The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[greenmount]

Is Commonwealth an alternative to EU and consequently - a compensation for Brexit? I suppose many people would be happier with this deal.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	WTO rules are fine, with a depreciated currency UK will benefit, there really is no problem, Hard BREXIT all the way please.

You will not get to even deal on WTO terms until your full membership has been agreed. And part of that means that the trade schedules must be agreed between the UK, the EU and the rest of the WTO members, the alternative is that your trade will be restricted to the non WTO members. The is a very good reason why the UK negotiation team keep turning in Brussels - they unlike you know that they have no choice.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Is Commonwealth an alternative to EU and consequently - a compensation for Brexit?

The simple answer is no. That would not solve primary issues such as passport in the financial sector, the Open Skies Treaty, and the supply of limited shelf cancer drugs to the UK, which are currently sourced within the EU, etc...etc...etc... Too many issues and an incredible lack of any easy answers, no matter what some may believe. It's a diabolical mess.

[Blueangel]

Above post should read 'passporting' but keep losing signal on the train.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	- they unlike you know that they have no choice.

Unlike you, I do not believe that 'no choice' ever exists.
I made such a choice on 6th February 18 when I refused to be put in the recovery position, knowing that drowning in my own blood was preferable to being paralysed.

[Blueangel]

That's a rock and hard place decision. If you had been unconscious...

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	That's a rock and hard place decision. If you had been unconscious...

Staying conscious & breathing slowly were my 2 priorities. Nothing else seemed remotely important.

[marton]

From May's Commons statement and Hammond's committee hearing on Brexit

UK-US Open Skies talks hit Brexit, negotiations cut short after Washington offers worse package than EU.

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.

Source

No doubt one of many disappointments to come

Also as has been posted several times here; Hammond, the UK chancellor, told MPs that the UK and the EU needed to agree a transition deal by April because otherwise airlines would not be able to schedule [European] flights with certainty for April next year.

Hammond says joining Efta would involve accepting full freedom of movement. That is something the government has ruled out, he says.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	From May's Commons statement and Hammond's committee hearing on Brexit UK-US Open Skies talks hit Brexit, negotiations cut short after Washington offers worse package than EU. The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks. Source No doubt one of many disappointments to come Also as has been posted several times here; Hammond, the UK chancellor, told MPs that the UK and the EU needed to agree a transition deal by April because otherwise airlines would not be able to schedule [European] flights with certainty for April next year. Hammond says joining Efta would involve accepting full freedom of movement. That is something the government has ruled out, he says.

Bloomberg link to the same issue: U.S. Offers U.K. Worse ‘Open Skies’ Deal After Brexit

[pdofr]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Bloomberg link to the same issue: U.S. Offers U.K. Worse ‘Open Skies’ Deal After Brexit

	Quote:
	The potential sticking point is a standard requirement imposed by the U.S. that foreign airlines be majority owned by citizens of the country in which they are based. If imposed, that may restrict the kind of flights to the U.S. by several U.K. carriers, which either have non-U.K. ownership or are contemplating a sale to citizens of other countries. The issue was first reported in the Financial Times on Monday.

Brexit could cause major complications for British Airways

	Quote:
	Foreign-ownership restrictions for airlines are customary around the world. The US limits foreign ownership to 25%, while the EU's cap is at 49.9%. Because British Airways is now 100% owned by an EU company, IAG may be put in a position in which it will have to divest its holdings. IAG was very fortunate that it decided to register in Spain instead of the UK. Had the company registered in Britain, it would be subject to non-EU ownership restrictions as soon as UK breaks away.

[marton]

	Quote:	pdofr
	Brexit could cause major complications for British Airways

The situation with the US/UK Open Skies deal should not be a surprise as the article you linked to described the situation very well in June 2016.

The Bloomberg article claims the US airlines are confident a solution will be found.
I just wonder if the US offers the UK a "non-standard" deal then do their deals with other countries have some kind of "most-favoured" clause which would force the US to offer such countries better deals, and what would then be the implications for a UK/US deal?

[Blueangel]

I read the Bloomberg article last night and believe it to be optimistic. If the authors are proved wrong, they should be relegated to covering WI flower shows and baking competitions.

From the same article...

	Quote:
	In spite of the potential hang-up, a U.S. trade group representing airlines doesn’t see any major hurdles to reaching an Open Skies agreement with the U.K. and believes it can be finalized soon.... However, carriers have been assured that that there would be some agreement allowing them to continue flying to the U.S. as they do now, said an industry official familiar with the talks who asked not to be identified because he wasn’t authorized to speak on the issue.

They have 26 days to resolve this issue. One of the primary T&Cs of the tickets sold that have any degree of flexibility is that the ticket issued is valid for 12mths. This treaty must be resolved and ratified within 26 days and I don't expect the US to do the UK any favours at all.

In the meantime, corporate fares will be in negotiation for next year, and I suspect that a lot of travel managers will be considering switching their preferred suppliers to Star Alliance or Sky Team members, and freezing out One World until their position is concrete.

The US currently has 121 bilalateral Open skies Treaties with other nations, and the ones with Qatar, Etihad and Emirates have been experiencing issues for 3yrs now, once again, based upon the financing of the airlines...

	Quote:
	The Partnership for Open & Fair Skies has documented more than $25 billion in subsidies that the government of Qatar has provided to its state-owned airline in violation of its Open Skies agreement with the United States. The partnership said it has been working with the U.S. government for almost three years to address the more than $50 billion in rule-breaking subsidies it says the Gulf carriers – the state-owned airlines Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways – have received since 2004 from the UAE and Qatar. Such government subsidies create an uneven playing field that U.S. carriers cannot fairly compete on, according to the airlines and industry stakeholders, and they threaten U.S. jobs supported by the aviation industry. If left unchecked, the Gulf carriers will continue to expand into the United States, putting at risk service to small and medium-sized communities around the country, stakeholders say.

https://transportationtodaynews.com/...line-industry/

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	pdofr
	Brexit could cause major complications for British Airways

It's not even a British company anymore, should have been wound up due to its insolvent pension scheme.

So a 100% EU company has a problem due to BREXIT, oh dear, what a shame.

Bear in mind since the Right brothers' first flight, total airline profits total Zero in all that time

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	I just wonder if the US offers the UK a "non-standard" deal then do their deals with other countries have some kind of "most-favoured" clause which would force the US to offer such countries better deals, and what would then be the implications for a UK/US deal?

Strictly speaking, this deal shouldn't even be offered to the IAG Anglo-Spanish consortium that is BA.

You've got airlines being taken to task by the US for accepting huge government subsidies which have made them industry leaders. The US response to this is to throw their toys out of the pram because they don't allow their national carriers to compete on a level playing field by investing in them.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It's not even a British company anymore, should have been wound up due to its insolvent pension scheme. So a 100% EU company has a problem due to BREXIT, oh dear, what a shame. Bear in mind since the Right brothers' first flight, total airline profits total Zero in all that time

Care to substantiate that Wright brothers claim? Certainly in the last years this has not been the case.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nes-worldwide/

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Care to substantiate that Wright brothers claim? Certainly in the last years this has not been the case. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nes-worldwide/

It's a quote from Terry Smith, of why to never to invest in an airline. You have picked a very short period in aviation history rather than the 114 years I am talking about. Many national Airlines have gone bankrupt or been rescued multiple times.

Warren Buffet said that in 1960 it cost $1000 to fly to Paris, 50 years later the prices are not higher, planes, fuel & salaries have increased, based on those statistics it's unlikely to be a good business to invest in as prices of air travel don't rise with inflation.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It's a quote from Terry Smith, of why to never to invest in an airline. You have picked a very short period in aviation history rather than the 114 years I am talking about. Many national Airlines have gone bankrupt or been rescued multiple times. Warren Buffet said that in 1960 it cost $1000 to fly to Paris, 50 years later the prices are not higher, planes, fuel & salaries have increased, based on those statistics it's unlikely to be a good business to invest in as prices of air travel don't rise with inflation.

Time period picked to reflect the current airline industry (plus it easily fell out of google); the airline industry has only really matured over the last 20 years or so. According to your factors things should have been even more profitable in the past...except of course the most profitable airlines now are those with typically the lowest seat prices - Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest et al.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It's not even a British company anymore, should have been wound up due to its insolvent pension scheme. So a 100% EU company has a problem due to BREXIT, oh dear, what a shame. Bear in mind since the Right brothers' first flight, total airline profits total Zero in all that time

Well it is currently a 100% EU company, but obviously it won't be post-Brexit. It is listed on the LSE and has its head office in London. Currently its Market Cap on the LSE is about £12.5bn!

[marton]

	Quote:
	Well it is currently a 100% EU company, but obviously it won't be post-Brexit. It is listed on the LSE and has its head office in London. Currently its Market Cap on the LSE is about £12.5bn!

Its registered office is in Madrid, Spain which is what counts for this negotiation, true its operational headquarters in London, England.

Being listed on the LSE does not make it British, look at Coca Cola (Swiss).

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	- Ryanair, Easyjet, Southwest et al.

That is the only profitable model, only a handful of the worlds airlines have realised that yet.