AnthonyQ wrote:
@Silvaire I think you are confusing the old JAA which was a club of individual NAAs….EASA is an aviation authority in it’s own right.
Here’s the list of ICAO contracting states, each one having an individual seat at the table where worldwide aviation issues are debated. This has been much discussed before, but I haven’t so far heard of EASA member states giving up their individual stake in international aviation regulation, and signing their ICAO contracts over to EASA. Maybe something has changed recently, hence my question about EASA’s relevance (or lack thereof?) to truly international regulation of aviation.
Europeans do have a tendency to think of distances of few hundred miles, within continental Europe, as being international. While there are certainly very different cultures to be experienced in that sense of ‘international’ (and BTW I have experienced more of them than most Europeans), and the definition is technically accurate, in terms of its relevance to international aviation regulation or multinational aviation business, I see that as being international in the same way that me taking a day trip to Mexico would be a ‘cosmopolitan multinational vacation’. 
Yes, but it’s a moot point. Each of the 32 EASA member states has given its proxy to EASA….for example the FAA is negotiating a BASA with EASA right now….not the individual members….
@Anthony, you’re probably right, the airlines would probably rather stay unless there’s a financial or operational incentive to leave. However, they may not have a choice. Brexit means exit from EASA, unless we crawl back for membership of the EFTA.
Once out of EASA, we could negotiate an ECAC non-EU SAFA Working Arrangement which would cost HMG a couple of thousand Euros every year.
AnthonyQ wrote:
Each of the 32 EASA member states has given its proxy to EASA….for example the FAA is negotiating a BASA with EASA right now….not the individual members….
I was focused on international aviation, not bilateral treaties. Neither FAA or EASA are international in any real sense, although FAA is in effect more international due to the numbers of N-registered aircraft and pilots worldwide. I don’t personally think the existence of the world as a whole is a moot point when it comes to the UK, and it’s linkage to EASA aviation regulation. If a bilateral treaty with the the US were the only concern, I think based on common language and common legal principles, the U.K. could have it done before EASA… Maybe that’s what’ll happen 
Silvaire wrote:
was focused on international aviation, not bilateral treaties. Neither FAA or EASA are international, although FAA is in effect more international due to the numbers of N-registered aircraft and pilot worldwide.
It’s an interesting question….although I believe to be somewhat moot…there is no doubt that EASA has a very powerful influence on the world stage….equal to or possibly only slightly behind the FAA
Silvaire wrote:
If a bilateral treaty with the the US were the only concern, I think based on common language and common legal principles, the U.K. could have it done before EASA
Well, they could have done that long ago. Instead, they gold-plated all and any regulations emanating from Brussels and added some of their own.
Airlines are not much affected by EASA FCL.
When an airline gets an AOC, that wraps up the FCL stuff.
For example when Continental wants a route from NY to Heathrow, the route and airport slots are negotiated internationally. The airline’s FAA AOC will then be implicitly recognised.
Brexit could affect Easyjet who fly on a UK AOC but when the UK is/was in the EU they could fly all over the EU. Post-Brexit they will need to get an EU AOC, which will involve setting up an operating company in an EU country. Easyjet already have a few of those kicking around… Their chief exec said on TV the other day this is how they would proceed. There are some questions in this department however, hence the drop in their share price
The UK has done a treaty with the FAA many years ago. JAA killed it (officially but not successfully) and later EASA killed it more officially.
Clearly the concept of a bloc of nations pooling their aviation authorities was not contemplated by ICAO…
As far as the thread topic is concerned, Jacko is right in the sense that the UK is currently part of EASA only because it an EU member, and if it wants to be like one of the four existing non-EU members in the future it will require some new UK laws and agreements… I can’t see the UK agreeing (like these four) to have no voting rights so there will need to be some negotiation on the basis that EASA would prefer to retain the UK in order to maintain (or not weaken) its global strength.
Silvaire wrote:
Europeans do have a tendency to think of distances of few hundred miles, within continental Europe, as being international
And that is correct. Distances do not make any difference, it’s the culture and language that makes the difference. International flight is about working in a multicultural, multi linguistic environment. Some companies are very good at it, while others are not. How many languages are the FAA regulations translated to for instance?
AnthonyQ wrote:
Clearly the concept of a bloc of nations pooling their aviation authorities was not contemplated by ICAO…
Nor by international law more generally. And (for better or worse) ICAO is operated by the UN, which operates according to international law.
It’s not clear to me that EU nations have in fact pooled their aviation authorities for negotiations outside of the EU but like most things EU, the EASA situation was created by people without a unified or clearly documented vision of where they were going, and is as a result a mess.
@LeSving, FAA regulations do not need to be translated into languages other than English because (fortuitously for Americans, Canadians, English, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians etc) English is the international language of aviation communication and regulation, including for those operating within Europe. That’s what happens when the culture and language of a very small country (UK) spreads over centuries to countries that end up having the most global influence in technology and communication. If the Norwegians had done the same, we’d all be speaking and writing Norwegian. It is what it is, and the UK should take advantage of it in areas other than financial services. It’s their legacy to take advantage of now, and the world is getting smaller. Europe and the EU is just a small fraction of what the UK must concern itself with internationally.
