Brexit e possibili ripercussioni sul mondo dell'aviazione

[AZ209]

Anche il Primo Ministro Irlandese sta perdendo la pazienza.

BRITISH AIRLINES COULD BE BANNED FROM IRELAND'S AIRSPACE AFTER BREXIT, IRISH PRIME MINISTER WARNS
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...and-leo-varadkar-chris-grayling-a8456216.html

 

[AZ209]

UK confirms no-deal Brexit would limit CAA certificates' validity

The UK government has warned that if the country leaves the EU without an agreement, certificates issued by the country's Civil Aviation Authority under the European Aviation Safety Agency regulations might not be valid in the bloc after March 2019.
Today, CAA licenses and approvals for aerospace manufacturers, aircraft operators, maintenance providers, crew members and training organisations are issued under EASA regulations and have validity across the EU and those non-member states that participate in the EASA system, such as Norway and Switzerland.
In a series of technical notices published on 24 September, the UK government says that in a no-deal scenario, EU aviation safety legislation will be "retained and applied by the UK as domestic law" through the European Union Withdrawal Act approved by the nation's parliament earlier this year.
The government intends to keep EASA certificates for UK-registered aircraft – whether issued by the CAA or other EASA member states' regulators – valid for a transitional period up to two years.
"At the end of two years (or sooner if the certificate expires during the intervening period), new certificates issued by the CAA under UK legislation would be required," says the government. But it notes that "the EU has indicated that it would take a different approach to the UK", and that "certificates previously issued by the CAA before exit day would no longer be automatically accepted in the EASA system after 29 March 2019".
The government adds: "The UK encourages the EU to take reciprocal action in recognising UK-issued certificates."
Regarding certification of aircraft parts, "UK-registered aircraft can still be fitted with new parts certified in accordance with EU rules prior to exit day" during the transitional period. But as it currently stands, "parts manufactured and certified by organisations approved by the CAA could not be installed on EU-registered aircraft".
The government notes that "affected organisations could be approved as third-country production organisations by EASA", but adds: "EASA has yet to provide the details for how and when it would process applications from UK manufacturers in advance of the UK leaving the EU."
EASA pilot licenses will remain valid for operation of UK-registered aircraft for the transitional period, though the CAA "must validate such a licence for it to be used in the international operation of a UK-registered aircraft".
However, "pilots wishing to operate an aircraft registered in the EASA system must hold an appropriate licence issued, or validated, in an EASA state".
Similar limitations would apply to cabin-crew attestations and maintenance licenses.
Citing statements by the European Commission, the government says: "Existing [cabin crew] attestations issued by a CAA-approved organisation would no longer be valid for use with EU operators after exit day. Cabin crew working for EU operators would need to hold a valid attestation issued in an EU country."
Maintenance licences issued by the CAA will "no longer be valid in the EASA system after exit day", says the government. "This means that UK-issued Part-66 licences would no longer be valid for the performance of maintenance on aircraft registered in an EASA member state."
If the UK were not part of the EASA system after Brexit, the CAA will be responsible for ensuring oversight of aircraft designed and manufactured in the UK and for providing other nations' regulators with relevant information.
The government acknowledges that "elements of this function have formally been assigned to EASA" today, but asserts that "the CAA has maintained capability in this area and is actively building the resources, systems and processes to perform these functions".
In a no-deal scenario, EU operators will become foreign carriers under UK legislation, while UK airlines will become third-country operators in the EASA system.
EU carriers will require a Part-TCO safety authorisation to fly into the country, the government says. But it adds that the CAA would – "in principle" – consider "a valid EASA Air Operator Certificate… as having met the qualifying requirements to hold such an [Part-TCO] approval".
Meanwhile, the government asserts that "EASA has yet to provide the details for how and when it would process applications from UK airlines in advance of the UK leaving the EU".
It adds: "The UK… would expect the recognition of equivalent safety standards to be on a reciprocal basis."
The government insists that negotiations with the EU are "progressing well", and that a no-deal scenario "remains unlikely given the mutual interests of the UK and the EU", but it is "our duty as a responsible government to prepare for all eventualities, including 'no deal'".
It argues that it has "always been the case that as we get nearer to March 2019, preparations for a no-deal scenario would have to be accelerated [and that] such an acceleration does not reflect an increased likelihood of a no-deal outcome.”
The objective is to "minimise disruption and ensure a smooth and orderly exit in all scenarios".
UK aerospace trade association ADS has reiterated its view that "the best outcome for air passengers, airlines and businesses across the aerospace sector is for continued UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency, as set out by the prime minister [Theresa May] in March".
ADS chief executive Paul Everitt states: "Failure to agree a deal will threaten jobs and investment, damage prosperity and disrupt aviation connectivity. Preparations must be stepped up, including discussions between regulators, to make sure we are ready and able to maintain connectivity and vital supply chains in the event of a no-deal Brexit."
FG

 

[londonfog]

Francamente, se avessi vent'anni di meno me ne andrei.

Va anche detto che questo e' il secondo esempio in cui una flessibilita' da parte del Regno Unito (certificati provvisori o validita' della certificazione europea estesa per un paio d'anni a prescindere) non trova riscontro da parte UE.

 

[Paolo_61]

Francamente, se avessi vent'anni di meno me ne andrei.

Va anche detto che questo e' il secondo esempio in cui una flessibilita' da parte del Regno Unito (certificati provvisori o validita' della certificazione europea estesa per un paio d'anni a prescindere) non trova riscontro da parte UE.

Credo sia abbastanza errato guardare solo il nostro orticello. O si arriva a un accordo complessivo, comprendente anche il settore aviation, o per la UE è no deal, con tutte le conseguenze del caso. Per questo a Bruxelles non stanno facendo sconti sui singoli settori.
E il 29 marzo 2019 ormai è dietro l'angolo.

 

[AZ209]

Ulteriore analisi da FG - che condivido e sicuramente non porta ottimismo.



ANALYSIS: No-deal Brexit promises only red tape for airlines

If the publication of the UK government's latest Brexit aviation technical notices gave airlines clarity on anything, it is that they face the prospect of a mountain of red tape and are at risk of being hostages to the two sides' goodwill in the event of a no-deal outcome.
While the Department for Transport (DfT) is at pains to emphasise that the prospect of a no-deal scenario remains "unlikely", its 24 September notices – which cover flight operations, safety and security – paint a picture of a regulatory maze post-March 2019, in which airlines from both the UK and the EU would be forced to not only revalidate many of the certificates they already hold but to navigate new layers of bureaucracy to enjoy today's freedoms.
The notice concerning flights to and from the UK highlights that in the event of a no-deal outcome, UK- and EU-licensed airlines would lose their automatic right to operate air services to one another's jurisdictions and would require individual permissions to do so.
The DfT says the UK would envisage granting the EU airlines' permission to continue operating in such a scenario and "would expect EU countries to reciprocate in turn".
Significantly, the DfT explicitly acknowledges that in the event of these permissions' not being granted, flight disruption between the EU and UK could occur. Such an admission bears out the warnings of Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary, who, since the Brexit referendum , has repeatedly highlighted the risk that aircraft would be grounded after March if no deal were secured.
The tone is quite different from comments by UK transport secretary Chris Grayling, who in October 2017 described it as "inconceivable" that airlines could be prevented from flying between the EU and the UK if no agreement were reached by March 2019.
Another theme that runs through the notice is the requirement for reciprocity and goodwill. The DfT says that in a no-deal scenario, EU airlines would be required to hold a foreign carrier permit as well as a safety authorisation from the UK Civil Aviation Authority called a "UK Part-TCO (Third Country Operator)".
The government says the CAA will consider each application for a UK Part-TCO on a case-by-case basis, but in principle an airline that holds a valid European Aviation Safety Agency air operator's certificate will be considered to have "met the qualifying requirements". The government says it would expect this recognition of equivalent safety standards to be reciprocated by the EU in its granting of Part-TCO authorisations to UK carriers.
UK-licensed airlines will require foreign carrier permits for the countries they wish to operate into, and will need an EU Part-TCO issued by EASA. The DfT points out that EASA has yet to detail how the process for obtaining this would work, but again the government would "expect" the EU to recognise UK safety standards on a reciprocal basis.
In order to ensure permissions are granted and flights continue, the DfT says its preference would be to agree a basic arrangement or understanding on a multilateral basis between the UK and the EU.
Alternatively, bilateral arrangements between the UK and an individual EU country could be put in place, specifying the conditions under which air services would be permitted. By definition any such agreement would be "reciprocal in nature", it states. It points out that the European Commission has indicated that a bare-bones agreement on air services would be "desirable in the event of the UK leaving with no deal".
In the event of no deal, the DfT acknowledges that UK airlines will lose the ability to operate intra-European routes, and EU carriers will similarly lose their ability to fly domestic routes within the UK.
As far as operating licences are concerned, the DfT says all licences issued before exit would remain in place and that the UK has no plans to impose new nationality restrictions on the conditions of an operating licence. It makes no mention of how the EU might approach the issuing of operating licences to UK airlines.
EU-registered airlines with "significant investment from or ownership by UK nationals" will need to consider how they square this with EU rules' requirement that they be majority owned and controlled by European nationals.
In a reaction to the notices, IATA director general Alexandrew de Juniac warns that they illustrate the "huge amount of work" that will be required to maintain vital air links.
Securing mutual recognition of existing standards is a process that "cannot happen overnight", he cautions, adding that that even when the task is completed, airlines and governments will face an "administrative burden" that will take time and significant resources.
"While we still hope for a comprehensive EU-UK deal, an assumption that 'it will be all right on the night' is far too risky to accept. Every contingency should be prepared for, and we call upon both the EU and the UK to be far more transparent with the state of the discussions," he says.
UK trade organisation ADS says the notices illustrate the risk of "delay or cancellation" of flights between the UK and EU over disruption to safety certifications. It says the best outcome to avoid this would be the UK's remaining a member of EASA – something that UK prime minister Theresa May has previously said the nation will strive towards.
The notices illustrate that the UK is seeking to put in place as frictionless an aviation regulatory regime for European airlines as possible, even in the event of a no-deal outcome with the EU, but on the condition that the EU does the same.
Such a negotiating strategy – that of assuming the opposing side will look on your proposals in a favourable light and therefore reciprocate – is inherently risky, as illustrated by the cold reception with which May's Chequers plan was met by EU leaders in Salzburg earlier this year.
Thorny issues such as the status of EU nationals in the UK after 2019, the future regulation of the Northern Irish border and access to the single market – major roadblocks in the wider EU-UK Brexit negotiations – may be absent from the talks on future aviation relations between the two sides, but airlines can take little comfort from the no-deal notices.

 

[outlmerge]

La strategia dello spezzatino che vorrebbe lo UK per adesso non funziona. Tra j paesi che contano la Francia e quella che non ha mai potuto sopportare j britannici ( basti pensare ai 2 veti di de Gaulle nel farli entrare ) . I tedeschi e gli olandesi non fiatano visto che ci guadagneranno entrambi. Speriamo che continui cosi.

Credo sia abbastanza errato guardare solo il nostro orticello. O si arriva a un accordo complessivo, comprendente anche il settore aviation, o per la UE è no deal, con tutte le conseguenze del caso. Per questo a Bruxelles non stanno facendo sconti sui singoli settori.
E il 29 marzo 2019 ormai è dietro l'angolo.

Envoyé de mon SM-A510F en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[londonfog]

Credo sia abbastanza errato guardare solo il nostro orticello. O si arriva a un accordo complessivo, comprendente anche il settore aviation, o per la UE è no deal, con tutte le conseguenze del caso. Per questo a Bruxelles non stanno facendo sconti sui singoli settori.
E il 29 marzo 2019 ormai è dietro l'angolo.

Paolo, non e' questione di sconti. Ma di transizione. Certe cose non si possono fare fino a che si e' all'interno dell'UE, per cui estendere la validita' delle autorizzazioni attuali (su ogni settore) per x numero di mesi e' una di quelle cose pragmatiche e sensate che i politici del giorno d'oggi non usano fare

 

[Volvic]

UK confirms no-deal Brexit would limit CAA certificates' validity

The UK government has warned that if the country leaves the EU without an agreement, certificates issued by the country's Civil Aviation Authority under the European Aviation Safety Agency regulations might not be valid in the bloc after March 2019.
Today, CAA licenses and approvals for aerospace manufacturers, aircraft operators, maintenance providers, crew members and training organisations are issued under EASA regulations and have validity across the EU and those non-member states that participate in the EASA system, such as Norway and Switzerland.
In a series of technical notices published on 24 September, the UK government says that in a no-deal scenario, EU aviation safety legislation will be "retained and applied by the UK as domestic law" through the European Union Withdrawal Act approved by the nation's parliament earlier this year.
The government intends to keep EASA certificates for UK-registered aircraft – whether issued by the CAA or other EASA member states' regulators – valid for a transitional period up to two years.
"At the end of two years (or sooner if the certificate expires during the intervening period), new certificates issued by the CAA under UK legislation would be required," says the government. But it notes that "the EU has indicated that it would take a different approach to the UK", and that "certificates previously issued by the CAA before exit day would no longer be automatically accepted in the EASA system after 29 March 2019".
The government adds: "The UK encourages the EU to take reciprocal action in recognising UK-issued certificates."
Regarding certification of aircraft parts, "UK-registered aircraft can still be fitted with new parts certified in accordance with EU rules prior to exit day" during the transitional period. But as it currently stands, "parts manufactured and certified by organisations approved by the CAA could not be installed on EU-registered aircraft".
The government notes that "affected organisations could be approved as third-country production organisations by EASA", but adds: "EASA has yet to provide the details for how and when it would process applications from UK manufacturers in advance of the UK leaving the EU."
EASA pilot licenses will remain valid for operation of UK-registered aircraft for the transitional period, though the CAA "must validate such a licence for it to be used in the international operation of a UK-registered aircraft".
However, "pilots wishing to operate an aircraft registered in the EASA system must hold an appropriate licence issued, or validated, in an EASA state".
Similar limitations would apply to cabin-crew attestations and maintenance licenses.
Citing statements by the European Commission, the government says: "Existing [cabin crew] attestations issued by a CAA-approved organisation would no longer be valid for use with EU operators after exit day. Cabin crew working for EU operators would need to hold a valid attestation issued in an EU country."
Maintenance licences issued by the CAA will "no longer be valid in the EASA system after exit day", says the government. "This means that UK-issued Part-66 licences would no longer be valid for the performance of maintenance on aircraft registered in an EASA member state."
If the UK were not part of the EASA system after Brexit, the CAA will be responsible for ensuring oversight of aircraft designed and manufactured in the UK and for providing other nations' regulators with relevant information.
The government acknowledges that "elements of this function have formally been assigned to EASA" today, but asserts that "the CAA has maintained capability in this area and is actively building the resources, systems and processes to perform these functions".
In a no-deal scenario, EU operators will become foreign carriers under UK legislation, while UK airlines will become third-country operators in the EASA system.
EU carriers will require a Part-TCO safety authorisation to fly into the country, the government says. But it adds that the CAA would – "in principle" – consider "a valid EASA Air Operator Certificate… as having met the qualifying requirements to hold such an [Part-TCO] approval".
Meanwhile, the government asserts that "EASA has yet to provide the details for how and when it would process applications from UK airlines in advance of the UK leaving the EU".
It adds: "The UK… would expect the recognition of equivalent safety standards to be on a reciprocal basis."
The government insists that negotiations with the EU are "progressing well", and that a no-deal scenario "remains unlikely given the mutual interests of the UK and the EU", but it is "our duty as a responsible government to prepare for all eventualities, including 'no deal'".
It argues that it has "always been the case that as we get nearer to March 2019, preparations for a no-deal scenario would have to be accelerated [and that] such an acceleration does not reflect an increased likelihood of a no-deal outcome.”
The objective is to "minimise disruption and ensure a smooth and orderly exit in all scenarios".
UK aerospace trade association ADS has reiterated its view that "the best outcome for air passengers, airlines and businesses across the aerospace sector is for continued UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency, as set out by the prime minister [Theresa May] in March".
ADS chief executive Paul Everitt states: "Failure to agree a deal will threaten jobs and investment, damage prosperity and disrupt aviation connectivity. Preparations must be stepped up, including discussions between regulators, to make sure we are ready and able to maintain connectivity and vital supply chains in the event of a no-deal Brexit."
FG

Scusate se provo a capirci qualcosa e provo a chiedere delucidazioni.
Dal 30 Marzo 2019, potrebbe essere che una buona parte se non tutti i voli BA non possano più atterrre in EUropa (aggiungendoci o meno anche Svizzera e Norvegia)?
Se così, mi sembrerebbe che BA si troverebbe priva una cospicua parte dei suoi voli feeder su LHR e quindi mi aspetterei che se il p2p non sostenesse/rimpiazzasse abbastanza, tante destinazioni sarebbero in rosso con la gioia della JV nord atlantica.
E sempre BA non potrebbe spostare all'interno di IAG (Aerlingus od Iberia o Level o Vueling) i suoi aereoplani e metterli in EU (ossia "rafforzare gli HUB che ha in Europa con WB a discapito di LHR) se questi non sono certificati EASA e dovrebbe comunque farli operare da lavoratori che possano legalmente lavorare in Europa, corretto ? Quindi niente staff inglese se non con doppio passaporto. Se, ipotizzo senza alcun dato, un BA LHR-XXX operato da un wideboby tipo 787 vedesse crollare il riempimento da 80 a 15 %, IAG non potrebbe spostarlo su MAD e provare a riempirlo almeno con il 65% perso più un qualcosina di p2p local. (certo che equiparare i feeder di MAD a quelli di LHR non è proprio correttissimo )

grazie per la pazienza.

 

[AlicorporateUK]

Che dire, interesting times ahead...

G

 

[13900]

Scusate se provo a capirci qualcosa e provo a chiedere delucidazioni.
Dal 30 Marzo 2019, potrebbe essere che una buona parte se non tutti i voli BA non possano più atterrre in EUropa (aggiungendoci o meno anche Svizzera e Norvegia)?
Se così, mi sembrerebbe che BA si troverebbe priva una cospicua parte dei suoi voli feeder su LHR e quindi mi aspetterei che se il p2p non sostenesse/rimpiazzasse abbastanza, tante destinazioni sarebbero in rosso con la gioia della JV nord atlantica.
E sempre BA non potrebbe spostare all'interno di IAG (Aerlingus od Iberia o Level o Vueling) i suoi aereoplani e metterli in EU se questi non sono certificati EASA e dovrebbe comunque farli operare da lavoratori che possano legalmente lavorare in Europa, corretto ? Quindi niente staff inglese se non con doppio passaporto.

grazie per la pazienza.

Ni, almeno secondo me.

In soldoni vorrebbe dire che la CAA inglese sarebbe come l'FAA americana verso l'UE, e ci dovrebbe essere una specie di accordo di equiparazione tra le due (per esempio, ci sono tavole comparative che spiegano cosa puo' fare un B1 engineer EASA, e a cosa corrisponde il B1 nell'ordinamento FAA. CAA e EASA dovrebbero fare qualcosa del genere... ma ovviamente non e' stato fatto nulla fin'ora, per cui sara' come al solito un casino.

 

[Volvic]

Ma senza alcun accordo, "io non riconosco te e tu non riconosci me", mi stupirebbe che senza un atto di buona volontà ("abbiamo scherzato, per xx mesi facciamo finta di nulla mentre ci pensiamo") qualcosa di non più verificato, ossia riconosciuto, potesse volare tra UK ed EU. Perchè ? Perchè ad esempio non vedo chi si prenda il rischio di esporsi a problemi assicurativi in caso di "problemi" di una certa rilevanza.

E grazie mille per la spiegazione riguardo tabelle comparative.

 

[enorloz]

Ni, almeno secondo me.

In soldoni vorrebbe dire che la CAA inglese sarebbe come l'FAA americana verso l'UE, e ci dovrebbe essere una specie di accordo di equiparazione tra le due (per esempio, ci sono tavole comparative che spiegano cosa puo' fare un B1 engineer EASA, e a cosa corrisponde il B1 nell'ordinamento FAA. CAA e EASA dovrebbero fare qualcosa del genere... ma ovviamente non e' stato fatto nulla fin'ora, per cui sara' come al solito un casino.

mi intrometto nella discussione dopo aver letto le considerazioni della brexit senza accordo.
Ritengo UK il paese ideale per poter crescere nel settore della manutenzione, se avessi la possibilità andrei senza problemi in qualche mro inglese per accumulare esperienza e ottenere una licenza cat A/B1/B2.
Ora però con questa noia della brexit tutto potrebbe essere più complesso, il gioco vale ancora la candela?

 

[13900]

mi intrometto nella discussione dopo aver letto le considerazioni della brexit senza accordo.
Ritengo UK il paese ideale per poter crescere nel settore della manutenzione, se avessi la possibilità andrei senza problemi in qualche mro inglese per accumulare esperienza e ottenere una licenza cat A/B1/B2.
Ora però con questa noia della brexit tutto potrebbe essere più complesso, il gioco vale ancora la candela?

[OT] Non sono ingegnere, ma conosco l'ambito e le manovre di mercato qui, per svariati motivi. Se tu non hai esperienza in materia, le compagnie aeree offrono programmi di apprendistato, da cui si parte da zero per arrivare almeno al livello di meccanico. Brexit, pero', sara' un limite all'accesso a questi programmi.

Cio' detto, l'altro problema sono sia i tempi sia il mercato. Il modello della compagnia aerea che ti offriva un buon apprendistato, e poi col tempo ti faceva diventare B1/B2, si e' inceppato. Flybe, notoriamente molto buona, ha praticamente smesso di farne; Virgin cresce molto poco; in BA sono stati assunti talmente tanti apprendisti che c'e' un 'collo di bottiglia'; per ogni posto su un corso B1/B2 ci saranno almeno 15 persone in lista, e la progression e' uno dei primi punti dolenti per questi ragazzi. Inoltre, in CAA sono i talebani dell'applicazione delle regole. Non mi ricordo esattamente i numeri, ma se un B1 richiede sei mesi di lavoro in hangar, CAA (e di riflesso BA Quality) ne chiede nove. E' un po' meglio in heavy maintenance a Cardiff o Glasgow, meglio organizzate e meno 'schizofreniche'. Le varie MRO, vedi Carbon60, spendono pochissimo in training, e per lo piu' cercano o ex veterani RAF, oppure si stanno specializzando nel prendere fuoriusciti dalle ME3.

Non conosco quanti anni hai e che esperienza hai, ma il mio consiglio e' - se puoi - di provare o nelle heavies a BAMC e BAMG; altrimenti guarda in giro per l'Europa. [/OT]

 

[enorloz]

[OT] Non sono ingegnere, ma conosco l'ambito e le manovre di mercato qui, per svariati motivi. Se tu non hai esperienza in materia, le compagnie aeree offrono programmi di apprendistato, da cui si parte da zero per arrivare almeno al livello di meccanico. Brexit, pero', sara' un limite all'accesso a questi programmi.

Cio' detto, l'altro problema sono sia i tempi sia il mercato. Il modello della compagnia aerea che ti offriva un buon apprendistato, e poi col tempo ti faceva diventare B1/B2, si e' inceppato. Flybe, notoriamente molto buona, ha praticamente smesso di farne; Virgin cresce molto poco; in BA sono stati assunti talmente tanti apprendisti che c'e' un 'collo di bottiglia'; per ogni posto su un corso B1/B2 ci saranno almeno 15 persone in lista, e la progression e' uno dei primi punti dolenti per questi ragazzi. Inoltre, in CAA sono i talebani dell'applicazione delle regole. Non mi ricordo esattamente i numeri, ma se un B1 richiede sei mesi di lavoro in hangar, CAA (e di riflesso BA Quality) ne chiede nove. E' un po' meglio in heavy maintenance a Cardiff o Glasgow, meglio organizzate e meno 'schizofreniche'. Le varie MRO, vedi Carbon60, spendono pochissimo in training, e per lo piu' cercano o ex veterani RAF, oppure si stanno specializzando nel prendere fuoriusciti dalle ME3.

Non conosco quanti anni hai e che esperienza hai, ma il mio consiglio e' - se puoi - di provare o nelle heavies a BAMC e BAMG; altrimenti guarda in giro per l'Europa. [/OT]

[OT] volevo mandarti un messaggio privato ma hai la casella piena [OT]

 

[OneShot]

easyJet sta reclutando personale da addestrare nell'ambito della tecnica e maintenance ab initio. Controlla i job posting sul loro sito.

 

[AZ209]

Moody's warns of airline credit risk in event of no-deal Brexit

Ratings agency Moody's has warned that the UK's withdrawal from the European Union without a deal would be a "significantly credit-negative" event for European airlines.
In a newly published report, the agency forecasts that a no-deal outcome would have "severe" short-term financial implications for European carriers.
This risk becomes more "modest" in the long term, as time should allow for comprehensive agreements to be reached and airlines to adjust their operations.
Moody's identifies five main risks to EU airlines from a no-deal outcome.
One is the risk that traffic rights between the UK and the European Common Aviation Area could be lost.
Likewise, traffic rights between the UK and other third countries that have aviation agreements with the EU, including the USA, are at risk.
Further risk arises from the need to meet ownership and control conditions in order to retain valid operating licences.
Additionally, a question mark hangs over the UK's continued membership in the European Aviation Safety Agency and certifying compliance with internationally recognised safety requirements.
Finally, there is the risk of weaker macroeconomic conditions.
The report's author Jeanine Arnold – a Moody's vice-president and senior credit officer – says a no-deal scenario could interfere with an airline's ability to increase yields, raise load factors and generate cost efficiencies. "Ultimately, it could lead to cash-flow and liquidity pressures," she notes.
British Airways, EasyJet, Ryanair, Thomas Cook, TUI and Virgin Atlantic are identified in the report as being some of the "most exposed" carriers in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
It points out that the "strong liquidity" of BA, EasyJet and Ryanair should enable them to weather the financial impact of a no-deal Brexit, even if flights are disrupted for an extended period. However, for airlines negatively affected by a no-deal Brexit, a sustained deterioration in liquidity and key credit metrics such as "gross leverage" or cash-flow coverage could lead to negative rating actions, the Moody's report warns.
"Broadly, an airline will be less exposed if it has a more flexible operating model and cost structure, greater network diversification and scale, and has begun to implement contingency measures," it states.
Moody's says Norwegian is less exposed to the risks it has identified, but believes the Scandinavian airline's "very weak liquidity" leaves it more sensitive to flight disruption or macroeconomic factors.
FG

 

[AZ209]

UK air operator's certificate not a necessity post-Brexit: KLM

KLM is no longer considering reactivation of a dormant UK airport operator's certificate to ensure continued market access in the case of a no-deal Brexit.
In February, Warner Rootliep – managing director of KLM's Cityhopper regional unit – told FlightGlobal that reactivating the AOC of the Dutch airline's former subsidiary KLM UK was being considered as a means of maintaining traffic rights and operational approvals.
But he says the airline has since verified that about 40 UK-based Cityhopper pilots can continue flying with their existing European Aviation Safety Agency licences after Brexit.
Rootliep was speaking with FlightGlobal at the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) general assembly in Edinburgh on 10 October.
As the 40 pilots have completed training in the Netherlands – under the regulatory oversight of the country's human environment and transport inspectorate, ILT – their licences will continue to be recognised by EASA, he says.
In September, the UK government warned that certificates issued by the Civil Aviation Authority under EASA regulations might not be valid in the bloc in case of a no-deal Brexit.
In such a scenario, KLM's traffic rights and UK network would "hardly" be affected, says Rootliep, though he acknowledges that the carrier would not be able to continue all of its existing codeshares.
He believes the "biggest risk" for KLM lies in the potential impact of Brexit on passenger transfers at Amsterdam Schiphol.
Rootliep describes the prospect of having to introduce additional customs procedures at the hub as a "nightmare", and says that talks with the airport operator are ongoing.
The majority of KLM's passengers transfer between flights at Schiphol. FG
FlightGlobal schedules data shows that KLM's mainline and Cityhopper divisions fly to a total 17 UK destinations from the carrier's Amsterdam hub.

 

[Rasmus]

La cosa sta prendendo una strana piega. La Commissione sta aprendo a concessioni che nessuno dei cakeists si sarebbe mai sognato. Se gli riconoscono certificazioni e diritti di traffico incluso il cabotaggio altro che no cherry picking.

 

[Cesare.Caldi]

Di riflesso alla Brexit sarà interessante capire cosa accadrà ai voli Linate-Londra, da fine marzo essendo l'UK extra UE sono vietati e andrebbero trasferiti in altri aeroporti.

 

[AZ209]

Nota di Ryanair a margine della presentazione della semestrale.

The risk of a hard (“no-deal”) Brexit in March 2019 is rising. While we hope that a 21-month transition agreement from March 2019 to December 2020 will be implemented (and extended), we remain concerned that the time to complete such an agreement is shortening. In the event of a hard Brexit our UK shareholders will be treated as non-EU. In such an event the Board will restrict the voting rights of all non-EU shareholders (and confine them to selling shares only to EU nationals) to ensure that Ryanair remains majority owned and controlled by EU shareholders. We have applied for a UK AOC to protect our 3 domestic UK routes and are on track to receive it before the end of 2018.