No deal Brexit. Can someone explain in SIMPLE terms please.

But isn't it also true that there would not be any agreement for any EU airline to be able to land at any UK airport? Therefore for the EU to impose a no land zone for UK aircraft makes no sense.
Possibly, but if the EU did decide to play hard ball, their airlines lose a handful of UK destinations whereas ours lose everything outside of the UK and a few US destinations.

Hard maths shows that the UK would probably give up first.
 

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
But isn't it also true that there would not be any agreement for any EU airline to be able to land at any UK airport? Therefore for the EU to impose a no land zone for UK aircraft makes no sense.
There are treaties etc that might allow UK airlines to fly to France and vice versa. One of the biggest carriers between UK and France though is Ryanair............
 

Phaeton

Guru
Location
Oop North (ish)
Possibly, but if the EU did decide to play hard ball, their airlines lose a handful of UK destinations whereas ours lose everything outside of the UK and a few US destinations.
Hard maths shows that the UK would probably give up first.
But isn't Heathrow the biggest hub in Europe? hence why there is so much effort being put in to build another runway which seems only those with vested interests want.
I'm not trying to defend no deal, but I don't think it is as clear cut as some would have us believe, there would have to be an element of pragmatism employed by both sides, none of this it's my ball & I'm going home.
 
Not to mention that the FAA reports that they simply don't have the time or personnel to implement the regulatory oversight currently within EU competence and the only short and medium term solution is to somehow continue within the EU framework.
(You mean CAA, not FAA)

And yes, my comment was as much about regulatory oversight as about what airlines are allowed to fly where.

Here's the view of the Royal Aeronautical Society, from 2017:

If continued UK membership of EASA cannot be agreed, the UK could empower the UK CAA to discharge all the UK's ICAO responsibilities. This would require the UK CAA to rebuild its competence in the many areas of an NAA's remit which are currently delegated to EASA. Given the large number [around 300] of additional specialist staff needed, and the new systems and processes that would need to be put in place and used by industry, this could not be achieved by March 2019. Most of the specialists who carried out these tasks in the CAA prior to EASA taking them over have gone to EASA, taken on other work at the CAA, or retired. Based on the UK's experience of transference of regulatory responsibility to the European level back in 2002, there is no evidence to suggest that a ‘reverse transfer' back to the UK would be less challenging.
 

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
I'm not trying to defend no deal, but I don't think it is as clear cut as some would have us believe, there would have to be an element of pragmatism employed by both sides, none of this it's my ball & I'm going home.
It's not trying to make a case of for or against, it is undeniable however that there are things that we know will happen in the case of no deal. We will lose access to our trade deals with the EU and associated nations, hauliers will need to have additional paperwork to travel to the continent, the EU will apply tariffs, flights will become more complicated for airlines, we will lose access to Erasmus, holidaying on the continent will not be as straightforward and so on. Every deal and agreement we have through being a member of the EU, trade, science, travel, security, policing etc is lost with no deal, it's in the name. Whether contingency plans will pick up the slack, whether no deal planning and preparation will be sufficient to negate the effects, whether it will be worth it, can all be debated (and already are of course elsewhere) but in a true no deal it is incorrect to say we do not know what will be affected or what will be lost, anything else is a deal.
 
But isn't Heathrow the biggest hub in Europe? hence why there is so much effort being put in to build another runway which seems only those with vested interests want.
I'm not trying to defend no deal, but I don't think it is as clear cut as some would have us believe, there would have to be an element of pragmatism employed by both sides, none of this it's my ball & I'm going home.
I had a quick look: Heathrow is biggest by passenger numbers, Amsterdam has more plane movements (and four more runways) , Frankfurt serves more destinations, Frankfurt and Charles De Gaul have more cargo...

It's swings and roundabouts and if the UK does leave with no deal, it's not entirely in the EU's interests to make another agreement because you can imagine that AMS, CDG and FRA are all quite happy to try and poach some of the international traffic, and airlines can just re-register in an EU country to continue flying in the EU. Heathrow may become a white elephant.

This is part of the problem: the UK is saying "We're better off without you", but forgetting that means that it's setting itself up in competition with EU Businesses, without the advantages of being in the same trading bloc.
 
Last edited:

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
I had a quick look: Heathrow is biggest by passenger numbers, Amsterdam has more plane movements (and four more runways) , Frankfurt serves more destinations, Frankfurt and Charles De Gaul have more cargo...

It's swings and roundabouts and if the UK does leave with no deal, it's not entirely in the EU's interests to make another agreement because you can imagine that AMS, CDG and FRA are all quite happy to try and poach some of the international traffic, and airlines can just re-register in an EU country to continue flying in the EU. Heathrow may become a white elephant.

This is part of the problem: the UK is saying "We're better off without you", but forgetting that means that it's setting itself up in competition with EU Businesses, without the advantages of being in the same trading bloc.
if it would be that easy it would have been done already. Amsterdam is on it's limit in terms of number of flights and noise levels, and i'm sure GDG and FRA have similar problems.
Sure of all the possible exit ways, no deal would be to most damaging that is clear but you're now seem to assume the uk is a big economy on it's own does'nt count.
I would like to point out the wikepedia list below:
Which country has the strongest economy in the EU?
Countries by GDP (nominal)
Rank Country GDP (Millions of US$)
European Union 18,162,109
1 Germany 3,930,000
2 United Kingdom 2,770,000
3 France 2,660,000


Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_and_social_rankings_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe

So claiming the uk won't notice a thing it just as silly as saying the EU won't notice the second biggest eu economy stepping out of the block.
 
Top Bottom