How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Tuna said:
More on Airbus:
May 2015
Did you not consider this when you voted? I 'think' it could equally apply to other employers within the UK. And I don't think it is an unreasonable position to take either.May 2015
Express said:
UK boss Paul Kahn said he thought it was "vital" firms took a view on a possible "Brexit" following a promised in-out referendum on EU membership.
The move could put 17,000 UK Airbus jobs at risk, including 4,000 in Filton, near Bristol, and 6,000 at its wing-manufacturing plant in Broughton, north Wales.
April 2016The move could put 17,000 UK Airbus jobs at risk, including 4,000 in Filton, near Bristol, and 6,000 at its wing-manufacturing plant in Broughton, north Wales.
BBC said:
Paul Kahn, the president of Airbus UK, has explained why the company has written to all of its 15,000 employees setting out its support for staying in the EU.
He told the BBC the company was not telling its staff how to vote in June's referendum and the business would continue to make aircraft parts in the UK whatever the result.
January 2017He told the BBC the company was not telling its staff how to vote in June's referendum and the business would continue to make aircraft parts in the UK whatever the result.
Independent said:
The boss of aircraft giant Airbus has warned that his company would be “entering a dangerous phase” if the UK’s vote to leave the European Union disrupts the movement of people and products.
I'm spotting a theme here from the France based, European multinational company... I wonder if anyone has been 'guiding' them...BBC said:
Mr Barnier was giving an update on Brexit on Thursday to a meeting in Brussels ...
He stressed that the EU did not want to "punish" the UK for leaving the bloc, but ... named the Airbus wings plant, which employs 6,000 at Broughton, Flintshire, as the type of operation which depended on integration with continental Europe.
He stressed that the EU did not want to "punish" the UK for leaving the bloc, but ... named the Airbus wings plant, which employs 6,000 at Broughton, Flintshire, as the type of operation which depended on integration with continental Europe.
Tuna said:
I'm sure we were talking about Airbus and the aerospace manufacturing industry...so why are you posting a job advert for airspace negotiations? You do know that building them and flying them are two different things don't you?
Building, flying, medicals, air traffic control, maintenance and regulation of, all falls under EASA.Vanden Saab said:
Mrr T said:
Read the links. It covers more than just flying the aircraft it covers maintenance and I may be wrong but I think the manufacturers are also closely involved in the maintenance of the aircraft which I suspect is needed to fly them.
Ring ring oh hi is that airbus... Yes it is... Ah good it is BA here we want to buy 20 a380s with a UK maintenance contract... Sorry sir due to brexit we don't maintain aircraft in the UK now... Ah OK bye... Hello is that boeing? f
king hilarious set me up for the weekend that has... Lord.Vader said:
frisbee said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Well that's some good news to wake up to.
Not familiar with where Airbus have sites, should it happen, are there plenty of employers in those areas?
Of course there are. They'll be making similar announcements to get a nice big handout from the government to stay any moment now.Not familiar with where Airbus have sites, should it happen, are there plenty of employers in those areas?
Although, it'll be progressive, they wont just close the site it'll be natural attrition and through ramp down 20+ years.
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
jonnyb said:
Boeing aircraft are certified and maintained under EASA regulations as well, so the removal type certificates and maintenance approvals would apply to Boeing also.
The U.K. CAA can of course issues their own, but they haven’t started that process, and there is no guarantee that the EU would accept certificates issues here.
As things stand now, no UK registered aircraft will be allowed to operate beyond March 2019. All crew licenses and medicals will be invalid, all type certificates, and approvals will also be invalid.
While I hope things will change between now and March, that is how things stand now.
My understanding is:The U.K. CAA can of course issues their own, but they haven’t started that process, and there is no guarantee that the EU would accept certificates issues here.
As things stand now, no UK registered aircraft will be allowed to operate beyond March 2019. All crew licenses and medicals will be invalid, all type certificates, and approvals will also be invalid.
While I hope things will change between now and March, that is how things stand now.
1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Nope. Not buying it. Commercial organisations would never do such things.crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Quite. The company's 'Brexit Assessment' only went as far as saying they would 'consider it's investment and long-term footprint' in the UK if there was a no-deal Brexit.Consider.
But what was the first thing I hear on the Today programme this morning "Airbus is theatening to quit the UK if a trade deal isn't agreed by next March".
I'm no rabid Brexiteer (in fact I voted Remain) but it seems to me that the 'transition period' is being used in large part to extend project fear and attempt to get a large part of the population to change their minds.
Certainly for me, it does the opposite and the more I'm told the country I live in is a worthless slug who'll amount to nothing if we don't continue our marriage to this most abusive of partners, the more I would vote to leave in the (ever more likely) event of another referendum.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Murph7355 said:
Nope. Not buying it. Commercial organisations would never do such things.
Quite, Nissan just went for afternoon tea with the PM.Apparently the smile on Ghosn's face after the meeting concluded signalled a back hander was given, but ///ajd missed the handover of the brown envelope as he was still under the meeting room table.
mike9009 said:
Did you not consider this when you voted? I 'think' it could equally apply to other employers within the UK. And I don't think it is an unreasonable position to take either.
I didn't vote to leave. Nor did I vote for Barnier to use Airbus as his mouthpiece.It's entirely a political position - and the contrast with Boeing is interesting to make. From February:
Boeing said:
When it comes to advanced manufacturing, Boeing’s new production facility in Sheffield is hard to beat. The plant, which is scheduled to open this year, will create spur gears, shafts and housing for Boeing’s next-generation aircraft, including the 737, 737 MAX and 777 planes.
...
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
So Airbus provides constant 'warnings' that it's entire staff are going to be whisked out of the UK if we don't do what they want; Boeing invests in the UK as it's first destination for 'European' manufacturing....
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Quite. The company's 'Brexit Assessment' only went as far as saying they would 'consider it's investment and long-term footprint' in the UK if there was a no-deal Brexit.Consider.
But what was the first thing I hear on the Today programme this morning "Airbus is theatening to quit the UK if a trade deal isn't agreed by next March".
I'm no rabid Brexiteer (in fact I voted Remain) but it seems to me that the 'transition period' is being used in large part to extend project fear and attempt to get a large part of the population to change their minds.
Certainly for me, it does the opposite and the more I'm told the country I live in is a worthless slug who'll amount to nothing if we don't continue our marriage to this most abusive of partners, the more I would vote to leave in the (ever more likely) event of another referendum.
Burwood said:
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Quite. The company's 'Brexit Assessment' only went as far as saying they would 'consider it's investment and long-term footprint' in the UK if there was a no-deal Brexit.Consider.
But what was the first thing I hear on the Today programme this morning "Airbus is theatening to quit the UK if a trade deal isn't agreed by next March".
I'm no rabid Brexiteer (in fact I voted Remain) but it seems to me that the 'transition period' is being used in large part to extend project fear and attempt to get a large part of the population to change their minds.
Certainly for me, it does the opposite and the more I'm told the country I live in is a worthless slug who'll amount to nothing if we don't continue our marriage to this most abusive of partners, the more I would vote to leave in the (ever more likely) event of another referendum.
Mrr T said:
My understanding is:
1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
My expectation is that1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
1. come March 19th, we will not have any form of EASA handover.
2. However, no-one wants to bankrupt Airbus by making their wing manufacturing investment unviable in the short or medium term
3. We'll see some sort of agreement for an eventual long-term co-operation model between the CAA and EASA
4. This will indeed take years.
5. In the mean time there will be some sort of fudge so business can continue as normal.
6. Nothing much will actually change
The point is that the CAA are one of the leading aviation authorities in the world and are likely to continue to be so. The EU does not need any Brexit agreement to deliver immediate compliance/capitulation/implementation, just that a timetable and approximate destination is agreed. Realistically, an organisation that took 18 years to agree terms of mobile phone roaming is not going to suddenly redefine aviation overnight, and the interim solution that the EU tends towards is to do nothing until something is agreed.
The idea that the EU would force a cliff edge break that would harm one of their largest corporations is hard to believe. It says a lot about the political bias of the corporation that in protecting its investment it is only making threats that such a thing could happen to the UK.
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
My understanding is:
1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
My expectation is that1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
1. come March 19th, we will not have any form of EASA handover.
2. However, no-one wants to bankrupt Airbus by making their wing manufacturing investment unviable in the short or medium term
3. We'll see some sort of agreement for an eventual long-term co-operation model between the CAA and EASA
4. This will indeed take years.
5. In the mean time there will be some sort of fudge so business can continue as normal.
6. Nothing much will actually change
The point is that the CAA are one of the leading aviation authorities in the world and are likely to continue to be so. The EU does not need any Brexit agreement to deliver immediate compliance/capitulation/implementation, just that a timetable and approximate destination is agreed. Realistically, an organisation that took 18 years to agree terms of mobile phone roaming is not going to suddenly redefine aviation overnight, and the interim solution that the EU tends towards is to do nothing until something is agreed.
The idea that the EU would force a cliff edge break that would harm one of their largest corporations is hard to believe. It says a lot about the political bias of the corporation that in protecting its investment it is only making threats that such a thing could happen to the UK.
Surely something can be sorted by then.
Tuna said:
mike9009 said:
Did you not consider this when you voted? I 'think' it could equally apply to other employers within the UK. And I don't think it is an unreasonable position to take either.
I didn't vote to leave. Nor did I vote for Barnier to use Airbus as his mouthpiece.It's entirely a political position - and the contrast with Boeing is interesting to make. From February:
Boeing said:
When it comes to advanced manufacturing, Boeing’s new production facility in Sheffield is hard to beat. The plant, which is scheduled to open this year, will create spur gears, shafts and housing for Boeing’s next-generation aircraft, including the 737, 737 MAX and 777 planes.
...
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
So Airbus provides constant 'warnings' that it's entire staff are going to be whisked out of the UK if we don't do what they want; Boeing invests in the UK as it's first destination for 'European' manufacturing....
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
Airbus is a commercial organisation and I accept political/ manufacturing decisions are co-dependent (see Trump) but surely a nation would protect its self interest and self governance (part of the fundamental reason for the Brexit vote). To call foul (or be critical) is a bit of a pot/ kettle/ black scenario.The Boeing move in Sheffield is a great win for British industry, providing 30 jobs for the people of Sheffield with an investment of £20M from Boeing. One main reason was to appease the UK governments purchase of £5Bn worth of Boeing Apache and Poseidon spy planes where the majority of the work will be completed outside of the UK. So maybe a bit of a political move for commercial gain?
Mike
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
My understanding is:
1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
My expectation is that1. The CAA have said it would take years for them to take over the full responsibilities of the EASA so they are not even planning to do so.
2. Even if the CAA was ready for brexit a mutual recognition agreement would need to be signed with the EU. This could not be signed until we exit the EU.
3. TM says she wants the UK to remain a member of EASA. The problem is only an EU (not EEA) country can be a member. Changing the membership rules would take some time.
4. The UK (like Norway) could agree to follow EASA rules but not be a member. This would be easier for the CAA. However, this would mean any related regulations would be subject to the ECJ jurisdiction, a TM red line.
Now I am sure the UK government understands all this and its importance. That why they have decided to recruit someone to carry out the negotiate with the EU. Some suggest appointing someone 18months ago might have been a better idea. But who am I to be a traitor and criticise our great and all powerful TM.
1. come March 19th, we will not have any form of EASA handover.
2. However, no-one wants to bankrupt Airbus by making their wing manufacturing investment unviable in the short or medium term
3. We'll see some sort of agreement for an eventual long-term co-operation model between the CAA and EASA
4. This will indeed take years.
5. In the mean time there will be some sort of fudge so business can continue as normal.
6. Nothing much will actually change
The point is that the CAA are one of the leading aviation authorities in the world and are likely to continue to be so. The EU does not need any Brexit agreement to deliver immediate compliance/capitulation/implementation, just that a timetable and approximate destination is agreed. Realistically, an organisation that took 18 years to agree terms of mobile phone roaming is not going to suddenly redefine aviation overnight, and the interim solution that the EU tends towards is to do nothing until something is agreed.
The idea that the EU would force a cliff edge break that would harm one of their largest corporations is hard to believe. It says a lot about the political bias of the corporation that in protecting its investment it is only making threats that such a thing could happen to the UK.
The bit that is being missed is that there are effectively on two aviation regulatory regimes globally. EASA and FAA. Everyone operates within those frameworks (and they don't differ much).
I'm fairly sure if Burkina Faso can sort it, the UK can.
The CAA rightly state it would take years to create a comparable framework - but don't go on to explain that no one is foolish enough to bother.
Tuna said:
The point is that the CAA are one of the leading aviation authorities in the world and are likely to continue to be so. The EU does not need any Brexit agreement to deliver immediate compliance/capitulation/implementation, just that a timetable and approximate destination is agreed. Realistically, an organisation that took 18 years to agree terms of mobile phone roaming is not going to suddenly redefine aviation overnight, and the interim solution that the EU tends towards is to do nothing until something is agreed.
The idea that the EU would force a cliff edge break that would harm one of their largest corporations is hard to believe. It says a lot about the political bias of the corporation that in protecting its investment it is only making threats that such a thing could happen to the UK.
The CAA have sadly demised over the last decade, now employing a third of the staff it used to prior to EASA. It is now primarily a regulatory enforcement body acting and following the regulations set by EASA. The brain-drain from CAA to EASA has been quite dramatic over the past 15 years with little need to back fill within the CAA. The idea that the EU would force a cliff edge break that would harm one of their largest corporations is hard to believe. It says a lot about the political bias of the corporation that in protecting its investment it is only making threats that such a thing could happen to the UK.
I have our Part 21G surveillance audit next month, and this is being completed by an EASA representative due to some resourcing issues. Our previous surveyor was seconded to EASA some two years ago.
The CAA are now followers rather leaders. (personal opinion.....)
Mike
Mrr T said:
Tuna said:
The point is that the CAA are one of the leading aviation authorities in the world and are likely to continue to be so.
That may have been the case some years ago. They are now just a branch office to EASA.They don't do the regulation design anymore, although are very influential in it, but are one of the very top tier for oversight of the application of the rules by operators.
To the point that's is a pretty tasty consultancy, auditing facilities and operations around the world for easa affiliated operators. A good mate has just been out to Singapore to certify a flight simulator to Level D certification so it can provide easa approved training details. He works for the CAA.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff