PDA

View Full Version : Airbus warns about no-deal Brexit


Bergerie1
22nd Jun 2018, 07:07
Airbus have said a no-deal scenario directly threatens Airbus' future in the UK. What do Prooners think about that? In my view it would be a disaster for Britain's aviation industry.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44570931

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-underlines-brexit-threats-to-uk-operations-449655/

Cynical Sid
22nd Jun 2018, 07:16
There will be many large companies in the same position. They have largely kept silent, presumably under pressure from some inside the British government. Land Rover last week chose to move more of its manufacturing to Slovakia (or Slovenia). It will be interesting to see if Airbus have triggered other companies to speak up.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 08:38
Chickens starting to come home to roost - no doubt the Brexiteers will say we can partner with China, India & S Korea....................

vapilot2004
22nd Jun 2018, 08:41
The issue cuts both ways. Airbus would be unlikely to find a more experienced lot to produce wings outside of the UK. Shooting themselves in the foot, I think.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 08:50
The issue cuts both ways. Airbus would be unlikely to find a more experienced lot to produce wings outside of the UK. Shooting themselves in the foot, I think.

Have you joined the "They need us more than we need them" club? Airbus are more than capable of training a new workforce in Europe, USA and China and there aren't many slate quarry jobs left in Wales.

felixflyer
22nd Jun 2018, 08:52
I don't understand this, Isn't Airbus a joint venture between various nations? Isn't Airbus UK more than just a European company that has chosen to base some of it's manufacturing in the UK? Surely there is some historical deal that says some of the facilities need to stay in the UK and all other nations involved?

Reading the news reports it seems production may go to China or elsewhere outside the EU. Why will the UK leaving the EU mean facilities cannot stay in the UK but can go to China or other countries outside the EU?

golfbananajam
22nd Jun 2018, 08:57
If it was just down to hard cash/cost, they'd have gone to China before now. I'm with felixflyer on this one though I can't help but think there might be some politics being played too. Largest partners in Airbus? Germany and France? Largest partners in EU? let me guess. Maybe I'm just getting (too) cynical in my old age but................................

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:00
I don't understand this, Isn't Airbus a joint venture between various nations? Isn't Airbus UK more than just a European company that has chosen to base some of it's manufacturing in the UK? Surely there is some historical deal that says some of the facilities need to stay in the UK and all other nations involved?

Reading the news reports it seems production may go to China or elsewhere outside the EU. Why will the UK leaving the EU mean facilities cannot stay in the UK but can go to China or other countries outside the EU?

Airbus is a European company involving France, Germany and Spain. Not sure about Italy. BAE sold it's stake in Airbus in 2007, a very short sighted move I think.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 09:02
Airbus is a European company involving France, Germany and Spain. Not sure about Italy. BAE sold it's stake in Airbus in 2007, a very short sighted move I think.

helped the bonus pool probably

Wig Wag
22nd Jun 2018, 09:04
From the Airbus website:

http://www.airbus.com/be-an-airbus-supplier.html:Around 80% of Airbus’ activity is sourced. The company works with more than 12,000 suppliers worldwide that provide products and services for flying and non-flying parts. Airbus continuously develops its supplier base, with an overall sourcing volume across the company valued at approximately €49.6 billion. Airbus has identified global sourcing as one of its long-term objectives and aims to source 40% outside Western Europe and the U.S. by 2020. Airbus’ external procurement is equivalent to over two-thirds of the company’s revenues

Why, therefore, should it matter if the UK is outside the EU?

felixflyer
22nd Jun 2018, 09:09
It shouldn't. The fact they are looking at China and the USA proves this.

I think they are just using Brexit as an excuse to do something they were probably already looking at doing anyway.

Hey ho. That leaves us with thousands of skilled workers. Time to reopen Brooklands I think.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:11
From the Airbus website:

http://www.airbus.com/be-an-airbus-supplier.html:

Why, therefore, should it matter if the UK is outside the EU?

Those parts have to reach the assembly facilities seemlessly. Gridlock at UK ports after a hard brexit will clog up the supply lines and cause expensive delays. Standby by for similar announcements from Nissan, Honda and Toyota.

Cynical Sid
22nd Jun 2018, 09:12
It shouldn't. The fact they are looking at China and the USA proves this.

I think they are just using Brexit as an excuse to do something they were probably already looking at doing anyway.

Hey ho. That leaves us with thousands of skilled workers. Time to reopen Brooklands I think.

They know what the trading relationships are with almost all other countries. Who knows what the UK relationship will be. Certainly not the UK government.

ORAC
22nd Jun 2018, 09:15
In 2005 Airbus said its target was to have 50% of its components produced outside the EU. The current figure is about 25%. Strangely paperwork and customs don’t appear to be an issue.

Every little helps.....

OldLurker
22nd Jun 2018, 09:17
Meanwhile, on the US trade war, Jean-Claude Juncker says "we will do what we have to do to safeguard the EU". Perhaps he might say whether he thinks EU trade with the UK (currently world's 5th largest economy) also needs safeguarding, and if so, what positive action is he taking to do so?

Daysleeper
22nd Jun 2018, 09:18
It shouldn't. The fact they are looking at China and the USA proves this.

I think they are just using Brexit as an excuse to do something they were probably already looking at doing anyway.

Hey ho. That leaves us with thousands of skilled workers. Time to reopen Brooklands I think.

The point is businesses are ALWAYS looking. So what advantage does one location have over another? For a long time part of the UK's advantage was that we were in the EU thus it was very easy to move people and stuff between locations. In the future that won't apply so in the long term, why come here when there is additional hassle over somewhere within the EU. If you're considering locations outside the EU...why come here at all?

In the short term (like the next 2 or 3 years) then complete chaos is the problem, unknown regulatory structure, unknown border crossing etc etc. How do you plan a production line if you have no idea how things will get from A to B.

Iron Duck
22nd Jun 2018, 09:20
"It shouldn't. The fact they are looking at China and the USA proves this.

I think they are just using Brexit as an excuse to do something they were probably already looking at doing anyway."

'Never waste a good crisis.' This maxim is used by corporations, as well as politicians.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:25
"It shouldn't. The fact they are looking at China and the USA proves this.

I think they are just using Brexit as an excuse to do something they were probably already looking at doing anyway."

'Never waste a good crisis.' This maxim is used by corporations, as well as politicians.

There are assembly plants in China and the USA.

felixflyer
22nd Jun 2018, 09:25
If you are looking at the short term then you can forget about setting up a new factory and associated infrastructure, training staff and organising supply chains.

Brexit would be long sorted and over any chaotic term well before any of this could be set up elsewhere.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:26
If you are looking at the short term then you can forget about setting up a new factory and associated infrastructure, training staff and organising supply chains.

Brexit would be long sorted and over any chaotic term well before any of this could be set up elsewhere.

You must be dreaming, unless brexit is cancelled.

OldLurker
22nd Jun 2018, 09:27
Those parts have to reach the assembly facilities seemlessly. Gridlock at UK ports after a hard brexit will clog up the supply lines and cause expensive delays. Standby by for similar announcements from Nissan, Honda and Toyota. Indeed, by now we know for certain that there will be gridlock at UK ports after Brexit. Yet as we speak, goods are flowing smoothly to and from non-EU countries through container ports like Felixstowe and Southampton, and airports like Heathrow (including perishables), with no obvious gridlock. Something does not compute.

Daysleeper
22nd Jun 2018, 09:32
If you are looking at the short term then you can forget about setting up a new factory and associated infrastructure, training staff and organising supply chains.

Brexit would be long sorted and over any chaotic term well before any of this could be set up elsewhere.

In the short-term Airbus are talking about stockpiling UK made/supplied components somewhere (as in somewhere that will still be in the EU). Of course the costs of this will fall against the UK operation making it brutally uncompetitive and cashflow to achieve it may kill some smaller suppliers but you'd guessed that already.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 09:38
Those parts have to reach the assembly facilities seemlessly. Gridlock at UK ports after a hard brexit will clog up the supply lines and cause expensive delays. Standby by for similar announcements from Nissan, Honda and Toyota.

Went round the Oxford Mini factory last month - they have rows of trucks outside every morning doing JIT deliveries ... clearly they are worried s******* ... but as they pointed out they have a "second facility" in the Netherlands

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:39
Indeed, by now we know for certain that there will be gridlock at UK ports after Brexit. Yet as we speak, goods are flowing smoothly to and from non-EU countries through container ports like Felixstowe and Southampton, and airports like Heathrow (including perishables), with no obvious gridlock. Something does not compute.

I doubt if any just in time components travel by sea.

Wig Wag
22nd Jun 2018, 09:39
Those parts have to reach the assembly facilities seemlessly. Gridlock at UK ports after a hard brexit will clog up the supply lines and cause expensive delays. Standby by for similar announcements from Nissan, Honda and Toyota.

The solution, therefore, is simple. The EU must act to ensure that the post Brexit paperwork is seamless so the supply chain is not interrupted.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 09:40
Indeed, by now we know for certain that there will be gridlock at UK ports after Brexit. Yet as we speak, goods are flowing smoothly to and from non-EU countries through container ports like Felixstowe and Southampton, and airports like Heathrow (including perishables), with no obvious gridlock. Something does not compute.

Look at the Swedish -Norwegian border - it's not open and there are lines and delays....
https://news.sky.com/story/sweden-warns-uk-not-to-emulate-norway-border-post-brexit-11140707

" Sweden's Europe minister has poured cold water on the idea of the UK enjoying "frictionless trade" after Brexit. Ann Linde, who has sat on the Nordic country's frontbench since May 2016, told Sky News: "It's not possible to have frictionless trade if you are not part of the customs union and the single market."

and Customs themselves reckon their "new" system for post Brexit isn't tested or ready partly because no politician can tell them exactly what to plan for

It really is a shambles..................

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 09:42
The solution, therefore, is simple. The EU must act to ensure that the post Brexit paperwork is seamless so the supply chain is not interrupted.

It takes two to tango and our shambolic "government" is not capable of running a whelk stall.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 09:44
The solution, therefore, is simple. The EU must act to ensure that the post Brexit paperwork is seamless so the supply chain is not interrupted.

Why SHOULD they do anything??

We're the ones who brought this fandango on ................... why should they spend any time or money on it? Would we do the same if things were reversed???

Nemrytter
22nd Jun 2018, 09:45
I see that the usual suspects have already convinved themselves that Airbus is pulling a fast one. There really is no-one so blind as those who refuse to see, it's pathetic.

maxred
22nd Jun 2018, 09:55
In the late nineties did a dissertation for my Masters on Scottish economy, grant aid, and company assistance entitled the Aircraft carrier economy. A 'lift an lay policy'. Company looking to locate. Where lie the easiest logistics, where lie the largest grant aid, skilled workforce etc etc. Bottom line, when the fuel runs out, they move, overnight in some cases, to the next carrier. Life is numbers, pure and simple. Scotland HAD a thriving computer/electronics industry. All gone. Along with millions of grant aid. Issue is when it is not coming out of your own pocket, it is very easy to spend millions of public cash, also very easy just to leave it all behind.

I still cannot believe what the UK is actually doing here. Ultimate consequences will be interesting.

Wig Wag
22nd Jun 2018, 09:59
Why SHOULD they do anything??

We're the ones who brought this fandango on ................... why should they spend any time or money on it? Would we do the same if things were reversed???

Again, easy. The national Governments of France, Germany and Spain will not want Airbus compromised by EU intransigence. They will lobby the EU for an uninterrupted supply chain post Brexit. The EU will need a damned good reason for putting French, German and Spanish workers out of a job.

DaveReidUK
22nd Jun 2018, 10:02
I doubt if any just in time components travel by sea.

How do you think A380 wings get from Broughton to Toulouse ?

On second thoughts, there's no rush for those any more. :O

felixflyer
22nd Jun 2018, 10:03
I see that the usual suspects have already convinved themselves that Airbus is pulling a fast one. There really is no-one so blind as those who refuse to see, it's pathetic.

The same can be said in reverse. It's important to find out the real reasons behind any potential job losses and try to solve them or find alternatives that work for the UK.

Using these announcements to justify a remain view and holding a 'we're doomed' view is frankly more pathetic. Brexit is happening and we should all be working to make it as successful as possible. Anyone just sitting back waiting for it to fail so they can say 'I told you so' needs to stand aside as they are no use whatsoever.

Why SHOULD they do anything??

We're the ones who brought this fandango on ................... why should they spend any time or money on it? Would we do the same if things were reversed???

This is not the school playground.

They are a business and if this is a business decision based on cost and in fear of any disruption from Brexit then absolutely they should, and would, work with the UK to try to minimise any potential problems. These are the kinds of issues that need highlighting to force both sides to come to agreements that work. Any business would do so to protect itself and shareholders. Moving elsewhere will not be a cheap or easy process so if staying can be made to work then they will.

I hope the announcement is an attempt to do the above and get some order in place rather than an attempt by Germany & France to punish the UK.

If it is the former then it can only be a good thing and I hope it achieves the required result.

If it is the latter then it only goes to strengthen the Leave case.

Interesting times.

Alan Baker
22nd Jun 2018, 10:09
Good luck to Airbus in setting up and bringing on stream a new, duplicate, wing building facility elsewhere between now and next March. They cannot transfer equipment or personnel from the existing operation as they need to maintain full production to meet their delivery schedules. As for setting up in the US or China, that seems to be a gamble as they don't know what the tariff situation may be in future (especially the US!). An operation in the EU would see protracted squabbling between France, Germany and Spain over where it was to be located before any work started! You can bet that there will be pressure from Airbus on EU governments to do a deal as they do not want this unnecessary expense, as there will be from companies like Ford whose biggest market in Europe is the UK, but who do not build a single vehicle in the UK.

Evanelpus
22nd Jun 2018, 10:21
There will be many large companies in the same position. They have largely kept silent, presumably under pressure from some inside the British government. Land Rover last week chose to move more of its manufacturing to Slovakia (or Slovenia). It will be interesting to see if Airbus have triggered other companies to speak up.

Change the company name and the product they sell is just an excuse to move their production to Eastern Europe or the Far East where they can build it cheaper.

Airbus/BAe (that was) don't give a $hit about their employees, build it cheaper, more profit for the company.

ImageGear
22nd Jun 2018, 10:23
If Sterling is such a strong currency after BREXIT that it makes economic sense to take Airbus business elsewhere, then bring it on I say. Money talks, if sterling goes lower, it would be a brave or stupid politician willing to pay through the nose for an inferior product.

IG

Del Prado
22nd Jun 2018, 10:39
Meanwhile, on the US trade war, Jean-Claude Juncker says "we will do what we have to do to safeguard the EU". Perhaps he might say whether he thinks EU trade with the UK (currently world's 5th largest economy) also needs safeguarding, and if so, what positive action is he taking to do so?

Fall of the £ and dismal growth since Brexit vote U.K. has dropped to world’s 6th largest economy and is forecast to be 7th by end of the year.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 10:43
If Sterling is such a strong currency after BREXIT that it makes economic sense to take Airbus business elsewhere, then bring it on I say. Money talks, if sterling goes lower, it would be a brave or stupid politician willing to pay through the nose for an inferior product.

IG
Why would the product be inferior?

ShotOne
22nd Jun 2018, 11:03
Airbus has always been inextricably entwined in euro politics. It's no surprise at all to see them toeing the line of the EU commission.

Denti
22nd Jun 2018, 11:11
Good luck to Airbus in setting up and bringing on stream a new, duplicate, wing building facility elsewhere between now and next March. They cannot transfer equipment or personnel from the existing operation as they need to maintain full production to meet their delivery schedules. As for setting up in the US or China, that seems to be a gamble as they don't know what the tariff situation may be in future (especially the US!). An operation in the EU would see protracted squabbling between France, Germany and Spain over where it was to be located before any work started! You can bet that there will be pressure from Airbus on EU governments to do a deal as they do not want this unnecessary expense, as there will be from companies like Ford whose biggest market in Europe is the UK, but who do not build a single vehicle in the UK.

Thing is, airbus is not trying to set up something until march, they just said that they work with their supply chain to start stock piling material so that any border disruptions will not disrupt the production in the short run. In the medium run however, yes, they are of course looking at moving the wing production out of the UK. It certainly won't happen until march, and it certainly won't stop all at once, but rather fade out over time as other facilities come online. China is a logical choice for some of the production, as it cuts down transport lead times for their local end production line there.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Jun 2018, 11:14
In my view it would be a disaster for Britain's aviation industry.
However 17,000,000 people think it's a price worth paying for BLUE PASSPORTS, so that's that.

DC10RealMan
22nd Jun 2018, 11:16
The tories are very keen on Victorian values and by the time they have finished their infighting the UK will be back in the 19th century and we will all be "down pit" (if they hadn't closed them as well)

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 11:20
However 17,000,000 people think it's a price worth paying for BLUE PASSPORTS, so that's that.


A lot of them have passed on by now and will never be proud owners of BLUE PASSPORTS.

EDLB
22nd Jun 2018, 11:21
I assume that China is eager to get access to production methods of the latest wing technology so they will offer a good deal to set up production there. In eastern Europe there are several companies and locations with airplane building know how with still moderate wages. So there are options to move. Might take two years until series production.

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 11:28
" and try to solve them or find alternatives that work for the UK. "

and your suggestions are??????

Mine is not to leave - and that works fine

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jun 2018, 11:32
" The national Governments of France, Germany and Spain will not want Airbus compromised by EU intransigence "

Have you READ anything they've said for heavens sake? The UK constantly believes it can divide and rule Europe - and all the evidence since the early '50's shows how successful we've been ... NOT

Given the choice between slightly reduced Airbus profits and the European dream which do you think they'll choose? They're see things beyond a balance sheet.................................

infrequentflyer789
22nd Jun 2018, 12:00
In 2005 Airbus said its target was to have 50% of its components produced outside the EU. The current figure is about 25%. Strangely paperwork and customs don’t appear to be an issue.

Every little helps.....

So if/when Brexit happens, it helps them meet their target, so moving production out of the UK must be contingency planning so they can still meet targets if we _don't_ leave :\

BAengineer
22nd Jun 2018, 12:08
You can't claim the only decent wing makers are in the UK.
It will come down to cold hard cash and if it will be cheaper elsewhere or even just probably cheaper elsewhere due to uncertainty over tarrifs etc they will go.

You would need t have massive tariffs to make it financially worthwhile to shut down the existing factory and create a brand new one in another country - even if the UK left under WTO rules with no FTA how many years would it take for Airbus to recoup that investment just by not paying tariffs?.

Also I don't know how it works in France but in the UK if you import a component and that is added to a new assembly and then re-exported there is no import tariff due on that original component.

AVR4000
22nd Jun 2018, 13:07
It is pretty self-explanatory that a loss of access to the common market paired with import duties and regulation issues connected with such things as exiting EASA and so on and so forth will hamper the UK industry.

Airbus is very much an "EU corporation" and having wing production outside of the EU and then having to deal with the hassle that means will be an end of said production - eventually. It could take a different turn *if* negotiations would produce a result that avoid the worst issues.

People voted for Brexit and for isolation doesn't seem to concerned about the global nature of the economy and that a lack of access to the common market will hamper different industries - not to mention that UK production become pretty "inconvenient" when it turns out that those products are "third country" suddenly and subject to import duties and regulatory issues.

The best solution under bad circumstances are a "Deal Brexit" where UK simply remain as "part members" of the EU one way or another, including access to the common market and EASA rather than a "Hard Brexit" where they are out of everything.

SMT Member
22nd Jun 2018, 15:38
Whilst privatised, Airbus is still very much a political animal. Back in 2007 when EADS was formed and the UK government decided to leave the consortium, there were already rumours about moving wing production 'in house'. But Airbus instead took complete ownership of the factory and has kept production running in the UK, as it didn't make financial or technological sense moving it to e.g. Germany or France. One key reason to this was UK membership of the EU. Conversely, France and Germany retain around 11% each and Spain holds around 4%.

There are very strong franco/german thoughts about Brexit, and they are far from friendly and understanding. They feel betrayed, and that the political class in the UK are a bunch of idiots, to put it bluntly. Right or wrong, that's the state of play.

In this environment, and there being no fundamental reason why Airbus should retain such a key element of production in a 3rd country, the possibility of moving wing fabrication to the continent has gone from 'unlikely' to 'plausible'. It is highly unlikely they'll do it out of spite, or if it has obvious negative consequences, but I could see wing production having migrated to another EU country within the next 5 years. And if Spain is able to increase its ownership share, it could be the recipient.

Steve6443
22nd Jun 2018, 16:31
Why SHOULD they do anything??

We're the ones who brought this fandango on ................... why should they spend any time or money on it? Would we do the same if things were reversed???

Harry, please, they brought it on themselves. They should have negotiated in good faith with David Cameron. My proposal would have been: 1) no benefit for benefits tourists for at least 6 months 2) all benefits payments made to EU citizens in a foreign country can be recouped from their home country. 3) Convicted criminals can be deported and refused entry for a period equal to 5 times the duration of the prison sentence they received.

Had the EU made an offer like that, then Brexit would have never happened, instead they decided to tell the Brits 'take it or leave it' - so, are you still claiming the Brits brought this upon themselves? It takes two to Tango....

Now, going back to Airbus, as others have said, and I've said it in other threads, it staggers me that wings are still produced in UK when it would be more efficient and certainly more cost effective to produce them on the continent. Nobody can fault Airbus, they are a shareholder owned company and they are looking for the best for their shareholders. Unfortunately GB is no longer a shareholder, not even a minority shareholder. Even if Brexit didn't happen, I'm pretty sure there would, sooner or later, have been moves afoot to move the jobs abroad. Or put it another way: did Brexit cause the Transit van production to move abroad? This is just a heaven sent idea for Airbus to claim that 'it's not our fault we are doing this'.

LTNman
22nd Jun 2018, 16:57
So the American engines are fine then?

Oh and do what the French do with the workers going on strike until a deal is done. Airbus will soon change its mind

SkodaVRS1963
22nd Jun 2018, 17:00
Many moons ago Airbus (or whatever name they were trading under back then) threatened to close the plant at Filton if they didn't get the go-ahead for a commercial airport at the site.

Workers (and I have family members who are employed there) were shamelessly bullied by management ("support a commercial airport here or look somewhere else for a job").

The commercial airport never happened (thankfully, I wouldn't trust Airbus to run a car boot sale stall) but the plant is still open.

The management at Airbus have previous form in issuing veiled threats.

SMT Member
22nd Jun 2018, 17:09
Harry, please, they brought it on themselves. They should have negotiated in good faith with David Cameron. My proposal would have been: 1) no benefit for benefits tourists for at least 6 months 2) all benefits payments made to EU citizens in a foreign country can be recouped from their home country. 3) Convicted criminals can be deported and refused entry for a period equal to 5 times the duration of the prison sentence they received.

Had the EU made an offer like that, then Brexit would have never happened, instead they decided to tell the Brits 'take it or leave it' - so, are you still claiming the Brits brought this upon themselves? It takes two to Tango....

The EU went out of their way to please the UK, but it wasn't enough. There's a limit to how far you can push the boundaries of a union, and Cameron was pushing for things the EU couldn't give him. The negotiations were very much in good faith as far as the EU goes, which is far more than can be said for the Cameron government who put EU membership to the vote. That was certainly not part of the negotiations and, right or wrong, seriously pissed off a lot of the EU.

The irony is that certain people still believe Britain had any power and influence in the EU. Britain didn't. It just had to shut up and pay ever more cash for dubious projects.

That is absolute bovine manure. The UK regularly formed a block of like-minded countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, and thus had enough votes to sway the day on numerous occasions. Obviously the bloc didn't get their way all of the time; that's not how a coalition driven democracy works. But to say the UK just payed and never had say is factually incorrect.

BAengineer
22nd Jun 2018, 17:11
In this environment, and there being no fundamental reason why Airbus should retain such a key element of production in a 3rd country, the possibility of moving wing fabrication to the continent has gone from 'unlikely' to 'plausible'. It is highly unlikely they'll do it out of spite, or if it has obvious negative consequences, but I could see wing production having migrated to another EU country within the next 5 years. And if Spain is able to increase its ownership share, it could be the recipient.

Are they going to start making their own engines instead of importing them from the UK and US?. It is actual Airbus policy to move 40% of its supply chain out of Europe so even if the UK stayed in nothing would be guaranteed.

The UK needs to make itself attractive in a worldwide competitive environment - Brexit is irrelevant to that.

Spartacan
22nd Jun 2018, 17:16
The reality is that the British Prime Minister is in a very strong position and the EU knows that. The PM has the backing of the British electorate who voted to leave the EU then voted for a Parliament dominated by MP's whose constituents voted to leave. The PM clearly has control of the House of Commons which has voted through the EU withdrawal Bill.

Airbus needs its supply chain to work the day after we leave the EU. Responsibility for that lies with the EU. They have consistently been obstructive toward Britain but if they continue to do so they will damage Airbus Industry not just in Britain but in France, Germany and Spain. I doubt that the electorates of these countries will thank them for that. and I dare say the unions will be unimpressed.

It's not Britain that Airbus need to put pressure on it is the EU.

maat
22nd Jun 2018, 17:21
Heathrow Harry posted:

"Mine is not to leave - and that works fine"

"Do you feel ANY responsibility for the chaos this is causing?"

- Whether you or I like it or not Harry, the democratic vote was to leave the EU.

BAengineer
22nd Jun 2018, 17:34
The negotiations were very much in good faith as far as the EU goes, which is far more than can be said for the Cameron government who put EU membership to the vote. That was certainly not part of the negotiations and, right or wrong, seriously pissed off a lot of the EU.

If you are suggesting that the public shouldn't have had the opportunity to express a view over the result of Cameron's renegotiation, do you not think that would have made the EU even less popular in the UK than it already was?

At some point in any political process you have to try and take the majority with you.

WB627
22nd Jun 2018, 17:37
And now BMW issue the same warning as Airbus...….

Will the last European Company to leave the UK, please turn out the lights...….

bvcu
22nd Jun 2018, 17:39
Cant understand the upset ? If it was important Bae shouldn't have been allowed to sell and we have pumped a huge amount of govt money to keep the work here ! EU is a failed state now

ZeBedie
22nd Jun 2018, 17:49
The prospect of Airbus leaving has been around ever since BAe sold out to EADS. Airbus threaten to leave the UK every time they want a government loan. Now what they're doing is simply lobbying for their best commercial interests - if we crash out of the EU next March without continued EASA membership, things will be difficult for Airbus and they don't want anything to disrupt their business, which is understandable.

In the long term, there's probably an on-going assessment of whether wing production can be done more efficiently in France or Germany. If one day they move, it won't have much to do with brexit - more because the Beluga operation is too expensive.

Steve6443
22nd Jun 2018, 17:57
The prospect of Airbus leaving has been around ever since BAe sold out to EADS. Airbus threaten to leave the UK every time they want a government loan. Now what they're doing is simply lobbying for their best commercial interests - if we crash out of the EU next March without continued EASA membership, things will be difficult for Airbus and they don't want anything to disrupt their business, which is understandable.

In the long term, there's probably an on-going assessment of whether wing production can be done more efficiently in France or Germany. If one day they move, it won't have much to do with brexit.

But no-one has clearly said how Brexit will impact Airbus if Britain crashes out without a deal? I raised the spectre of Airbus UK parts being no longer certified and I was told that with a flick of a pen that particular bogey-man will be eliminated. Britain imports and exports plenty of goods from non - eu nations daily. Are we now saying that this is just a pure fluke, and with Britain no longer being in the CU / SM, the world starts turning the other way?

This is, as you say, merely Airbus using Brexit as a means to an end. 'We are leaving the UK, and it's due to Brexit'. Even if Brexit hadn't happened, since the sales of the EADS shares by BAE in 2007, this was always on the cards.

Burnt Fishtrousers
22nd Jun 2018, 19:28
With the aviation industry coming to the conclusion these huge leviathans such as the A380 are yesterdays fad, to such an extent Boeing no longer produce the 747 in passenger config, this puts a question mark financially over the future of the A380. If i was an Airline boss wanting to procure a new fleet bearing in mind i could run and purchase 2 787s for one A380 with the same range id go for Boeing. Are Airbus really really stupid enough to cripple themselves financially to suit some political dogma... i think not although having said that , if Airbus are as badly run as the EU i could actually see this happening...its merely political posturing. BMW are joining the band wagon..next week When Trump decides to levy a 20% tariff on all EU cars, guess who is best placed to produce EU cars outside the EU...its all rhetoric which defies sound business logic. Boeing must be laughing at all this and Airbus are doing a great job acting as Boeing's P R...I wouldnt be wanting to procure an aircraft from Airbus if there are going to be interruptions or delays to my potential order, or increased costs due to a very odd business decision. The disruption this would have on Airbus defies all rational belief and it must be embarrasing for Tom Williams to trott out such politically motivated garbage as he been told to do so by the Airbus puppet masters

Jetex_Jim
22nd Jun 2018, 19:47
BMW are joining the band wagon..next week When Trump decides to levy a 20% tariff on all EU cars, guess who is best placed to produce EU cars outside the EU...
Actually old bean, not the UK. BMW have a car plant in the USA.

LTNman
22nd Jun 2018, 19:55
And now BMW issue the same warning as Airbus...….

Will the last European Company to leave the UK, please turn out the lights...….

Another sucked in by project fear.

My Mercedes was built in South Africa. I guess they are for the chop as well.

Oh and I can remember when the minimum wage was brought in to the cries of oh dear there will be mass unemployment.

Jetex_Jim
22nd Jun 2018, 20:01
Another sucked in by project fear


I'm always curious to hear where the fearless Brexit crowd are employed, if they are employed.

They mainly seem to be retired or self employed within some esoteric niche in the UK service industry.

BluSdUp
22nd Jun 2018, 20:03
Can anyone please try to explain to me how this will be solved by 1 April 2019.?
There is no progress whatsoever:

Time has for all practical reasons run out.

EU can , and will not give ANY concessions.
And the UK has NOTHING the EU wants!
Wings for the Airbus , Pahhh! Any EU state is more than happy to take over. ( Toulouse AND Hamburg being the logistical best place).
History will judge You hard Mr B Rexit.
You destroyed Your own Country!

DaveReidUK
22nd Jun 2018, 20:06
Now what they're doing is simply lobbying for their best commercial interests - if we crash out of the EU next March without continued EASA membership, things will be difficult for Airbus and they don't want anything to disrupt their business, which is understandable.

Shock news: multinational company wishes for more clarity re the legislative/trade regime that's going to prevail soon in a country where one of its principal manufacturing bases is located.

That shouldn't really be news to anyone. :ugh:

Alber Ratman
22nd Jun 2018, 20:14
I'm always curious to hear where the fearless Brexit crowd are employed, if they are employed.

They mainly seem to be retired or self employed within some esoteric niche in the UK service industry.

They are also a lot of ex servicemen and the number of old BCAR LAE's that voted to leave is not small either. The reasons are varied and some are to be quiet honest alarmingly stupid.

highcirrus
22nd Jun 2018, 21:07
BluSdUp

Can anyone please try to explain to me how this will be solved by 1 April 2019.?

I recently came across the following letter. Perhaps you should also write to your MP using this or a similar format? However, it probably/certainly will have no effect as nowadays, MPs are merely pliable careerist voting fodder, in thrall to the Party machine and with little interest in the views of constituents. As is now becoming apparent, the Brexit process has for some time been hijacked by the Tory "ultras" who are determined on a "crash out", 23.00 hrs, 29 March 2019, presumably with a view to fundamentally altering the nature of UK society and politics, from then onwards.

Dear (name of MP)

I write in despair at the complete mess your government appears to be making of the Brexit negotiations.

I voted Brexit as I did not like the direction of travel to complete political and financial union of the EU - as subsequently confirmed by Juncker’s State of the Union speech.

However, I also acknowledge that 48% voted Remain, and the Brexit vote was not overwhelming. One also has to acknowledge the demographic of the Brexit vote.

I, therefore, fully expected the government to pursue a sensible Brexit, as laid out by Dr Richard North on his blog, on which he has devoted years to a plan called Flexcit – EU Referendum (http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx)

The government could have opted to say to the EU, “yes we are leaving the political construct, but we will remain in the EEA and join EFTA instead”. Thus remaining in the Single Market, which is crucial for the economy, and the City. EFTA has it’s own court (independent of the ECJ), can make it’s own trade deals, and is free from the majority of EU legislation (73% - the remaining 27% is manufacturing/trading standard legislation passed down to EU from world standards bodies). This would have removed all uncertainty for business, and allowed the UK to push for further reform of trade with the EU from the safe harbour of EFTA.

The government could also have said it would put the controls on EU immigration which have always been available to it, but never used - in addition Articles 112 & 113 of the EEA Agreement allow for additional restriction to free movement.

The EEA/EFTA option would also have solved the Irish border issue.

Instead, we are now in a position where nearly 2 years on from the referendum, nothing has been achieved except massive uncertainty for the economy - I fear we are now at the point of businesses voting with their feet.

It is quite alarming listening to politicians who do not even seem to understand the difference between the Single Market and a Customs Union. And, indeed, Theresa May herself recently told Andrew Marr that you could not leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, which is patently untrue. The EFTA countries are in the Single Market but not in the EU, and they do have a voice in devising EU legislation relevant to their interests.

I never thought the day would come when someone with the name Kinnock would be making more sense on the economy than the Conservatives.

In fact, it is increasingly looking like the Conservatives are leading us off the cliff edge to economic carnage and empty supermarket shelves. If that happens, your party will be unelectable for generations.

Mrs May seems to be held hostage by the ERG, rather than acting in the interests of the country. Mr Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson may have a veneer of charm, but I have not heard them come up with any reasonable solutions to the Irish border or queues at the Channel ports if we are not in the Single Market. Sanitary and Phytosanitary checks, of all live animals and foodstuffs cannot be done electronically... The KFC debacle showed how the slightest delay in the supply chain leads to panic buying, empty shelves and closed shops.

As I do not believe there is any majority in Parliament to leave the Single Market, I would plead with the Conservative Party to get your act together before it is too late, and you trash the economy, and allow Corbyn in by default.

Kind Regards.

brakedwell
22nd Jun 2018, 21:56
A majority of Astn Martin workers voted leave, ditto at Nissan. Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.

Burnt Fishtrousers
22nd Jun 2018, 22:09
Alber Ratman

"I would go back to Jet Blast mate, your knowledge and aviation background reading your previous, belongs there and not here."

You do not need to push throttles on a daily basis to smell a political rat. 3 months ago Airbus were extolling the virtues of the UK workforce as the best and most productive now all of a sudden they are considering moving with a totally unconvincing business model. A business is a business and if observers see uncertainty in your business they aren't going to invest in it or purchase from you.
To put in jeopardy a viable going concern based on political dogma with so called barriers that can be done away easily with at the swipe of a pen in March 2019 appears somewhat odd to say the least.

I have set up many dealerships in India selling our software so know exactly how Indian business works. Too much red tape and veeery slowly in my experience

As for aviation, Boeing having no replacement on the cards to match the A380 says it all...the future of these large jets is in question with point to point flying the future as demonstrated by the 787 Heathrow to Perth non stop run recently.....makes common business sense...I'll see you over in Jet Blast mate so we can parry a few more over in the sandpit of us unworthy unwashed non aviation oiks

G0ULI
22nd Jun 2018, 22:26
Since the wings on modern aircraft are highly complex bits of kit that hugely influence aircraft performance and fuel economy, one can only assume this is a bluff on behalf of Airbus. It would take years to set up manufacturing elsewhere to identical standards and in the meantime there is a stock of aircraft bodies building up with no way of making them fly. This would be the end of Airbus, not just manufacturing in the UK. But then we all know that Boeing makes proper aircraft with proper control layouts in the cockpit, not some glorified kiddies computer game with joystick controls.

SARF
22nd Jun 2018, 22:54
If the ten per cent fall in sterling since the vote hasn’t been enough to cheer airbus up, nothing will..

highcirrus
23rd Jun 2018, 00:41
Once again, it is left to Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum (http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx) to come up with the facts of the matter in respect of the Airbus operation in UK (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86910#disqus_thread), cutting through the prevailing ignorance and obfuscation like a hot knife through butter.

In July 2008, EASA issued its first (https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/agency-issues-first-european-single-production-organisation) Single Production Organisation Approval – and that was to Airbus fixed-wing manufacturing. Helicopters followed later (http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/02/easa-issues-single-production-organisation-approval-to-airbus-he.html). That means precisely what I wrote yesterday (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86909), that Airbus is regulated directly by EASA. It will not be directly affected by Brexit. It will remain regulated by EASA even after we leave the EU – the UK operations voluntarily adopting EU law and control in order to work as part of the Airbus conglomerate.

The problem comes with the 215 (or so) production organisations in the UK approved by the Civil Aviation Authority (https://www.easa.europa.eu/download/poa/easa-apo.pdf), many of which will supply Airbus, including GKN engineering which does much of the wing fabrication under contract to Airbus.

Once the UK leaves the EU and becomes a third country, in order to keep supplying Airbus, they must re-apply directly to EASA for approval and until they have gained that approval will no longer be able to deliver parts or assemblies for use in aircraft certified by EASA.

The potential for disruption is obvious, not least as the industry is asserting that parts approved by the CAA currently fitted to such aircraft will invalidate their airworthiness certificates, preventing them being flown until the parts are replaced or revalidated.

As regards new, post-Brexit approvals, it is bound to take EASA a while to deal with the applicants, especially as they cannot actually apply until the UK is a third country. That would suggest that there is bound to be some discontinuity, with Airbus unable to continue manufacturing aircraft for an unspecified period......


Follow the link and read on.

45989
23rd Jun 2018, 01:13
There are assembly plants in China and the USA.
Tanjin. Another somewhere in Trumpland. Expect the reaction there should be amusing .............

Been Accounting
23rd Jun 2018, 06:43
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/jun/22/martin-rowson-airbus-brexit-cartoon#img-1

DaveReidUK
23rd Jun 2018, 07:21
Once again, it is left to Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum (http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx) to come up with the facts of the matter in respect of the Airbus operation in UK (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86910#disqus_thread), cutting through the prevailing ignorance and obfuscation like a hot knife through butter.

Follow the link and read on.

And for a slightly less histrionic (but equally alarming) assessment: Royal Aeronautical Society - Civil Aviation Regulation: What Future after Brexit? (https://www.aerosociety.com/media/6797/raes_civil_aviation_regulation_-_what_future_after_brexit.pdf)

Heathrow Harry
23rd Jun 2018, 07:52
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x680/blue_passports_7bc123d47a884c3c6bd30dc0a64b98e35a6963bd.jpg

LTNman
23rd Jun 2018, 08:00
and Airbus are going to stop fitting American engines as they were not made in the EU.

NutLoose
23rd Jun 2018, 08:04
I am surprised that this didn't come up earlier after BAe took the short term profit over investment in the future view.
While people quite rightly say you could produce the wings anywhere assuming you have the facility to do it, the jewel in the crown has to be the wing design team, and whether they can coax the team into leaving too.

Hussar 54
23rd Jun 2018, 08:33
not enough. the sooner this lot shuffle on and we can reverse the damage those loonatics have wrought, the better.


Really.....Somewhat intolerant, no, wishing people to die ??....But not unexpected.

I suppose the only respectful reply to you is to remind you that millions of them will still be above ground and upright long after Juncker, Tusk, Verhofstedt and others....

Back to Airbus....

Lots of gnashing of teeth, from both sides on here, but does anyone really know or can provide a realistic estimate of how long it would take to recreate the UK's design and production teams and production facilities in, say, Nantes or Hamburg or Toulouse ? And having to start from scratch.....

SMT Member
23rd Jun 2018, 08:40
Lots of gnashing of teeth, from both sides on here, but does anyone really know or can provide a realistic estimate of how long it would take to recreate the UK's design and production teams and production facilities in, say, Nantes or Hamburg or Toulouse ? And having to start from scratch.....

Well, since the factory is 100% owned, run and controlled by Airbus, it's probably fair to suggest they have a pretty good idea of the why's, when's and how's of banging together a set of wings. As such they'll hardly be starting from scratch; they own the tools, the intellectual property and the know-how. It's probably also fair to suggest, that given the opportunity of continuing your career in e.g. Spain or face redundancy in an industry that's fast leaving your home shores, quite a few people would opt for continuing working. It's hardly as if the British are unfamiliar with the concept of living an expat life ...

Heathrow Harry
23rd Jun 2018, 08:41
And who will buy anything they build? The UK Aerospace civil aviation business has NEVER been very successful at building and selling commercial aircraft since 1950 - at best we could hope to do a Bombardier I guess... but look how that turned out... back at Airbus.........

VinRouge
23rd Jun 2018, 08:41
and Airbus are going to stop fitting American engines as they were not made in the EU.
What, the Americans whom have an industry recognised regulatory structure they can use to legally put engines on wings?

​​​​​

VinRouge
23rd Jun 2018, 08:48
Really.....Somewhat intolerant, no, wishing people to die ??....But not unexpected.

I suppose the only respectful reply to you is to remind you that millions of them will still be above ground and upright long after Juncker, Tusk, Verhofstedt and others....

,

Not at all. It's a practical fact. Brexiteers, the majority of who are within zimmerframe distance of the pearly gates will be soon gone. Or certainly enough of them, to then get a reunification referendum in. I predict a maximum of 5 years before the nuclear wasteland that will result from brexit will be reversed.

And once enough do, the majority of sensible younger people will crucify the remainder of whom voted for this madness.

It's bad enough that a generation that will become dependent on a health service that had over a 30% immigrant workforce didn't figure that they were voting in a reduced service.

Ah well, I guess Darwin was right.

Denti
23rd Jun 2018, 08:57
And for a slightly less histrionic (but equally alarming) assessment: Royal Aeronautical Society - Civil Aviation Regulation: What Future after Brexit? (https://www.aerosociety.com/media/6797/raes_civil_aviation_regulation_-_what_future_after_brexit.pdf)
Interesting paper indeed. Makes for a nice read, although not very comforting in nature.

Kerosene Kraut
23rd Jun 2018, 08:59
What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent? Their german Dahlewitz plant seems to be growing already.
They need the busses too to hang on all their donks.

Airlines sell tickets and have to plan capacity today for the time after Brexit but nobody knows any rules that will apply. What a mess for what reason?

homonculus
23rd Jun 2018, 09:15
What a lot of rude posts from Remoaners, especially Vinrouge who doesnt even live in the UK.......

I didnt vote because I see equal benefits of staying and leaving. The UK Government has been amazingly incompetent at leaving and the EU bureaucrats seem intransigent and spiteful, but at the end of the day we can allow in or out of the UK whatever goods we want. It will be up to the EU whether they allow goods in - no democracy refuses to allow goods out unless they represent a security risk, and a few nuts and bolts coming back to euroland as a wing dont fall into this category. Can anyone explain why a european country would refuse to allow an airbus wing to come in??????

Airbus's largest shareholders are the Germans and French who are on the other side of the negotiating table. If you believe this is a non political announcement you really are naive. The reality is we will leave the EU well before Airbus or any other major EU company can shift any production. What thy subsequently do will depend on their experience and instructions from their political masters after March 2019, not their posturing beforehand. The worry is the EU will try to punish the UK by closing their borders. We have the freedom to keep our borders open to goods. This will hurt euroland as much as the UK.

Lets try to have a sensible debate

VinRouge
23rd Jun 2018, 09:17
What a lot of rude posts from Remoaners, especially Vinrouge who doesnt even live in the UK.......


Lets try to have a sensible debate

Impossible to have with anyone having the IQ to have voted leave.

The issue is not political, it is practical. What regulatory structure will Airbus be operating out of the UK with? How much import/export levvy will be charged for components manufactured in a nation with no trade agreement? What will the labour laws mean for productivity?

It's all too much of a risk when, In a globalised economy, Airbus are obviously realising fools cannot be reasoned with and the lower risk option is to cut their losses. And to be honest, with loons like rees-mogg, Boris and thicko Davis at the con, can you really blame them?

And I've been UK based since my overseas UK tax paying overseas tour in the military years ago.

Bazzo
23rd Jun 2018, 09:18
and Airbus are going to stop fitting American engines as they were not made in the EU.

Airbus are going to stop fitting American engines (and other components) that are not EASA approved

vapilot2004
23rd Jun 2018, 09:20
The more direct and knock-on negative effects you read about makes one realize how much the Brexiters were misinformed.

They were not expecting this outcome. They voted because of immigration and they did not think on beyond that. It has not sunk in yet — everyone is just stunned.”

Simply staggering stupidity. I'd call it natural selection, if it weren't bringing down the other half with them.

Same situation in the states with our orange-tinted movement, really.

Hussar 54
23rd Jun 2018, 09:25
Not at all. It's a practical fact. Brexiteers, the majority of who are within zimmerframe distance of the pearly gates will be soon gone. Or certainly enough of them, to then get a reunification referendum in. I predict a maximum of 5 years before the nuclear wasteland that will result from brexit will be reversed.

And once enough do, the majority of sensible younger people will crucify the remainder of whom voted for this madness.

It's bad enough that a generation that will become dependent on a health service that had over a 30% immigrant workforce didn't figure that they were voting in a reduced service.

Ah well, I guess Darwin was right.


My € 20 against your € 5 that there'll be no EU to rejoin by the time the snowflake generation have managed to stop hallucinating.

The original Common Market, on the other hand, absolutely - and if that was still the case today, without the political bolleaux that it has now become, Airbus et al wouldn't have caused this thread.

I can't comment on the NHS, other than to point out that the UK Government, whether in our out of the EU, will be free to 'import' as many EU and non-EU nationals as it needs post-Brexit, whether for the NHS or any other industry. Hospitals in Portugal are staffed 35% plus by Cubans and Angolans because of the number of Portuguese medics working outside of Portugal. Hospitals here are staffed 25% plus by medics from Nth Africa and the Middle East, mainly because they're cheaper than French nationals but also because many of them have left to work in UAE.

The NHS in the UK is hardly unique in needing to employ both EU nationals and non-EU nationals, when required, to meet patient demand.

Jetex_Jim
23rd Jun 2018, 12:20
Most of the Brexit crowd seem to be silent on the topic of their employment status. My guess is that most of them are retired and thus imuune to the obvious economic consequences of Brexit.

They remind me of first world war Generals. Safely behind lines and ready to fight to the last man in persuit of victory. (This BTW is meant metaphorically. I'm actually referring to the apparent lack of concern for potential job losses felt by those who are retired.)

Chris2303
23rd Jun 2018, 12:22
Brexit, of course, is small bikkies compared to Trump's ever extending trade war.

Especially as he doesn't like the EU.

BAengineer
23rd Jun 2018, 12:47
Surely the easiest solution to all of this is to do as the UK Government, the CAA and the FAA have all already asked - and that is to remain in EASA.

Daysleeper
23rd Jun 2018, 12:48
What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent?

Short answer is yes, if it makes sense. RR announced in April they were looking at move large jet certification to Germany. Final assembly lines are XWB line in Germany ( in addition to Derby) and Trent 900 and 1000 lines in Singapore.
Short term can anything be delivered out of the UK from next year if we crash out of the EU. Long term the problem for the UK in the future is if RR want to increase production do you do it in the UK or in Germany or at Seletar. Then maybe you have to make cuts: maybe the UK line is more difficult to get stuff from because of the customs paperwork or whatever. It's a competitive market for this high tech work and common rules across the EU, partly written by the UK, was one of our strengths.

CHfour
23rd Jun 2018, 12:59
The staunchly pro soft Brexit (= remain) BBC gleefully led on the "news" that BAe "might" leave the UK or the wings might be built elsewhere but that's not what their spokesperson actually said is it? After we leave the wings will still be EASA compliant and we already have a trusted trader scheme to allow seamless border transfers. The lady also stated that the workforce was the most productive in the network. Airbus have enough to worry about with, for example, the lack of 380 sales so are unlikely to contemplate the mammoth task of relocating the wing plants to mainland Europe. Businesses do not like uncertainty but, as nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, this is unavoidable. To all remoaners I would just like to remind you that the largest vote in our history came out as a vote to leave the EU and that is hard brexit. We have an extremely mature system of government which served us well until Heath handed us over to the anti democratic EU. We also have an excellent judicial system which does not need any interference from the EU. The best interests of the UK will be served if we get on with our withdrawal, accept the result of the referendum and remember what we are capable of. We may no longer be what we once were but we are more than capable of running our own affairs.

45989
23rd Jun 2018, 13:02
The issue cuts both ways. Airbus would be unlikely to find a more experienced lot to produce wings outside of the UK. Shooting themselves in the foot, I think.
Head in sand.....................

45989
23rd Jun 2018, 13:13
[QUOTE=Kerosene Kraut;10179789]What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent?
Perhaps they need to make power plants that work properly first? RB211..... Trent.......

BAengineer
23rd Jun 2018, 13:13
Does anyone actually think that from next April the EU are going to shut down production of Aircraft in Europe? - personally I cant see it happening.

Buster15
23rd Jun 2018, 13:30
[QUOTE=Kerosene Kraut;10179789]What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent?
Perhaps they need to make power plants that work properly first? RB211..... Trent.......

FABRICATION.... Strange word for producing one of the worlds most technically complex pieces of technology.
Anyway, Rolls Royce already produces two spool engines in Germany.
It is really easy to belittle their hugely successful RB211 and Trent engines. Yes they have problems with certain Trent1000 engines but they are working flat out to correct the problems as any highly successful organisation should.

ZeBedie
23rd Jun 2018, 15:59
the jewel in the crown has to be the wing design team, and whether they can coax the team into leaving too.

Indeed, about 40+ years ago, the BAC wing designers were being courted both by Boeing and the embryonic Airbus. They (rather, their employer) chose Airbus, of course. But if their jobs were seriously threatened by Airbus, I guess Boeing would come sniffing around again and many of these guys would soon be enjoying life in Seattle.

Or a nightmare scenario for Airbus would be for the talent to be scooped up by China.

Alber Ratman
23rd Jun 2018, 16:19
Alber Ratman

"I would go back to Jet Blast mate, your knowledge and aviation background reading your previous, belongs there and not here."

You do not need to push throttles on a daily basis to smell a political rat. 3 months ago Airbus were extolling the virtues of the UK workforce as the best and most productive now all of a sudden they are considering moving with a totally unconvincing business model. A business is a business and if observers see uncertainty in your business they aren't going to invest in it or purchase from you.
To put in jeopardy a viable going concern based on political dogma with so called barriers that can be done away easily with at the swipe of a pen in March 2019 appears somewhat odd to say the least.

I have set up many dealerships in India selling our software so know exactly how Indian business works. Too much red tape and veeery slowly in my experience

As for aviation, Boeing having no replacement on the cards to match the A380 says it all...the future of these large jets is in question with point to point flying the future as demonstrated by the 787 Heathrow to Perth non stop run recently.....makes common business sense...I'll see you over in Jet Blast mate so we can parry a few more over in the sandpit of us unworthy unwashed non aviation oiks

A350 will fill the hole. If Airbus wish to pull out, they will in time. I don't do Jet Blast as I am a Licenced Aircraft Engineer. Why the hell do people think that a trade deal with India is going to be any different to what you said.

Kerosene Kraut
23rd Jun 2018, 16:27
But if their jobs were seriously threatened by Airbus, I guess Boeing would come sniffing around again and many of these guys would soon be enjoying life in Seattle.
China is building and supplying A320 wings for the Tianjin final assembly already. They are on the record with an offer to build more.

ZeBedie
23rd Jun 2018, 16:40
China is building and supplying A320 wings for the Tianjin final assembly already. They are on the record with an offer to build more.

So they can rivet to western standards - good for them, but that's not even slightly the same as having control of the design team, is it?

Kerosene Kraut
23rd Jun 2018, 16:50
FABRICATION.... Strange word for producing one of the worlds most technically complex pieces of technology.

Maybe strange to you. Boeing even has a VP and GM for fabrication.

Buster15
23rd Jun 2018, 17:35
Maybe strange to you. Boeing even has a VP and GM for fabrication.

Maybe so, but GM do not produce Gas Turbine Engines which was what the post was about and what the Fabrication comment related to.

Kerosene Kraut
23rd Jun 2018, 17:41
By using that word I wanted to differentiate between actual production and designing them. If you have tariffs or similar between the UK and EU moving hardware might be the issue. Maybe not so much the think tank work.

VinRouge
24th Jun 2018, 09:12
So they can rivet to western standards - good for them, but that's not even slightly the same as having control of the design team, is it?
Does the UK?

The design authority is airbus, with UK workers designing to Airbus specification and intellectual property? We've never been very good at designing airliners, much better at systems. Snggered at facecious, uninformed politicians yesterday making comments like "why can't people imagine the UK building aircraft again?"

Naievety beyond comprehension.

Cynical Sid
24th Jun 2018, 10:01
Does the UK?

The design authority is airbus, with UK workers designing to Airbus specification and intellectual property? We've never been very good at designing airliners, much better at systems. Snggered at facecious, uninformed politicians yesterday making comments like "why can't people imagine the UK building aircraft again?"

Naievety beyond comprehension.

I think we could imagine the UK doing it, but it requires competent management/government rather than one that cannot organise the proverbial p-up in a brewery. The UK is actually very good at making things and the car industry is a good example. But it needs Indian or Japanese management to make a success of it.

Daysleeper
24th Jun 2018, 10:28
By using that word I wanted to differentiate between actual production and designing them. If you have tariffs or similar between the UK and EU moving hardware might be the issue. Maybe not so much the think tank work.

The point a lot of manufacturers are jumping up and down about is Non-tariff barriers. So having to fill in paperwork every time you cross the border, being unable to easily move people from place to place on either short or long term postings, regulatory divergence, rules of origin etc etc. Relatively small amounts of friction make big differences. And before people say "airbus say they could move manufacture to china or Alabama and they are outside the EU so this isn't about Brexit" think about it being a set of scales, all these locations are constantly in competition for future investment or rationalisation. Being inside the EU is a huge advantage to the UK when it comes to supply chain. While inside the EU the UK Airbus operation has been able to beat off competition from other sites. If we take that away then the calculation is no longer between a UK inside the EU and a China or Alabama outside the EU (or another inside EU location) . For the long term it's about relative advantage and we are giving that away.

brakedwell
24th Jun 2018, 10:32
Thank god for a bit of common sense at last.

Daysleeper
24th Jun 2018, 12:03
Having said all of this I've been thinking of how this "warning" plays out if interpreted differently. It could be seen as an appeal to the EU to give the UK something , to make concessions and avoid a no-deal exit. It appeals to the short-termism prevalent in politicians on both sides of the channel but (and the but is really important) a shrewd continental politician looking at the 5-10 year economy will probably see that they can make these concessions with little risk.

It runs like this: Dear EU please make concessions to the UK to avoid a no deal Brexit because if you don't then it will cost us billions and billions of euros and result in temporary shut downs of production in a bunch of sectors putting continental voters out of work. Of course in the long run, the friction implicit in Brexit will make the UK uncompetitive anyway so if we can get a fudge for a couple of years then you (the EU 27) will see an advantage and (in the Airbus case) the wing work will gently drift onto the continent in an orderly way.

PS My money is on the wing work ending up in Spain.

VinRouge
24th Jun 2018, 16:16
What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent? Their german Dahlewitz plant seems to be growing already.
They need the busses too to hang on all their donks.

Airlines sell tickets and have to plan capacity today for the time after Brexit but nobody knows any rules that will apply. What a mess for what reason?
Announcing that 4000 of their uk based middle management will be laid off a week back could be an indicator of their intent.

lasernigel
24th Jun 2018, 17:46
What will RR do after Brexit? Move engine fabrication to the continent? Their german Dahlewitz plant seems to be growing already.

They already have a state of the art manufacturing plant in Singapore. They make the blades there, have access on site to the laser peening facility as well.

Flugplatz
24th Jun 2018, 19:34
I bet Boeing are just loving this :D "If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going" could become almost literally true next March. I hope Airbus are briefing their customers that deliveries and parts-supply may be a bit of an issue in 2019

Airbanda
25th Jun 2018, 08:02
Good luck to Airbus in setting up and bringing on stream a new, duplicate, wing building facility elsewhere between now and next March..

The immediate issue is where new investment goes. Scenario at moment seems to be it going outside UK with existing facilities left to, over time, wither on the vine.

Meanwhile it's facile to say the EU should be easing the negotiating process. UK set this process in chain by holding a referendum and then giving notice under Article 50 before the unexpected and unplanned for outcome had been digested. Right now, two whole years after the referendum, the Cabinet cannot even agree amongst themselves what negotiating position to adopt. How can the EU react to that?

Heathrow Harry
25th Jun 2018, 08:56
Already slowing down........

From the IMF - GDP Increase over previous 12 months:-

2015 2018
USA 2.7% - 2.8%
Canada 1% - 2.3%
France 1.1% - 2%
Italy 1% - 1.4 %
UK 2.35 - 1.4%
Japan 1.3% - 1.4 %

Del Prado
25th Jun 2018, 22:23
More firms warn U.K. over disorderly Brexit. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/25/foreign-businesses-tell-uk-solve-brexit-issue-or-risk-100bn-in-trade)

“Business leaders from the US, Canada, Japan and India have told the British government to solve the Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum) issue urgently or put more than £100bn worth of trade at risk.

Lobby groups representing business interests from the four countries took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement on Brexit before the European council summit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/leo-varadkar-theresa-may-sofia-brexit-deal)this week. It came days after Airbus said its investment in the UK would be at risk from a hard Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/22/airbus-plans-uk-cuts-amid-fears-of-hard-brexit-impact), prompting the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to say the Franco-German aircraft maker’s intervention was “completely inappropriate” (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/24/jeremy-hunt-hits-back-at-airbus-over-brexit-warnings-on-jobs).”

The US chamber of commerce represents firms such as Coca-Cola, BOEING and Facebook.

Bombardier also represented.

highcirrus
26th Jun 2018, 12:18
UK "government" trying to silence major companies, Airbus, BMW, Siemens supporting 200,000 jobs in UK, and who've been pointing out that these jobs are all at risk in a "no deal" Brexit.

tescoapp
27th Jun 2018, 12:22
the Vote on the third runway at Heathrow.

Boris was away in Afgan which was planned quiet a few months ago and both himself and constituents are against the runway. Instead of cancelling everything at the last moment wasting all the security plans and assets that had been mobilised on the ground for the vote in parliament which was scheduled well after his visit was organised. He didn't turn up to the vote knowing fine that it was going to go through even if he was there and that realistically its not likely to happen anyway in the next 10 years if at all.

He was there though for the EU withdrawal bill which got the royal seal today.

highcirrus
27th Jun 2018, 14:35
The Brexit Blog http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogsp*t.com/ (* = o)

Much attention has been focussed on the dismissal of warnings from Airbus – and an increasing number of other businesses - by Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154) and others. Less attention has been given to the specific reason given by Hunt (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44592536/airbus-jeremy-hunt-criticises-completely-inappropriate-threats) as to why Airbus should keep quiet: that it undermines the British government’s capacity to negotiate with the EU.

This is nonsense, for the simple reason that the EU negotiators, and all informed commentators, know full well how damaging Brexit will be for most businesses, especially those with closely integrated European Just-in-Time supply chains (https://www.ft.com/content/8f46b0d4-77b6-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475) (£) like Airbus but, to varying degrees, all businesses of all sizes (http://chrisgreybrexitblog.********.com/2018/04/business-gets-vocal-about-brexit.html) which trade with the EU-27. Indeed companies and trade bodies have been warning about it for well over two years and with growing insistence since last year, because of the way that business investment cycles and location decisions work (http://chrisgreybrexitblog.********.com/2017/10/times-running-out-economics-is-now.html). This isn’t a game of poker – or, if it is, it is one in which both players can see each other’s hands.

The only people who persist, wilfully, in not recognizing this damage are the Brexiters who dismiss it as (of course) Project Fear. Even that dismissal is perverse, since if the warnings are indeed nonsense then making them would not be helpful to the EU negotiators in the way suggested by Hunt anyway.

In fact, the only thing which make the negotiations difficult is that Britain, to the extent that its government can agree on an aim, is seeking as the outcome things that it has already excluded by virtue of its red lines. Specifically, Britain is seeking something like the kind of frictionless trade that is only achievable by being in the single market and a customs union, which it has ruled out; and participation in agencies and programmes regulated by the ECJ, which regulation it has rejected.

So, in summary, this is the central paradox of the government’s Brexit approach thus far: it is seeking to negotiate something which it has already rejected.

highcirrus
28th Jun 2018, 17:34
A good presentation (https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/brexit-aviation.pdf) on the Institutional Impacts of Brexit in Aviation Markets and Networks from the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. Accurate, cogent, factual, reasoned and logical.

Maybe, Hussar 54, you might like to try some posts of a similar nature so we can compare and contrast your latest foolish nonsense, utterly without merit or value to perhaps the most important debate in UK's post-war history. Grow up and perhaps also drop the smutty innuendo.

msjh
28th Jun 2018, 20:23
Those parts have to reach the assembly facilities seemlessly. Gridlock at UK ports after a hard brexit will clog up the supply lines and cause expensive delays. Standby by for similar announcements from Nissan, Honda and Toyota.

I’m under the impression that Airbus wings made in the UK are carried in Airbus Beluga aircraft to the final assembly plant in France.

msjh
28th Jun 2018, 20:38
China is building and supplying A320 wings for the Tianjin final assembly already. They are on the record with an offer to build more.
Need a new squadron of Belugas to get them to the final assembly plant in France.

EDLB
28th Jun 2018, 20:58
Need a new squadron of Belugas to get them to the final assembly plant in France.


And how difficult is that for Airbus to built some?
There might even be some cheap used A380 to modify.

highcirrus
28th Jun 2018, 21:07
msjh The issue here is that Airbus UK is certified by EASA and will continue to be so after Brexit. The problem is that the 150 or so UK sub-contractors supplying Airbus UK wing production will lose their EASA certification following "no deal" Brexit but will, hopefully, in time, receive NAA (National Aviation Authority - in this case UK CAA) approval that will eventually be recognised by EASA in however many months/years it will take. Meanwhile by whatever method wings are shipped, they cannot be fitted to airframes as they will contain parts uncertified by EASA. The solution for Airbus is to initially over-order certified products from current UK sub-contractors to continue shipping wings and then source sub-contacted parts from EU EASA certified suppliers in Europe and move the Broughton assembly line into an EU country, of whom, I believe Spain is the current favourite.

I'm just an average guy who reads a little, so if I can figure it out, how come the geniuses in charge in the UK "government" are having such difficulty in doing so (particularly Foreign Sec. Johnson)?

BAengineer
28th Jun 2018, 22:32
highcirrus - it will take years to create a new wing fabrication plant from scratch so is it really practical to stockpile 3-4 years of airbus wings?. Also does Broughton have the capacity to build an extra 3 years worth of wings by next April?

Less Hair
29th Jun 2018, 07:42
It's a fact that there are no existing rules for the time after Brexit as airlines and airports have to plan capacity and demand (and sell tickets!) and need to decide about now for that time. It's pure chaos. They take too long and there is not much progress.

Icarus2001
29th Jun 2018, 09:31
Are airlines selling tickets between the UK and European destinations for after 29 March 2019?

You seem to have missed my point completely. You are correct, there are no existing rules that you or I no about in draft form in existence. This does not mean that they do not already exist does it?

Less Hair
29th Jun 2018, 09:38
Yes they are selling tickets without knowing how this market will work, how border controls will be handled, traffic rights and everything else way beyound aviation but with direct influence.
It's not like some known option A or B is ready to be selected and signed. At least I'm not aware of anything firming up. Pretty incredible situation but a lot of fun for sure.

wiggy
29th Jun 2018, 10:14
Icarus, How long do you think many U.K. airlines would stay solvent if, right now, they stopped selling tickets and taking the money for post B day flights? “Sorry Mr Wiggy’s, we can’t let you book a flight for your family next summer because it might not operate”......

They aren’t because they are privy to some secret agreement, they are selling because they need the cash flow to keep them going to the end of the day/end of the month/end of the year.. and they are hoping (as are most people who actually get paid by airlines) that the politicians can sort something out.

Heathrow Harry
29th Jun 2018, 10:15
It's a fact that there are no existing rules for the time after Brexit as airlines and airports have to plan capacity and demand (and sell tickets!) and need to decide about now for that time. It's pure chaos. They take too long and there is not much progress.

Even as committed Remainer I can see them all fudging this issue - like so much else we'll be drifting in a legal fog for years..............

highcirrus
29th Jun 2018, 10:23
Icarus2001 (https://www.pprune.org/members/43402-icarus2001) I believe that the mistake you in turn are making (in company with Theresa May & Co) is your assuming that the EU is "negotiating" on the basis of being a commercial organisation and that the current state of play between it and the UK "is a cross between a poker game and chicken". This is not the case and the present UK "government" has yet to realise the actualité and similarly realise that the EU is supremely indifferent to the idea that one party would be "waiting for the other to blink".

The EU is and always has been a rule based organisation (not a commercial organisation) that requires member nations to adhere 100% with laws and all directives including those originating with its agencies, of which, EASA is one. Hence, in its Article 50 "negotiations" it merely states its rules and requirements during the process of UK disengaging and becoming a Third Country and makes clear that there is no commercial "quid pro quo" haggling as one would expect in a Turkish carpet souk. The EU stance is that UK wishes to leave the Union and hence the EU will facilitate this, using its rule base.

In respect of Airbus and a potential withdrawal from UK, the following (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86672) from, again, Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum, who seems to be a consistently reliable, accurate, detailed and even-handed researcher/commentator and who puts the above in Aerospace sector context:

It is not only the case that aircraft and the components that go into their making must be certified, but the companies which design and make them must (except under very specific exemptions) also be approved. Respectively, they are called design and/or production organisations and they must undergo an elaborate approval process, conforming with criteria set out in Annex1 of Regulation 748/2012 (known as Part 21).

Approval of these organisations is not undertaken by EASA, but by the "competent authorities" of countries in which they operate. And here, we begin to have problems. Competent authorities, in the case of EU members, are appointed by the Member States. Third country competent authorities have to be approved directly by EASA.

Currently the UK competent authority is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and it has approved design and production organisations within the UK. However, come Brexit, the UK will become a third country and, therefore, the CAA will no longer be a valid competent authority. It must apply to EASA for recognition.

In the interim, there is then the question as to whether companies in the UK which have been approved to design or make aircraft or aviation products will retain their approvals. EU law on this is unhelpful – and unsurprisingly so, as there is no provision of countries in the EU ceasing to be Member States.

Those looking for inspiration might refer to the relevant "Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/decision_ED_2003_01_RM.pdf)" where it is made abundantly clear that approvals are issued by the "competent authority of a Member State of the European Union" or EASA. On that basis, it is arguable that products designed and/or produced by UK companies after Brexit no longer hold valid approvals, until such time as the status of the "competent authority" has been regularised.

Such matters, clearly, are precisely those which need to be addressed during the Article 50 negotiations and one might need (and therefore request) a statement from the Commission and EASA to the effect that the CAA remains a relevant competent authority and that approvals issued by it remain valid. Without that, a vital industry could be at risk.


The danger, of course, lies in the possibility that UK could either "walk away" from, or accidentally disengage from Article 50 talks, leaving a situation of no continuity arrangements in place and hence a UK shut-down of the sector (amongst many others) until such time as talks on re-certifying as a Third Country could be complete (don't expect the EU to be particularly cooperative in this circumstance).

Interesting times and it will be instructive to note not only Barnier's words, this afternoon, in Brussels but also the tone of delivery, which will no doubt speak volumes.

Icarus2001
29th Jun 2018, 12:10
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps the EU believes it is not negotiating then what of the quantum of the exit payment?

if the CAA is a competent authority as a member state one day then it can also be a competent authority the day after Brexit, simply by acceptance by the EU, they can do that if they choose. I assume the FAA is approved as Boeing’s fly in Europe.

Perhaps they are very rule based and focused but as there is no precedent then I assume no rules? Other than the basic divorce.

The best analogy I have heard so far is that it is a divorce but the UK still wants to come around on the weekends to fool around. It is then up to the EU to decide if she wants to play along.

Denti
29th Jun 2018, 12:47
Well, it is extremely rule based, that is the reason why there need to be rules to accept the CAA as a competent authority. Currently it is that because it is using EASA rules, after a Brexit it won't, as long as the government is of the opinion that they can introduce rules that differ from those in the EU. Because in that case there will be legislative divergence which has to be solved (or not solved) by new agreements. And of course the FAA and EASA work on the basis of agreements and accept each other to a certain degree, however, the CAA will be a new authority (because they will switch in one minute from EU rules to an as of yet unknown new rule base) in a new third country and therefore has to be audited, its rule base audited and then after a few years can achieve acceptance. Except if there is a brexit deal which defines a different approach.

Of course, remaining in the single market (the customs union is not needed for that as norway shows) would solve that quite easily, but that is one of the red line the May administration defined. As for talks behind closed doors? Well, on a working group basis there might be, but apart from that it is an extremely public process, and quite deliberately so on the EU side. It is quite fascinating to listen and talk to Mr. Barnier on one of his frequent visits in all areas of the EU and how frank he is about the talks itself and of course his negotiation stance, which in turn is defined by the EU 27 governments.

highcirrus
29th Jun 2018, 13:21
Icarus2001 My pleasure with the reply. In terms of the "exit payment", UK is merely agreeing its contractual obligation to pay its share of the MFF (Multi-Annual Financial Framework - budget) up until the end of the seven year term, on 31 December 2020.

In terms of UK CAA being a competent authority for the purpose of certification in its own right and recognised by FAA and EASA, this is not presently the case. As Denti points out below, it will take a few years (and a substantial budget) to reach this situation.

Denti I agree your post and emphasise your point that if UK remains in the single market as an EFTA EEA member with a Customs Cooperation Agreement rather than currently as an EU EEA/Customs Union member, the nation would be free of EU political control, the ECJ, would dump 73% of the EU acquis, retain 27% (which is the stuff handed down to EU by world standards bodies), maintain regulatory alignment, continue to enjoy free trade, Aerospace/Air Transport regulatory alignment plus a host of other huge benefits we all take for granted. However, in late 2016, Theresa May and her Rasputin like advisor Nick Timothy decided between themselves, on behalf of a grateful nation, to take the present course that will ultimately plunge us all over the cliff edge on 29 March 2019, rather than a course that will lead to an extremely bright future in EFTA/EEA, continuing to enjoy membership of the single market and substantially solving the Ireland/Norther Ireland border conundrum . Thanks guys, great job!

Hussar 54
30th Jun 2018, 09:59
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps the EU believes it is not negotiating then what of the quantum of the exit payment?

if the CAA is a competent authority as a member state one day then it can also be a competent authority the day after Brexit, simply by acceptance by the EU, they can do that if they choose. I assume the FAA is approved as Boeing’s fly in Europe.

Perhaps they are very rule based and focused but as there is no precedent then I assume no rules? Other than the basic divorce.

The best analogy I have heard so far is that it is a divorce but the UK still wants to come around on the weekends to fool around. It is then up to the EU to decide if she wants to play along.


The best summary of the situation so far.

The EU is either punishing the UK for leaving the EU ( although it says it isn't ) or is downright negligent in allowing the UK's various aviation bodies and their below-EASA-standards continued membership of EASA.

If the UK's aviation authorities and standards are not good enough for EASA, then the EU should kick the UK out or EASA today, not wait another nine months before kicking them out.

Daysleeper
30th Jun 2018, 11:51
if the CAA is a competent authority as a member state one day then it can also be a competent authority the day after Brexit, simply by acceptance by the EU, they can do that if they choose. I assume the FAA is approved as Boeing’s fly in Europe.

The best summary of the situation so far.

The EU is either punishing the UK for leaving the EU ( although it says it isn't ) or is downright negligent in allowing the UK's various aviation bodies and their below-EASA-standards continued membership of EASA.

If the UK's aviation authorities and standards are not good enough for EASA, then the EU should kick the UK out or EASA today, not wait another nine months before kicking them out.

Oh FFS we've covered this repeatedly.

The CAA is only 'competent' because the EASA covers a large range of highly technical aspects that are a requirement for regulators to be able to do. It may be possible to re-intigrate these capabilities in the UK over a longer time scale but the CAA have on lots of occasions stated they CANNOT do this by 'Brexit date' and doubt the cost / benefit of doing it at all.

So our choice is: renew capabilities (can't be done in time) be part of EASA (needs a deal and "not with the UK red lines") or be abandoned by a load of the aviation industry. Guess which one we are heading to.

Denti
30th Jun 2018, 12:05
Hussar54, i guess you're misreading the discussion. It is not about whether the CAA is now a competent authority or if it is 1 second after Brexit. It is about the issue if it is able to follow the same european rules or not. And in a no-deal Brexit it won't be able to do that as the british government reserves itself the right to change those rules on a whim.

lomapaseo
30th Jun 2018, 14:27
Hussar54, i guess you're misreading the discussion. It is not about whether the CAA is now a competent authority or if it is 1 second after Brexit. It is about the issue if it is able to follow the same european rules or not. And in a no-deal Brexit it won't be able to do that as the british government reserves itself the right to change those rules on a whim.


I don't believe that the british government really means to change universally agreed upon aviation rules. It's just like the old (before EU) working relationships between aviation authorities where rules are complied with until/unless equivalent procedures are noticed and agreed. When it comes to aviation, it's not just between the british and the EU, it includes other rule based countries as well..

Denti
30th Jun 2018, 14:48
I don't believe that the british government really means to change universally agreed upon aviation rules. It's just like the old (before EU) working relationships between aviation authorities where rules are complied with until/unless equivalent procedures are noticed and agreed. When it comes to aviation, it's not just between the british and the EU, it includes other rule based countries as well..
Well, they might not want to. However, without a deal, and that is the main point here, there is no way regulatory alignment can be assured. There are agreements in force between the US and the EU to govern exactly those regulatory alignments in this sector, and of course with other big blocks as well, mainly the chinese. Without any deal there is no formal regulatory alignment and therefore there is no known status of the state of the UK aviation laws and rules and it has to be treated as such until a time where an enforceable agreement is in place.

The paper of the Royal Aeronautical Society is really eye opening and very very interesting indeed. It talks about those issues including a rough assessment of the required time frames and additional hiring required for the CAA alone (and every other agency governing an industry sector).

Kerosene Kraut
30th Jun 2018, 16:07
The Swiss have some EU deal that might be some role model for the UK? Traffic rights like some EU country, however their separate authority and with their own CAA legislation. Even cross border ATC.

Heathrow Harry
30th Jun 2018, 16:31
The Swiss have some EU deal that might be some role model for the UK? Traffic rights like some EU country, however their separate authority and with their own CAA legislation. Even cross border ATC.

But Switzerland pays a fortune into the EEC for i's access - won't go down well in the weirder reaches of the Tory Party.................

Hussar 54
30th Jun 2018, 17:12
Oh FFS we've covered this repeatedly.

The CAA is only 'competent' because the EASA covers a large range of highly technical aspects that are a requirement for regulators to be able to do. It may be possible to re-intigrate these capabilities in the UK over a longer time scale but the CAA have on lots of occasions stated they CANNOT do this by 'Brexit date' and doubt the cost / benefit of doing it at all.

So our choice is: renew capabilities (can't be done in time) be part of EASA (needs a deal and "not with the UK red lines") or be abandoned by a load of the aviation industry. Guess which one we are heading to.


Irony....It's called irony....

G0ULI
4th Jul 2018, 01:34
Change in aviation happens at a glacial pace compared to many other industries. To suggest that the CAA is competant to deal with aviation matters one day and not the next, due to Brexit, is a nonsense.The same rules and regulations will apply for years before there is any significant divergence between the CAA and EASA. Plenty of time to come up with agreements to ensure cross border compatibility. The FAA don't seem concerned that British aircraft will fall out of the sky the day the UK leaves the EU. Just more political posturing and the chance for extensive and expensive executive negotiations in warmer climes I suspect.

Denti
4th Jul 2018, 16:21
Change in aviation happens at a glacial pace compared to many other industries. To suggest that the CAA is competant to deal with aviation matters one day and not the next, due to Brexit, is a nonsense.The same rules and regulations will apply for years before there is any significant divergence between the CAA and EASA. Plenty of time to come up with agreements to ensure cross border compatibility. The FAA don't seem concerned that British aircraft will fall out of the sky the day the UK leaves the EU. Just more political posturing and the chance for extensive and expensive executive negotiations in warmer climes I suspect.


Actually, FAA official have already remarked that they would not recognize the CAA as a competent authority after a no-deal brexit until a new agreement has been negotiated. They already move ahead in making sure that they themselves can oversee current MRO organisations in the UK as the CAA would not be competent post brexit, in fact making plans for a no-deal scenario although of course everything depends how the UK-EU negotiations will continue and turn out.

tescoapp
5th Jul 2018, 12:41
Any organisation/company/person that hasn't started moving towards a post no deal exit already deserves what the outcome result's.

I suspect a few think that being unprepared will somehow prevent a default exit.

Bergerie1
7th Jul 2018, 14:17
Is he right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44735505

Bazzo
7th Jul 2018, 14:24
Is he right?



I think so, Airbus seems to do ok as a business, is the same true for UK Ltd?

G0ULI
9th Jul 2018, 22:45
Taking the discussion to its logical conclusion, in the event of a no deal Brexit, all Airbus aircraft around the world, fitted with British sourced components, will be grounded indefinitely as compliance to EU standards can no longer be demonstrated. This is clearly an absolute nonsense!

tescoapp
10th Jul 2018, 08:08
Gouli EASA have already stated that any part/installation that has been fitted before the exit date which has a CoA from one of the 27 countries left and is under that NAA's oversite can continue as before and the part still holds certification. Same with any maint checks or work done by UK maint organisations. Anything afterwards is not compliant.

Where the grey area is, is stock. But as most parts are also FAA certified as well there is a process to use that certification to produce a compliance certificate. But that's a by the by, this is just one part of the on going bluff. Even then NAA's may do a France and ignore the EASA edict. Lets face it some of them will be looking at 50%+ of its air carries going out of business anyway. lest face I think there are under 10 mods between a FAA certified A320 and EASA type certificate and they are mostly to do with seat numbers and ozone filters and the like. Nothing heavy structural or engine related.

msjh
14th Jul 2018, 15:00
Taking the discussion to its logical conclusion, in the event of a no deal Brexit, all Airbus aircraft around the world, fitted with British sourced components, will be grounded indefinitely as compliance to EU standards can no longer be demonstrated. This is clearly an absolute nonsense!

That’s about right. It is astonishing that insuperable obstacles somehow turn out to be made of tissue paper when the undesired event actually happens.

DaveReidUK
14th Jul 2018, 15:13
The Government's White Paper published last week suggests that the UK will seek to remain an active participant in EASA (albeit without voting rights), making an appropriate financial contribution and becoming a third country member via the established route under Article 66 of the EASA basic regulation, as Switzerland has.

Obviously that is little more than a shopping list at this stage, but it seems a reasonable aspiration.

Heathrow Harry
14th Jul 2018, 16:52
That’s about right. It is astonishing that insuperable obstacles somehow turn out to be made of tissue paper when the undesired event actually happens.

Unfortunately sometimes they actually happen - remember how European airspace was closed for days because they applied THE RULES after that Icelandic volcano went off...................... and there was no get-out clause IIRC