https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... jor-routes


So just how serious is this or is this merely clickbait?

Guardian would be pro remain, but typically doesn't resort to clickbait.

Article seems somewhat researched.

If it's a hard Brexit, I would suspect that it may be very true since new bilateral agreements would need to be negotiated in 2 years time from March 29. This is basically a warning to Ryanair and EasyJet, more so the latter, as well as bmi regional and Flybe.

EasyJet have already raised this as a possibility to their investors.

All depends on what is negotiated of course....

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

Polot wrote:

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

But surely, for say EasyJet, if they need 49% EU ownership (IIRC), then they could get to that threshold fairly comfortably (15% off I believe).

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

Ryanair is UK? Not ireland?

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

But if the population demand britian to exit europe, why would they want to have open sky? IIRC they was voting to leave the european single market, and no doubt open sky mean single market?

ZeeZoo wrote:

Polot wrote:

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

But surely, for say EasyJet, if they need 49% EU ownership (IIRC), then they could get to that threshold fairly comfortably (15% off I believe).

From the article: "It [easyjet] is currently 84%-owned by EU nationals, but this will drop to 49% after Brexit, provided the shares of founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou – who has dual UK and Cypriot nationality – are classed as EU-owned."

ZeeZoo wrote:

Polot wrote:

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

But surely, for say EasyJet, if they need 49% EU ownership (IIRC), then they could get to that threshold fairly comfortably (15% off I believe).

Yes. The article doesn't say it is not possible, just that the airlines will have to adjust their ownerships.

Someone83 wrote:

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

No they don't, they point out Ryanair is Irish. But according to the article 60% of the airline is owned by EU nationals, including those based in the UK, and once the UK nationals are removed Ryanair will only be 40% EU owned (in other words, 20% of the airline is owned by UK nationals), so adjustments will have to be made so they still follow EU ownership rules.

c933103 wrote:

Ryanair is UK? Not ireland?

Ryanair is an Irish company. The question is who owns Ryanair. It needs to be majority owned by EU nationals.

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

Norwegian airlines operates their European flights under an Irish AOC.

pompos wrote:

ZeeZoo wrote:

Polot wrote:

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

But surely, for say EasyJet, if they need 49% EU ownership (IIRC), then they could get to that threshold fairly comfortably (15% off I believe).

From the article: "It [easyjet] is currently 84%-owned by EU nationals, but this will drop to 49% after Brexit, provided the shares of founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou – who has dual UK and Cypriot nationality – are classed as EU-owned."

Apologies, missed that. Thanks for that.

PHBVF wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

Norwegian airlines operates their European flights under an Irish AOC.

They didn't in the beginning, and they are not EU-owned

Ryanair shouldn't even be in the article. It's an Irish company.
Easyjet is a tricky one. It may face some problems, since it would suddently appear as an extra-EU company flying intra-EU routes, so a relocation could be possible.

Saddest part for all though is that the low cost carriers will now have to pay airports in UK and abroad for the cost of immigration and border controls, thus adding to the price of tickets. Also, this may affect turnaround times, since it takes considerably more time to screen 180 passengers per plane than just letting them pass showing their ID. The philosophy of low cost was carrying from A to B so easy, that it would resemble a bus ride.

What puzzles me more is that IAG owns both BA and IB and the routes are designed a such, so they don't actually compete with each other. Will now a European carrier flag be asked not to compete with an out-of-EU carrier? Interesting times ahead nonetheless.

Someone83 wrote:

PHBVF wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

Norwegian airlines operates their European flights under an Irish AOC.

They didn't in the beginning, and they are not EU-owned

That is because Norway is part of the European Common Aviation Area agreement. If the UK joins that agreement then this whole discussion will be for naught, but the UK joining is not automatic.

c933103 wrote:

But if the population demand britian to exit europe, why would they want to have open sky? IIRC they was voting to leave the european single market, and no doubt open sky mean single market?

I get the sense that many who demanded that the UK leave the EU only wanted to do so in name and not in fact.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Saddest part for all though is that the low cost carriers will now have to pay airports in UK and abroad for the cost of immigration and border controls, thus adding to the price of tickets.

There have always been controls between EU (except for Ireland) and UK. I guess nothing is changing in that respect. Maybe just border checks in Ireland flights.

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

That's OK for Norway because in cases of dispute they agree these can go to the ECJ because they're a member of EFTA (I think that one) - Theresa May says Britain will not be subject to the ECJ so there is currently no avenue for legal resolution where UK airlines continue to operate across Europe. It is actually a complete nightmare if we in the UK head for hard Brexit as our misguided politicians currently seem to be aiming for. I do hope common sense and typical fudge will be the outcome, an open skies agreement subject to the ECJ for that purpose for example - give something, get something is how it should work, not hardline posturing. If we don't do that then I can see IAG divesting BA which then will become a UK airline again.

Given the Brexit negotiations haven't even started, I feel this article is not only premature, but a hate-mongering piece. It doesn't even give sources or concrete evidence that EU 'chiefs' have indeed told airlines such things.

All of it would only be true in the extreme case of a 'don't let the door hit you' Brexit aftermath where the EU decides to ignore any attempt at negotiations.
It will probably not be the case, but neither is it realistic to expect that airlines will not be affected somehow by the end result of Brexit, whatever it is.
The reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Ryanair shouldn't even be in the article. It's an Irish company.

If the EU don't allow easyJet to operate Madrid-Paris, then I'm sure the UK won't allow Ryanair to fly London-Edinburgh. Ryanair & EasyJet would be the two main victims of a lack of open skies agreement.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Saddest part for all though is that the low cost carriers will now have to pay airports in UK and abroad for the cost of immigration and border controls, thus adding to the price of tickets. Also, this may affect turnaround times, since it takes considerably more time to screen 180 passengers per plane than just letting them pass showing their ID.

Currently, all passengers have to show their Passports/ID's when arriving in/from the UK & Ireland - that process would remain unchanged.

Guardian is left wing and pro EU, very much anti Brexit. It spends it's days looking for doom and gloom. This has been known about for ages, easyJet raised it at the time. It would likely mean a proportion of the easyJet fleet moving across to an EU based entity, with a registered office and an AOC. The rest, like ANY INTERNATIONAL business can be offshored to Luton, where it already is. i.e. puchasing, fleet planning etc. Likely outcome would be EU based fleet losing G- and going over to new country of registration.

It's pure clickbait. As to allowing Ryanair to fly domestically in the UK, well Ryanair (UK) lies dormant as a business entity.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Saddest part for all though is that the low cost carriers will now have to pay airports in UK and abroad for the cost of immigration and border controls, thus adding to the price of tickets. Also, this may affect turnaround times, since it takes considerably more time to screen 180 passengers per plane than just letting them pass showing their ID.

Already have border controls - the UK is not party to the Schengen agreement...

Pavlakakos wrote:

Ryanair shouldn't even be in the article. It's an Irish company.

Its UK flights will be limited to those to Ireland - UK to mainland Europe will be out for an Irish airline unless the UK gives it rights for such routes, which I very much hope aren't granted unless UK carriers are given rights to fly within Europe.

It is very dangerous to draw comparisons between the situation of the UK after a hard Brexit, with the situation Iceland and Norway are in today. Iceland and Norway are part of the EEA. That makes them part of the common market and to get there, Iceland and Norway had to agree to the four freedoms and they pay netto to the EU. A hard Brexit leaves the common market behind.

Francoflier wrote:

Given the Brexit negotiations haven't even started, I feel this article is not only premature, but a hate-mongering piece. It doesn't even give sources or concrete evidence that EU 'chiefs' have indeed told airlines such things.

All of it would only be true in the extreme case of a 'don't let the door hit you' Brexit aftermath where the EU decides to ignore any attempt at negotiations.
It will probably not be the case, but neither is it realistic to expect that airlines will not be affected somehow by the end result of Brexit, whatever it is.
The reality will be somewhere in the middle.

The article is not premature at all. In fact, most people are really late discussing the implications of Brexit for the UK airlines and consumers. The article quotes directly David Davis - the Brexit minister:
"However, asked during a select committee hearing last week whether the UK would continue to be part of the “open-skies” agreement after Brexit, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, David Davis, said: “Not that agreement ... One would presume that would not apply to us – doesn’t say anything about whether there would be a successor.”

The comments of David Davis should be a serious warning. It does not look like the UK will even want to be part of the EU Open Skies.

skipness1E wrote:

Guardian is left wing and pro EU, very much anti Brexit. It spends it's days looking for doom and gloom. This has been known about for ages, easyJet raised it at the time. It would likely mean a proportion of the easyJet fleet moving across to an EU based entity, with a registered office and an AOC. The rest, like ANY INTERNATIONAL business can be offshored to Luton, where it already is. i.e. puchasing, fleet planning etc. Likely outcome would be EU based fleet losing G- and going over to new country of registration.

It's pure clickbait. As to allowing Ryanair to fly domestically in the UK, well Ryanair (UK) lies dormant as a business entity.

Airline business is not like any normal international business. There are for example often restriction of ownership, so it is not a given that entities existing today will be allowed tomorrow to run an airline in the respective country You are one of the guys, who does not want to look reality in the eyes in regards to Brexit.
Ryanair is an EU airline, it is possible and not unusual if Ryanair will not allowed to own a 100% daughter in the UK. EasyJet is an UK airline and again there is a possibility of not being able to found a 100% daughter in the EU. IAG as an European company could run into trouble with BA and so on.

PHBVF wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

Norwegian airlines operates their European flights under an Irish AOC.

People do not seem to get it. Norway is part of the EEA. The EEA is made up of the EU, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. The EEA is the common market. All accepted the four freedoms, free flow of labour, service, capital and goods. No restriction on ownership, no restriction on where you can fly to inside of the EEA.
Brexit means that the UK is leaving that behind.

downtown273 wrote:

Pavlakakos wrote:

Ryanair shouldn't even be in the article. It's an Irish company.

If the EU don't allow easyJet to operate Madrid-Paris, then I'm sure the UK won't allow Ryanair to fly London-Edinburgh. Ryanair & EasyJet would be the two main victims of a lack of open skies agreement.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Saddest part for all though is that the low cost carriers will now have to pay airports in UK and abroad for the cost of immigration and border controls, thus adding to the price of tickets. Also, this may affect turnaround times, since it takes considerably more time to screen 180 passengers per plane than just letting them pass showing their ID.

Currently, all passengers have to show their Passports/ID's when arriving in/from the UK & Ireland - that process would remain unchanged.

Even open sky does usually do not include capotage.

But if the population demand britian to exit europe, why would they want to have open sky? IIRC they was voting to leave the european single market, and no doubt open sky mean single market?[/

quote]

'The Population', the electorate, those who voted for brexit, hardly have any idea what a single market is, and even less so what a single sky means. All they care is to be able to fly their pale flabby bum cheaply to Mallorca for that famous week 'away from it all'. Most of those voters still happily refer to the EU as the 'common market', a term that is of 1970s vintage and has not been used on the Continent for the past 30 years or so. That's how deep the conceptual knowledge of the European Union is for the average British-Brexiter.

And before you shoot me with an e-bazooka: I'm British myself (50% at least).

One issue that the article didn't mention is travel to the U.K. from outside the EU. The EU has negotiated open skies agreements with various countries, including the U.S. It seems to me that if the U.K. doesn't remain within the EU for purposes of aviation treaties, then it will have to negotiate new aviation treaties with countries around the globe, or allow older treaties from before EU agreements to be revived.

In the case of the U.S., would that mean that Bermuda II would come back into play? Further, I seem to recall that the EU had some say over LHR. Remember that only PA and TW (later UA and AA) could fly into Heathrow, and only from certain U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Absent negotiations, would restrictions on the number of flights and airports in greater London snap back into place?

skipness1E wrote:

Guardian is left wing and pro EU, very much anti Brexit. It spends it's days looking for doom and gloom. This has been known about for ages, easyJet raised it at the time. It would likely mean a proportion of the easyJet fleet moving across to an EU based entity, with a registered office and an AOC. The rest, like ANY INTERNATIONAL business can be offshored to Luton, where it already is. i.e. puchasing, fleet planning etc. Likely outcome would be EU based fleet losing G- and going over to new country of registration.

It's pure clickbait. As to allowing Ryanair to fly domestically in the UK, well Ryanair (UK) lies dormant as a business entity.

No Sir, no. Not really. It's actually one of the very few reputable sources of information, and this particular article makes reference to exact, factual issues that have been discussed by MPs and airlines behind closed doors. One could actually argue whether said discussions should have happened -at political level only- well before the electorate was lured into this vote with promises of reopening the coal pits, reviving British Leyland and get those GBP 350 millions a week back to the NHS. it's not clickbait. Not at all. And if you worked for an airline that was actively looking at relocating hundreds of workers overseas, or perhaps terminate their contract due to uncertainty, I bet you would put that G&T down for a minute, and start to worry yourself.
Since we all know which side of the barricade you stand in, perhaps it's you being dismissive about the consequences of Brexit (there will be some, rest assured) and the likelihood of serious economic reverberations that might affect the economy of the Country for a very long time. .?
We are all hoping for the best outcome -as in: best outcome for all parties involved- but it's only fair to expect little more than dry, constipated sympathy for the Brexit cause in Brussels.... I wouldn't bank on 'fat' mutual agreements that benefit the UK, leaving behind the EU member states.
It's the UK who has vastly more to lose than the entire EU.

ckfred wrote:

In the case of the U.S., would that mean that Bermuda II would come back into play? Further, I seem to recall that the EU had some say over LHR. Remember that only PA and TW (later UA and AA) could fly into Heathrow, and only from certain U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Absent negotiations, would restrictions on the number of flights and airports in greater London snap back into place?

The EU has no say over LHR, only the UK. The US would only accept an EU openskies if it was truly openskies (no airport/route restrictions dependent on airline) and the EU would only do the deal if the entire EU including the UK was included, so the UK (somewhat reluctantly) had to give the LHR restrictions up.

Flights between the UK-US would probably remain as is until a new bilateral is negotiated/things between the EU/UK/US are cleaned up. I doubt they will revert to the Bermuda II, as that would cause huge disruptions to airlines on both sides, likely break apart two JVs (BA/AA, DL/VS), and call into question on how the losers no longer allowed into LHR would be compensated for the investment they may have made there for valuable slots etc.

oldannyboy wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Guardian is left wing and pro EU, very much anti Brexit. It spends it's days looking for doom and gloom. This has been known about for ages, easyJet raised it at the time. It would likely mean a proportion of the easyJet fleet moving across to an EU based entity, with a registered office and an AOC. The rest, like ANY INTERNATIONAL business can be offshored to Luton, where it already is. i.e. puchasing, fleet planning etc. Likely outcome would be EU based fleet losing G- and going over to new country of registration.

It's pure clickbait. As to allowing Ryanair to fly domestically in the UK, well Ryanair (UK) lies dormant as a business entity.

No Sir, no. Not really. It's actually one of the very few reputable sources of information, and this particular article makes reference to exact, factual issues that have been discussed by MPs and airlines behind closed doors.

It may not be clickbait and it may also reference factual issues but that doesn't mean that the grauniad isn't pushing the worst case possible along with the familiar "woe is me" line. The EU is still hoping that the UK changes its mind so they're hardly going to give the impression things will be a walk in the park. There's a laughable quote about "rules being rigid" when over the years we've seen the EU "reinterpret" rules if countries like France or Germany kicked up a fuss.

oldannyboy wrote:

Since we all know which side of the barricade you stand in, perhaps it's you being dismissive about the consequences of Brexit (there will be some, rest assured) and the likelihood of serious economic reverberations that might affect the economy of the Country for a very long time. .?

One could argue that you're just another pro EU supporter taking the gloom and doom route. Of course there'll be consequences from Brexit and frankly, since the result you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who says there won't be. The question is how bad overall they will be and we won't know that for another 18-24 months.

oldannyboy wrote:

We are all hoping for the best outcome -as in: best outcome for all parties involved- but it's only fair to expect little more than dry, constipated sympathy for the Brexit cause in Brussels.... I wouldn't bank on 'fat' mutual agreements that benefit the UK, leaving behind the EU member states.
It's the UK who has vastly more to lose than the entire EU.

In the vast majority of cases I fully expect the outcome to be neither as rosy as some hope nor as devastating as some believe (hope?). Equally, this being the EU it will come down to various all night negotiating sessions right up the deadline with possibly a stopped clock if time's got too short.

What about Condor? I don't believe that the Thomas Cook Group has a majority of continental EU-ownership anymore. Will they finally sell it back to Lufthansa?

What's the flipside of that policy? If the EU closes the doors to intra-euro flights does that mean a closer relationship with the US or Middle East?

Could there be 100% US or ME owned airline starting ops in the UK? UK is a great location to hub passengers between US and Europe.

Polot wrote:

Nothing the article says is technically wrong. If the EU and UK don't reach an agreement than UK majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-EU (unless they are 5th freedom flights assuming the EU gives UK 5th freedom rights) and EU majority airlines will not be able to fly intra-UK.

That might not be enough. Some EU-EU routes would likely require 7th and/or 8th freedom, as well.

Well yes to fly within the EEA freely you need to be an EEA airline, although some legacy rights exist from pre de-regulation, for example SQ and AA have flown within area.

To say airlines are like any international business is factually wrong, just fantasy. Airlines are subject to unique international treaties, regulations and ownership restrictions.

In reality Jetstar, Air Asia etal have managed to get around similar ownership issues, Virgin Australia's international operations are another example. So there are work arounds in terms of ownership. In essence you'd probably split the airlines in two, one a UK and one a EEA entity. Then you reallocate shares in such a away that EEA shareholders get a larger chunk of the EEA entity and UK shareholders a larger chunk of the UK entity, putting in place a holding company that owns a majority (but not all of) both. However the restrictions above tend to mean separate HQ and operations staff because of the different regulations and resultant different Standard Operating Procedures. A good example is NAI who actually have a fairly large HQ in Dublin. Other complex problems might include debt allocation and contractual agreements as such a restructure might be judged to alter risk profiles. To do this you'd pay advisories many millions. Easyjet and Ryanair will need to decide of UK domestic routes are worth all this hassle (UK to EEA flights can of course continue as an EEA airline). With the new High Speed 2 rail line being built they might decide not to bother with a UK subsidiary.

For Easyjet that means moving overseas and for Ryanair it means issuing shares to become majority EEA owned in the post Brexit EEA. I think it would be naive to assume that Easyjet moving offshore wouldn't impact jobs. The AOC would see operational/engineering HQ roles move, treasury and financial accounting would probably move too, but HR, commercial and IT could stay without too much hassle if they are happy to have a split HQ.

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144673/airline-regulation-what-you-need-to-know-with-brexit-approaching

Here is a legal view, which sets some context for The Guardian article.

Presumably a hard Brexit works to Ryanair's advantage over EasyJet? Ryanair would lose a few domestics UK routes whereas EasyJet would lose many many more intra European routes ? And Ryanair could remove staff easily from the UK, as they have already done to France , fairly easily ...

Is British Airways, as a part of IAG, actually a Spanish Airline ?

Let's hope things don't get too nasty

England, along with Wales, but not Scotland or North Ireland voted for Brexit, and prevailed. Brexit means Brexit. England will not be part of the old Common Market, nor of the European Economic Union. A lot will change.

Someone83 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Article seems somewhat researched.

Except they categorize Ryanair as a UK airline. Ireland, where they based, is not planning to exit the EU. So it would mainly effect UK domestic routes.

However, in the end we might end up with a open skies solution anyway, or some other agreement. For instance Norway is not part of EU, but Norwegian airlines can fly freely within the EU (and EEA)

That situation was put into place largely because Scandinavian Airlines is a tri-national flag carrier, and Sweden and Denmark are in the EU (and still a 50/50 venture between those governments and private industry).

As for Thomas Cook, I completely forgot about how they are affected. They have been rumored to be considering a sale (or lease transfer) of their entire fleet, as they probably cannot meet the EU threshold if there is a hard Brexit. The other issue, of course, is: what about US-UK open skies? With how politics are in the USA, any new treaty in the USA will be a hard sell because of who will be doing the negotiation on the USA side (treaties require a 2/3 Senate vote to be approved).

frmrCapCadet wrote:

England, along with Wales, but not Scotland or North Ireland voted for Brexit, and prevailed. Brexit means Brexit. England will not be part of the old Common Market, nor of the European Economic Union. A lot will change.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

I think there are only six or seven intra-UK routes served by non-UK airlines. Flybe, easyjet, bmi regional and Eastern, to name a few, operate on dozens of intra-EU routes not departing or arriving in the UK. These flights will require 7th or 9th freedom rights post-Brexit and thus a EU-UK open skies agreement to that effect. It is anyone's guess how realistic such a wide-ranging agreement is. The alternative is setting up an EU-based subsidiary of the UK airline in question with a maximum of 49 per cent UK ownership.

The problem is that many people do not appreciate that leaving the EU does mean for many industires that carrying on as before is simply impossible.

Boom times for consultants, analysts, lawyers, accountants and lobbyists, on both sides of the Atlantic.

There are already working groups in the UK and USA respectively, looking at these issues, with anti-competitive oversight, permitting participation by all interested parties, including airlines.

EU is lagging creating a comparable group. Prevailing view seems to be status quo / no special arrangements for UK and friends.

Planesmart wrote:

Boom times for consultants, analysts, lawyers, accountants and lobbyists, on both sides of the Atlantic.

There are already working groups in the UK and USA respectively, looking at these issues, with anti-competitive oversight, permitting participation by all interested parties, including airlines.

EU is lagging creating a comparable group. Prevailing view seems to be status quo / no special arrangements for UK and friends.

No, the EU isn't lagging. It's the UK who chose to leave EU, not EU-27 which excluded the UK.

EU27 will, after brexit, continue to operate according to EU rules. The UK not. The EU countries interact with some 170 non-EU countries, some with special agreements, some without. After brexit 170 will for EU be 171.

Soft or hard brexit, the UK may ask for special arrangements with EU27, permanent or temporary for a defined changeover period, and EU27 may approve or refuse.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

In the vast majority of cases I fully expect the outcome to be neither as rosy as some hope nor as devastating as some believe (hope?). Equally, this being the EU it will come down to various all night negotiating sessions right up the deadline with possibly a stopped clock if time's got too short.

That would probably be very poor strategy by Britain. While brexit of course is part of the UK politicians' agenda, then EU27 politicians have their own things to deal with. For them brexit is just irritating overtime work. There will be long periods when some top brass of the larger EU27 countries are unavailable due to upcoming local elections and such. If the British want something other than hard brexit, then it would be clever by them to search and use any time window of opportunity from now on.

Hard brexit needs nothing but the UK deciding a date. It doesn't need to be 29 March 2019, it can be earlier, but not later.

Soft brexit is the UK asking for special relations to the EU like many other of the 170 non-EU countries already did, and EU27 accepting. Before 29 March 2019.

It is really not so complicated. A hard brexit will of course be challenging for many British or partially British owned companies to deal with, but that's really not an EU27 problem.

prebennorholm wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

In the vast majority of cases I fully expect the outcome to be neither as rosy as some hope nor as devastating as some believe (hope?). Equally, this being the EU it will come down to various all night negotiating sessions right up the deadline with possibly a stopped clock if time's got too short.

That would probably be very poor strategy by Britain. While brexit of course is part of the UK politicians' agenda, then EU27 politicians have their own things to deal with. For them brexit is just irritating overtime work. There will be long periods when some top brass of the larger EU27 countries are unavailable due to upcoming local elections and such. If the British want something other than hard brexit, then it would be clever by them to search and use any time window of opportunity from now on.

It's not the UK's strategy. It's pretty much how intra, and external, EU deals end up being made. The fact that both France and Germany have elections this year will as you say also impact negotiations as outline agreements from those countries will need to wait until those elections are finished. Essentially that was due to the timing of the referendum by the previous prime minister who expected to win the referendum. Nothing much the UK can do about that now.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

It's not the UK's strategy. It's pretty much how intra, and external, EU deals end up being made. The fact that both France and Germany have elections this year will as you say also impact negotiations as outline agreements from those countries will need to wait until those elections are finished. Essentially that was due to the timing of the referendum by the previous prime minister who expected to win the referendum. Nothing much the UK can do about that now.

Yes, but this is neither intra, nor external EU deals waiting to be made. It is UK deals to be made. And I agree, the upcoming French and German election campaigns are not windows of opportunity.

Besides, I'm not sure the British really understand how little of an issue brexit really is on the continent. It is hardly mentioned except when talking about other elections, and then it is like "hopefully the outcome won't be brexit / Trump style", or relief that "Dutch election didn't turn out brexit / Trump style".

"Nothing much the UK can do about that now"... Probably right, but in case some soft brexit version is wanted, she should do her best.

In any case, also after brexit Easyjet, Ryanair and others will have to operate in the EU according to EU rules, or not operate intra EU. Which means 50+% EU ownership. Just like Alitalia will not operate in Italy if they sell more than 49% to Etihad. Or Icelandic/Norwegian/Swiss style agreement with all what that means.

prebennorholm wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Boom times for consultants, analysts, lawyers, accountants and lobbyists, on both sides of the Atlantic.

There are already working groups in the UK and USA respectively, looking at these issues, with anti-competitive oversight, permitting participation by all interested parties, including airlines.

EU is lagging creating a comparable group. Prevailing view seems to be status quo / no special arrangements for UK and friends.

No, the EU isn't lagging. It's the UK who chose to leave EU, not EU-27 which excluded the UK.

I think everyone on here knows the UK instigated exit.

I'm one of the those enjoying a boom in chargeable hours.

EU representatives were to observe/participate in the UK and USA groups, but have declined pending a 29 April EU meeting (for direction) and potentially certain election outcomes.

I think you don't realize that EU has its own administration that totally able to work while countries have their votes. Unless an anti EU is elected somewhere, Eu is a global consensus for all.

Pure speculation from The Guardian (one of the few (the only mainstream) of REMOANERS that exist.
Nobody know for certain what it will happen so it is purely speculation Although the EU has its own administration, it needs consensus and approval of any deal by the member nations (Belgium, as we saw, even count as two - Flanders and Wallonia...).
We have not started negotiations yet, there will be elections in Germany and France (and probably others during these two years) and the outlook for the whole region may shift.
The Guardian tends to be consistently hammering the doom and gloom. Yet, if you can take them, you could also take The Express, The Times and The Mail consistently hammering otherwise.
Let's wait the negotiations start.
Coming back to AVIATION which is the main point here, I expect a deal to be hammered between the EU and the UK pretty swift since both have a lot to lose if they do not agree. You may say that on this particular issue, the UK may have problems but remember: if we do not have a deal on aviation, we may not have a deal elsewhere in retaliation...