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).