|
infrequentflyer789
Not entirely sure about the accuracy of the RIchard North quote and where they/he get "30 days before the intending start of operation" from, or how it is applicable For those serious students of the effects of Brexit on UK Aerospace/Air Transport and the applicable law, I could do no better than recommend Richard North's blog, EU Referendum and in particular, his Brexit Impact Assessments The Assessment in respect of Third Country Operators is contained here and of note, he writes: Listening to Walsh exude confidence, though, I didn't get the impression that he – or any of his colleagues – really understood what they were up against. At the midnight on 29 March 2019 (Brussels time), all UK registered airlines will cease to be "community air carriers", as defined by Regulation (EC) 1008/2008, and thus will cease to enjoy the degree of access to the aviation facilities of the Member States that they currently enjoy. Just to regularise the position in the UK, though, we are going to need hefty amendments toThe Operation of Air Services in the Community Regulations 2009. The interesting thing here is that the Civil Aviation Authority currently issues airline operating licences not under the aegis of UK law but by virtue of EU law, under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92, which are given effect in UK law by the 2009 UK Regulations. On the face of it, before it can go anywhere with the EU – and all the other third countries – the UK government must completely rebuild its own system for licencing UK airline operators. Only then can it ask other countries to recognise them, presumably on a mutual recognition basis. However, things are never that simple. Assuming that the UK is able swiftly to negotiate an air service agreement with the EU, that is only the start of it. The UK will, by then, be a third country. This means that Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 will no longer apply. Instead, UK airlines will have to conform with Commission Regulation (EU) No 453/2014. This, as Willie Walsh will undoubtedly know, lays down "technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations of third country operators pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council". This requires them to apply to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in order to gain approval as Third Country Operators (TCOs), in accordance with the procedure sketched out here. And, in accordance with the six-page application guidelines, the intended operator must "demonstrate a credible intention to conduct commercial operations into within or out of the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaty of the European Union". Of this, Mr Walsh will no doubt be fully aware, as he will most probably have to substantiate his airline's intention by submitting its planned schedule for commercial air transport operations or by making a statement that operations to the European Union are planned. Given the complexity of the application procedure, one very much suspects that neither British Airways nor any other UK licenced airline will be seeing its TCO approval in the small hours of Saturday 30 March 2019, or even in the days thereafter. The complication here is that the application must be submitted at least 30 days before the intended starting date of operation – but it cannot be made until the UK has left the EU and become a third country. And once he's sorted that out, there is the small matter of lodging proof of insurance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 785/2004. |
Good post (aviation wise)
I don't think the Independent article is meant to be taken that seriously...?? Not least because it's not all going to kick off exactly on leaving day. If no deal is reached, political change in the UK will be in play before the end of this year for a start off. And the effects on aviation will be far more advanced and insidious. If no deal is reached by Christmas, only a moron (or a very rich person) will be booking flights into the EU (or perhaps anywhere) in April onwards, so there will be far fewer flights to cancel in the first place. |
The Old Fat One
Re: The Independent article. Probably an irony alert might have helped, though, given continuation of current "government" ineptitude, Channel Ro/Ro ports could become choked with corollary lead-in motorway congestion on either side (due newly required Customs, Sanitary (animal) and Phytosanitary (plant) inspections on the French side of the newly instituted EU external border) . As discussed, Air Transport could cease and, often overlooked, Chunnel train service licences (operator/driver) could no longer be valid, along with UK HGV and private driver licences. Result? Uk completely isolated until such time as the "government" wakes from its slumbers, quits squabbling amongst itself, at last considers the National interest and addresses these urgent matters properly. However, interim, no need to worry, as, in a time of peace and plenty, the current set of "leaders" are fixing for rationing and army support of the Civil Powers, post Brexit, so no real problem (irony alert!). Agree your post and indeed political change hopefully will be in process by the end of the year if a no-deal Brexit looks inevitable. I've already counselled family, friends and colleagues not to lay money out on travel to/from UK after 29 March 2019. |
Originally Posted by BAengineer
(Post 10210613)
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.
You are right of course, same as the UK has no longer access to the EU under the open sky agreement, all EU airlines will no longer have access to the UK under the same agreement. However, the EU is losing access to a 60 odd million people market, the UK to a 460 odd million people market. |
BAengineer
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 complication here is that the application must be submitted at least 30 days before the intended starting date of operation – but it cannot be made until the UK has left the EU and become a third country. And once he's sorted that out, there is the small matter of lodging proof of insurance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 785/2004. There would also seem to be some slight complications for foreign aircraft. The EU (EASA) has in the past dealt with foreign airlines and issued their TCO approvals, permitting them to operate in the territory of EU Member States (and the Efta States). But once the UK leaves the EU, these airlines will no longer have authority to operate in the UK. Thus, the British authorities (presumably the CAA) will have to set up its own approval programme, and invite all the foreign carriers (including EU/Efta carriers) to apply. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10210914)
BAengineer Perhaps you could provide a link to Richard North indicating that EASA membership is only open to EU members? A careful reading of his blog posts will reveal that Dr. North is well aware that EASA membership is open to both EU and EFTA states (of which Iceland is one) and indeed, he makes this clear in the next paragraph from my quoted piece from his post at ♯ 333
"But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members." Well the Commission did nothing of the sort - all they pointed out was that EASA was still going to have the ECJ jurisdiction, a point the UK Government accepted when they changed the definition of their red-line on the ECJ from 'direct' jurisdiction to 'indirect' jurisdiction. SKY news did a much better job of explaining the state of play than Richard North. Again sorry that I am unable to post a link but if you do a search for: 'Govt to stay in EU air safety body in blurring of Brexit red line' you should find the article. |
BAengineer
Thanks for your reply and the link to Dr. North's post on 29 April 2018 is here. Perhaps you are referring to paragraph 10 of his piece where he quotes the Commission's words? The only clue Mrs May has given as to how she thinks this chaos can be avoided, as she said at the Mansion House, is that we should be allowed to remain in EASA. This was echoed by our own Civil Aviation Authority, which knows it would take years for us to create our own system. But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members. In fact, the risk is very much more than "theoretical". Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA and, as I wrote in this piece, the best we can hope for is a "Working Arrangement". This will, of course, require full regulatory alignment but that is the least of our problems. If you follow his link "in this piece", you will note that paragraph 4 provides a link from his words "a public website" and using which link he makes quite clear which states comprise the total EASA membership (EEA states and Switzerland). So, I'm not entirely sure why: 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. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10211318)
BAengineer
Thanks for your reply and the link to Dr. North's post on 29 April 2018 is here. Perhaps you are referring to paragraph 10 of his piece where he quotes the Commission's words? |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10211318)
BAengineer
Perhaps you are referring to paragraph 10 of his piece where he quotes the Commission's words? Perhaps Mr North was just scratching around for something to support his ideas and made a mistake. |
BAengineer
Your reply seems to lack any kind of logic as I have laid out in excruciating detail how Dr. North (not Mr - perhaps some attention to detail is required) is and always has been aware of the states comprising EASA. I'm sure if you properly read even a sample of his prodigious output, wherein lies plain to see, an unflinching commitment to truth, fact, logic and reason you will conclude his command of the actulalité and the utter fatuousness of the idea that "he was just scratching around for something to support his ideas and made a mistake". |
infrequentflyer789
Yes, his wording EASA membership is limited to EU countries was taken to task by a number of his commentators and he made the point that this is strictly true as EU EASA members have full voting rights, whilst EFTA EASA members (including special case Switzerland) do not. His reference to Turkey is to make the following point. I think you need to read his post a little more carefully. As far as this "participation" goes, EASA membership is limited to EU countries. Other European countries enter into agreements with the EU and adopt the Union's civil aviation rules. But they do not have voting rights and any specific areas of cooperation have to be specifically negotiated. Third countries, therefore, "have raised the question of why they should implement decisions over which they have had no influence". It is not known quite what the CBI were thinking about when they cited Turkey's "participation" in EASA as an example which the UK could follow, but if they are serious in proposing this arrangement as a model, then we have serious problems. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10211445)
BAengineer
Your reply seems to lack any kind of logic as I have laid out in excruciating detail how Dr. North (not Mr - perhaps some attention to detail is required) is and always has been aware of the states comprising EASA. I'm sure if you properly read even a sample of his prodigious output, wherein lies plain to see, an unflinching commitment to truth, fact, logic and reason you will conclude his command of the actulalité and the utter fatuousness of the idea that "he was just scratching around for something to support his ideas and made a mistake". My view is that it is far more likely that Mr North simply made a mistake in pushing his agenda. Personally I dont see how it really matters. |
On the BBC today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45019603 Much of the same, but beginning to place the emphasis on ticket contingency (my initial interpretation of the Ryan Air ticket position was slightly wrong...where they appear to be heading with it - auto refund if no fly due brexit - makes more sense from a marketing perspective). And I like the addition of new buzzwords ..."project complexity". All of this increasing attention to aviation is completely in line with expectation. IF ticket sales start to fall, the pressure on the UK government will rise exponentially. |
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One
(Post 10211627)
All of this increasing attention to aviation is completely in line with expectation. IF ticket sales start to fall,
That fall in bookings would appear to have happened around time of Brexit clause going in, would be interesting to know on which routes / dates the fall is. Of course there are many variables, it could also be due to the strikes, or some other cause - in so far as it is possible to tell we will probably never know because it suits people with various agendas to present one cause or another. the pressure on the UK government will rise exponentially. |
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
(Post 10212062)
Would be wrong target - UK govt has, I believe, already stated it wants UK to stay in EASA. Of course that is not something within the UK's power to grant, would be more sensible to pressure those who can grant it.
|
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
(Post 10212062)
IF? Already happening, also from BBC: ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44949992 ) "Ryanair blamed a downturn in forward bookings and airfares in the Republic of Ireland"
That fall in bookings would appear to have happened around time of Brexit clause going in, would be interesting to know on which routes / dates the fall is. Of course there are many variables, it could also be due to the strikes, or some other cause - in so far as it is possible to tell we will probably never know because it suits people with various agendas to present one cause or another. |
Originally Posted by Denti
(Post 10212235)
Well, the UK government knows the ways to be a member of EASA obviously, and that the EU does not want a bespoke agreement or cherry picking. So by choosing which aims to follow they implicitly have the power to get that or not. But of course, you are right as well, that the other side could do it out of the goodness of its heart if they want to, which however is not in the guidelines the negotiator was given by the european council (minus the UK obviously).
The only comment on membership I have found from the European Comission is that if the UK remains in EASA it will have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which the UK Government has already accepted they will do. |
Would be wrong target - UK govt has, I believe, already stated it wants UK to stay in EASA. Of course that is not something within the UK's power to grant, would be more sensible to pressure those who can grant it. |
Originally Posted by BAengineer
(Post 10212284)
I have been looking at the EASA website but cant find anything about restricting membership to only countries in the EU or EEA. Can anyone find anything definitive.
The only comment on membership I have found from the European Comission is that if the UK remains in EASA it will have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which the UK Government has already accepted they will do. |
Originally Posted by Denti
(Post 10212538)
Indeed, the EASA is just an agency of the EU, not in itself able to negotiate any membership, that is up the commission and parliament. However, the UK government proposed some fudged thing in their white paper where the ECJ is not the final and sole arbiter of the law, which would be required by the EU, but rather that the UK would take those judgements into consideration. Which in the end is simply not the same thing.
|
Originally Posted by BAengineer
(Post 10212281)
Your link doesnt mention Brexit, it only cites the pilot strikes in Dublin. If the cause were anything to do with Brexit what would be gained by moving aircraft from Dublin to Warsaw?
|
Originally Posted by Skyjob
(Post 10212607)
You are right, however it may indirectly have to do with Brexit, where flying rights may not be guaranteed anymore, bookings drop, and the airline prefers to use the UK-route aircraft in other markets, rather than having them sit idle at Dublin in future. How many aircraft does Ryanair use daily for its Dublin-UK flights?
Isnt that a bit of a reach considering that it was only last month that Ryanair announced they were creating a base at Southend from next year?. Far more likely that this is simply a bargaining (?) tactic by O'leary in his fight with the Pilots union. |
Originally Posted by Denti
(Post 10212538)
UK government proposed some fudged thing in their white paper where the ECJ is not the final and sole arbiter of the law, which would be required by the EU, but rather that the UK would take those judgements into consideration. Which in the end is simply not the same thing.
Personally I think (and this applies to both sides) that what should be being asked for (at least at this stage) is things that already have precedent, ie. what other non-EU states already get or give. Once you've reached agreement in all the areas where there precedents, then you can move onto the areas where a full-custom-never-done-before solution would be required. Of course I'm not running things so both the sides have gone headlong into "full custom never done before" mode, and a pantomime where the EU says "tell us what you want", the UK says "we want X Y Z cake+eat+knobs-on" and the EU says "that's impossible, tell us what you want". If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable. |
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
(Post 10213832)
Does sound awfully like the arrangement with Switzerland's EASA membership (and maybe other EFTAs - not sure) though doesn't it? Switzerland appears to have issues with ECJ jurisdiction.
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
(Post 10213832)
Personally I think (and this applies to both sides) that what should be being asked for (at least at this stage) is things that already have precedent, ie. what other non-EU states already get or give. Once you've reached agreement in all the areas where there precedents, then you can move onto the areas where a full-custom-never-done-before solution would be required. Of course I'm not running things so both the sides have gone headlong into "full custom never done before" mode, and a pantomime where the EU says "tell us what you want", the UK says "we want X Y Z cake+eat+knobs-on" and the EU says "that's impossible, tell us what you want".
If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable. |
Canary Islands
We've been thinking of booking a trip to Spain this year and I'm thinking if where in Canary we will go but I think is a good place to see like what I've read in this article
|
|
Originally Posted by Airone2977
(Post 10222575)
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake. |
Originally Posted by SpamCanDriver
(Post 10224860)
Can you state where the above advert is from Airone2977?
Given the terrible grammar, nonsensical first sentence and all current vacancies listed on EZY website specifically state UK licences are accepted (including EU bases). I would bet good money on it being fake. Link |
why not stay in EASA
Originally Posted by Bowmore
(Post 10119111)
Why could UK not be a member of EASA after Brexit? Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Croatia are, and are not EU members.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism. |
Apparently Easyjet is going to have its pilots based on the continent transfer their licences to either Germany or Austria.
Project fear; I fear not. |
Originally Posted by lear999wa
(Post 10225258)
Apparently Easyjet is going to have its pilots based on the continent transfer their licences to either Germany or Austria.
DK |
Originally Posted by henno_b
(Post 10225213)
To remain a member, the UK must recognize the authority of the European Court of Justice because that is the ultimate arbitration authority to EASA. The UK government does not want to accept ANY authority of the EJC, and will also no longer have any influence on the ECJ. Therefore, the UK government does not WANT to stay in EASA.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism. I think it also said that they could accept the ECJ in this particular area (I'm not sure about this last one, please check the WP for clarification). But of course, the EU is unlikely to accept the UK "cherry picking", and if they don't sign the withrawal agreement (with the North Ireland backstop, etc.) the likely outcome it's a no-deal with the UK being out of every EU agency. So if we don't see a change in the negotiations (by the way, they are sitting today but nothing new is expected), UK will be out of EASA by April 2019. Perhaps the EU let's UK license holders transfer to an EASA countrie beyond this date, nobody knows. |
Originally Posted by henno_b
(Post 10225213)
To remain a member, the UK must recognize the authority of the European Court of Justice because that is the ultimate arbitration authority to EASA. The UK government does not want to accept ANY authority of the EJC, and will also no longer have any influence on the ECJ. Therefore, the UK government does not WANT to stay in EASA.
Norway and Switzerland etc do not have such a chip on their shoulder and accept ECJ, even without having a say in it. It's called pragmatism. It is now up to the EU to decide whether they will allow the UK to remain or not. |
Originally Posted by superflanker
(Post 10225337)
But of course, the EU is unlikely to accept the UK "cherry picking", and if they don't sign the withrawal agreement (with the North Ireland backstop, etc.) the likely outcome it's a no-deal with the UK being out of every EU agency. So if we don't see a change in the negotiations (by the way, they are sitting today but nothing new is expected), UK will be out of EASA by April 2019.
Perhaps the EU let's UK license holders transfer to an EASA countrie beyond this date, nobody knows. |
and it’s also been made very clear “cherry picking” will not be accepted. |
Originally Posted by BAengineer
(Post 10225494)
I dont see why EASA membership needs to be tied to any other deal. For example the UAE follow EASA Regulation through their working arrangement with EASA and the GCAA changed their entire Licensing system to align with EASA. OK they are not a full voting member but to all intents they are a part of EASA, so would it really be such a stretch for the UK to remain a member?
Moreover, although no many and not too much significant, there are differences between EASA and GCAA regulations. |
Originally Posted by Bidule
(Post 10226079)
"Following a regulation" and "being a part of" do not seem to me to be the same thing.... And GCAA are not a part of EASA at all!
Moreover, although no many and not too much significant, there are differences between EASA and GCAA regulations. But the ball is in the EU's court. |
Originally Posted by BAengineer
(Post 10226361)
But the ball is in the EU's court.
|
But the ball is in the EU's court. The problem, of course, is that many of us (on both sides of the channel) are wondering if the EU will just quietly put the ball in their pocket and casually stroll off the court. |
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One
(Post 10226405)
Whilst I think your cliche massively oversimplifies a very complex negotiation, I do I agree that's where we seem to be at this point in time.
The problem, of course, is that many of us (on both sides of the channel) are wondering if the EU will just quietly put the ball in their pocket and casually stroll off the court. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.