I think that must be true, but it sure as hell isn’t worded like that, and is scaring away sellers both in the EU and in the US.
I guess the intermediary outfits have an incentive to scare sellers into joining up into their schemes, because obviously they skim a percentage off the top…
On this point, we (at work) have just had a funny variation of it. A package sent to a customer in Sweden got blocked when it got there, apparently because it looked like a personal import.
It was just the way the postage label was printed. It had the name and company name in one place, and the name only in another. We had to re-do it with the company name (the customer company) in both places.
So this isn’t just the UK screwing around with imports into the UK; it is other (EU) countries screwing around and blocking items sent from the UK to there. B2B is exempt from all this but they seem to be looking out for packages which look “personal”.
But maybe this is now widespread. A package I sent to Hungary recently has vanished… It had a customs declaration on it, saying it contained some screws, no commercial value. It was either stolen (99% usual for Egypt but unusual for Hungary, I would think) or it is sitting somewhere while they work out what to do with it.
From here
Peter wrote:
An N-reg should now rank same as a G-reg, and for a non EU based pilot, the stuff like the often-reported N-reg hits at LFBZ should become pointless.
True apart from the fact you can still fly a G-REG on an EASA license until Dec 31st 2022 when those privileges seize to exist too.
Of course but that doesn’t affect VAT.
Actually I would put money on them continuing it past the 2 years, because it is an obvious “negotiating position” for the CAA, in its continuing negotiation with EASA.
Peter wrote:
Actually I would put money on them continuing it past the 2 years, because it is an obvious “negotiating position” for the CAA, in its continuing negotiation with EASA.
That’s interesting, can you elaborate on why you think that would be the case? EASA is a European agency, I would expect them to a)want as many licensees within their regulatory reach, b) want to have as many planes as possible on EASA reg rather than on G-REG. I would expect further isolation of the UK rather than allowing EASA license holders being allowed to fly G-REG to be an upside.
I would expect further isolation of the UK
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK, though not unusual in the mainland low-end media 
There is no desire for “isolation” from the mainland. Brits love Europe (the mainland, of course, is what I mean). They are probably the biggest travellers to Europe. Brexit doesn’t change this at all. Brexit was an exit from Brussels, only. But I won’t take this further because every time this starts, 50 people think “hey, Peter mentioned the B-word, so it is OK now” and soon you get the usual chaos.
My comment about the 2 years being extended is just the obvious politics, where you delay something for a couple of years, fully expecting it to be “kicked into the long grass” later. This is for example how the Brussels move to kill the IMCR, originally started c. 2008 (I was in some conferences then, listening to the master of disingenuity Eric Sivel) was dealt with. Delay after delay after delay… now solved permanently although nobody expected brexit back then.
Also, more specifically, the CAA accepting EASA papers while EASA is not accepting CAA ones, gives the CAA a moral high ground, and something it can “trade”. Let’s say you and I are two kids trading some pebbles. I have white pebbles and you have grey pebbles (from different beaches). You don’t want to trade any of your pebbles, but I am offering to swap one of mine for one of yours. To an outsider, which of us two looks less mean?
@LFHNflightstudent posts moved to correct (non VAT related) thread
Peter wrote:
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK, though not unusual in the mainland low-end media
What I meant but clearly did not come through is that EU bodies will continue to isolate its geographically closest competitors to expand their influence. I did not mean it the other way around. I genuinely don’t think there is this focus on the UK in Europe at all from the media or the people. What will happen is the dissuasive effects of this divorce (the UK left) will be highlighted on any occasion any of these bodies can.
Peter wrote:
Also, more specifically, the CAA accepting EASA papers while EASA is not accepting CAA ones, gives the CAA a moral high ground, and something it can “trade”. Let’s say you and I are two kids trading some pebbles. I have white pebbles and you have grey pebbles (from different beaches). You don’t want to trade any of your pebbles, but I am offering to swap one of mine for one of yours. To an outsider, which of us two looks less mean?
I hope you’re right but I just don’t think EASA really thinks there is anything to trade or that the EU bodies really care about looking mean. The harder this divorce looks the better until things start moving more towards common ground again I suspect there is going to be significant collateral damage. (look at banking)
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
I would expect further isolation of the UK rather than allowing EASA license holders being allowed to fly G-REG to be an upside.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying: allowing EASA licence holders to fly G-reg is something that is purely in the power of the UK CAA, not EASA.
In the past, the UK CAA has been generous to ICAO licence holders, indeed it was EASA’s size 12 boots that put an end to the CAA’s generosity. It used to be you could fly any G-reg plane with any country’s ICAO license, at least for day VFR or IFR OCAS (appropriate to ratings held) without any extra paperwork or approval, you could just fly. EASA put a stop to this, except for nationally-regulated “Annex 1” aircraft, where this concession not only continued but was expanded (the restriction to day VFR/IFR OCAS went away in the 2016 ANO for annex 1).
I think on the balance of probabilities, the UK CAA may re-introduce that to the aircraft formerly known as “EASA aircraft”. (I believe at present to fly a G-reg non-annex 1 on an ICAO licence (other than EASA) requires some paperwork).
alioth wrote:
allowing EASA licence holders to fly G-reg is something that is purely in the power of the UK CAA, not EASA.
Can EASA not restrict EASA licence holders any way they like?
The fly a particular aircraft on a particular licence surely you need two ‘permissions’ from (or at least, not be forbidden by) the state of aircraft registry and the licence issuer?
So EASA could just say: “our licences are not valid to fly a G-reg anywhere”.
The harder this divorce looks the better until things start moving more towards common ground again
Yes; I agree. Things need to cool down, and the current CV19 stuff is not helping there.
The UK 2 year thing is a start, which costs the UK absolutely nothing and makes it look better. It’s a bit like the FAA which “runs” a huge chunk of the world’s aviation which never goes anywhere near US territory, which costs the US taxpayer a lot of $$$, but which the US Govt has clearly judged (correctly IMHO) over the decades to be supportive of US national interest abroad.
The signs I see and hear is that there is a lot of talk right now between CAA and EASA, and this will be done out of the light of publicity. And this works in both directions; neither side will gain anything by spitting in the other side’s soup first.
the UK CAA may re-introduce that to the aircraft formerly known as “EASA aircraft”.
Probably yes, and of course G-reg only. But probably not in a hurry, due to the current talks and the soup spitting requirement
And it would be politically impossible to make an announcement of an agreement in the current red hot climate – even if things are moving on the ground.
Can EASA not restrict EASA licence holders any way they like?
So EASA could just say: “our licences are not valid to fly a G-reg anywhere”.
They could but they haven’t, and specific “purely vindictive” prohibitions like that are highly unusual. Apart from highly specific things like not recognising German post-Germanwings medicals, I don’t recall ever seeing one. Well, not in FCL. One gets them with airframes, where a VFR-only restriction applies regardless of which reg it ends up on and regardless of where it flies.
