EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rudestuff
Perhaps I could suggest that you read EU Referendum and get an idea of the disaster that would befall the nation if your call to "bring on the catastrophe" was actually heeded. The quote below gives an idea of the complexities involved and the huge dangers to UK Aerospace/Air Transport that such a reckless and irresponsible approach will bring.
Perhaps I could suggest that you read EU Referendum and get an idea of the disaster that would befall the nation if your call to "bring on the catastrophe" was actually heeded. The quote below gives an idea of the complexities involved and the huge dangers to UK Aerospace/Air Transport that such a reckless and irresponsible approach will bring.
Unsurprisingly, Mrs May has expressed a preference for the status quo, with the UK retaining its membership of EASA. But that cannot happen. The EU's agencies are servants of the Union, established to service the Member States under the aegis of the European Commission. Concessions are made to Efta States, but even they with a form of associate membership of the EU, have no voting rights.
But what can be readily established is that, outside Efta and the EEA, our target must be a bilateral agreement with the EU. These are highly formal and comprehensive arrangements which not only set up the areas of cooperation but also establish joint bodies which enable the agreements to be monitored, interpreted and developed.
In the case of the United States, there is the "Bilateral Oversight Board" (no one seems to want to call it "Bob"); Canada has a less formal Joint Committee and Brazil has a Joint Committee of the Parties as well as Joint Sectorial Committees on Certification and Maintenance.
The big problem we have at the moment is the same problem we have in agreeing a post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU. The aviation safety "bilaterals" are full-blown treaties so we cannot even begin to negotiate with the EU until after 29 March 2019, when we formally become a third country. Equally, we cannot enter into the less formal "working arrangement" type of relationship with EASA until we are a third country.
This is where the ADS/GAMA letter to which I referred yesterday gets really interesting. These aviation bodies have become aware of the effects of Brexit and, in particular, the peril of withdrawing without a transition period. Ideally, they argue, the difficulties could be addressed by talks directly between EASA and the CAA, concluding a "separate aviation deal agreed prior to March 2019".
However, the very solution that the industry seeks cannot be achieved which means that, if there is a "no deal" Brexit, catastrophic disruption to the aviation industry is inevitable. In legal terms, there is simply no way round this.
What this effectively means is that – as I stated yesterday – "no deal" is not a serious option. The effect on the aviation sector alone is enough to rule it out. Factor in all the other problems, in other sectors, and no responsible government could allow it – and nor could MPs, individually or collectively, permit it.
But what can be readily established is that, outside Efta and the EEA, our target must be a bilateral agreement with the EU. These are highly formal and comprehensive arrangements which not only set up the areas of cooperation but also establish joint bodies which enable the agreements to be monitored, interpreted and developed.
In the case of the United States, there is the "Bilateral Oversight Board" (no one seems to want to call it "Bob"); Canada has a less formal Joint Committee and Brazil has a Joint Committee of the Parties as well as Joint Sectorial Committees on Certification and Maintenance.
The big problem we have at the moment is the same problem we have in agreeing a post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU. The aviation safety "bilaterals" are full-blown treaties so we cannot even begin to negotiate with the EU until after 29 March 2019, when we formally become a third country. Equally, we cannot enter into the less formal "working arrangement" type of relationship with EASA until we are a third country.
This is where the ADS/GAMA letter to which I referred yesterday gets really interesting. These aviation bodies have become aware of the effects of Brexit and, in particular, the peril of withdrawing without a transition period. Ideally, they argue, the difficulties could be addressed by talks directly between EASA and the CAA, concluding a "separate aviation deal agreed prior to March 2019".
However, the very solution that the industry seeks cannot be achieved which means that, if there is a "no deal" Brexit, catastrophic disruption to the aviation industry is inevitable. In legal terms, there is simply no way round this.
What this effectively means is that – as I stated yesterday – "no deal" is not a serious option. The effect on the aviation sector alone is enough to rule it out. Factor in all the other problems, in other sectors, and no responsible government could allow it – and nor could MPs, individually or collectively, permit it.
Well... whoever expected that a Brexit would not lead to economical war of secession with the EU must have been quite deluded. It is perfectly clear that the rump-EU will now do everything in their power to show to other possible separatists what will happen if you actually do. Britain will be economically isolated as much as the EU can manage lest they are willing to pay the tremendous separation charges which are part of the warfare Brussels is waging.
On the other hand, Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business, so what if Britan would unilaterally bring on large overflight charges for EU carriers just for starters? Or deny overflight? There are many ways an independent nation can make things very awkward and expensive for unfriendly nations who still need to do some business. Britain has chosen this way and now it is the time to see it through, not to wonder how to migate side effects. Being outside EASA might actually be a profitable business at the expense of current save havens like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or San Marino... and working in the direction of closer cooperation or adaption of ruling towards the FAA might make a lot of people happier than in the current state.
On the other hand, Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business, so what if Britan would unilaterally bring on large overflight charges for EU carriers just for starters? Or deny overflight? There are many ways an independent nation can make things very awkward and expensive for unfriendly nations who still need to do some business. Britain has chosen this way and now it is the time to see it through, not to wonder how to migate side effects. Being outside EASA might actually be a profitable business at the expense of current save havens like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or San Marino... and working in the direction of closer cooperation or adaption of ruling towards the FAA might make a lot of people happier than in the current state.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2 Driver
Not sure that the EU thinks it's entering an "economical war of secession". I think this at http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogsp0t.com/ is probably nearer the case:
Maybe make time for a little more reading on the subject?
Not sure that the EU thinks it's entering an "economical war of secession". I think this at http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogsp0t.com/ is probably nearer the case:
................The EU look on bewildered. Far from there being any sense that the British government has a clear and viable negotiating strategy that – as kept being claimed in the debates - the Commons votes might derail, there is growing alarm in the EU-27 that no such strategy exists.
That same alarm is evident in the growing evidence of business slowdown in the face of a completely unknown future, and its gleeful counterpart in the pro-Brexit hedge funds betting on just that. It’s very likely that the average voter thinks that nothing much is happening except for irritating political rows: under the surface, the economic tectonic plates are shifting and really serious damage is now in prospect.
And the clock is ticking very loud now. A Withdrawal Agreement (which, of course, is a completely different thing to the Withdrawal Bill being discussed at the moment) is meant to be ready for ratification by the EUCO meeting on 18 October. Given that almost nothing will be done in August because Westminster and Brussels close down, that means that, by my calculation, there are now just 62 working days left.
If ever there were a time for political leadership, it is now. We already know that isn’t going to come from the Prime Minister or from the government. What we learned this week is that it isn’t going to come from the House of Commons, either.
That same alarm is evident in the growing evidence of business slowdown in the face of a completely unknown future, and its gleeful counterpart in the pro-Brexit hedge funds betting on just that. It’s very likely that the average voter thinks that nothing much is happening except for irritating political rows: under the surface, the economic tectonic plates are shifting and really serious damage is now in prospect.
And the clock is ticking very loud now. A Withdrawal Agreement (which, of course, is a completely different thing to the Withdrawal Bill being discussed at the moment) is meant to be ready for ratification by the EUCO meeting on 18 October. Given that almost nothing will be done in August because Westminster and Brussels close down, that means that, by my calculation, there are now just 62 working days left.
If ever there were a time for political leadership, it is now. We already know that isn’t going to come from the Prime Minister or from the government. What we learned this week is that it isn’t going to come from the House of Commons, either.
highcirrus,
well, the amounts of damage payments the EU has proposed the UK should pay if they leave pretty much has the smell of war reparation and in it's size alone is unacceptable. So what do you call it, if your opposite sets unmeetable conditions? To me, it pretty much looks like a hacked off wife asking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of the guy who finally figured out he is better off without her. But at state level, the way it is looks pretty much like economical warfare to me as the result would leave Britain in a very difficult financial mess if they accepted it, so it appears to me that the EU is pretty much trying to create a condition where there is an exit without agreement. Does it matter that both were not prepared? I don't think so. High statecraft can deal with the unexpected, those people obviously can't or are unwilling to.
well, the amounts of damage payments the EU has proposed the UK should pay if they leave pretty much has the smell of war reparation and in it's size alone is unacceptable. So what do you call it, if your opposite sets unmeetable conditions? To me, it pretty much looks like a hacked off wife asking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of the guy who finally figured out he is better off without her. But at state level, the way it is looks pretty much like economical warfare to me as the result would leave Britain in a very difficult financial mess if they accepted it, so it appears to me that the EU is pretty much trying to create a condition where there is an exit without agreement. Does it matter that both were not prepared? I don't think so. High statecraft can deal with the unexpected, those people obviously can't or are unwilling to.
High statecraft can deal with the unexpected, those people obviously can't or are unwilling to.
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cwlw3xz0lvvt/brexit
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just correct me if I am wrong , but Overflight right are old ICAO and Chicago stuff.
At no point can UK close airspace or overcharge any EU operator if a Hard Brexit is in place april 2019. Or if a Dumb Brexit is entered in April!
( A Dumb Brexit is a Hard Brexit with no plan or deal signed before 01:00 1 April 2019 Brussels Time! )
Anyone suggesting restrictions in UK airspace must be a moron. EU would use one nano second to retaliate and any Eastbound UK flight would face a new departure slot two to 5 years down the road. I can fly around the UK any time, but try avoiding European Airspace?. It goes from the North Pole to Africa!
Remember UK airspace is tiny and has no effect on 90% of European flights. So who cares!
I think it is only FAA that has taken this situation seriously, by sending over Inspectors. Interesting indeed.
At no point can UK close airspace or overcharge any EU operator if a Hard Brexit is in place april 2019. Or if a Dumb Brexit is entered in April!
( A Dumb Brexit is a Hard Brexit with no plan or deal signed before 01:00 1 April 2019 Brussels Time! )
Anyone suggesting restrictions in UK airspace must be a moron. EU would use one nano second to retaliate and any Eastbound UK flight would face a new departure slot two to 5 years down the road. I can fly around the UK any time, but try avoiding European Airspace?. It goes from the North Pole to Africa!
Remember UK airspace is tiny and has no effect on 90% of European flights. So who cares!
I think it is only FAA that has taken this situation seriously, by sending over Inspectors. Interesting indeed.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"are full-blown treaties " - which, with the USA, means you need Congressional approval........................
"Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business," - hmm - they can fly round us - at some cost- try flying from the UK to anywhere but Americas without going through European airspace.........................
"Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business," - hmm - they can fly round us - at some cost- try flying from the UK to anywhere but Americas without going through European airspace.........................
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business, so what if Britan would unilaterally bring on large overflight charges for EU carriers just for starters? Or deny overflight? There are many ways an independent nation can make things very awkward and expensive for unfriendly nations who still need to do some business. Britain has chosen this way and now it is the time to see it through, not to wonder how to migate side effects. Being outside EASA might actually be a profitable business at the expense of current save havens like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or San Marino... and working in the direction of closer cooperation or adaption of ruling towards the FAA might make a lot of people happier than in the current state.
What many do not really see is the fact that with every international agreement (whether trade or other stuff) you sign, you lose some part of control, usually in favor to some gains on the other side. Which puts the whole question of sovereignty in some very murky light indeed.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2 Driver
I made an accurate and reasoned rebuttal of your premise re: "the smell of war reparation". I'm not sure whether you were able to read it before it was consigned to the moderated memory hole.
Rgds
highcirrus
I made an accurate and reasoned rebuttal of your premise re: "the smell of war reparation". I'm not sure whether you were able to read it before it was consigned to the moderated memory hole.
Rgds
highcirrus
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADS and GAMA letter to Michel Barnier on Aviation Safety talks
The UK press yesterday reported in lurid terms the supposed adverse response by the European Commission to the recent ADS/GAMA letter addressed to Michel Barnier. For those Ppruners interested in the actualité rather than press hype/ignorance, Dr. Richard North's blog at EU Referendum is the place to go:
Either of the above solutions, of course, as Dr. North says, would only be possible following a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement after which UK would become a "third country" and enter a transition period to 31 December 2020. A "crash out" Hard Brexit with no Agreement and hence no transition period, would lead to Aerospace/Air Transport Armageddon. The full blog text is well worth a read for anyone interested in the immediate (perilous) future of our industry.
Thus, we had from The Times the claim that "Brussels bars aviation chiefs from preparing for no-deal", based on an unconfirmed assertion that the European Commission had intervened after the aerospace industry had contacted Barnier, specifically to prevent EASA and the CAA from holding talks.
However, had the paper taken more note of what I had written in my second piece, they would perhaps have understood that – in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement and the transition period - it is not possible for EASA to enter into talks with the CAA to secure the optimum outcome, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA).
This, I observed, is a full-blown treaty and can only be negotiated by the EU and the UK government. And, to do that, they need to use the formal procedure set out in Article 218 of the consolidated treaties. Such negotiations are way above the pay scale of the agencies and, as with the broader post-Brexit relationship, the negotiation process can only be undertaken once the UK has left the EU and formally acquired the status of a "third country".
Failing the settlement of a BASA, there is provision within the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) for inter-agency agreements between EASA and the "aeronautical authorities of third countries" (Article 27). But, once again, the qualifying requirement is for the UK to assume the status of a third country.
However, had the paper taken more note of what I had written in my second piece, they would perhaps have understood that – in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement and the transition period - it is not possible for EASA to enter into talks with the CAA to secure the optimum outcome, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA).
This, I observed, is a full-blown treaty and can only be negotiated by the EU and the UK government. And, to do that, they need to use the formal procedure set out in Article 218 of the consolidated treaties. Such negotiations are way above the pay scale of the agencies and, as with the broader post-Brexit relationship, the negotiation process can only be undertaken once the UK has left the EU and formally acquired the status of a "third country".
Failing the settlement of a BASA, there is provision within the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) for inter-agency agreements between EASA and the "aeronautical authorities of third countries" (Article 27). But, once again, the qualifying requirement is for the UK to assume the status of a third country.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either of the above solutions, of course, as Dr. North says, would only be possible following a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement after which UK would become a "third country" and enter a transition period to 31 December 2020. A "crash out" Hard Brexit with no Agreement and hence no transition period, would lead to Aerospace/Air Transport Armageddon. The full blog text is well worth a read for anyone interested in the immediate (perilous) future of our industry.
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises.
This clearly shows that the impact to aviation would be immense, not just from Britain but across Europe as Airbus aircraft cannot be flown as UK manufactured parts become no longer certified. Therefore it's not just Great Britain which has an interest in ensuring a deal is met but also Europe. If the impact was just Aviation in Great Britain, I would anticipate the EU allowing us to stew but as the issue has the possibility of major disruption across Europe, you can guarantee a resolution will be found. Heck, imagine MEPS in Brussels actually having to use the Bus home, instead of an Airbus......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're missing the most critical point from his blog which, in my eyes, is the following:
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises.
This clearly shows that the impact to aviation would be immense, not just from Britain but across Europe as Airbus aircraft cannot be flown as UK manufactured parts become no longer certified. Therefore it's not just Great Britain which has an interest in ensuring a deal is met but also Europe. If the impact was just Aviation in Great Britain, I would anticipate the EU allowing us to stew but as the issue has the possibility of major disruption across Europe, you can guarantee a resolution will be found. Heck, imagine MEPS in Brussels actually having to use the Bus home, instead of an Airbus......
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises.
This clearly shows that the impact to aviation would be immense, not just from Britain but across Europe as Airbus aircraft cannot be flown as UK manufactured parts become no longer certified. Therefore it's not just Great Britain which has an interest in ensuring a deal is met but also Europe. If the impact was just Aviation in Great Britain, I would anticipate the EU allowing us to stew but as the issue has the possibility of major disruption across Europe, you can guarantee a resolution will be found. Heck, imagine MEPS in Brussels actually having to use the Bus home, instead of an Airbus......
Last edited by VinRouge; 19th Jun 2018 at 09:38.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve6443
Yes, you are quite right, this is the critical point.
It is now going to be very interesting to see whether the balance of negotiating power between EU and UK is tilted to a more even level or whether, as VinRouge writes:
Watch this space, as they say.
Yes, you are quite right, this is the critical point.
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises.
(This) can be resolved by them with the flick of of a pen, generating a temporary fix for EU operators/part 145 organisations and AOCs. They are the regulator. Whilst the UK has no vote, no in and no ways of negotiating an arrangement for its licence holding organisations and people in the time remaining.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) not heard of wizzair or Norwegian? There will be plenty of flying in the above scenario, just not with UK carriers. Most of the tourist industry have majority profit vs their airline groups, so will only knock trade slightly.
3) I doubt anyone will have the money to afford to go abroad on holiday once Brexit trashes the rest of UK industry.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondary is the crash of goods heading towards UK - let's not forget that 12% of all German produced cars head to UK - so the german economy will suffer because who will buy these cars? Albanians? Turks?
Finally, the aviation sector will suffer because, as you say, few will be able to afford to fly. So the shortage of pilots suddenly becomes a glut of pilots on the market; because of this, our terms and conditions will revert to how a certain Irish Gentleman wishes them to be - slave wages. Although personally I'm very relaxed about Brexit itself, I do see people in Brussels wanting to trash the UK economy in order to deter others from leaving, without realising that they will harm themselves more significantly.
It strikes me that the issue of the UK being unable to negotiate any air related legislation post Brexit while still being part of the EU is simply the lawyers putting their narrow viewpoint on things. Remember, policies are devised by the politicians but drafted by lawyers - so it is up to the politicians to advise the lawyers to arrange the appropriate changes required! If one simply took a narrow legal view of everything then no laws would ever be changed!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polax52. I think that - given we are still in the EU and bound by all the rules and obligations that go with that - the role has to be open to anyone who can demonstrate their right to work in any of EU28.
It seems astonishingly late to be creating this job, and how do they expect to get anyone with serious negotiating ability at that salary level?
It seems astonishingly late to be creating this job, and how do they expect to get anyone with serious negotiating ability at that salary level?
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independent article covering the negotiation job posting
Brexit Head Aviation Negotiator Job Only Just Advertised By Government
Brexit Head Aviation Negotiator Job Only Just Advertised By Government
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “dedicated teams with many years of experience and expertise” are already working on post-Brexit aviation.
“We are now are looking to supplement these existing teams with additional posts.
“Our EU exit plans are well developed and we are working closely with business and trade associations to provide the certainty they need to understand the challenges and opportunities they may face in the coming months and year.
“We are now are looking to supplement these existing teams with additional posts.
“Our EU exit plans are well developed and we are working closely with business and trade associations to provide the certainty they need to understand the challenges and opportunities they may face in the coming months and year.
Last edited by am111; 20th Jun 2018 at 13:09. Reason: Changed link to display article headline for clarity.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hesitate to post this and wonder which Brexit thread it should be in but with a talent search like this the UK is buggered:
DfT is advertising for a Head of Aviation for EU Exit Negotiations (Pays £62K) and
They are also looking for Senior Policy advisors on international aviation to paying all of £40-45K.
For an even bigger laugh both jobs are open to EEA citizens.
DfT is advertising for a Head of Aviation for EU Exit Negotiations (Pays £62K) and
They are also looking for Senior Policy advisors on international aviation to paying all of £40-45K.
For an even bigger laugh both jobs are open to EEA citizens.