Old 30th Jul 2018, 16:27
  #325 (permalink)  
infrequentflyer789
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 838
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One View Post
I'm seriously not. Leaving aside whether or not this or any other newspaper headlines are ever factually perfect or completely sincere (interesting though that discussion might be) I was merely hoping if somebody with a better legal knowledge of the system could critique the article and indicate if it is reasonably accurate or whatever.

I'm still hoping.
Anyone with "better legal knowledge of the system" is probably making good money off that knowledge elsewhere - if nothing else is certain, we can be sure lawyers will do very well out of brexit.

The article is accurate as far as I can see / know, but not sure what they were getting at with pointing out that article 1 of chicago states airspace is sovereign - pretty sure that is the default position without the agreement, I think clause 1 is just there to avoid any possible doubt that the rest of the agreement changes that. If the implication is that we still might get into tit-for-tat airspace closure then Ireland-EU routes are going to be pretty damned limited (and don't mention Shanwick OCA), but the article only refers to impact on UK airlines. Also might have been worth pointing out that airspace is sovereign only to the extent you can police / defend it (think Crimea for instance) - but then an Irish newspaper probably doesn't want to point out who provides air intercept capability for Irish airspace (not the Irish airforce)... :-)

Not entirely sure about the accuracy of the RIchard North quote and where they/he get "30 days before the inteding start of operation" from, or how it is applicable - because logically that cannot be done in the case of operations that are already started now and want to continue. It is possible there are other procedures that may apply, or possibly there are none - not sure an EASA member has ever left before, but maybe an operator has changed from EASA to TCO before due to corporate changes. It is my understanding that in general the EU are saying the UK cannot do anything (like negotiations with anyone else) before we leave but has to have everything in place at the moment we do, I am not sure how much of that is bluster (to sell the transition deal) and how much is genuine legal obstacles, but I think that for example a BASA is a legal problem before exit.
infrequentflyer789 is offline