|
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. |
Originally Posted by BONES_
(Post 10226430)
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. |
Originally Posted by BONES_
(Post 10226430)
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. Serve is returned and the ball is back in the EU's court..;) |
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by BONES_
(Post 10225541)
and it’s also been made very clear “cherry picking” will not be accepted. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Capt Pit Bull
(Post 10226551)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Capt Pit Bull
(Post 10226551)
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.
|
Both FR and U2 have no published schedule of flights after 31st of March...............
|
Originally Posted by 4468
(Post 10120745)
Is it just me, or do a fair number of these Brexit bashers appear to be non UK resident?
Why do they care??? |
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.
|
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 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. |
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. 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..... |
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. |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10227232)
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
Austrian licences, except for German nationals based in Europe.
|
Originally Posted by Longhitter
(Post 10239999)
Austrian licences, except for German nationals based in Europe.
|
I wonder if the Austrians would allow engineers to convert their UK issued licences too?
|
How long until airlines decide to pull staff out of UK in expectation of worst outcome?
|
Originally Posted by Skyjob
(Post 10241771)
How long until airlines decide to pull staff out of UK in expectation of worst outcome?
|
The one thing that you can trust is that nice Mr Grayling, Mr Raab, Mrs May and their chums will always be OK.
|
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. In any event, such guidance will have to come sooner rather than later, so keep watching. |
The penny seems to be dropping at last. From the Daily Mail, 6 September 2018:
Britain draws up 27 different pacts to protect flights if there's no Brexit deal as new government papers will accept possibility UK planes WON'T be able to take off and land on the continent Britain is trying to negotiate aviation deals with individual EU countries to ensure planes continue to fly in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling will write to his opposite numbers in the 27 member states, seeking to secure agreements. The move, which attempts to circumvent the European Commission, will anger Brussels officials. The European Union is responsible for aviation laws across the continent, but has resisted efforts by the UK to draw up contingency plans if there is no agreement. Mr Grayling will urge European transport ministers to be practical and prepare for the talks collapsing. It comes ahead of the publication next week of another tranche of ‘no deal’ papers, including those covering aviation. The papers will accept there is a theoretical possibility UK planes will not be able to take off and land on the continent after March 29 next year. Flights from Europe would also be blocked from landing in the UK unless a new agreement is made to replace the single market for aviation. Unfortunately, individual EU nations do not have the "competence" to negotiate their own air service agreements so it does look like things could possibly "not be ok on the night". |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10235136)
Some very interesting information today from Dr. Richard North:
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. * Despite the EU trying to take over 'the skies of Europe' it is a signatory to the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) that created EUROCONTROL, There are more member states in EUROCONTROL than in the EU. Almost all of the air traffic management, network management etc operations are done by EUROCONTROL and the EU is 'just a member' of EUROCONTROL. So a lot of this is posturing by the EU. * If the UK were put in the position that 'it would cease to benefit from the skies of Europe' then EU states would also cease to benefit from access to the skies of UK and Shanwick. That would make transatlantic operations to/from Europe by EU operators somewhat difficult without refueling stops Not so of course for non EU operators. A lot of this is grasping for headlines by EUrocrats who are actually taking careful aim at their own feet. |
Not so much bothered about Single Skies. Much more bothered about UK licences and approvals going phut.
|
Ian W
Once again, Dr. Richard North sets out the exact position in an Impact Assessment, the whole of which is well worth detailed study: However, the legal framework which defines the overall ATM system is no longer confined to the EU Member States. In December 2005, the EU concluded an agreement on the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA), extending the entire aviation acquis to partners in South-Eastern and Northern Europe. These were: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo under UNSCR 1244, Norway and Iceland. In addition to EU institutions, there is the 41-member intergovernmental Eurocontrol, which was founded in 1960 by the Eurocontrol Convention, and ratified in 1963. It was set up with the idea of harmonising ATM throughout Europe but scuppered by the French and British, largely due to concerns over control of military airspace. The body lingered in a sort of half-life existence, running the Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC), located at Maastricht Aachen Airport, which started operations in 1972. This managed traffic above 24,500 ft over Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and north-west Germany, alongside a military control unit, handling the conflicts between military and civilian traffic. In 1997, though, its mandate was renewed and the European Union became a member of Eurocontrol in its own right, able to vote on behalf of its members, rather as it does in the UN or the WTO. This led to a new lease of life for the organisation when, in 2011, the Commission, using its voting power, set it up as the Network Manager for the whole of European airspace. Its job is to take charge of the wider European air traffic system, with the brief to ensure that the whole system functions efficiently. Additionally, it provides policy-setting and regulatory support to the Commission, and plays a part in the research and development of the ATM system. EUrocrats who are actually taking careful aim at their own feet |
However, despite Eurocontrol being more states than just the EU, the EU commission has the voting rights of all EU states, being able to overpower any other vote on that gremium, and even more importantly, the EU single sky is not an Eurocontrol agreement, it is an EU treaty, same as the EU open skies agreement with the USA. And while the EFTA will lose traffic rights into the UK in case of no deal, the UK will lose traffic rights into the whole EFTA, which is quite a bit more market than the other way round, not to mention all traffic rights into the USA and other states where the EU negotiated agreements will be lost as well and will have to be renegotiated. Of course the Montreal Convention still stands, so overflying the UK, including Shanwick, is still possible, just not landing dependent on commercial agreements. Interesting to see the UK once again trying to circumnavigate the EU commissikn, however, any new air traffic agreement can only be negotiated by the EU, not by single states anymore as the UK should know very well, that happened after all on their initiative, as so many other things did in the EU. |
Quite.
What the UK continually forgets is that the EU is a rule-based organisation. With 28 (soon to be 27) countries and their own individual views, no-one trusts anyone to have a 'gentleman's agreement'. So they lock everyone down into a strong set of rules that everyone can understand. The UK seems to think that now Article 50 is in place we can by-pass the rules and chat up each country and sort out individual deals. 2 things wrong with that. 1 it's against the rules we still have to abide with 2 it shows the 27 that the UK can't be trusted to stick to an agreement, and with uncertainty over what the Govt will be even next month, how can agreements proposed now be relied on by Brexit day. Any sensible country would want the UK locked into a firm and legally enforceable treaty before agreeing any reciprocal arrangement now - especially one negotiated by Grayling who, let's face it, isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer |
Precisely. The Mail reports that Grayling's move attempts to circumvent the European Commission.
Needless to say, this isn't going to happen (27 separate aviation deals). The technical details are complex, stemming from the 2002 ECJ judgement on European air transport policy, discussed here , but with the emergence of an EU external aviation policy, the Commission has established its presence in the policy field. What this means is that Member States are no longer free agents when it comes to negotiating aviation agreements with third countries. The Commission has a right to be involved and, in certain areas – such as aviation safety – it has exclusive competence. Effectively, without the willing cooperation of the Commission, there can be no deals. |
Guys we can talk all we want but no one really knows anything. SO I would suggest the smartest move is to change your uk licence and medical asap if you can, if you can't because you're in the uk then we all hope for the best.. |
Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph (£), 9 September 2018:
A measure of our ever more surreal times was the way in which, as Britain totters ever closer to a “no-deal” Brexit, and on the day Lord King, the former governor of the Bank of England, was warning that the Government is unprepared for its “disastrous consequences”, the lead news story was: “Calorie counts to be listed on menus”. Theresa May may be persisting with her Chequers plan, rejected as unworkable by virtually everyone else. But even with “no deal”, we would still need to cobble together a host of what Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, calls “side deals”, simply to keep much of our economy functioning. Here are just three of the problems which, as the European Commission has repeatedly warned we will face if we fall out of the EU to become a "third country", causing a myriad legal authorisations and arrangements to lapse. One structure we shall drop out of is the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA), which provides the legal framework for members of the EU and neighbourhood countries to fly freely in each other's air space, subject to their complete conformity with EU aviation rules. On becoming a "third country" we could not apply to rejoin it, to allow continued air traffic between ourselves and the EU, without lengthy negotiations; and even then only if we have established a framework of "close economic cooperation" with the EU. |
If you have UK issued EASA licence, and are trying to get employment with a european airline, you may find that the job offers are few and far between. Most european registered airlines are playing a wait and see approach to Brexit. However, they are proactively reducing employment of UK licence holders for obvious reasons. They are still interviewing and putting guys in pools, thats their legal obligation. But the amount of job offers going to UK issued Part licences has reduced significantly. |
Originally Posted by highfive
(Post 10245117)
Most european registered airlines are playing a wait and see approach to Brexit. However, they are proactively reducing employment of UK licence holders for obvious reasons. They are still interviewing and putting guys in pools, thats their legal obligation. But the amount of job offers going to UK issued Part licences has reduced significantly. PZ :confused: |
|
Wow i wonder whether ‘non British’ licence holders flying for UK airlines might be thinking about leaving? Certainly the Brits have always employed more non Brit pilots, than the likes of AF, KLM, Lufthansa or Iberia ever employed Brits. Just how we are, I guess? Could be some improved job opportunities coming up in the UK? Maybe even improved T&Cs, as the supply/demand ratio changes? |
In a non-UK AOC I know, approximately 10% of the aircrew are UK licence holders (total 500ish). Management is considering guidance regarding SOLI for these pilots, but there is absolutely no suggestion in the current climate that anyone otherwise suitably qualified and currently holding a UK issued Part-FCL Licence would be disadvantaged in any way whatsoever for now. In fact, quite the opposite.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.