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."