johnwvincent

Looking back from ahead

Now, maybe I’ll last until 2040. Sure, as eggs is eggs, I won’t last forever. Looking back from that world ahead, what will we be taking about when we remember the 2010s? What will be then the history of 30 years back. So, today that’s like looking at the 1980s.

Got to make a few assumptions if this is going to make any sense. Technology will have continued its onward march. World population will be about 9 billion. Climate change will be in the News. We will be amazed by the discoveries that science makes.

Just about everything will be more interconnected, interactive and interdependent than ever was imagined. But some people will still be living in the house they grew up in. Some communities will be on the up and others left behind.

What will the social, economic and political world look like in 2040? Perhaps enduring themes will remain our preoccupation. It seems to me that we go through cycles. One time we wish for autonomy, sovereignty and independence. Next time we wish for community, solidarity and union. In time the pendulum swings backwards and forwards.

So, looking back on the late 2010s the UK Brexit experiment is the pendulum hitting the end stops.

Will it be reflected on as good or bad?

I’m going to say bad. One of the key reasons for saying this is that Brexit became an obsession that continued long after the attraction faded. The bigger problems that we all faced were not addressed by Brexit. It became a side show that enthralled the UK but meant little to the rest of the world.

To take a quote from an unlikely hit film of 1994: “You can’t stop progress” (Muriel’s Wedding). By the way, that didn’t work out so well for Muriel’s father who took pride in trying to get rich from corrupt deals. Perhaps a more erudite quotation is in order: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”. George Bernard Shaw.

If advice from 2040 comes flying through a worm hole in space and time it will be: change direction in 2018 because Brexit will just mean disappointment. Work on the worlds real problems.

Brexit & Aviation 25

Changing perspectives on Brexit, I’ll consider it more from the point of view of being an air passenger. I’ve written about aviation’s regulatory framework and the impacts on industry, but I fly too. So, what’s likely to change with the passing of March 2019?

Today’s UK News is about the UK-based airline Virgin Atlantic and their story on ques at London Heathrow airport[1]. On 6^th July, non-EU visitors had to wait for up to 2 hours and 36 minutes at Heathrow. That’s a lot to add to the end of a long-haul flight. Brits may be accustomed to queuing, but it annoys and frustrates most people.

I’m lucky. I have a shiny new British passport with the words “European Union” on the front cover. As a British passenger, I can use the electronic passport gates which currently are open to EU passengers.

Currently Europe’s busiest airport, that’s the EU’s busiest airport isn’t offering good services to non-EU visitors. Will this change after March next year? Or will EU passengers get more hassle than they do now? There’s media speculation about a Brits only immigration line at airports but what could that possibly mean in reality? No one knows.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004[2] isn’t liked much by the aviation industry but passengers have been happy to see this legislation enacted. Now, will an Air Transport deal between the EU and UK include consumer rights such as flight delay compensation? Even if the intent of this Regulation is copied into UK law it wouldn’t be much good applied to non-UK airlines. I understand that Switzerland participates in 261/2004. So, it should be possible for a post-Brexit UK to participate in the legislation. This needs to happen otherwise British passengers delayed by EU airlines will not be appropriately compensated. A notice to this effect has been published.

When traveling we like to keep in touch with family, friends and colleagues. Today we get mobile phone roaming in the EU at domestic prices. This requires continued regulation of prices by UK and EU networks. Will this end? No one knows.

The UK Government continues to say: “Our focus is making a success of Brexit and attempting to get the best deal possible. A deal that is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. And one that takes in both economic and security cooperation.”

Flying to and from the UK may change after March 2019. Unless the above issues are fully addressed the experience maybe a lot worse than it is today. So, be prepared.

[1] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-airports-virgin-atlantic/heathrow-airport-passport-queues-reached-two-and-a-half-hours-in-july-data-idUKKBN1KY0PC

[2] Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights……………………….

West Side Story – PROM 39

My 5^th BBC PROM for the year turned out to be an absolute sensation. PROM number 39 was the John Wilson Orchestra performing Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story.

Luckily, I got one of the limited number of promming tickets that went on sale at 9 on Saturday morning. I was standing in the arena of the Royal Albert Hall on the west side, naturally enough. To a packed Albert Hall, the performance kicked-off at 8 pm.

Ross Lekites took the part of Tony. Mikaela Bennett was Maria. The two were perfectly matched. There was back-up from an ensemble of London theatre school students all dressed in white tee shirts.

Last night was a rare presentation of the theatre score as an authorised concert version. This does compress the story considerably. In fact, the evening ends abruptly as Tony is suddenly shot. This wasn’t about dance or detailed stories but about the fantastic songs and the wonderful music. For a couple of hours, the Albert Hall became Manhattan’s Upper West Side in the 1950s.

Oddly contemporary, racial animosity and gang warfare aren’t something that was left in the 50s and 60s. Although this was a hugely uplifting performance, the story is one of tragedy. A tragedy like the gangs and hideous knife crime of these times.

I remember snippets of the film of West Side Story. The film followed the the shows success in 1961, so that’s been around nearly as many years as I have. It was a film that was part of the Sunday TV matinees of my childhood.

The musical plays on the story of Romeo and Juliet. Its themes will remain popular for as long as there’s youth, conflict, innocence and love. Every song is memorable. Only a heart of stone would not be moved by moments of the plot. Last evening ended all too soon. A special moment in time. A BBC PROM that we can be thankful made it on to this year’s calendar.

Brexit & Aviation 24

Like it or not, the holiday season will end. Facts are incontrovertible. The UK and EU have just a few months to finish a Withdrawal Agreement. This is to allow for scrutiny and ratification in both the UK and the EU’s 27 Member States. A Withdrawal Agreement must be signed in October and that’s just days away.

Let’s look at one more civil aviation issue. The continuing airworthiness of a civil aircraft is dependent on the exchange of information between authorities and organisations across the globe. This is flow of information is practically improved if working arrangements or bilateral agreements exist between Countries. These are built on mutual interest, trust and a long-established familiarity with each other’s regulatory systems.

Yes, the duties of Countries under their obligations as signatories of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, dated 7th December 1944 (known as the “Chicago Convention”) exist but these are the basics and even then, those basics are often given scant regard.

In the 1970s, some European civil aviation authorities started to co-operate to produce common “Joint Airworthiness Requirements.” Even before the 1990 Cyprus arrangement[1] in Europe, both the US and European authorities had been working to harmonise rules and reduce duplication of regulatory activities.

Today, a mature EU-US bilateral is in place. So, if a British manufacture wishes to export an aviation product to the US it can do so with relative ease. As per Subpart G 21.A.163 of Commission Regulation 748/2012, the holder of a production organisation approval may issue authorised release certificates (EASA Form 1) without further showing. That EASA Form 1 is then recognised in the US.

The Treaty’s Article 50 clock stops at the end of March 2019. It’s reasonable to ask the question; what Authorised Release Certificate will be used in the UK after that date and will it be recognised?

Anyone know?

All the loud yah-boo politics, so loved of Westminster, doesn’t offer an answer.

NOTE 1: The EASA Authorised Release Certificate is known as the EASA Form 1.

NOTE 2: The FAA Authorised Release Certificate is known as the FAA Form 8130 -3, Airworthiness Approval Tag^[2]^.

[1] ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT, THE ACCEPTANCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS

[2] Reference: FAA Order 8130.21H—Published August 1, 2013, Effective February 1, 2014.

Is this a new form of politics?

First: Identify an underlying hate or prejudice of a section of the population. Second: say something that will anger and enflame a significant majority of people. Get the mass News coverage. Thirdly: wait and then say “sorry” and get away with it without sanction. Meantime garnish the support of all those who share strong views but are normally unheard.

If reports are to be believed, it seems to work best when focusing on the extremes, either of the conventional left or right in politics. Our rapid news cycles are always looking for their next fix. There’s nothing like a rocking and rolling bandwagon to sell newspapers or increase viewers.

It’s a crude mechanism that polarises public opinion. Chalk or Cheese. Marmite – love it or hate it.

This is a real dilemma for the traditional centrist politicians. It becomes difficult to use words like: compromise, consensus and cooperation. In our heart of hearts, we all know that things get done when people pull together around a common goal. We all pine for better performing public services and greater customer care from private companies but we are not helping? I think not.

The political blame game polarises public opinion. Easy enough to do when faced with zero accountability and gaping great failures – the railways have been doing that in recent times.

However, if the blame game is the only game in town we’ve come to a real crossroads. It’s almost impossible to learn and put things right if there’s a constant risk of getting shot at. Who wants to take on difficult, almost intractable problems if just by doing so you become the target of hate and prejudice? The blame game just drives repeated failure.

There was a time when our British adversarial system challenged people to come up with better arguments or better solutions to problems. What we are seeing now is that maybe it had had its day. The adversarial system, in this social media age is like fuel to a fire. It’s just another way of burning down the house instead of putting out the fire.

Fine. Pointing out the issues creates lots of good talking points. Now, what is to be done?

For a start, centrist politicians must become less reactive and more radical. Tap into positive emotions. Bin technical words like compromise, consensus and cooperation. Talk about teamwork and us pulling together. Cite great achievements like the 2012 London Olympics.

Hope not fear. Bringing down walls not putting them up. Getting News coverage for fundamental changes. Looking to the future rather than always rehashing the past.

Brexit & Aviation 23

Hearing hard core Brexiters herald statements from IAG S.A.[1] about working though Brexit is strange to say the least. By the way, if you’ve never heard of them the International Airlines Group was created in 2011, is one of the world’s largest airline groups and includes British Airways. It’s a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London and Spanish Stock Exchanges. IAG operational headquarters is in London.

At the point of the 2016 UK referendum IAG shares took a hit. Ever since then there has been a consistent recovery in their position. Brexit, or no Brexit they are well placed on both sides of the fence. Today, their airlines have Air Operator Certificates (AOCs)[2] in the EU. After the end of March next year its likely those AOCs will remain unchanged. The basis for their UK operators validity will shift from European Regulation to National Legislation.

Despite the high level of integration of the European aviation market place there is no single European registry of aircraft. Each ICAO Contracting State has its own aircraft registry.

However, to fly into the EU all non-EU aeroplane operators must have a Third Country Operators (TCO) authorisation[3]. This is a way of ensuring that non-EU aeroplane operators are compliant with all applicable technical standards of the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.

In the EU the authorities undertake ramp inspections of aeroplanes in operation.

Naturally, after the end of March next year aeroplane operators who transition from being EU operators to non-EU aeroplane operators will need a TCO authorisation. In theory, this should be an administrative matter since the transitioning operators already meet the applicable standards.

The TCO authorisation process can require that an audit be performed at the operational premises of the aeroplane operator. This is one of the tasks undertaken by the European Agency EASA.

It’s worth noting that the TCO only considers the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment, whereas operating permits (commercial traffic rights) are issued by individual EU Member States. In many Brexit articles these often a confusion between safety related rules and commercial related rules. It’s generally the case that operating permits are not granted unless the TCO is in place first.

So, far from the Brexiters cries of: “take back control” the result of all this is that our interdependence across Europe changes but remains. And for very good reasons too.

[1] https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/ES0177542018GBGBXSET1.html

[2] https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Air_Operator_Certificate_(AOC)

[3] Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 (the ‘TCO Regulation’)

No Treaty means no Treaty

This week the Bank of England’s interest-rate increase has become another bump on the road to Brexit. BoE Governor Mark Carney commented that the risk of the UK dropping out of the EU with “no deal” was “uncomfortably high.” Ripples of vitriolic Brexit Tweets and alike popped up to denounce this as, so called Project Fear Mark 2.

The cautious and conservative, with a small “c”, Carney dared to give an expert assessment of the current situation based on his reasoning and experience. Such is the tribalism in British politics that anything that gives the merest impression that Brexit might not be wonderful immediately sparks fanatical cries. Rational thinking in this battleground gets two fingers in the air.

Reading, listening and watching discussions about a “no deal” outcome, I’m struck that so many people talk about it but often they mean something completely different.

Let’s be clear. The so called “no deal” is in Article 50 paragraph 3[1]. It is that the Treaties we are currently signed up to will cease to apply from one day to the next. Without a withdrawal agreement in place or an extension to the two-year period we enter the unknown.

Brexiters might be happy with this outcome but that’s a foolish position to take. Treaties, by their nature, have benefits and obligations for both parties involved. Take away those in one day and put nothing in their place is most likely to cause mayhem.

Contacts may become void. Certificates that are mutually recognised are no longer recognised. Qualifications are questioned. Massive numbers of technical and administrative processes become uncertain. Brits working in the EU are put in limbo, as are EU citizens working in the UK.

No Treaty means no Treaty.

Its like pulling up a drawbridge or pulling down the shutters and saying the shop is closed to the 27 Member States of the EU while we refurbish the premises. Now, I agree such a situation would not last forever as people of goodwill will desperately struggled to find workarounds. People who don’t have goodwill will try to take advantage of the uncertainty. It’s likely that the larger organisations will have protective contingency measures in place. However, SMEs and individuals will be vulnerable and subject to unpredictable costs.

There needs to be a withdrawal agreement in place even if it’s just one page saying; carry on.

[1] 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

A couple of hours in Redhill Town

A Saturday morning spent campaigning in Redhill is a real eye opener. A group of us set-up a street stall with free cakes, leaflets galore and a couple of European flags. We set-up outside the local shopping centre to be seen by as many people as possible. The heat of the week has gone. At one point, the wind almost took the whole stall away as the British weather has changed to become stormy.

We collected a lot of signatures for our #PeoplesVote petition. Whatever you do, please don’t get the wrong impression from what I write here. The morning was a campaigning success story as so many people came over to our stall. So, many great people to chat to about the positive things we can do to bring about change. That said, it’s the difficult conversations that are interesting. Here’s a few tales from the streets of Redhill.

An old Liberal friend who I hadn’t seen for many years, dead set against the European Union, was a joy to meet. Yes, we had our differences but there wasn’t that unpleasant animosity that springs forth so easily from some people who supported the Leave vote.

One Labour voter let me know that the EU was a big capitalist conspiracy. He was a retired railwayman. To him the EU was responsible for all the tiresome rules and regulations that the railways had to implement. It was as if taking the EU away would suddenly transform British railways. Yet, as we know most of the disastrous decisions made by the current Minister responsible for the railways are purely national mistakes.

A conversation with, I would guess an East Surrey UKIP member, was kept on an even keel by our mutual interest in aviation. He delighted in telling me stories that he though I was too young to know. I figured out he once worked in the defence industry. Possibly at Filton in Bristol. It’s amazing how the bitterness of a decision made in 1965 has lingered so long in the mind. The cancellation of the British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was part of his lament. It seemed crazy that this was part of his package of reasons for being anti-EU when that decision, and many similar ones, had nothing what so ever to do with Europe.

Three or four times the argument came at me, as if it was an unstoppable force, that: “we’ve had a vote”. That vote was enough, and we shouldn’t have any more. A couple of, mostly older men said: “what you are doing is undemocratic”. I felt myself getting agitated but kept my cool. I just wonder if the people who say such things have even the slightest idea how their democracy works. Not even one of them can claim to have stood for election in a real democratic process as many times as I have done. Yet, they will come at you aggressively with this simple line.

In fact, they get stranger. One guy used a football analogy that fell flat on its face. He said: if you played a football game and lost you would have to accept the result – wouldn’t you? To which I answered: “well, I’m just trying to win the next match as you would expect any good player to do”. As expected that made him even grumpier.

A middle-aged woman pronounced that the Country was full. She didn’t want to say what she meant outright but it was clear enough.

A couple of young lads passed me by. I said: “want one of my leaflets?” and the response was – no we’ve had enough of that – people keep changing their minds. That’s not encouraging. The idea that changing your mind is somehow too much to cope with is disconcerting.

One older man repeated the line that he didn’t want to be ruled by the Germans. I asked what he knew about how the EU worked and if he had been to Germany recently. I even admitted that I had lived there for 11 years. That was a bad move on my part. The immortal line got thrown back at me – if you like it so much why don’t you ******* off back there. To which the only answer is to smile and walk away.

Remarkably there were things that I found to agree upon with those in Redhill who didn’t share my enthusiasms for a #PeoplesVote.

One: Bring back Spitting Image. What they could do with today’s dull politicians and Royals.

Two: May’s Government is doing a terrible job – mass unhappiness – nobody gets what they want.

Three: Jeremy Corbyn is the worst official opposition leader in a generation or more.

There’s a generation, most of whom had a referendum vote in 1975, who have lumped all their troubles and fears into one big bag and called it “Europe”. Its clear, that’s not their real concern but that hardly matters. Europe has become a proxy for a bucket load of negative emotions and troublesome fears. Historians will not make sense of this in years to come as we can’t make sense of it now.

Calling for a referendum on the deal that the Government comes up with in the end, has its risks. Although the pendulum is swinging against the Leave vote, there is still a hard core of disgruntled people who will shoot their own foot rather than think again. Now, we are a terribly confused Nation. I’m convinced that after March next year none of the people’s real concerns will have been addressed. Stay tuned, this saga has a long way to run.

Brexit & Aviation 22

The politics of the day would seem to be “divide and rule”. Not an entirely unknown approach and, when conducted in the open, can make you look silly if it doesn’t work.

There are three parts to the European Union that need to be convinced that the Withdrawal Agreement they see on 18 October is one they wish to accept. The three are: the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The most powerful is clearly the Member States as they sit in the Council of the European Union[1]. This week the UK is attempting to influence the Council through influencing Member States that it thinks could be persuaded to be sympathetic to the UK Government’s White Paper proposals.

The presidency of the Council rotates among the EU Member States every 6 months. The Austrian presidency of the Council runs from 1 July to 31 December 2018[2]. That explains why Mrs May has been in Austria. Tonight’s news would suggest that trip isn’t going all that well. Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz has told Mrs May it’s “important to avoid a hard Brexit”.

Romania has the Council presidency from January to June next year. They are the ones who may have to wave the UK goodbye or not as the case maybe.

If there is “no deal” between the EU and the UK there is no automatic fall-back position for the aviation sector. It will be a unique situation where the EU Member States continue to apply all the existing rules and regulations and a “new” neighbouring State becomes unpredictable. The Brexiteer lobby entirely misleads the public when saying: “it will all be alright on the night.”

As the UK leaves the EU and becomes a “third country” it will cease to be part of the fully-liberalised EU aviation market. The UK can’t fall back on old bilateral agreements it had with the US and other EU countries since these were superseded and are obsolete. Their restoration is extremely unlikely.

As a contingency, a number UK operators and businesses are expanding or setting-up new bases within the EU. This could work for them, but they’ll have to show that a majority of the ownership of their shares is in the EU.

Naturally, simple goodwill could sort much of this out at the last minute. However, goodwill will be in short supply if there is no successful conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement. Even with this essential transition agreement the outcome is a standstill until the end of 2020.

The story the Brexiteers are telling in public is crazy. They say: If there is “no deal”, there will be no catastrophe. It’s all this so called: “project fear”. But if there is a catastrophe it’s not our fault, it’s everyone else’s fault. They are already allocating blame for an event that is avoidable.

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en

[2] https://www.eu2018.at/

Brexit & Aviation 21

Maybe the next one of these articles I write should be split into two parts; one for the political and one for the technical. There does seem to be continuing divergence between the two. The political environment is as volatile as ever with growing uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a “no deal” situation. Stories of contingency planning have delighted the media as we are told food and pharmaceuticals are being stockpiled. At the same time the Government assures us that we are making good progress in the UK-EU negotiation. Parliament returns on Tuesday, 4 September, so I guess the next month may be quieter. Perhaps the sharks off the Cornish coast will get all the headlines during the summer.

Technical developments are following that well-loved tee shirt slogan: “keep clam and carry on”. This week another key document has been published, namely: Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union[1].

We are told that the UK and the EU have agreed that the UK’s exit will be followed by a time-limited implementation period that will last from the moment of exit until 31 December 2020.

It’s good to see in the document mentioned above there is a section on participation in EU institutions, agencies and bodies. It says that; guidance is being worked up on the consistent interpretation and application of the criteria for UK participation in EU bodies during the implementation period. So, basically there may be some stability until 31 December 2020 but after that no one knows.

I’m taking it as read that this includes the UK membership of EASA. The paper goes on to say that these arrangements are unlikely to require any provision in the Bill. That is the UK Bill introducing the legislation for the final Withdrawal Agreement. That does strike me as strange given that the UK will go from being a Member State to a “third country” in respect of EU legislation.

The paper recognises that the UK participates in several international agreements because of being a Member State. That includes the aviation bilateral agreements. At the European Council meeting in March, there was agreement that the UK is to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of international agreements during the implementation period. Parties to the aviation agreements will be notified of this approach by the EU. This is important. Let’s hope the parties concerned agree too.

The last line of the 38-page document says that once the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified by the UK and concluded by the EU it will enter into force at 11pm on 29 March 2019. The clock is ticking, as they say.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728757/6.4737_Cm9674_Legislating_for_the_withdrawl_agreement_FINAL_230718_v3a_WEB_PM.pdf