EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid

[highcirrus]

Originally Posted by highcirrus
Hi Triple Nickel 8 Ball

Enjoyed your post, gave me a good chuckle. Just so we know, can you explain to us how "there won't be a monumental collapse", (presumably) after a hard brexit and UK becomes a Third Country and hence a Third Country Operator (TCO), suddenly not being an EASA member and unable to be party to the Open Skies Agreement at 23.00 hrs UTC on 29 March 2019? Just asking like.

I forgot to mention, of course, the further woes for UK after a hard, no-deal brexit, in that membership of both the European Common Aviation Area, here and the Single European Sky, here would also lapse as UK became a Third Country, with no previously (re)negotiated deals to retain membership. Don't you just love the present "government"?

[brakedwell]

Originally Posted by silvertate

But what do you do if you want to come back to the UK? Keep swapping licences? Or will the UK CAA allow you to keep two licences.

If the UK CAA don't get their act together, every airline in the UK may well migrate to Ireland, and all the aircraft, engineers and pilots will follow.
And then the UK CAA may well close their doors and disband.
But I get the impression that the UK CAA management are Europhiles, and would love to see the failure of the UK CAA, just to teach the Brexiteers a lesson.

ST

Is there enough ramp space in Ireland?

[Denti]

Originally Posted by BAengineer

As unlimited US access to LHR was the Jewel in the crown for the US Airlines in the Open Skies agreement I wouldn't bet against Trump pulling out of that agreement once the US lose that access through the UK no longer being part of the deal.

Then everyone is back to square one.

It might have been back then. However since then, US airlines have massively invested into point to point operation instead and nowadays serve pretty much every somewhat larger city in the EU directly. Which is enabled by the Open Skies agreement.

[arketip]

Originally Posted by vortexlift

More recently it was FAA licenced pilots banned in Europe by EASA.

When did that happen?

[silvertate]

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

How can they stop you having more than one licence if they were properly issued?

You are not allowed more than one EASA licence.
So it depends upon how our CAA, and EASA, regard UK licences in a post-Brexit world.
In theory we should be able to hold a UK licence and an EASA licence - but the UK CAA are not exactly known for their desire to help pilots.

ST

[highcirrus]

Latest from the European Commission: "Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019". Here.

Download: Seven Things Businesses In The EU27 Need To Know In order to prepare for Brexit. Here.

"If your activity relies on certificates, licenses or authorisations issued by UK authorities or by bodies based in the UK – or held by someone established in the UK – these may no longer be valid in the EU post-Brexit. You may need to transfer or seek new ones issued by an EU27-based body or authority. This is the case, in particular, for certificates, licenses and authorisations issued for goods (for example in the automotive sector, or the medical devices sector) and for services (for instance in the transport, broadcasting, or the financial sector). You should now take all the necessary steps to transfer certificates, licences or authorisations issued in the UK to the EU27, or obtain new ones."

[Penny Washers]

And has the UK issued a similar statement to the EU27 countries?

[vortexlift]

Originally Posted by arketip

When did that happen?

It happened about a year ago. EASA and the European Commission decided to ban FAA and other ICAO licensed pilots who are European Citizens from working in Europe. Despite the fact that for many of them they had already worked for years in this way with no issue.Careers were destroyed, jobs lost and many good pilots with families were instantly unemployable in all of Europe. If the public don't believe that EASA are capable of the same behaviour towards UK issued EASA pilot licenses and pilots then they are mistaken. Although it has to be said that there were many instances of gloating from UK EASA pilots when their non EASA licensed colleagues found themselves in the above situation, so it is now hugely ironic that they find themselves in the exact same situation. By the way in the above situation the UK CAA just let it happen, they blamed the DfT and when approached they wouldn't give any contact details of the responsible party at the DfT, as the above situation could have been avoided.

[highcirrus]

From EU Referendum today

One of the most interesting moments of the Dominic Raab (aka midair bacon) interview with Andrew Marr yesterday was the line of questioning on the EU-US open skies agreement.

Marr specifically put to the Brexit secretary that: "with no deal we fall out of that", to which Raab said quite simply, "Yes". As a follow-up, Marr asked: "That does mean that the planes can’t carry on flying in at the moment doesn’t it?", to which Raab responded: "I think we would resolve that issue".

There we have it in blunt terms. Yes, a "no deal" Brexit would mean that UK airlines would lose their access to US skies. And while Raab blandly assures us that "we would resolve that issue", can we really be certain that President Trump would give us the access we want, immediately, and without asking for significant concessions elsewhere?

But had Marr been on the ball (something he's never been), he might also have asked about the US-EU bilateral agreement on safety in civil aviation – the so-called BASA. Even if the open skies agreement could be resolved, this is a far more complex issue, where there is no obvious or simple resolution.

And then, rather than confine his questioning to just the EU-US agreement, why didn't he ask about Varadkar's comments about the Single European Sky and the loss of access rights to the airspace of EU Member States?

As regards the aviation issue, Dominic Grieve has certainly "got it", arguing that "It wouldn't be possible, for example, for someone to fly to Rome because the overflying rights over the other countries of the EU are regulated by EU law".

References: EU-US Open Skies Agreement here. European Common Aviation Area here. Single European Sky here.

[BizJetJock]

EASA and the European Commission decided to ban FAA and other ICAO licensed pilots who are European Citizens from working in Europe.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.I suggest you speak to someone who can actually read the regulations.

[goeasy]

Anyone who thinks that anything significant will happen aviation-wise on March 29 next year is just a doom-monger. All will be resolved before then, as NEITHER side can afford a no-deal Brexit. Any ban on landing rights or overflight rights will penalise both sides just as much.

[Alber Ratman]

Originally Posted by goeasy

Anyone who thinks that anything significant will happen aviation-wise on March 29 next year is just a doom-monger. All will be resolved before then, as NEITHER side can afford a no-deal Brexit. Any ban on landing rights or overflight rights will penalise both sides just as much.

Your views are different to the people calling the shots. Are you another ex pat that was allowed to vote?

[highcirrus]

UK CAA Planning assumptions for a non-negotiated exit

Source here.

Our (UK CAA) planning includes a scenario in which the UK Government and CAA take all reasonable steps within their control to reduce disruption to the aviation industry, but the EU does not agree to a mutual recognition arrangement.

The CAA encourages the aviation and aerospace industries, and individuals who rely on EU permissions to operate (to any extent), to consider what actions if any may be required on their part to enable them to continue to operate. This webpage explains the CAA’s own approach to EU exit preparedness, and does not constitute legal or commercial advice to industry.

To help organisations with their own planning for EU exit, we have listed the assumptions that we used to develop our approach for a potential non-negotiated withdrawal from the EU in March 2019.

These assumptions are not representative of the CAA’s view of the most likely, or desirable, outcome of negotiations and do not reflect Government policy, but allow us as a responsible regulator to prepare for all possible scenarios. In a non-negotiated outcome at March 2019, we have assumed that:

• The UK leaves the EU at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.
• Through the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the UK adopts all European aviation laws at the point of exit. Changes will be made to ensure those laws are legally operable.
• The UK continues to mirror EU aviation regulations for at least a two year period.
• The UK withdraws completely from the EASA system in March 2019, meaning that the CAA will need to make arrangements to fulfil regulatory functions without having EASA as a technical agent and without having access to EASA and EU-level capabilities.
• The UK is no longer included in EU-level Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements.
• There is no mutual recognition agreement between the EU and the UK for aviation licences, approvals and certificates.
• UK-issued EASA licences and approvals are no longer recognised in the EU post-EU exit.
• The EU treats UK airlines as Third Country Operators.
• All licences issued by the CAA under EU legislation, and all type approval certificates and third country approvals issued by EASAunder EU legislation, will continue to have validity under UK law, if they were effective immediately before exit day.
• The UK minimises additional requirements for licences, approvals and certificates from EU aviation and aerospace companies providing services and goods in the UK.

easyJet seem to be ahead of the game in "consider(ing) what actions if any may be required on their part to enable them to continue to operate".

[highcirrus]

Maybe Heathrow's boss, John Holland-Kaye, has shaken off the "project fear" nonsense and is adopting a measure of realism. Financial Times (paywall) today:

Heathrow raises £1bn debt as it prepares for Brexit. Chief executive John Holland-Kaye say this was equivalent to two full years' funding.

"That gives us a level of financial resilience that means we're well protected in case of whatever worst-case scenario we can envisage (even though we expect) something close to continuity through a Brexit agreement. Our funding levels mean we are protected. Even if we have no income for two months, we would be financially safe."

I do hope that his optimism is not misplaced and will our "government" also get round to realistically considering the effect of post hard brexit LHR shutdown, or does the former Foreign Secretary's considered view, "f**k business" still hold sway?

[The Old Fat One]

Even if we have no income for two months, we would be financially safe.

Utter nonsense. Nothing more than risibly simplistic corporate b/s. Why? Because if Heathrow had no income for two months, neither would any of the (European/UK) airlines flying in and out of Heathrow. And nobody on here - wherever they stand - would argue that many modern airlines could survive two months without income. So yeah, Heathrow might have the cashflow to survive two months, but at the end of that period, it would have a massively reduced customer base and much less income to recover with. Pretty much the sort of statement that CEOs make all the time...24 months ago Carillions Directors (and their auditors) were spouting this sort of guff. I am constantly amazed that people actually buy it.

[SuperJet]

Originally Posted by 101917

The disaster that is Brexit continues unabated and aviation is going to be no small part of it.

The UK aviation industry, which plays a major part in the economic success of the UK is posed to go one of two ways. Firstly, if the UK remains in EASA, albeit without the right to influence or vote on the ‘rules’ then it may well survive reasonably intact. However, in order for this to happen the UK Government and our aviation companies would be subject to the ECJ which is an anathema to the hard line, right wing Brexiteers as they want nothing to do with the ECJ.

If the UK aviation industry does not remain a member of EASA and is no longer a part of Open Skies, then any or all of the following could occur with unforeseen consequences for the industry.

• The UK retains sovereignty over its airspace and has no say in the EU’s airspace as is allowed now under EASA and open skies

• The UK would have very limited “freedoms” of the air

• Traffic rights would be given by bilateral agreements and not in line with open skies

• The EU and its members would protect their national airlines and aviation companies and limit/prohibit competition from the UK

• The EU would only allow the use of designated airports and not as occurs with open skies

• There could be single airline designation on certain routes from the UK

• There could be limited frequencies / capacity

• A requirement for double approval for fares between the UK and the EU

• A requirement for pooling agreements between airlines flying between the UK and the EU countries

• Prior to open skies most airlines were state-owned. It would be a tragedy if this ever returned.

None of the above would help the UK economy or consumer, including those who voted for Brexit.

It is no surprise that both easyJet and Thomas Cook are setting up headquarters in Europe. Other airlines are looking at ways of protecting themselves.

Finally, a sensible voice from the darkness. I have the inverse problem. I'm a UK CAA licence holder, working in EASA land. I've already had the indirect warning from the company to "kindly ask" an EASA member CAA to convert my UK ATPL licence to an equivalent EASA ATPL licence prior to Brexit, or I could lose my job... It's only a personal, entirely subjective view, and not intended for fuel to fire the for/against Brexit feud, but I feel that Brexit has to be one of the most ill conceived and ill executed policies from the UK in a long long time. Sigh.

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by The Old Fat One

Utter nonsense”..” Because if Heathrow had no income for two months, neither would any of the (European/UK) airlines flying in and out of Heathrow. And nobody on here - wherever they stand - would argue that many modern airlines could survive two months without income.”

Of course in the (hopefully unlikely) event of U.K./European flights being suspended on “Brexit Day” the likes of Air France, Lufthansana, Iberia, won’t be in the situation of having to survive for “two months without income”...

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Originally Posted by BizJetJock

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.I suggest you speak to someone who can actually read the regulations.

NOT nonsense. Talking professional licences here.....

The holder of a Third Country (i.e ICAO...which of course, EASA isn't a member of..!) licence can no longer fly, N or ANY foreign registered aircraft, for reward, in the EU, if that aircraft is OPERATED from within the EU. So...if you have an N registered Global, based in London, operated by a company in Spain, then an FAA pilot CANNOT fly it for reward. However....neither can an EASA pilot, unless that pilot has an FAA ticket, because its outside the USA too....! BUT...WHICH licence do you fly it on? You fly on both...not possible....! The Fed's say you need an appropriate rating/currency etc in line with FAR/AIM and EASA (eeARSEerr) say you need part FCL as appropriate. Who is right? Well eeARSEer say it's illegal to use your FAA ticket....so do the FAA, say its wrong to use your eeARSEerr ticket. It was done, half cocked, with no real World validation process and NO argument for flight safety or similar. There is no real validation process that works either (unlike 2 reg or M reg for examples that accept both licences based on original being current/valid). Think about it...an FAA pilot says "I want to fly this N reg CJ2 out of London, for a private owner"...WHY oh WHYYYY can eeARSEerr not simply say "Here is a Part FCL based on your FAA ticket, medical and currency, to fly THAT specific aircraft for THAT specific purpose"?? If its private use, why not let them fly a G reg...or CS reg...or...or....???? It's simple, dumbass bureaucracy. And PLEASE, don't spout off about protecting European's jobs etc...as a lot of these guys ARE Europeans. AND...dont spout off about safety as there is no case and in fact, FAA ATP's CANNOT hold a so called "frozen" ATP...they have to have proper experience/hours...not 250 and have their hands held, or have a "Multi Crew" only licence, where they can't actually fly a piston or light plane, but can only operate a Sim as part of a crew.

So...to put it bluntly, all you guys that voted Brexit and are now bitching you might not have a licence....get over it. All you people that for years, sounded off about doing the exams (when a chunk didn't, but got Grandfather rights or sat a lot less stringent, poorly managed exams and validations), who are now in the same boat...grab a life jacket and a paddle...because you're possibly up the same creek as the FAA guys now and....the reigning point....it's a fu**ing disgrace for the UK issued EASA guys, the FAA guys and everyone in between. MAYBE there could actually be some camaraderie and a real proposal for a real and FAIR (Across the board!!) validation process!!!

As for Bilateral Safety Agreements...the engineers have had it for years...the pilots never have...and there isn't one forthcoming from either side of the pond. The whole situation, for all these pilots is FUBAR!

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by Daysleeper

But UK operators doing , say Lyon to Brussels to Cologne to Milan will become impossible, which there is a fair amount of now, or at least there was until this farce started.

But what UK operators are there that do that. Ryanair are Irish and Easy can use their Austrian AOC.

I can't think of anyone else.

[101917]

Originally Posted by midnight cruiser

Well no, the bilaterals would be the same as before open skies started ie. they can nominate an airline for a route to the UK, (most likely the national airline), and the UK could do the same.

I suggest you have a look at how a bilateral agreement worked before Open Skies, which took 10 years to negotiate. Our aviation industry is in a much better place now than it was before Open Skies. The risk is that benefits the UK aviation industry now enjoys will be lost. That includes the probability of jobs, of not just pilots, but all those that work in the industry.