TN8 ball has a point. It's ironic that UK issued EASA pilot licences may no longer be valid next March. More recently it was FAA licenced pilots banned in Europe by EASA.

As the UK is becoming a third country its looking like FAA licences will be valid again, maybe they can provide some emergency crew cover when UK EASA licenced pilots are grounded.

I forgot to mention, of course, the further woes for UK after a hard, no-deal brexit, in that membership of both the European Common Aviation Area, here and the Single European Sky, here would also lapse as UK became a Third Country, with no previously (re)negotiated deals to retain membership. Don't you just love the present "government"?

It might have been back then. However since then, US airlines have massively invested into point to point operation instead and nowadays serve pretty much every somewhat larger city in the EU directly. Which is enabled by the Open Skies agreement.

When did that happen?

You are not allowed more than one EASA licence.
So it depends upon how our CAA, and EASA, regard UK licences in a post-Brexit world.
In theory we should be able to hold a UK licence and an EASA licence - but the UK CAA are not exactly known for their desire to help pilots.

ST

Latest from the European Commission: "Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019". Here.

Download: Seven Things Businesses In The EU27 Need To Know In order to prepare for Brexit. Here.

And has the UK issued a similar statement to the EU27 countries?

It happened about a year ago. EASA and the European Commission decided to ban FAA and other ICAO licensed pilots who are European Citizens from working in Europe. Despite the fact that for many of them they had already worked for years in this way with no issue.Careers were destroyed, jobs lost and many good pilots with families were instantly unemployable in all of Europe. If the public don't believe that EASA are capable of the same behaviour towards UK issued EASA pilot licenses and pilots then they are mistaken. Although it has to be said that there were many instances of gloating from UK EASA pilots when their non EASA licensed colleagues found themselves in the above situation, so it is now hugely ironic that they find themselves in the exact same situation. By the way in the above situation the UK CAA just let it happen, they blamed the DfT and when approached they wouldn't give any contact details of the responsible party at the DfT, as the above situation could have been avoided.

From EU Referendum today

References: EU-US Open Skies Agreement here. European Common Aviation Area here. Single European Sky here.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.I suggest you speak to someone who can actually read the regulations.

Anyone who thinks that anything significant will happen aviation-wise on March 29 next year is just a doom-monger. All will be resolved before then, as NEITHER side can afford a no-deal Brexit. Any ban on landing rights or overflight rights will penalise both sides just as much.

Your views are different to the people calling the shots. Are you another ex pat that was allowed to vote?

UK CAA Planning assumptions for a non-negotiated exit
 

Source here.

easyJet seem to be ahead of the game in "consider(ing) what actions if any may be required on their part to enable them to continue to operate".

Maybe Heathrow's boss, John Holland-Kaye, has shaken off the "project fear" nonsense and is adopting a measure of realism. Financial Times (paywall) today:

I do hope that his optimism is not misplaced and will our "government" also get round to realistically considering the effect of post hard brexit LHR shutdown, or does the former Foreign Secretary's considered view, "f**k business" still hold sway?

Utter nonsense. Nothing more than risibly simplistic corporate b/s. Why? Because if Heathrow had no income for two months, neither would any of the (European/UK) airlines flying in and out of Heathrow. And nobody on here - wherever they stand - would argue that many modern airlines could survive two months without income. So yeah, Heathrow might have the cashflow to survive two months, but at the end of that period, it would have a massively reduced customer base and much less income to recover with. Pretty much the sort of statement that CEOs make all the time...24 months ago Carillions Directors (and their auditors) were spouting this sort of guff. I am constantly amazed that people actually buy it.

Finally, a sensible voice from the darkness. I have the inverse problem. I'm a UK CAA licence holder, working in EASA land. I've already had the indirect warning from the company to "kindly ask" an EASA member CAA to convert my UK ATPL licence to an equivalent EASA ATPL licence prior to Brexit, or I could lose my job... It's only a personal, entirely subjective view, and not intended for fuel to fire the for/against Brexit feud, but I feel that Brexit has to be one of the most ill conceived and ill executed policies from the UK in a long long time. Sigh.

NOT nonsense. Talking professional licences here.....

The holder of a Third Country (i.e ICAO...which of course, EASA isn't a member of..!) licence can no longer fly, N or ANY foreign registered aircraft, for reward, in the EU, if that aircraft is OPERATED from within the EU. So...if you have an N registered Global, based in London, operated by a company in Spain, then an FAA pilot CANNOT fly it for reward. However....neither can an EASA pilot, unless that pilot has an FAA ticket, because its outside the USA too....! BUT...WHICH licence do you fly it on? You fly on both...not possible....! The Fed's say you need an appropriate rating/currency etc in line with FAR/AIM and EASA (eeARSEerr) say you need part FCL as appropriate. Who is right? Well eeARSEer say it's illegal to use your FAA ticket....so do the FAA, say its wrong to use your eeARSEerr ticket. It was done, half cocked, with no real World validation process and NO argument for flight safety or similar. There is no real validation process that works either (unlike 2 reg or M reg for examples that accept both licences based on original being current/valid). Think about it...an FAA pilot says "I want to fly this N reg CJ2 out of London, for a private owner"...WHY oh WHYYYY can eeARSEerr not simply say "Here is a Part FCL based on your FAA ticket, medical and currency, to fly THAT specific aircraft for THAT specific purpose"?? If its private use, why not let them fly a G reg...or CS reg...or...or....???? It's simple, dumbass bureaucracy. And PLEASE, don't spout off about protecting European's jobs etc...as a lot of these guys ARE Europeans. AND...dont spout off about safety as there is no case and in fact, FAA ATP's CANNOT hold a so called "frozen" ATP...they have to have proper experience/hours...not 250 and have their hands held, or have a "Multi Crew" only licence, where they can't actually fly a piston or light plane, but can only operate a Sim as part of a crew.

So...to put it bluntly, all you guys that voted Brexit and are now bitching you might not have a licence....get over it. All you people that for years, sounded off about doing the exams (when a chunk didn't, but got Grandfather rights or sat a lot less stringent, poorly managed exams and validations), who are now in the same boat...grab a life jacket and a paddle...because you're possibly up the same creek as the FAA guys now and....the reigning point....it's a fu**ing disgrace for the UK issued EASA guys, the FAA guys and everyone in between. MAYBE there could actually be some camaraderie and a real proposal for a real and FAIR (Across the board!!) validation process!!!

As for Bilateral Safety Agreements...the engineers have had it for years...the pilots never have...and there isn't one forthcoming from either side of the pond. The whole situation, for all these pilots is FUBAR!

But what UK operators are there that do that. Ryanair are Irish and Easy can use their Austrian AOC.

I can't think of anyone else.

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.