EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid

[brakedwell]

Originally Posted by BONES_

BAengineer, I disagree.

If I may, using a similar style from your previous post:

How many times must it be repeated. The UK are leaving the EU and any associated privileges and agencies. If they UK want to maintain a close and special relationship and decide to stay within EASA (great!), then it must first understand its membership requirements and then accept the “whole” package: Exactly as Switzerland or Norway have done for example. A fudge (“cherry picking”) to only accept some requirements just because the UK don’t like some others is simply not acceptable - it would undermine the integrity and principle of common regulations and compliance.

It is now up to the UK to decide whether they want to remain or not.

The ball is entirely in the UK's court.

Unfortunately the UK does not know which court the ball is in or what the ball looks like. Utter chaos on all fronts!

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by BONES_

BAengineer, I disagree.

If I may, using a similar style from your previous post:

How many times must it be repeated. The UK are leaving the EU and any associated privileges and agencies. If they UK want to maintain a close and special relationship and decide to stay within EASA (great!), then it must first understand its membership requirements and then accept the “whole” package: Exactly as Switzerland or Norway have done for example. A fudge (“cherry picking”) to only accept some requirements just because the UK don’t like some others is simply not acceptable - it would undermine the integrity and principle of common regulations and compliance.

It is now up to the UK to decide whether they want to remain or not.

The ball is entirely in the UK's court.

Well you cite Switzerland - they have done exactly what you are claiming cannot be done. They are not in the EU, not in the Single Market and not in the Customs Union. Their relationship with the EU is based on a very specific set of bilateral agreements. So we see that the EU are open to a fudge or 'cherry picking' as you call it - Otherwise the EU would have done exactly what you suggest and say it is full EU membership or nothing.

Serve is returned and the ball is back in the EU's court..

[Fitter2]

Unfortunately for the EU, the ball is worth around 40 billion euros, and is presently on our side of the court. The EU has quietly made 'cherry picking' exceptions before when it suited Commission politics, but is playing hard-ball at present to discourage anyone else from daring to leave. Do they expect UK to recognise EASA licences after Brexit and KLM be allowed to land at LHR when EASA licences issued the day before to UK operators do not allow BA to land at AMS? Wait and see.

[BONES_]

For all we know, the EU could have already planned a no-deal scenario and getting ready for it.

You are right, that ball is worth about 40bn Euros. Long term probably even more considering future trades, goods and services: The EU could be losing access to a 65+ million people market; however the UK to a 450+ million people market. Personally, I would not be defiant but very careful - and I honestly think both side should be.

PS: Out of a crashed out Brexit, we ALL got so much to lose but very little to gain (if anything!). However - but i might be wrong - I feel Britain would loose the most: And to me it’s a rather sad prospect.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Originally Posted by BONES_

and it’s also been made very clear “cherry picking” will not be accepted.

Problem is... surely ANY single thing that could be negotiated could be viewed as a "cherry". Thus the EU are making it pretty clear that their intent is hard exit or no exit.

[Denti]

The ball might be 40 billion dollars, which is not all that much compared to the over 1 trillion in trade germany alone does, and certainly less than Japan-EU trade deal offers, an trade deal with a country which is a tiny island somewhere afar from europe, same as the UK.

And although switzerland has a unique deal, that same deal was on offer to the UK and was turned down by the UK, since it is of course based on the 4 freedoms including the freedom of movement. Yes, the swiss voted to have that particular freedom reduced, and that was quietly dropped by them again after it was made very clear that switzerland would lose complete access to everything EU if they insisted on that, which is of course their free choice to do.

Do they expect UK to recognise EASA licences after Brexit and KLM be allowed to land at LHR when EASA licences issued the day before to UK operators do not allow BA to land at AMS?

Actually, no, they don't. Not because of licenses, because EU licenses will still be based on EU law, unlike UK ones (and if any UK license/passport states EU regs it is clearly invalid), but because the UK will not be part of the EU-Open Sky agreement anymore, and therefore any and all flight rights between the UK and the EU have to be renegotiated. But if KLM is really afraid of losing a hand full destinations or rather BA losing quite a few in each of 27 different states, is of course a different matter.

[Heathrow Harry]

Originally Posted by Capt Pit Bull

Problem is... surely ANY single thing that could be negotiated could be viewed as a "cherry". Thus the EU are making it pretty clear that their intent is hard exit or no exit.

Since we've never said what we want it's a bit hard for them to make us an offer I guess.................

[Nemrytter]

Originally Posted by Capt Pit Bull

Problem is... surely ANY single thing that could be negotiated could be viewed as a "cherry". Thus the EU are making it pretty clear that their intent is hard exit or no exit.

No. No they're not. The EU has been waiting 2 years for the UK to decide what it wants. We're still waiting. The UK needs to sort its own house out and decide on a position, then we might actually get somewhere.

[racedo]

Both FR and U2 have no published schedule of flights after 31st of March...............

[lear999wa]

Originally Posted by 4468

Is it just me, or do a fair number of these Brexit bashers appear to be non UK resident?

Why do they care???

I care as I unfortunately have a UK issued ATPL(through no fault of my own). And this entire thing is a major pain in my backside.

[highcirrus]

The Government is to release Brexit no-deal emergency plans next Thursday, 23 August, so maybe things might become clearer following publication. However, the informed reader will already have accurate information as to the various catastrophes awaiting, in particular the Aerospace and Airline Industries, in the event of a crash-out, at 23.00 hrs on 29 March 2019.

[Nemrytter]

Is it just me, or do a fair number of these Brexit bashers appear to be non UK resident?
Why do they care???

Did you consider that some of those non-residents might still be UK citizens? A professional pilot of all people should know the international nature of employment.
Did you also consider that plenty of people, even non-UK citizens, have a strong like of the UK? I sure do. Watching the UK repeatedly shoot itself in the foot while chasing some vain idea of past glories is incredibly sad.

[BONES_]

Well you cite Switzerland - they have done exactly what you are claiming cannot be done. They are not in the EU, not in the Single Market and not in the Customs Union. Their relationship with the EU is based on a very specific set of bilateral agreements. So we see that the EU are open to a fudge or 'cherry picking' as you call it - Otherwise the EU would have done exactly what you suggest and say it is full EU membership or nothing.

Actually the Swiss model was proposed by the EU and... rejected by the UK! Remember David Davies asking for a “Canada plus plus plus deal”?

True, the deal between the EU and Switzerland is very specific but the agreement, at its core, includes the 4 freedoms of movement, ECJ jurisdiction and pay into the EU budget (bilateral agreement I and II). Since 2008, they have also joined the Schengen Area. So, actually this is not a fudge. Is this what the UK want? I shall leave it to you to answer...

PS these bilateral agreements have been developed and matured since early 70ies (EFTA membership); the EEA treaty between the Swiss and the EU started in ‘94. Don’t get me wrong, but i have the feeling time is something the UK don’t have. Looming problems, however.....

[glad rag]

So to get back on track, will there be a sudden shortage of skilled engineers in Europe or not.

Simple Yes or No.

If it's "hung" then I would suggest to the moderators that the thread either be locked or deleted as a divisive waste of bandwidth.

[Alber Ratman]

Originally Posted by glad rag

So to get back on track, will there be a sudden shortage of skilled engineers in Europe or not.

Simple Yes or No.

If it's "hung" then I would suggest to the moderators that the thread either be locked or deleted as a divisive waste of bandwidth.

Please do not say your are another BCAR OAP that believes thet Section L is never going to be bettered. And using torque wrenches let alone recording their serial number is below them. Because you did a subjective oral board does not make you a competent technician.

[highcirrus]

Yesterday saw publication of the first 25 "technical notices" on "how to prepare if the UK leaves the EU with no deal", issued by the Department for Exiting the European Union.

Transport does not feature on the list, nor does aviation, the motor industry or the chemical industry, all presumably deemed not sufficiently important to feature in the first tranche of notices.

Compare and contrast the EU commission's own document, COM(2018) 556 final, "Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019" plus its detailed annex. A sample here:

The United Kingdom submitted on 29 March 2017 the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This means that, unless a ratified withdrawal agreement establishes another date or, in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the European Council, in agreement with the United Kingdom, unanimously decides that the Treaties cease to apply at a later date, all Union primary and secondary law will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from 30 March 2019, 00:00 (CET). At this moment in time the Commission has received no indication that the United Kingdom may request a prolongation of its EU membership.

Main consequences of scenario 2: withdrawal on 30 March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement

 The United Kingdom will be a third country and Union law ceases to apply to and in the United Kingdom.
 Citizens: There would be no specific arrangement in place for EU citizens in the United Kingdom, or for UK citizens in the European Union.
 Border issues: The European Union must apply its regulation and tariffs at borders with the United Kingdom as a third country, including checks and controls for customs, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and verification of compliance with EU norms. Transport between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be severely impacted. Customs, sanitary and phytosanitary controls at borders could cause significant delays, e.g. in road transport, and difficulties for ports.
 Trade and regulatory issues: The United Kingdom becomes a third country whose relations with the European Union would be governed by general international public law, including rules of the World Trade Organisation. In particular, in heavily regulated sectors, this would represent a significant drawback compared to the current level of market integration.
 Negotiations with the United Kingdom: Depending on the circumstances leading to the withdrawal without an agreement, the EU may wish to enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom as a third country.
 EU funding: UK entities would cease to be eligible as Union entities for the purpose of receiving EU grants and participating in EU procurement procedures. Unless otherwise provided for by the legal provisions in force, candidates or tenderers from the United Kingdom could be rejected.

Summary:

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union has repercussions for citizens, businesses and administrations in both the United Kingdom and the European Union. These repercussions range from new controls at the EU’s (new) outer border, to the validity of UK-issued licences, certificates and authorisations all the way to new conditions for data transfers.

The European Union is working hard to reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal, and looks forward to discussing a framework for the future relationship with the United Kingdom.

However, there is no certainty that an agreement will be reached. And even if an agreement is reached, the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union will no longer be one of a Member State and thus, will be in a fundamentally different situation.

Therefore, everybody concerned needs to be prepared for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019. This Communication is to be seen in the light of the call of the EU27 Leaders to intensify preparedness at all levels and encourages all stakeholders that may be affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal to take the necessary preparedness actions and to take them now.

Transport, including aviation:

Brexit preparedness Depending on the mode of transport (air, road, rail, maritime, inland waterway), the EU sets rules for the safety, security, and access to the EU market. These rules usually create distinctions between EU operators and third country operators and provide access to those who comply with EU requirements.

EU transport businesses should carefully assess whether the change of status of the United Kingdom from a Member State to a third country impacts their operations, and should take the necessary preparedness measures.

The Commission has published 10 notices relevant for the area of transport (air transport, aviation safety, aviation and maritime security, road transport, rail transport, seafarer qualifications, maritime transport, consumer protection and passenger rights, inland waterways, industrial products), which set out in clear terms the implications of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU's legal and regulatory framework, e.g. in the area of aviation safety, in the absence of any particular arrangement, thus providing stakeholders with the requisite clarity on the baseline situation to which they were advised to adapt.

[highcirrus]

Some very interesting information today from Dr. Richard North:

One such treaty is the Multilateral Agreement on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA), which takes in all EU Member States and countries such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland and Norway.

This Multilateral Agreement is a formal treaty, entered in the EU's treaty database, making it in every way equivalent to the EEA Agreement. And it too, by virtue of Article 11, includes a provision for termination, taking effect a year after notice has been given.

The effect of membership of the ECAA, afforded by the Agreement, is to bind the contracting parties to full conformity with the EU's aviation acquis, including measure concerning safety, the environment and consumer protecting, in return for which full access is given to the EU's internal market in aviation.

In relation to the vexed question of whether UK aircraft will be grounded after Brexit day – and whether aircraft registered by EU Member States would be prevented from using UK airports and air traffic facilities – it would appear that the status quo would apply and air operations may continue as normal.

Undoubtedly, in rejecting the interpretation of international law which would otherwise keep us in the EEA, the UK must also refuse to accept that our membership of the ECAA continues after Brexit day. And, in that case, given a "no deal" exit, the provisions set out in the Commission's Notices to Stakeholders would apply, respectively here and here.

The UK would thus cease to benefit from access to the skies of EU Member States and, on the basis of non-conformity with the safety provisions, UK registered aircraft would be refused landing rights in the territories of EU Member States, and UK airports could no longer be used by EU-registered aircraft.

The impact of a "no deal" Brexit on air operations would thus be extraordinarily severe, so much so that many pundits argue that the UK and EU would quickly come to a deal which will permit resumption of the status quo. In other words, a "no-deal" Brexit would not actually mean a no-deal Brexit, certainly in respect of aviation. With the agreement of a side-deal, we would have a no-deal deal.

[superflanker]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...alflow-organic

EasyJet pilots moving to austrian licenses.

[Longhitter]

Austrian licences, except for German nationals based in Europe.

[superflanker]

Originally Posted by Longhitter

Austrian licences, except for German nationals based in Europe.

Thanks, edited.