Great piece in Financial Times on the implications of Brexit on air travel to/from Britain:

Will Brexit complicate landing rights for UK flights?
Regulations and commitments will need to be replicated when Britain leaves EU

"....Implausible as it seems, without that web of international deals to replace what the UK stands to lose after Brexit, Britain’s planes may literally be left with nowhere to land...."

https://www.ft.com/content/57c0c01c-ef9 ... 1b01e23655

It is typically paid content but FT allows 5 free articles.

The article focuses on the regulatory framework driving current EU air travel and possible options after Brexit. One important hurdle (also discussed in a separate FT article) is Gibraltar and the needed approval of any deal by Spain. Spain claims the land of the Gibraltar airport is not part of the British territory.

In a recent article (1st of May) in Politico, http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-paves ... k-take-it/
it was said referring to the negotiation processes:

Merkel and other EU officials suggested that process is non-negotiable and cited EU provisions in the EU treaties specifically stating that a departing EU member must first legally exit the bloc before negotiating any new agreement.

Taken literally, it would mean that any treaty between UK and EU on future relations, including air travel, landing rights etc could be negotiated and signed only after Brexit has formally happened. That is hard to believe, but crazy things happen. I have previously understood, however, that the formal negotiations for future relations can be started when the formal negotiations for the separation have factually ended and an agreement has been reached, and if that happens before the legal exit the negotiations for future relations can be started before the exit. If they have to legally exit first, that makes a major complication, even if that would matter only formal procedures and signatures. In the worst case it would stop flying between UK and EU for a while. (Connect via NYC?)

Any harder facts on that?

Nothing will change when it comes to air travel, both sides have too much to lose.

Think of all that connecting traffic that KLM/Air France and Lufthansa will lose straight away... so not going to happen.

Its the usual scare tactics.

The UK has triggered Article 50. It should be able to begin negotiations with the EU now.

Arion640 wrote:

Nothing will change when it comes to air travel, both sides have too much to lose.

There are many other sectors where both sides have just as much to lose. I would not be so quick to assume nothing will change.

jomur wrote:

Think of all that connecting traffic that KLM/Air France and Lufthansa will lose straight away... so not going to happen.

Its the usual scare tactics.

Or the traffic that KLM/Air France, Lufthansa etc. would gain from increased difficulties connecting through the UK...

The UK has triggered Article 50. It should be able to begin negotiations with the EU now.

That is not what the law says.

LTenEleven wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Nothing will change when it comes to air travel, both sides have too much to lose.

There are many other sectors where both sides have just as much to lose. I would not be so quick to assume nothing will change.

So you think all overfly rights will simply cease?

Theres going to have to be an open skies agreement of some sort. Or they say goodbye to probably a few thousand jobs at klm.

The UK has triggered BREXIT without much thinking about what could be lost, but the main thinking for the EU should be what could be lost? The EU saving the UK from its own decision? The EU has said that negotiation has to be finished, as article 50 implies, about certain points in the separation, before negotiations about new agreements can be started. The optimism about a good outcome seems to be fading fast.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK has triggered Article 50. It should be able to begin negotiations with the EU now.

The Article 50 includes the negotiations of the separation, that is how to divide the assets and liabilities. For example, EU sources have estimated that UK is to pay some 60 G€ for EU for its legal commitments. It is not considered as a punishment or exit fee by EU, though the British may see it as such, which may make it very difficult to accept. These negotiations have started but may stall due to the elections in UK.

The Article 50 does not include anything about the future relations between UK and EU, were they about trade, landing rights or visa requirements.
EU has dictated that they will not start to negotiate about the future relations until the Article 50 has been finished. Indeed, they may not even have any choice as the EU laws, agreements and regulations tell that order, and any negotiator that starts to discuss about future may be prosecuted. With creativity and unanimity they could deviate from the predefined procedures, but such unity will probably never be reached.

The question is, when EU is politically ready and legally allowed to start such negotiations:
1) When the negotiations about Article 50 are factually finished,
2) When the agreement about Article 50 has been formally signed and ratified in all respective parliaments, or
3) When UK has formally exited from the EU.

The last case definitely and the other cases probably, if time runs out, leave UK and EU relations in undetermined state, where existing and pre-existing laws and agreements will be used. Understanding those and interpreting those in the courts may be non-trivial. Police officers and civil servants are not allowed to use common sense beyond the rules but must strictly obey the law.

There is certainly political pressure to make agreements about aviation as soon as possible, but many countries (Ireland, Spain) have other issues that they prioritize more, for reasons that may not be clear to any other. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

YIMBY wrote:

The Article 50 does not include anything about the future relations between UK and EU

mjoelnir wrote:

The EU has said that negotiation has to be finished, as article 50 implies, about certain points in the separation, before negotiations about new agreements can be started.

Article 50 most certainly does include something about the "future relationship" (using those exact words) and it "implies" nothing of the sort.

What it actually says in section 50.2 is:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Which seems to clearly state that a framework for the future relationship needs to have been agreed before starting to negotiate the exit terms - otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate the exit terms "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

But please let's not let facts get in the way of a good Brit bashing.

speedbored wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

The Article 50 does not include anything about the future relations between UK and EU

What it actually says in section 50.2 is:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Which seems to clearly state that a framework for the future relationship needs to have been agreed before starting to negotiate the exit terms - otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate the exit terms "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

But please let's not let facts get in the way of a good Brit bashing.

Your interpretation is not only legally BS but more importantly the other 27 nations have decided thats not the way its going to go down, its going down like this:

1) Pony up divorce money
2) EU Citizen rights
3) Irish border
4) Withdrawal agreement
5) Future relationships

Once 1,2,3 have been nailed down and substantial progress has been made on 4 then they will discuss 5, landing rights will be in the pot marked 5.

I supposed the UK could always sue in the CJEU to get your interpretation recognised.. ah thats right the UK is busy trying to withdraw from the CJEU.

I'm not remoaning, I have popcorn, I am eager to see brexiters get what they voted for which is this type of chaos.

BoeingVista wrote:

Your interpretation is not only legally BS but more importantly the other 27 nations have decided thats not the way its going to go down

I didn't make any claim about what the 27 have decided. I simply quoted what is written in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

If my interpretation is "legally BS" then please do explain how it would be possible to "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union", as required under article 50, if they refuse to even discuss the "framework for its future relationship" before negotiating the exit deal?

Simple, the EU writes the rules / laws, so they can afford to refuse to go by them...how long would it take the EU legal system to address this failure of the EU members to obey the EU law??? I'm betting more than 24 months in which case the point would be moot.

The UK will almost certainly stay in the aviation related EU institutions (including the common aviation area). Everyone has too much to lose and everyone understands that any final deal will have the UK stay in at least some EU institutions. Plus there are already non-EU countries that participate. The only quirk would be the fact that the UK isn't part of Schengen which would require some sort of arrangement to fix this issue. Presumably post-Brexit, the EU (and others in Schengen) would have to maintain a separate border crossing at airports as they do today with some sort of expedited visa-free arrangement. I'd expect other things like scientific research which aren't particularly controversial to stick around as well. Plus the EU is waving that divorce bill around which honestly seems like an attempt to push the UK to stick around in some capacity since they're going to get stuck with some sort of bill. You might as well get something in return. Plus, the UK has already hinted that they won't just abruptly pull out the rug on the single market and customs union (and presumably financial passporting).

A hard and immediate brexit can't happen and everyone stands to lose too much (except for ideologues in the UK). Maybe long term, the UK slowly unwinds itself from the EU but you can't do something like that overnight.

speedbored wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Your interpretation is not only legally BS but more importantly the other 27 nations have decided thats not the way its going to go down

I didn't make any claim about what the 27 have decided. I simply quoted what is written in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

If my interpretation is "legally BS" then please do explain how it would be possible to "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union", as required under article 50, if they refuse to even discuss the "framework for its future relationship" before negotiating the exit deal?

Simple, its in the definition of framework in this case being the structure of the relationship, the framework for future relations with the UK will be the UK will be treated a "third country", they are out of the EU. This framework already exists and once UK gets put into this bucket all agreements get downgraded to 3rd country status including landing rights. Thats it, that simple.

This is A.net which is meant to be discussing aviation related matters. Can we please not have yet another discussion about how Brexit will be negotiated. I get enough of that in the papers and on the TV.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

This is A.net which is meant to be discussing aviation related matters. Can we please not have yet another discussion about how Brexit will be negotiated. I get enough of that in the papers and on the TV.

You asked the question buddy, and its been answered, with reference to aviation which is what we do on A.net.

BA losing landing rights in the EU would spell the end of the carrier. EU carrier losing landing rights in the UK would be an inconvenience. UK carriers losing overflight rights of the EU (not that it's even remotely possible) would spell the end for commerical aviation in the UK. EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

B777LRF wrote:

BA losing landing rights in the EU would spell the end of the carrier. EU carrier losing landing rights in the UK would be an inconvenience. UK carriers losing overflight rights of the EU (not that it's even remotely possible) would spell the end for commerical aviation in the UK. EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

BA had the luck / forsight to merge with Iberia as IAG, I believe IAG's registered office is now in Madrid even though its HQ is in London, so this should be a non issue for them.

BoeingVista wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

BA losing landing rights in the EU would spell the end of the carrier. EU carrier losing landing rights in the UK would be an inconvenience. UK carriers losing overflight rights of the EU (not that it's even remotely possible) would spell the end for commerical aviation in the UK. EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

BA had the luck / forsight to merge with Iberia as IAG, I believe IAG's registered office is now in Madrid even though its HQ is in London, so this should be a non issue for them.

Well, foresight had nothing to do with it, unless you hold the position there's a very nifty crystal ball embedded somewhere in Waterside. There are clever people at BA, but not that clever!

IAG (the holding company) hold no rights to operate an airline (AOC). It's BA, IB, VY and EI who hold those AOCs, and traffic rights goes to the holder of the AOC. Or, rather, to the national aviation authority where the AOC is issued, in the case of BA that would be the UK CAA. The solution for BA, then, would be to re-flag the airline to an EU country, but that would then leave them without landing rights in the UK ...

As with everything else related to Brexit, the UK stand to be by far the biggest loser whilst individual EU countries are looking at varying degrees of inconvenience.

B777LRF wrote:

Well, foresight had nothing to do with it, unless you hold the position there's a very nifty crystal ball embedded somewhere in Waterside. There are clever people at BA, but not that clever!

If they had a crystal ball they wouldn't have built Waterside in the middle of the proposed 3rd runway

speedbored wrote:

What it actually says in section 50.2 is:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Which seems to clearly state that a framework for the future relationship needs to have been agreed before starting to negotiate the exit terms - otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate the exit terms "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

But please let's not let facts get in the way of a good Brit bashing.

"taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" means that the future relationship is a decision factor in the withdrawal arrangements, not the purpose of the withdrawal agreements. That means that if the departing party already knows, for instance, that it wants to continue to be part of the single market then many other points in the withdrawal arrangement are decided right away.

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

Your assumption is incorrect. The UK officials have led everyone to believe that the UK wants out of the single market. This has been done via speeches, interviews and public statements. However, the UK has not declared its official position on its future relationship with the EU yet. And that's the essence of the cat and mouse play right now. The EU wants to force the UK to say right away if the UK wants to be a "third-country" or a single-market member post-Brexit. The UK doesn't want to make that choice yet hence the drama. The UK is acting as if they are ready to be a "third country" and the EU is acting as if they believe it.

In July 2014 the BBC reported that Tourism accounted for 11 per cent of Spanish GDP. They say that in the first six months of that year (that obviously excludes the peak holiday months of July and August) 6.5 million British tourists visited that country. This compares with 4.7 million German and 4.2 million French tourists.

If British airlines were excluded from operating between the UK and Spain clearly EU airlines would also be excluded from similar operations. As the number of British tourists who visit Spain by ferry on routes like Portsmouth to Bilbao is a very small proportion of the total and as those crossing from the UK to France and driving to Spain is also not likely to be a significant proportion of the total, the abolition of flights between the EU and the UK would devastate the tourist industries of countries like Spain and Greece. Such a situation would benefit the UK economy as some UK tourists would take their vacations in the UK instead of in the EU although the advantage would likely be small as the number of EU tourists visiting the UK would fall.

However it is not only the tourist who would be impacted by a withdrawal of UK-EU flights. It would equally impact the business traveller. And it would also impact the 3 million nationals of the 27 other EU resident in the UK and the 1 million UK nationals resident in the 27 countries, many of whom would find a ban on flights home more than an inconvenience.

So it is everyone's interest to address this issue positively. If it is not the impact on the still recovering southern European economies could be more than significant.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

This is A.net which is meant to be discussing aviation related matters. Can we please not have yet another discussion about how Brexit will be negotiated. I get enough of that in the papers and on the TV.

I assume that you are a hot defender of BREXIT, but you must I think except that not everybody looks at BREXIT with your rose tinted glasses.

B777LRF wrote:

. . . . EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

I'm not so sure.
UK (NATS) controls 80-90% of European side of al northern trans Atlantic crossings. Denying access to those for EU carriers would seem to be a bit more than just an inconvenience?

Something I keep seeing repeated on this forum is that nothing is likely to change for aviation.

I have not seen a single statement from either the UK or EU side saying that an exception is likely to be found for aviation and the UK’s membership of related bodies.

On the contrary, industry (airlines are manufacturing) is out there voicing serious concerns. At least one British carrier is in process of acquiring an EU AOC. If nothing is to change and aviation is promised a different treatment than other sectors, why is there all this concern in the aviation industry?

I doubt we will see restrictions on overflights but I doubt everything else (ECAA, membership of the aviation bodies) will continue exactly as today. That's a big problem for, among others, the UK CAA.

PW100 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

. . . . EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

I'm not so sure.
UK (NATS) controls 80-90% of European side of al northern trans Atlantic crossings. Denying access to those for EU carriers would seem to be a bit more than just an inconvenience?

I think you should look at your numbers. Quite a bit of the traffic goes north of the UK through the Icelandic control area, 25 % of the North Atlantic traffic and there is also traffic going south of the UK.

speedbored wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

The Article 50 does not include anything about the future relations between UK and EU

mjoelnir wrote:

The EU has said that negotiation has to be finished, as article 50 implies, about certain points in the separation, before negotiations about new agreements can be started.

Article 50 most certainly does include something about the "future relationship" (using those exact words) and it "implies" nothing of the sort.

What it actually says in section 50.2 is:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Which seems to clearly state that a framework for the future relationship needs to have been agreed before starting to negotiate the exit terms - otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate the exit terms "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

But please let's not let facts get in the way of a good Brit bashing.

I have not seen "good Brit bashing" here. I have seen critique for the contractual system of EU. Of course, Brits are culprit with their share of power.

What you quote about Article 50.2 simply means that the negotiators must predict how the future relationships will be, as given by pre-existing treaties etc. That does not require or allow them to negotiate on it.

I agree that the Article 50 is ambiguous and partly contradictory. However, previously in the same Article 50 it is said that the Council of Europe defines the guidelines for the negotiations. Hence it is EU27 who dictate how the process goes on and UK has to accept that. EU27 have agreed (probably obliged by their law) that all the issues of the divorce must be settled before they can touch the other negotiations. It is probably the only thing they have agreed so far.

They have not yet agreed on - if even discussed - the order of importance for the other issues to be negotiated thereafter. So we do not know how close to the top aviation and travel issues are, whether they will be done parallel to other negotiations or whether they will be coupled to or decoupled from other issues, some of which may be very delicate. I believe that they will be given very high priority but not the highest and I predict that they will be coupled to other issues so that everything else must be agreed before the aviation issues can be signed. It just gives too much leverage to one party not to be used to press the other party in other issues.

What I wonder is whether I can travel freely and cheaply to UK directly from my country of residence in EU - and everybody else either direction - and I am very worried. Two years is very short. The deadline can be postponed if everyone agrees, which is the very best possibility, though not too likely.

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

No.. the British don't want to be part of a political Union not an economic one. The EU shot themselves in the foot by wanting too much political integration.. There is a difference. If it was still the same as when the UK joined then the UK wouldn't be leaving...

VS11 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

Your assumption is incorrect. The UK officials have led everyone to believe that the UK wants out of the single market. This has been done via speeches, interviews and public statements. However, the UK has not declared its official position on its future relationship with the EU yet. And that's the essence of the cat and mouse play right now. The EU wants to force the UK to say right away if the UK wants to be a "third-country" or a single-market member post-Brexit. The UK doesn't want to make that choice yet hence the drama. The UK is acting as if they are ready to be a "third country" and the EU is acting as if they believe it.

If they are to remain in SAM then what are they exiting via brexit? By giving up their right? All SAM members would still have to comply with those regulations

jomur wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

No.. the British don't want to be part of a political Union not an economic one. The EU shot themselves in the foot by wanting too much political integration.. There is a difference. If it was still the same as when the UK joined then the UK wouldn't be leaving...

Economy is always political.... How are you going to create a strong integrated economy without creating an integrated government?

PW100 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

. . . . EU carriers losing overflight rights of the UK (not that it's even remotely possible) would be an inconvenience.

I'm not so sure.
UK (NATS) controls 80-90% of European side of al northern trans Atlantic crossings. Denying access to those for EU carriers would seem to be a bit more than just an inconvenience?

They can always route North over the North Sea, through Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic FIRs or South via French, Spanish and Portuguese. As I said, an inconvenience.

B777LRF wrote:

They can always route North over the North Sea, through Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic FIRs or South via French, Spanish and Portuguese. As I said, an inconvenience.

I do not pretend to have deep knowledge of TA routes. It was my understanding that most of the routes are controlled through NATS. If one needs to avoid NATS, than one should go quite far north of Scotland. Capacity of those routes would not be sufficient to handle normal day-to-day traffic, was my understanding. Just raising the question.

PW100 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

They can always route North over the North Sea, through Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic FIRs or South via French, Spanish and Portuguese. As I said, an inconvenience.

I do not pretend to have deep knowledge of TA routes. It was my understanding that most of the routes are controlled through NATS. If one needs to avoid NATS, than one should go quite far north of Scotland. Capacity of those routes would not be sufficient to handle normal day-to-day traffic, was my understanding. Just raising the question.

If you do not have the knowledge than you should not make a statement or do some research first. You can bypass the UK traffic control both north and south. Today 25% of the trans north Atlantic traffic goes through the sector controlled by Iceland. That leaves 75%, some of that is going south of the UK IR sector. I do not expect BREXIT resulting in any closure of any airspace, I am only correcting your idea, that 90% of the trans north Atlantic traffic moves through UK airspace.

mjoelnir wrote:

If you do not have the knowledge than you should not make a statement or do some research first.

WOW . . .

It was my impression that this was a forum where we all share our enthusiasm for aviation and aerospace. I think I used friendly words, non aggressive, inviting discussion.
I guess my mind still lives in the Anet community of 5 - 10 years ago, where we could have good discussions.. I must be getting old.


PW100

mjoelnir wrote:

PW100 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

They can always route North over the North Sea, through Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic FIRs or South via French, Spanish and Portuguese. As I said, an inconvenience.

I do not pretend to have deep knowledge of TA routes. It was my understanding that most of the routes are controlled through NATS. If one needs to avoid NATS, than one should go quite far north of Scotland. Capacity of those routes would not be sufficient to handle normal day-to-day traffic, was my understanding. Just raising the question.

If you do not have the knowledge than you should not make a statement or do some research first. You can bypass the UK traffic control both north and south. Today 25% of the trans north Atlantic traffic goes through the sector controlled by Iceland. That leaves 75%, some of that is going south of the UK IR sector. I do not expect BREXIT resulting in any closure of any airspace, I am only correcting your idea, that 90% of the trans north Atlantic traffic moves through UK airspace.

Are there tracks that go through both Icelandic and UK sectors?

c933103 wrote:

If they are to remain in SAM then what are they exiting via brexit?

Brexit is the exit from the EU, which is not the same as the single market even though they are closely related. There is also the European Common Aviation Area Agreement where non-EU countries can still participate under certain conditions. While it is an option for the UK to be part of it post-Brexit, it is not certain that the UK will want to be part it, or that it will be accepted even if it wanted to be part of it. Here is more:
https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... ion-262860

jomur wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

No.. the British don't want to be part of a political Union not an economic one. The EU shot themselves in the foot by wanting too much political integration.. There is a difference. If it was still the same as when the UK joined then the UK wouldn't be leaving...

Finally someone has some sense. I haven't got an issue with the common market but the UK doesn't want to be ruled by Brussels.

The problem is the majority of people in London cannot see the effects of mass free movement of people. I don't live in London but there is a town local to me who have most certainly seen the effects of mass immigration. Congestion is up and its the contributing (but not sole) factor to why the local hospital is at breaking point.

Its all well and good if you live in a well off area because you can't see the real reasons why people got motivated to leave.

Hi guys, please stop any speculations about overflight rights: they are a matter of the United Nations and therefore not affected by any Brexit or even the total collapse of the EU.

Can you please explain to me as a reasonably intelligent, but uninformed, person.
Flights to/from/over Europe (including UK) are from most of the countries in the world. Most of those countries are not in Europe. For practical purposes, it shouldn't matter whether UK remains as a EU member. Just the fine details need to be sorted out. But then, my career doesn't depend on me being an obstructive bureaucrat.
The clause allowing EU airlines freedom to operate anywhere and everywhere within the Union has not always guaranteed that freedom. I remember Freddie Laker investing in a new fleet of A300's to take advantage of that rule, only to find his airline killed off by the major national carriers persuading the EU courts to deny him that permission.
On a less cynical note, as someone who does not normally fly, do visitors to UK currently go through different entry procedures depending on whether they arrive from inside or outside Europe? The ultimate question is, will airports have to go through expensive physical building alterations and staffing levels to cope with the number of arrivals changing from European to "others"?

Can you please explain to me as a reasonably intelligent, but uninformed, person.
Flights to/from/over Europe (including UK) are from most of the countries in the world. Most of those countries are not in Europe. For practical purposes, it shouldn't matter whether UK remains as a EU member. Just the fine details need to be sorted out. But then, my career doesn't depend on me being an obstructive bureaucrat.
The clause allowing EU airlines freedom to operate anywhere and everywhere within the Union has not always guaranteed that freedom. I remember Freddie Laker investing in a new fleet of A300's to take advantage of that rule, only to find his airline killed off by the major national carriers persuading the EU courts to deny him that permission.
On a less cynical note, as someone who does not normally fly, do visitors to UK currently go through different entry procedures depending on whether they arrive from inside or outside Europe? The ultimate question is, will airports have to go through expensive physical building alterations and staffing levels to cope with the number of arrivals changing from European to "others"?

Kilopond wrote:

Hi guys, please stop any speculations about overflight rights: they are a matter of the United Nations and therefore not affected by any Brexit or even the total collapse of the EU.

How is that a matter of UN?

So many absurd things being posted in this thread. To suggest that there will be no effect at all from Brexit is nonsense. To suggest that the entire system will collapse including overfly rights is equally nonsense. An agreement will be put together, and this is probably the one area where that could be quite easy, but with the UK as a separate entity costs will inevitably increase. That could lead to some limited increase in ticket prices in the UK, but in the grand scheme of things that will be the least of worries for the British as they see their daily living costs rise, such as food prices, and their health system further starved of resources.

Arion640 wrote:

jomur wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Because British don't want to in a common market together with Europe and that include common aviation market, so my bet is that what they would ultimately sign would be a bilateral instead of open sky, which mean it is unlikely to have no restriction in flights operations between EU and UK, and as such the question seems to be more apporipate as how large the impact is instead of if there will be impact

No.. the British don't want to be part of a political Union not an economic one. The EU shot themselves in the foot by wanting too much political integration.. There is a difference. If it was still the same as when the UK joined then the UK wouldn't be leaving...

Finally someone has some sense. I haven't got an issue with the common market but the UK doesn't want to be ruled by Brussels.

The problem is the majority of people in London cannot see the effects of mass free movement of people. I don't live in London but there is a town local to me who have most certainly seen the effects of mass immigration. Congestion is up and its the contributing (but not sole) factor to why the local hospital is at breaking point.

Its all well and good if you live in a well off area because you can't see the real reasons why people got motivated to leave.

This is not the place for this hysterical political nonsense. The UK is ruled by the Westminster parliament. The NHS has been a net financial beneficiary from free movement, other EU nationals in the UK pay the same contributions but make less use of it than the general population. That that money has not been invested in health facilities is purely down to the short-term political motives of the British government. Additionally the NHS can not function without workers at all levels from outside the UK. If free movement is curtailed EU workers will become more expensive, the NHS will either have to pay higher costs or take more workers from outside Europe.

PW100 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If you do not have the knowledge than you should not make a statement or do some research first.

WOW . . .

It was my impression that this was a forum where we all share our enthusiasm for aviation and aerospace. I think I used friendly words, non aggressive, inviting discussion.
I guess my mind still lives in the Anet community of 5 - 10 years ago, where we could have good discussions.. I must be getting old.


PW100

It is still very much such a place. But you need to make a distinction between voicing an opinion and stating facts. Even more, when you voice an opinion make sure it's founded on facts, not e.g. on wishes, ideas or prejudices.

Thus, when you make statement along the lines of '90% of TATL traffic passes through UK airspace', you better have your facts lined up to support that statement, otherwise we can't have a reasonable discussion.

AJCNL wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

jomur wrote:

No.. the British don't want to be part of a political Union not an economic one. The EU shot themselves in the foot by wanting too much political integration.. There is a difference. If it was still the same as when the UK joined then the UK wouldn't be leaving...

Finally someone has some sense. I haven't got an issue with the common market but the UK doesn't want to be ruled by Brussels.

The problem is the majority of people in London cannot see the effects of mass free movement of people. I don't live in London but there is a town local to me who have most certainly seen the effects of mass immigration. Congestion is up and its the contributing (but not sole) factor to why the local hospital is at breaking point.

Its all well and good if you live in a well off area because you can't see the real reasons why people got motivated to leave.

This is not the place for this hysterical political nonsense. The UK is ruled by the Westminster parliament. The NHS has been a net financial beneficiary from free movement, other EU nationals in the UK pay the same contributions but make less use of it than the general population. That that money has not been invested in health facilities is purely down to the short-term political motives of the British government. Additionally the NHS can not function without workers at all levels from outside the UK. If free movement is curtailed EU workers will become more expensive, the NHS will either have to pay higher costs or take more workers from outside Europe.

Where do you live mate? My local area has become more and more run down with increasing mass immigration, and my local area voted overwhelmingly to leave. We are having to wait longer and longer for a doctors appointment these days and like I said, immigration is a contributing but not sole factor to this. Its not nonsense, If you came and seen where I live you'd soon see.

I'll also say this, I have nothing against migrants searching for a better life. What I do have against is the people who allowed it to happen.

Take the NHS and immigration discussions elsewhere please.

B777LRF wrote:

Thus, when you make statement along the lines of '90% of TATL traffic passes through UK airspace', you better have your facts lined up to support that statement, otherwise we can't have a reasonable discussion.

That was the only portion of my contribution that could be seen as "stated as fact" (which admittedly could have been worded better). Interestingly, that part has not been disputed (yet).

In any case, it's a moot point, as UK airlines have probably as much, if not more, to loose in the area of overflight rights. So I don't expect the UK to play that card.