EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, however it may indirectly have to do with Brexit, where flying rights may not be guaranteed anymore, bookings drop, and the airline prefers to use the UK-route aircraft in other markets, rather than having them sit idle at Dublin in future. How many aircraft does Ryanair use daily for its Dublin-UK flights?
Isnt that a bit of a reach considering that it was only last month that Ryanair announced they were creating a base at Southend from next year?. Far more likely that this is simply a bargaining (?) tactic by O'leary in his fight with the Pilots union.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK government proposed some fudged thing in their white paper where the ECJ is not the final and sole arbiter of the law, which would be required by the EU, but rather that the UK would take those judgements into consideration. Which in the end is simply not the same thing.
Personally I think (and this applies to both sides) that what should be being asked for (at least at this stage) is things that already have precedent, ie. what other non-EU states already get or give. Once you've reached agreement in all the areas where there precedents, then you can move onto the areas where a full-custom-never-done-before solution would be required. Of course I'm not running things so both the sides have gone headlong into "full custom never done before" mode, and a pantomime where the EU says "tell us what you want", the UK says "we want X Y Z cake+eat+knobs-on" and the EU says "that's impossible, tell us what you want".
If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think (and this applies to both sides) that what should be being asked for (at least at this stage) is things that already have precedent, ie. what other non-EU states already get or give. Once you've reached agreement in all the areas where there precedents, then you can move onto the areas where a full-custom-never-done-before solution would be required. Of course I'm not running things so both the sides have gone headlong into "full custom never done before" mode, and a pantomime where the EU says "tell us what you want", the UK says "we want X Y Z cake+eat+knobs-on" and the EU says "that's impossible, tell us what you want".
If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable.
If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canary Islands
We've been thinking of booking a trip to Spain this year and I'm thinking if where in Canary we will go but I think is a good place to see like what I've read in this article
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: aaa
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you state where the above advert is from Airone2977?
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake.
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 34
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you state where the above advert is from Airone2977?
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake.
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake.
Link
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Darmstadt
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not stay in EASA
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To remain a member, the UK must recognize the authority of the European Court of Justice because that is the ultimate arbitration authority to EASA. The UK government does not want to accept ANY authority of the EJC, and will also no longer have any influence on the ECJ. Therefore, the UK government does not WANT to stay in EASA.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism.
I think it also said that they could accept the ECJ in this particular area (I'm not sure about this last one, please check the WP for clarification).
But of course, the EU is unlikely to accept the UK "cherry picking", and if they don't sign the withrawal agreement (with the North Ireland backstop, etc.) the likely outcome it's a no-deal with the UK being out of every EU agency. So if we don't see a change in the negotiations (by the way, they are sitting today but nothing new is expected), UK will be out of EASA by April 2019.
Perhaps the EU let's UK license holders transfer to an EASA countrie beyond this date, nobody knows.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To remain a member, the UK must recognize the authority of the European Court of Justice because that is the ultimate arbitration authority to EASA. The UK government does not want to accept ANY authority of the EJC, and will also no longer have any influence on the ECJ. Therefore, the UK government does not WANT to stay in EASA.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism.
It is now up to the EU to decide whether they will allow the UK to remain or not.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But of course, the EU is unlikely to accept the UK "cherry picking", and if they don't sign the withrawal agreement (with the North Ireland backstop, etc.) the likely outcome it's a no-deal with the UK being out of every EU agency. So if we don't see a change in the negotiations (by the way, they are sitting today but nothing new is expected), UK will be out of EASA by April 2019.
Perhaps the EU let's UK license holders transfer to an EASA countrie beyond this date, nobody knows.
Perhaps the EU let's UK license holders transfer to an EASA countrie beyond this date, nobody knows.
I dont see why EASA membership needs to be tied to any other deal. For example the UAE follow EASA Regulation through their working arrangement with EASA and the GCAA changed their entire Licensing system to align with EASA. OK they are not a full voting member but to all intents they are a part of EASA, so would it really be such a stretch for the UK to remain a member?
Moreover, although no many and not too much significant, there are differences between EASA and GCAA regulations.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the ball is in the EU's court.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the ball is in the EU's court.
The problem, of course, is that many of us (on both sides of the channel) are wondering if the EU will just quietly put the ball in their pocket and casually stroll off the court.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I think your cliche massively oversimplifies a very complex negotiation, I do I agree that's where we seem to be at this point in time.
The problem, of course, is that many of us (on both sides of the channel) are wondering if the EU will just quietly put the ball in their pocket and casually stroll off the court.
The problem, of course, is that many of us (on both sides of the channel) are wondering if the EU will just quietly put the ball in their pocket and casually stroll off the court.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Italy
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
