties are signed up to an agreement governing said rights.

Hm. does this mean that UK is a separate signatory (in which case, it is a separate Agreement, that will continue) or is it signed by the EU (and thus binding on the UK indirectly)?

Since we are talking about a hypothetical "no deal" scenario, this agreement would no longer apply, would it?

The states are individual signatories to it:

https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/ ... sit_EN.pdf

Again to Brexiters, agreements for most of these problems are possible. But braindead Brexiters did not do their homework. Plans for the various sectors of the economy and political implications should have been worked out - sector by sector before the vote, and certainly before triggering exit. Don't blame Remainers. Then again anarchists set off the bomb and blame everyone else for the results.

As an aside, we can think simplistically that a plane flies because of the the physics forces involved. But as much, and for safe flying it is the sheaves of paper (or iPods), bureaucrats, treaties hammered out by diplomats, sausage making in political assemblies, and innumerable others without whom those planes cannot fly.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Again to Brexiters, agreements for most of these problems are possible. But braindead Brexiters did not do their homework. Plans for the various sectors of the economy and political implications should have been worked out - sector by sector before the vote, and certainly before triggering exit. Don't blame Remainers. Then again anarchists set off the bomb and blame everyone else for the results.

As an aside, we can think simplistically that a plane flies because of the the physics forces involved. But as much, and for safe flying it is the sheaves of paper (or iPods), bureaucrats, treaties hammered out by diplomats, sausage making in political assemblies, and innumerable others without whom those planes cannot fly.

That's what I was trying to say about Galileo; and it is very ON topic. The satellite system will be 30(?) of those 'innumerable others', not least in ATC affairs, 'for safe flying' and many other aspects of our lives. But of course, as fmrCapCadet says, the pathological Brexiteers ( for it is they) know perfectly well how long those plans would take, and we would never be out. In the Catholic canon there is a thing called a Sin of Omission. You can get 4 Hail Mary's and 8 Our Father's for that and no parole.

What does the CAA say about Brexit? Have a look at https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About-us/EU-exit/

Especially interesting to this thread is what they write under the headline Planning assumptions for a non-negotiated exit

To help organisations with their own planning for EU exit, we have listed the assumptions that we used to develop our approach for a potential non-negotiated withdrawal from the EU in March 2019.
These assumptions are not representative of the CAA’s view of the most likely, or desirable, outcome of negotiations and do not reflect Government policy, but allow us as a responsible regulator to prepare for all possible scenarios. In a non-negotiated outcome at March 2019, we have assumed that:

The UK leaves the EU at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.

Through the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the UK adopts all European aviation laws at the point of exit.

Changes will be made to ensure those laws are legally operable.

The UK continues to mirror EU aviation regulations for at least a two year period.

The UK withdraws completely from the EASA system in March 2019, meaning that the CAA will need to make arrangements to fulfil regulatory functions without having EASA as a technical agent and without having access to EASA and EU-level capabilities.

The UK is no longer included in EU-level Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements.

There is no mutual recognition agreement between the EU and the UK for aviation licences, approvals and certificates.

UK issued licences and approvals (issued when the UK was an EASA member) will continue to have validity under UK law but will no longer be recognised by EASA for use on EASA Member State-registered aircraft.

The EU treats UK airlines as Third Country Operators.

All licences issued by the CAA under EU legislation, and all type approval certificates and third country approvals issued by EASA under EU legislation, will continue to have validity under UK law, if they were effective immediately before exit day.

The UK minimises additional requirements for licences, approvals and certificates from EU aviation and aerospace companies providing services and goods in the UK.

A major consequence of a no-deal Brexit would be the break-up of the TATL market into US-UK and US-EU. The UK-US market would see major changes driven by joint-ventures losing their anti-trust immunity. I don't see AA/BA keeping their JV. VS can potentially become US majority owned by DL. However, if there are restrictions on number of carriers per airport pairs, this would be very problematic. The US currently is reportedly stuck on ownership so Norwegian UK may have to become UK-owned to fly to the US from the UK. So would Primera. Although, this could strengthen Norwegian Ireland flights to the US and potentially make the case for jetBlue over the pond.

Even if there is a deal and a transition period, the UK-US TATL market will still change dramatically after 2020. Managers at some airlines HQs must be going crazy at the unknowns and the various implications of the multiple possible scenarios. Great times for corporate lawyers and investment bankers though. Maybe that's the true goal of Brexit.

What does the CAA say about Brexit? Have a look at https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About-us/EU-exit/

So essentially what I've been saying! The UK will become just like any other non EU country for technical matters.

Gemuser

Dutchy wrote:

I don't think no agreement/deal will be reached, but if no deal is reached, then everything will stop by law apparently.

I agree that not having an agreement makes it very possible to scenario of all flights to/from the UK coming to a halt as soon as Brexit occurs, however I also agree that I don't believe that both the UK and the EU would allow such a scenario to occur.

I know there are some within the EU who are perhaps out to "punish" the UK for choosing to leave, but if there is no agreement and everything grinds to a halt once Brexit occurs, it will not just be the UK that this would impact as there would be citizens stranded, business in both the UK and EU negatively impacted and general chaos (at least in the short-term). Regardless of who's to blame, I can't see that being politically acceptable for the EU and governments of the EU27 just as much as it won't be politically acceptable in the UK for the government to preside over 'no deal' becoming a reality.

For the record, I voted to remain and would be quite happy if Brexit was called off before we officially leave. It would probably mean the end of Theresa May's political career, but sometimes the greater good of the country is more important and, as an elected politician who holds the highest office on the land, she should be aware of this in particular. The same goes for Jeremy Corbyn who, despite leading a generally pro-EU party and supposedly backed to remain 2 years ago despite his eurosceptic history, seems quite happy to go along with Brexit and I suspect is hoping this will bring down the government in order to become PM regardless of the wider ramifications of a bad/no deal Brexit. However I digress...

VS11 wrote:

I don't see AA/BA keeping their JV. VS can potentially become US majority owned by DL.

Given AA and DL's interests in BA and VS respectively, you would think that they have been lobbying the US government in the background to ensure that an agreement is reached that basically allows for the current state of play to continue and that the new bilateral isn't just a template of a standard bilateral with the UK's name on it.