LupineChemist

The UK maintains main bilaterals that are grandfathered in from before the ECAA and still require UK ownership. IIRC, this is handled by keeping some shares of BA in a form of a trust.

The ownership structure really shouldn't have to change all that much.

I don't know if owned by an Irish citizen in the UK if that would count toward both as well. U2 can use Stelios' shares and his British and Cypriot citizenships to get around that as an example.

rcspeirs

But surely the bilaterals that used to exist between UK and EU27 and UK and US were cancelled when air services became an EU competency?

orbitmic

If I may, I think that's a bit of a binary way of presenting things, suggesting a bit that it is either total chaos or a smooth continuation of the status quo. I don't think any of us questioning the apparent IAG confidence have suggested some sort of trade third world war or something. In fact, I think that all of us have suggested that at one point a deal will be found, but that 1) that deal may change things significantly for IAG, including in terms of ownership and or some specific types of operations, and 2) that in the hypothesis of a no deal scenario, such a deal might not occur immediately, and that a period of temporary instability or indeed, for example, temporary inability to conduct some operations for BA is not at all out of the question. You talk about self-interest. There would actually be a very low cost for the EU in having a situation whereby BA operations would be disrupted for a short period of time of a few days or weeks. In fact, there would also conceivably be some specific but clear advantages to such a situation (as well as some costs). It wouldn't matter that such operations would be halted for 1, 2, or 4 weeks, the UK would still want and need a deal with the EU, need it very badly in fact. The whole assumption that the Brexit negotiation is a negotiation between equals doesn't hold water for a minute, and the moment you accept that the two negotiating parties are not equal because one stands to pay "a price" in a case of disruption but the other would face "a catastrophic situation" for a period of time which is not quite the same thing, emerges a picture whereby the EU can actually afford temporary chaos (which even makes for good PR back home in terms of the true cost of living) which many UK companies can't.

Beyond that, I also think that institutionally, your analysis somewhat over-estimates the weight of national interests (and more generally intergovernmentalism) in policy making in pillar 1 areas, such as aviation. National interest does find a way to express itself in all of EU decision making, but in such community competencies, those channels are uncertain, slow, and roundabouts. The Commission has genuine autonomy, the EP is a strong co-legislator which will always back solutions based on EU-wide as opposed to national interest, and those outcomes are repeated over and again. In pillars 2 and 3, things are definitely very different but that is not relevant here. The Commission is rule obsessed - in fact, the fact that short term pragmatism has little weight is precisely what Eurosceptics have been reproaching them for ages (though now pretending that they will be short-termly pragmatic! ) It does not mean at all that final outcomes are absurd or irrational (or even sub-optimal, in fact, it is a pretty efficient institution despite popular belief, much more so than many national agencies) but they simply won't cut corner on process to get there.

For what it's worth, I also disagree with you on sending the tone of the EU and UK politicians (notwithstanding Verhofstadt's grossly unhelpful antics, I certainly agree with you on him). More importantly, however, the EU side is more competent and better prepared and manned/equipped for the task while we are still recruiting and even losing key staff on a daily basis in some departments where we absolutely cannot afford to. The British civil service includes a lot of exceptional talent, the civil service is not getting a lot of support from politicians who are suspicious of them. Aviation is in fact a case in point, and my understanding is that many at IAG have in fact long despaired about some relevant UK ministers even understanding their needs and stance. Moreover, many of our politicians are still wholly clueless about the EU institutional system (several current ministers thought that the ECHR was part of the EU till very recently!) and from that point of view what you rightly call "obvious" above is still unclear to them. I think that many UK politicians have been used for so long to our ability to impose pretty much any outcome we wanted in some key EU debates (effectively those surrounding new competencies) precisely because we were the "awkward partner" and our support was needed that the penny has not quite dropped that of our own choosing, we are, precisely, not needed onboard anymore and that the EU has little to no incentive to accommodate our 'demands' in most areas and only will when they overlap their own needs, including in some (but not necessarily all) areas of aviation policy. For instance, my guess would echo Calchas that we will eventually rejoin the ECAA (just as I think we'll end up eventually joining the European Research Area and a few others) but that will come at a (steep) price, and not merely a financial one.

Bleak.

bisonrav

BA/IAG have suggested there is uncertainty and risk around the point of transition, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's largely a matter of conjecture as to what will actually happen, at this stage pretty much all outcomes between staying in the EU and a hard no deal Brexit are possible. So I don't see that I'm suggesting a binary at all. What I actually said was:

"So do I think there is zero risk to BA business? No, and neither does BA/IAG. Do I think I'll be travelling on my inter EU tickets booked for April and beyond next year? Yes, I do."

Let's see what happens. Just like any multinational organisation preparing for Brexit, BA have options which are outside national considerations and ultimately will be planning for worst case scenarios unsentimentally. You're more optimistic than me about the ability of the EU - particularly Southern Europe - to withstand even temporary disruption to trade. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, the most likely outcome is a fudge to the status quo rather than a trade war. I don't buy the apocalyptic scenarios at all.

We agree about the relative merits of the Civil Service and elected politicians incidentally, but I don't see much to admire in the EU leadership either. That is omni territory though.

Globaliser

Is there not, at least in theory, a risk to flights between the UK and non-EU/EEA points too, depending on the legalities of the bilaterals and what arrangements are in place from the end of March 2019?

GUWonder

I would be surprised if they were all cancelled. Often in this kind of area, the pre-existing agreements remain on the books but are irrelevant as long as a newer agreement remains in place to cover or replace aspects from a prior agreement touching upon a given area. I can't speak to these specific agreements at the time, but cleaning up by deleting past laws/regulations/legal agreements/decisions aren't generally pursued all that urgently and diligently by government actors.

NickB

It could be argued that earlier treaties were implicitly abrogated by the conclusion between the same parties of later, incompatible treaties.

LupineChemist

Even if that were the case, Bermuda II would be a total disaster for TATL aviation.

That said, with AA in the JV and VS being Delta UK, I really can't imagine anyway there wouldn't be a huge amount of pressure from the US side to get some solution in quickly.

Worcester

Interesting article (multiple papers covering it)

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-brexit-iag-eu

Sealink

The UKs "position" is that we want a glass of hot water with ice cubes in it. And we don't want the ice cubes to melt.

corporate-wage-slave

We now have the draft text of the Outline of the Political Declaration, setting out the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK. So this would apply after 2020 (or longer, if the "single extension" option beyond that is agreed). All it says about this area, in its entirety is that the UK and EU would seek to establish a:

"Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement, covering market access and investment, aviation safety and security, air traffic management and provisions to ensure open and fair competition"

which I take to mean that the intent is to continue as now, rather than restrict competition via the current ownership rules, given the reference to investment. Obviously there's a long way to go on this one, but at least we have the first glimpse of the direction here.

Akoz

EU announcement today regarding the situation of various thing in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Airlines included.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46617152

In short a British airline could operate into and out of the EU but not within it.

The article does not state though what constitutes a British airline. Ownership, legal home, etc.

Kgmm77

pauldb

Nationality is down to majority ownership and control. IAG has some complicated legal structures that are intended to achieve those requirements for its airlines, but it's not impossible there could be challenges to their validity - either for IB etc flying intra-EU, or from other countries wishing to assess who has right to fly UK- or EU- into their territory.

dajdavies

Apparently the UK has signed deals to allow flights to US and Canada to continue after Brexit

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...ir-arrangement

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...s-arrangements