UK aviation and BREXIT

Just found this thread on aviation and haven't read any of it, but thought I would share this answer on Quora by Barney Lane. He seems to have a lot of good analysis around the topic of Brexit.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...nswer/Barney-Lane-1?share=49c8c50f&srid=5sZ0J

Zero.
The European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) sets out the following rights for members:
  1. Flying over a foreign country without landing
  2. Refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo
  3. Fly from the home country and land in a foreign country
  4. Fly from a foreign country and land in the home country
  5. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, stopping in another foreign country on the way
  6. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, stopping in the home country on the way
  7. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, without stopping in the home country
  8. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, then on to another destination within the same foreign country
  9. Fly internally within a foreign country
If the UK leaves the ECAA, both parties will still be subject to the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation. This confers the first five of the above rights. If the EU tried to ban flights landing at EU airports or traversing EU airspace, they would be in breach of this international treaty.
A further point: airlines have contracts with EU airports for landing slots. An argument that these would be invalidated upon the disapplication to the UK of EU aviation treaties, would be a breach of the international legal principle of Acquired Rights, which states that property, which includes contracts with economic value, survive changes to the legal context in which they were originally made.
Any attempt by the EU to impede UK flights would thus be illegal.
Now, in the following answer, Daniel Wicks made a convincing argument for why they wouldn’t dare do it anyway.
Daniel Wicks' answer to Will a civil aircraft be able to fly out of the UK and land in EU country airports after Brexit?
What we’re seeing here is just the drip drip of project fear. The UK government doesn’t counter these absurd suggestions because (in my opinion) it likes to give the impression it’s above such pettiness. I think that’s a mistake. The more people know about the absurdities we’re being fed, the more resilient to them we’ll be.
I'm not dredging up old posts from this thread, but the heads of the FAA, EASA and the CAA disagree with you.

The older regs have been superseded and it's not a case of reverting to an obsolete set of legislation.

If the words of some bloke on quora are taken over the heads of international aviation safety, then there's no help for you.
 
Well, you still haven't provided a link or reference to what you are wibbling about, so I can only assume it is this.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/site...it-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf

Key excerpts:
Subject to any transitional arrangement that may be contained in a possible withdrawal
agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of civil aviation safety will
no longer apply to the United Kingdom. This has, in particular, the following
consequences in the different areas of civil aviation safety:

...
Such certificates issued by EASA to persons and organisations located in the United
Kingdom will therefore no longer be valid in the EU as of the withdrawal date. The
products, parts and appliances concerned will no longer be considered as certified in
accordance with Article 5 of the Basic Regulation.
...
Certificates issued before the withdrawal date by the competent authorities of the
United Kingdom on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Regulation and its
implementing rules will no longer be valid as of the withdrawal date in the EU
Certificates of airworthiness
Pilot licences, pilot medical certificates, certificates for pilot training organisations
Certificates for air operators and attestations for the cabin crew
Certificates for aerodromes, certificates for ATM/ANS providers, licences and medical certificates for air traffic controllers, certificates for air traffic controller training organisations
...
As of the withdrawal date, aircraft operators from the United Kingdom will be
considered as ‘third country’ operators
...
As of the withdrawal date aircraft registered in the United Kingdom will be
considered as ‘third country’ registered aircraft


Is this the preparation that you mean?
That answer assumes that the UK has a Civil Aviation Regulator that meets international requirements.
IT won't.
The CAA has said it will take 5 years MINIMUM to get to that standard.
That is the reality of IT.
 
I'm not dredging up old posts from this thread, but the heads of the FAA, EASA and the CAA disagree with you.

The older regs have been superseded and it's not a case of reverting to an obsolete set of legislation.

If the words of some bloke on quora are taken over the heads of international aviation safety, then there's no help for you.
The 1947 Chicago Convention is still in force and has 192 countries party to it. Of course there are world wide agreements on air travel and this convention is what regulates it. It is most certsinly not obsolete, or even obselecent. Otherwise how would flights from the USA go to Europe, Thailand, South Africa etc?
European agencies are not required and the idea of flights being grounded, as some have suggested, is baseless scaremongering.

Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation - Wikipedia
 
Just found this thread on aviation and haven't read any of it, but thought I would share this answer on Quora by Barney Lane. He seems to have a lot of good analysis around the topic of Brexit.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...nswer/Barney-Lane-1?share=49c8c50f&srid=5sZ0J

Zero.
The European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) sets out the following rights for members:
  1. Flying over a foreign country without landing
  2. Refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo
  3. Fly from the home country and land in a foreign country
  4. Fly from a foreign country and land in the home country
  5. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, stopping in another foreign country on the way
  6. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, stopping in the home country on the way
  7. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, without stopping in the home country
  8. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, then on to another destination within the same foreign country
  9. Fly internally within a foreign country
If the UK leaves the ECAA, both parties will still be subject to the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation. This confers the first five of the above rights. If the EU tried to ban flights landing at EU airports or traversing EU airspace, they would be in breach of this international treaty.
A further point: airlines have contracts with EU airports for landing slots. An argument that these would be invalidated upon the disapplication to the UK of EU aviation treaties, would be a breach of the international legal principle of Acquired Rights, which states that property, which includes contracts with economic value, survive changes to the legal context in which they were originally made.
Any attempt by the EU to impede UK flights would thus be illegal.
Now, in the following answer, Daniel Wicks made a convincing argument for why they wouldn’t dare do it anyway.
Daniel Wicks' answer to Will a civil aircraft be able to fly out of the UK and land in EU country airports after Brexit?
What we’re seeing here is just the drip drip of project fear. The UK government doesn’t counter these absurd suggestions because (in my opinion) it likes to give the impression it’s above such pettiness. I think that’s a mistake. The more people know about the absurdities we’re being fed, the more resilient to them we’ll be.
All very true; also irrelevant to the real issues caused by lack of government preparation. It's also irrelevant in that the EU have not, are not, and are showing no signs of ever wishing to take any punitive action towards the UK in the field of aviation.

What does matter is the potential lack of an aviation regulator. That will bring everything to a grinding halt and will do so as every country out there with a functional regulator will find itself bound by its own internal legislation to require valid paperwork. Everything accepted external to the UK - currently underwritten by EASA - will become invalid if we leave without remaining in EASA. That's not a threat, it's the reality of how international aviation regulation works.

Now, give me 5 to 10 years and a few hundred people and I can rebuild the UK capability. Stay in EASA and nothing changes. But do neither of those and ... well, what will actually happen is that every pilot, maintenance facility, design organisation and so on will register with another nations regulator. Most will probably go to EASA via EU members, some to the US. What will also then move - at a pace to be determined - will be jobs and tax revenue.

And the UK joins the ranks of countries like Somalia without an internationally recognised aviation regulator. Even North Korea will have a better setup than us.

Still, it's very Brexit. Fail to understand the complexity of a modern nation state in the 21st century, solve a problem that doesn't exist and remain ignorant of the real issue.
 
And the UK joins the ranks of countries like Somalia without an internationally recognised aviation regulator. Even North Korea will have a better setup than us.
The CAA people I was talking to said "and the UK joins the ranks of countries like Uganda without an internationally recognised aviation regulator"

Somalia/Unganda same difference and you get the picture. It is not the EU punishing but the UK intentionally walking into the wilderness.

As you point out "without an internationally recognised aviation regulator" That is the crux of the matter. It is not the EU bullying but a simple fact that it is international legal requirements.

As noted above all the organisations involved say a minimum of 5 years not,as some loons on here suggest because they have a "vested interest" but international the legal requirement includes things that will take a MINIMUM of 5 years to gain. Even if the UK says "we can do it in 2 years" the Rest Of The World won't accept that.

As with some of my qualifications there is a requirement of a minimum of 5 years relevant (and logged/signed off) experience. You can't short cut that.
 
Just found this thread on aviation and haven't read any of it, but thought I would share this answer on Quora by Barney Lane. He seems to have a lot of good analysis around the topic of Brexit.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...nswer/Barney-Lane-1?share=49c8c50f&srid=5sZ0J

Zero.
The European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) sets out the following rights for members:
  1. Flying over a foreign country without landing
  2. Refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo
  3. Fly from the home country and land in a foreign country
  4. Fly from a foreign country and land in the home country
  5. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, stopping in another foreign country on the way
  6. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, stopping in the home country on the way
  7. Fly from a foreign country to another foreign country, without stopping in the home country
  8. Fly from the home country to a foreign country, then on to another destination within the same foreign country
  9. Fly internally within a foreign country
If the UK leaves the ECAA, both parties will still be subject to the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation. This confers the first five of the above rights. If the EU tried to ban flights landing at EU airports or traversing EU airspace, they would be in breach of this international treaty.
A further point: airlines have contracts with EU airports for landing slots. An argument that these would be invalidated upon the disapplication to the UK of EU aviation treaties, would be a breach of the international legal principle of Acquired Rights, which states that property, which includes contracts with economic value, survive changes to the legal context in which they were originally made.
Any attempt by the EU to impede UK flights would thus be illegal.
Now, in the following answer, Daniel Wicks made a convincing argument for why they wouldn’t dare do it anyway.
Daniel Wicks' answer to Will a civil aircraft be able to fly out of the UK and land in EU country airports after Brexit?
What we’re seeing here is just the drip drip of project fear. The UK government doesn’t counter these absurd suggestions because (in my opinion) it likes to give the impression it’s above such pettiness. I think that’s a mistake. The more people know about the absurdities we’re being fed, the more resilient to them we’ll be.
I see Barney Lane quite a lot on Quora. He’s an Brexit optimist, rather than a realist. Good at applying a veneer of ‘learning’ to what are essentially his hopes and wishes,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I see Barney Lane quite a lot on Quora. He’s an Brexit optimist, rather than a realist. Good at applying a veneer of ‘learning’ to what are essentially his hopes and wishes,
It's interesting to note that those who shout "Project Fear!" the most often and loudest are all without exception living in a dream world.
 
That sounds reasonable, which is why all the foot dragging and can kicking by May's inept government hasn't helped matters.

Jack Lopresti, the MP for Bradley Stoke and Filton met with Airbus and other companies they day before:


My statement regarding Airbus
Yesterday, I had a meeting at the Airbus offices at Filton, with their Senior Vice President Katherine Bennett, with other Senior Airbus managers, and with Richard Harrington MP, the Minister for Business and Industry. Other Aerospace companies such as GKN and Rolls Royce were also present.


Airbus, who made a profit reported to be approaching £4bn last year, were requesting further taxpayer funded support from Government. They have also invited the Prime Minister to open their new ‘Wing of the Future’ facility in Filton. At no point was Brexit mentioned by Airbus. Airbus seem to be in a state of confusion about their position.


One could be forgiven for thinking that some EU member state governments were using Airbus to try and influence the UK Government into giving them what they want in any future Brexit deal. Airbus have used these heavy handed tactics before. They threatened to leave the UK if we didn’t join the Euro, which, thank goodness, we didn’t. During the Referendum they tried to interfere in the democratic process by writing letters to their employees instructing them how to vote.


In recent months, they have tried to interfere in what was a perfectly legal and legitimate take-over bid by Melrose for GKN, saying: “It would be ‘practically impossible’ to give new work to the Aerospace and Automotive Energy Group should the turnaround specialist take it over."


This was another ridiculous empty threat from Airbus. Yesterday, there were GKN representatives around the boardroom table. We also undertook a visit to the GKN Western Approach facility where there was a lot of discussion regarding further investment in our area from both GKN and Airbus, as well as further collaboration between the two companies.


This morning I have spoken with Government colleagues, who have confirmed that we are working closely with companies to understand their concerns ahead of leaving the EU and alongside industry will invest almost £4bn by 2026 to ensure the UK remains a world leader in civil aerospace.


On Monday, I will be meeting Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to discuss Airbus’ statement. The employment and well being of my constituents as Member of Parliament for Filton and Bradley Stoke will always be my highest priority, and I am struggling to believe this sabre rattling from Airbus is helpful or credible.
My statement regarding Airbus

The EU through EASA has bilateral and working arrangements with other countries - Overview | EASA

Realistically it's of mutual benefit to agree a bilateral agreement.
 
That sounds reasonable, which is why all the foot dragging and can kicking by May's inept government hasn't helped matters.

Jack Lopresti, the MP for Bradley Stoke and Filton met with Airbus and other companies they day before:


My statement regarding Airbus

The EU through EASA has bilateral and working arrangements with other countries - Overview | EASA

Realistically it's of mutual benefit to agree a bilateral agreement.
He's being disingenuous about the GKN takeover.

Melrose are asset strippers. They run companies into the ground whilst selling off all the assets and raiding the pension funds. Airbus had perfectly legitimate concerns.

A government serious about aerospace would have prevented the oncoming destruction of a strategic business.

GKN is a key supplier to Airbus which is why they spoke up.

Just three months after Melrose's hostile takeover of engineer GKN, now the asset stripping begins | This is Money

Personally, I think that the damage is done and it's going to be pretty much over for UK civil aerospace in the next 10 years.
 
What I can't understand is that the Brexit Loons now want Airbus, Siemens and others to get involved in the *political* process but only if they are going to put pressure on the EU for a solution none of the companies want.

Apparently explaining to the UK Government what the UK's current course of action will cause them to do is unacceptable.

If the Brexit Loons want the companies to get involved it will mostly to be to publically put pressure on the UK governemnt to scrap Brexit.

Two years ago the UK was split 50/50 on Brexit (in the last two years all the political votes have swun by far more than the wining margin in the EU referendum)

However the Employers mainly voted Remain and the Employees voted leave.
The Employees (and HMG) now have to face reality that they can have Brexit but many of the Employers will also leave the UK.
 
Still, I expect that our skill base can be enticed to Seattle or Toulouse in the aftermath
the BIG problem is that Airbus has an integrated workforce. The non-UK workers will go back to the EU which means that the UK sites will be very understaffed and it will as you point out be much easier to move the UK staff to join the rest of the team in the EU.

Of Course Boeing will be making a play for the now redundant UK staff that don't move to the EU.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
What I can't understand is that the Brexit Loons now want Airbus, Siemens and others to get involved in the *political* process but only if they are going to put pressure on the EU for a solution none of the companies want.

Apparently explaining to the UK Government what the UK's current course of action will cause them to do is unacceptable.

If the Brexit Loons want the companies to get involved it will mostly to be to publically put pressure on the UK governemnt to scrap Brexit.

Two years ago the UK was split 50/50 on Brexit (in the last two years all the political votes have swun by far more than the wining margin in the EU referendum)

However the Employers mainly voted Remain and the Employees voted leave.
The Employees (and HMG) now have to face reality that they can have Brexit but many of the Employers will also leave the UK.
Ahem, the split was 52/48 in favour of Brexit.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
Ahem, the split was 52/48 in favour of Brexit.
the split was 51.* and 48.* Given a lot of people who did vote are now dead and a large number who could not vote them are 18+ now and a large number of UK Taxpaying residents (EU nationals) were not able to vote and that the swing in voting patterns in the last 2 years has be way bigger than 2% .

As UKIP repeatedly and officially said a split of 48/52 is to close for a binding result.

Both Scotland, NI, Gibraltar, voted by BIG margins to remain.
England and Wales voted to leave.

The UK is effectively split 50/50

The reality is generally those who voted remain employ those who voted leave.
It is not just Airbus, Sienmens, Nissan, Toyota, JLR who are moving. Also when they do it will have a catastrophic effect on several 100 thousand more employees and their companies in the supply chain.

Time for the Brexit Loons to wake up and discover that most of Project Fear is reality and will be happening in the next 6 months.

You have to understand that these companies will move and get sorted whilst they and the UK are still in the EU and it is easy to do. This means getting it all sorted by February 2019 so you can see things start to move from September.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
the split was 51.* and 48.* Given a lot of people who did vote are now dead and a large number who could not vote them are 18+ now and a large number of UK Taxpaying residents (EU nationals) were not able to vote and that the swing in voting patterns in the last 2 years has be way bigger than 2% .

As UKIP repeatedly and officially said a split of 48/52 is to close for a binding result.

Both Scotland, NI, Gibraltar, voted by BIG margins to remain.
England and Wales voted to leave.

The UK is effectively split 50/50

The reality is generally those who voted remain employ those who voted leave.
It is not just Airbus, Sienmens, Nissan, Toyota, JLR who are moving. Also when they do it will have a catastrophic effect on several 100 thousand more employees and their companies in the supply chain.

Time for the Brexit Loons to wake up and discover that most of Project Fear is reality and will be happening in the next 6 months.

You have to understand that these companies will move and get sorted whilst they and the UK are still in the EU and it is easy to do. This means getting it all sorted by February 2019 so you can see things start to move from September.
What a moonhowling twat! I bet if the split 52/48 had been for remain that would have been seen as a hugely significant result! Your side lost, get over it and get behind the UK rather than supporting a foreign entity.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
TheBlackPearl(aaarrgghh!) Aviation 30
C Aviation 7
P Aviation 5

Similar threads

New Posts

Top