Quite. The decision is sound and consistent with EU law.

Hmm... it really depends. I recall LH wet and dry leasing like crazy in 2003-06 when expansion plans didn't meet aircraft deliveries schedules. You had a LH flight and cabin crew operating ex-SR and SN A330 and Condor crew operating OS/NG B763. The latter had super odd things like a official LH flight number, Condor call sign and OS/*A livery. At one point they removed the 'Austrian' text below on the *A livery, which caused confusion in DEL, where Indian ATC requested LH to paint 'Lufthansa' on the *A livery.

Bottom line: getting cabin crew to operate on BA aircraft requries a short training... remember cabin crew are allowed to fly after about 6 weeks of basic training...

No, I am sure that it was taken to meet an objective. :D

Utter tosh. If the CAA had decided that BA's circumstances were not exceptional then it could and would have had to reject the application. If the Government had wanted to prevent Qatar planes being used for political reasons then it could have prevented the wet lease.

There are plenty of reasons in law that the application could have been refused. It was only that the CAA and DoT decided that they wouldn't object.

Utter tosh? That is a very bold, and rather naive, assertion from a layperson. You are wrong. Your interpretation of the Regulation is too narrow, too simplistic and subjective. Your assertion that the CAA's advice to the DfT is anything but objective is absurd and is based on your own personal viewpoint rather than law or fact.

Exactly what is the legal basis that would allow the DfT to refuse the application? Which part of the DfT's decision is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Regulation? Upon what evidence do you rely to assert the CAA and the DfT disregard the issues you mention in your post supra?

The DfT did not object to the request as there was no basis in law to do so in all the circumstances of the application.

I think that much is fair to say.
The CAA has made similar comments in the past.

It sounds to me that the CAA doesn't really like the protectionist aspect of the European aviation market and would do away with the rule altogether if they could.

:rolleyes:

This is probably a good reason for BA to standardise BA/Iberia/Vueling/Aer Lingus aircraft such that they could in theory bring in crew from another area of the IAG business who would already have the training for their style of aircraft.

There's another point here. Once/if Brexit becomes a reality, what then for the non-EU lease debate? :p

Is suspect that penny might well be dropping with a few people in positions of legislative authority.

Yes this is already in progress, albeit slowly.

To be honest I don't think anyone in a position of legislative authority will have much time to think about wetleasing rules :D

It depends. If the UK joins the European Common Aviation Area, which would be the easiest way to resolve the many legal problems that would be faced by British-owned airlines trying to fly within the EU, then parties to the treaty are required to make European regulations on aviation "part of their internal legal order".

i.e., exactly the same as now, but with no input into the legislative process.

BA957 from MUC was supposed to be a QR operated bird but was swapped at the last minute back to BA metal. There are some disgruntled looking passengers in row 14 who thought they had bagged a QR exit row only to find themselves in a regular BA middle seat :)

To make matters worse, the flight is over 90 minutes delayed.

Do they not trust the Qatar pilots to park ?? .. Flew back on the BA883 from Kiev today .. pleasant flight on the purple airbus ... but when we arrived at Heathrow we stopped on the taxiway at the North End of the C gates .. then shut everything down and the captain announced we were waiting for a tug to come and tow us on to stand - eventually one showed up and pulled us along the far side of the C gates to a remote stand opposite them on the South End ( by the old fuel tanks ) .. Looked like a normal looking stand - not sure why self parking wasn't an option and we had to get the valet (tug!)

That and the usual messing around with buses took some of the good out of an otherwise pleasant flight ... more curious though as to why this was the case - I can only recall something like this occasionally before at some US Airport ( maybe the old terminal in LAX?) where it was very tight and they towed the aircraft the last bit of the way onto the gate .. never seen it at LHR before

Pure speculation, but it could be a mechanical failure he was keeping quiet about? The only time this has happened to me was after a partial hydraulics failure in flight.

Could be failure of the stand guidance system?

EDIT: actually maybe they would have just got a ground marshaller if that was the case

Perhaps the docking guidance lights weren't working?


[*snap*, KARFA] :)

How will I know if our flight to KRK has been subbed for a QR aircraft? Is it a case of rocking up at the gate and seeing what's there?