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.

Is it a better place though? Yes the increased competition has led to lower fares but it has also led to terms and conditions for those in the industry being screwed to the floor. Without Open Skies we wouldn't have companies like Ryanair and the subsequent reduction in wages and conditions. I doubt that many in the industry would claim it is better now than it was during the golden age of Bermuda 2.

I believe Russia, China, Brasil and Canada have not signed up to the Chicago Convention and these countries continue to have complete control over which flights enter, or overfly, their territorial airspace. Given the current poor state of relations between the UK and Russian governments, will direct flights from UK airports to destinations in China, Japan and South Korea be banned by Russia when the UK ceases to be a EU member state? If so, it would have a severe impact on air freight as well as air passenger traffic. Sorry for the slight thread drift.

Suggest you do some basic research to anchor your beliefs in reality! Do you seriously think that e.g. Canada is not an ICAO state?

According to the Wikipedia quote above, Canada left the treaty in 1988, but my question was really about whether the UK's overflight rights over the territory of the Russian Federation would be affected by our leaving the EU next year.

That all depends on the ownership structure because no doubt airlines will be pointing out that it really is a UK company using a foreign AOC but the airline
is ultimately being controlled by a UK majority owned company.

Air freight will just go via EU countries and not come near the UK Hubs plus FRA / AMS / CDG will happily take SLF.

I found this fairly low-level but seemingly neutral summary in the Irish Times. It basically summarises how I see it, so I would be interested if any of the posters on here with more expertise than me can point out any obvious factual inaccuracies in the article.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/c...exit-1.3578503

Note...not interested in brexit rhetoric...just neutral analysis.

Further, I'm given to understand that airlines are mitigating flight cancellation through brexit by adding it as force majeure clause on tickets...I wonder how that will play with the SLF once it becomes more widely know and the implications thereof become clearer??

The subheading of the article, in an Irish paper is

[QUOTE

When the UK leaves the EU and becomes a ‘third country’, it ceases to be part of the fully-liberalised EU aviation market

][/QUOTE]

you did say you werent interested in rhetoric.......

No, a 'third country' is simply a country not part of the EU:
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/obse...ntry-nationals

Not rhetoric, it is an accurate headline.

I'm seriously not. Leaving aside whether or not this or any other newspaper headlines are ever factually perfect or completely sincere (interesting though that discussion might be) I was merely hoping if somebody with a better legal knowledge of the system could critique the article and indicate if it is reasonably accurate or whatever.

I'm still hoping.

If you look at the rest of the link and the other articles from this newspaper you will see that editorially it has a certain view on Brexit, as indeed do UK newspapers. Sadly so do most people posting here. Added to that few are conversant with law so the chance of getting an objective opinion is very small.

The view and opinions expressed in the article are, I consider, to be a fair description of the current state of play.

The UK aviation industry has always wanted to remain a member of EASA, although the EU has said that EASA certification would no longer apply if the UK left without a deal. Nonetheless, it is probable that EASA directions and legislation will remain in force during any transition period. This will be a matter for our government to negotiate and agree. The UK would likely remain subject to the ECJ with no say or influence within EASA during the transition period. This may be tough for the hard Brexiteers to swallow. It is to be hoped that the CAA is making contingency plans.

Although there hasn't been much by the way of 'public' progress on the aviation aspects relating to Brexit it is probable that behind the scenes progress has been made with the US on an 'open skies' policy. This could be in place by March 2019 and, if correct is good news. Let us hope nothing interferes with these negotiations.

Another area that needs to be addressed is the continuous recognition of manufacturing and service aspects of the UK aviation industry. It is hoped that common sense from all parties will prevail. The difficulty will be that EASA does not have the authorised ability and legal knowhow to negotiate with a non-member aviation authority which the CAA may become.

It is to be hoped that a transition period extending into 2020 can be agreed. This will certainly be advantageous for the whole of the UK aviation industry and the EU. Even so existing EU Law will continue to apply, subject to other agreements such as an arrangement on the Irish boarder issue and a deal on trade.

A resolution of the issues is needed and it is, I believe, imperative that a transition period is agreed to prevent the UK from crashing out of the EU. The no deal scenario is seriously worrying to not only aviation, but many other industries.

Progress needs to be made, and quickly, to avoid a potentially catastrophic state of affairs occurring on 19 March 2019.

Try the Regionals like Eastern Airways, BMIR and others that do want to expand into Europe and do/have operated EU routes outside the UK for the answer to your question of British carriers operating within the EU. As for T&Cs, I hear the same bleating from other ex BCAR guys that saw approval pay being screwed by the licence changes. Was not the fault of the EU IMHO, try the British managers that pulled the stunt. Ryan Air soon had to change their tune when Jet 2 popped up at STN.

Even the mildest attempt that has tried to inform people of the possible disadvantages of Brexit has been branded 'Project Fear'.

Anyone with "better legal knowledge of the system" is probably making good money off that knowledge elsewhere - if nothing else is certain, we can be sure lawyers will do very well out of brexit.

The article is accurate as far as I can see / know, but not sure what they were getting at with pointing out that article 1 of chicago states airspace is sovereign - pretty sure that is the default position without the agreement, I think clause 1 is just there to avoid any possible doubt that the rest of the agreement changes that. If the implication is that we still might get into tit-for-tat airspace closure then Ireland-EU routes are going to be pretty damned limited (and don't mention Shanwick OCA), but the article only refers to impact on UK airlines. Also might have been worth pointing out that airspace is sovereign only to the extent you can police / defend it (think Crimea for instance) - but then an Irish newspaper probably doesn't want to point out who provides air intercept capability for Irish airspace (not the Irish airforce)... :-)

Not entirely sure about the accuracy of the RIchard North quote and where they/he get "30 days before the inteding start of operation" from, or how it is applicable - because logically that cannot be done in the case of operations that are already started now and want to continue. It is possible there are other procedures that may apply, or possibly there are none - not sure an EASA member has ever left before, but maybe an operator has changed from EASA to TCO before due to corporate changes. It is my understanding that in general the EU are saying the UK cannot do anything (like negotiations with anyone else) before we leave but has to have everything in place at the moment we do, I am not sure how much of that is bluster (to sell the transition deal) and how much is genuine legal obstacles, but I think that for example a BASA is a legal problem before exit.

101917 & if789, thank you for your insights. My gut feeling was the article was a reasonable summary, largely devoid of bias & agenda, but I don't have the knowledge to properly evaluate it. I hope the discussion on pprune can steer towards genuine information and away from the brexit/bremain dialogue which becomes increasingly irrelevant with every day that passes. I believe there will be people on here that are genuinely concerned about their future as this unfolds and as I have said many times on here...whatever happens, happens to aviation first.

I wouldn't take a lot of notice of Richard North, on his blog he claims that the UK cannot be a member of EASA as membership is only open to EU members - which must come as a bit of a shock to Iceland.

The other thing that struck me from the article was the claim that Licences, permits to fly etc will no longer be valid for UK aircraft wanting to fly into the EU - well without a deal it will be exactly the same for EU airlines who want to fly into the UK, they will also be banned. The costs to everyone will be so astronomical that some deal is going to get agreed.