Airbus warns about no-deal Brexit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What business is saying about Brexit, and why
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 and others. Less attention has been given to the specific reason given by Hunt 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 (£) like Airbus but, to varying degrees, all businesses of all sizes 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. 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.
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 (£) like Airbus but, to varying degrees, all businesses of all sizes 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. 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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good presentation 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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
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)?
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..............
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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:
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.
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 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" 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.
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" 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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.