When we leave the EU we become a "third country" but that is orthogonal to EASA membership, and EASA members are not considered as third countries in EASA terms - a Swiss AOC holder does not need an EASA TCO cert.

That the UK position is to seek EASA membership with indirect (or whatever you want to call it) ECJ jurisdiction a la Switzerland was reported in mainstream news last year ( e.g. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/88...es-Theresa-May , https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-s...-line-11151049 ) and confirmed publically in a whitepaper back in July (may be earlier). You can call it blurring the red line, bending the red line, or crossing the red line, doesn't matter - it is the UK position and has been for many months.

There has been plenty of time to agree and conclude a deal for aviation to provide certainty for the industry, on both sides, but the politicians insist that the negotiations should be an all-or-nothing game of brinkmanship, while asking the impossible of the other side - and again, this is on both sides. It'll end with either a last minute fudge that no one likes, or a no-deal that the politicians have refused to allow the industry to prepare for by banning EASA from talking to the CAA. :ugh:

Someone is clearly able to make up this rubbish - proof is there's plenty of it around.

Permission to fly in airspace is governed by ICAO anyway, not EASA, although the Irish PM appears to believe differently, or maybe he believes the EU will be quitting ICAO in order to punish the UK.:rolleyes:

Anyway, everyone knows that landing isn't required to pick up passengers at EU airports, you just suck them out of the airbridge on a low pass fly-by like all the other non-EU airlines do :mad::ugh:

Overfly rights are not governed the same as languid flights.
The article specifically refers to flights to/from EU/UK...

Interesting;)

You forgot to mention, also, wings for Airbus aircraft....Which might concentrate a few minds in Brussels.

It is inconceivable that UK registred aircraft would not be allowed to land and depart in the EU post Brexit, provided they arrive from or depart to the UK. Denying e.g. BA landing in Paris, Berlin or Madrid is preposterous, and would gain absolutely no-one - on either side of the channel. A solution will be found, simply because there's no alternative. My guess is they'll extend status quo in most respects, meaning the UK aviation industry would still be 'legal' in the eyes of EASA. Speaking of BA, will be interesting to see how a UK based subsidiary of a Spanish company will navigate the waters. Best of both worlds or f:cked either way?

It certainly would, but have you considered what the ultimate consequences of that would mean for UK jobs?

I agree....I said so, I think it was, on Page 2 or 3 of the thread, but got shouted down.

Airbus ?? It will cost far fewer jobs in the UK than it will cost jobs in France, Germany and Spain with no deliveries of new aircraft for a couple of years until Airbus can tool up and skill up a replacement for Chester - assuming they can survive those two years without any income from new deliveries, that is.

Which is why I think so much of this thread is really just people's ramblings ( me included ) and opinions rather than reflecting the realities of what will happen.

They will move production and design out of the UK. The UK has no god given right to designing aircraft. Most actually have been clunkers anyway. For each one good British aircraft, 10 have been flops. If the British had a shareholding in Airbus, I would say differently.. But they don't and you are talking complete horse.

And they can do that before March 2019 ??

I'll have a pint of whatever it is you're drinking....

I'd be astonished if Airbus hadn't already sorted an alternative production site for the medium term

That's an interesting article, Wiggy., and one I hadn't seen before

If I understand it correctly, Airbus have already been ' thinking ' of moving some or all wings' manufacture out of Chester whether the UK leaves the EU with or without an FTA and continued EASA membership.

I'd argue that is absolutely normal business planning, whether for reasons of cost or good marketing or, even, to please frustrated partners, but as the article pre-dates the EASA announcement, and we haven't seen or heard anything about what / where will replace Chester since the EASA announcement, I still think Airbus might have the mother of all problems unless they and / or their respective Governments lean on EASA and the EU to come to their senses.

As I said earlier, could Airbus really survive with no new deliveries for a couple of years while they tool-up and skill-up to replace Chester ?

Or source and certify the components to replace the other thousands of UK suppliers to Airbus ?

https://www.airbus.com/company/world...esence/uk.html

Unless there is a Blackadder-esque cunning plan in Toulouse that none of us yet know about....

In the absence of any coherent plan from the UK Government for the UK's departure from the EU early next year, the CAA have produced quite a good website with guidance including "get yourself a licence from another EASA Member State" if you want to work in Europe.

And, apparently without any consultation with the CAA, EASA has started taking, encouraging even, applications from UK-issued EASA approval holders (organisations) for 3rd Country EASA approvals. These applications will be, of course, a good revenue source for EASA; but will it be enough to replace the EASA Membership fees that will be lost?

The budget for EASA is financed by the general budget of the European Union. Not by membership fees.

Makes sense, since the UK / CAA is saying they will recognise foreign EASA licenses for a couple of years, but you can only hold one EASA licence so have to transfer. Of course then if you need to fly G-reg as well, after two years you'll need a nice new CAA licence, for which I expect the CAA prices will have gone up significantly to pay for all the capabilities they've had to re-acquire.

Nope, can't be true - as the great Richard North says here such applications "cannot be made until the UK has left the EU and become a third country. ".

Or maybe Richard North will figure out that assessing the impact of a kick while the goalpost movers are still arguing is a fools game and will most likely lead people to believe you are talking bo****ks.:rolleyes:

Ah, of course, my error. I wonder if there's been any discussion about reducing the central funding going to EASA when the UK drops out and thus reduces the volume of work in EASA.

I wonder also if 3rd Country approval fees go to EASA, or to the EU's central funds. Then again, who cares?

By the way, if it is technically not possible for a UK organisation to have a 3rd Country approval until the UK is a 3rd Country, it makes sense to get all the paperwork done prior to issuing the approval at 0001 on 30th March. I admire EASA's actions in facilitating that if it becomes necessary, and I never thought I would admire anything about EASA. Even the website is user-friendly.

Just look forward to the additional charges from the CAA. They'll be losing income from the airlines moving to European bases and will need to recoup income from those left under CAA control

EASA accepting UK applications for Third Country approvals
 

EASA started accepting UK applications for Third Country approvals on 2nd October:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit

If I understand right, the US FAA has been encouraging FAA 3rd country approvals for over a year.

Aviation regulator 'rebuffed' over no-deal Brexit plan

Reported 5 Oct on BBC, but relates to July event

IATA Study of Brexit issues
 

Richard North's EU Referendum blog picks up on yesterday's IATA Press Release and teleconference under the heading "Brexit: the inevitable consequence will be chaos".

North seems to think that even IATA's analysis may be over optimistic. "Wrongly, [ due to an element of political naivety] IATA has been led to believe that the most likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations is that the UK will become a third country member of EASA. But since this cannot happen, this leaves as the only credible option the negotiation of a bilateral aviation safety agreement (BASA), the conclusion of which might take some years.

Note the words towards the end: "What this boils down to is that, as far as the aviation industry is concerned, a "no deal" Brexit is simply not an option. The Reuters report [of the Press Conference I think - slast] has IATA saying that a no-deal Brexit "could wreak chaos for travellers and a nightmare at airports", which is even more certain than the trade association surmises. The effects would most certainly be even more severe than it anticipates, and resolving the issues would be harder and take longer than it suggests.

One therefore cannot dispute the comments of [ IATA's Director General and CEO] de Juniac at a teleconference to launch his report, where he observed that even a transition period of two years would be a "challenging time frame" to sort out the issue. "But", he added, "if the UK leaves the EU with a 'hard Brexit' in March 2019 then it is hard to see how all this work can be achieved. The inevitable consequence will be chaos".

There is something rather final about the word "inevitable". And when the Director General of IATA uses it, the UK government needs to sit up and take notice."

North has a habit of spouting overly pessimistic rubbish, such as "EASA membership is limited to EU countries" (hello Switzerland), and that third country applications from the UK "cannot be made until the UK has left the EU and become a third country. " (EASA are taking them now...).

I think they have - my understanding is that negotiations for bilaterals in case of no-deal exit have been going on for months with multiple non-EU nations (I think North's assessment of time required may be pessimistic, on the other hand I think he is talking about the EU...). Talks on no-deal contingency planning with the EU haven't got very far because the EU side apparently have been instructed not to talk (see e.g. http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...ransition-plan ). Not much the UK can do about that.

That issue was 'solved' months ago when the UK Government changed their red line from 'direct' jurisdiction to 'indirect' jurisdiction.

I think the phrase is "I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave earlier" - post #456
:)

In short. We are stuffed!!

EASA does take third country applications from the UK, however, not from airlines. Just from manufacturers, MROs, maintenance training, CAMO, ATOs and for individual flight simulators as well as AeMC, of which there is only one in the UK as far as i know. It does not cover licenses in itself or airline ops.

Well, as for easyJet, if they did their homework they have to split the company in three (it is already two parts) latest on brexit day, keep all the OE-aircraft based in europe and only EU licensed individuals (pilots and cabin crew) can fly them, maintenance is local anyway from what i hear. But ownership and control might be an issue, although Austrocontrol is famous for its flexibility for cash.

My point is that Richard North says that EASA cannot be doing this because the UK is not, yet, (and may not become) a third country.

Either Richard North is wrong or EASA is wrong - I think North is wrong, but I'll admit this is partly because I think that in general in disputes over interpretation of the rules it is unwise to bet against the rule makers.

More than two years into this process, not many people know much more than they did two years ago.

Despite an outward mood of quiet confidence that things are nearly sorted out, or will be, the UK's transport minister Chris Grayling is reputed to have discussed with ministerial colleagues there might be contingency measures against no deal, chartering ships to arrange emergency deliveries of food and medical supplies, to bypass possible delays and other chaos at UK ports.

This is the man who insists that rail strikes are outside his responsibility, despite that government subsidy and poor contracts allow some rail companies to make the same money whether they provide service or not. He also complained about too many cyclists in London, and it transpired he'd recently knocked one over by opening a car door without looking first. So not promising, but I digress.

What I haven't seen in those rumours of possible disruption at ports is anything about aviation. We occasionally see reminders that Heathrow is one of our biggest ports. I wonder whether the putative need for extra shipping capacity, to bypass some of us queuing to catch the ferry, is partly also a contingency against being able to fly less stuff in, and if so why this might not have occurred to journalists producing those articles the other day

That's why I posted #475. It seems only Reuters covered this.

Well, i suspect that EASA allows applications, but cannot grant them until the UK is a third country.

So as certificates for ATM/ANS providers (including NERL) will no longer be recognised by EASA, then I assume no EU operators will be allowed to enter UK airspace, including flights between mainland Europe and North America? That won't be down to the UK refusing overflight clearance which, as has been pointed out earlier, is not possible, but because EASA won't allow EU operators to fly into airspace that is controlled by an entity that doesn't hold a valid EASA authorisation.

Yeah, I can just see that happening!

I suspect it isn't just the UK that 'wants to have its cake and eat it too'

Spot on - this isn't Quantum Physics i.e. Difficult

Pfft. EU based operators fly all over the world, including overflight of many countries well outside the EASA cabal. See "Most of the more badly organised bit of Africa" for more details.

I see that the UK Minister of Transport Chris Grayling commonly known as failing grayling, ailing grayling or just a doughnut, has admitted that it is theoretically possible that there will be no flights between the UK and the EU in the event if a no deal. No talks have taken place, they cannot until a deal has been agreed apparently. How do these people keep a job, I know he is a staunch support of the PM.

Also check out the UK CAA site at https://info.caa.co.uk/euexit/

In general it seems that even after a no-deal exit the CAA will continue to recognise EASA licences as equivalent for up to 2 years, while EASA says it will cease to recognise CAA licences as valid. If you need to work in both or fly G-reg and EASA regs then best option looks to be transfer to a non-UK EASA licence and then two years to apply for CAA in addition, if needed (assuming you can't hold both right now).