Re: UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

[Juan Jimenez]

The reason is that the bureaucracy and incompetents feel threatened by the
trend. It is my opinion that people go the N-registered route so as not to
have to deal with the bozos who have gone so far as to tell UK pilots what
airplanes they are skilled enough to fly, and that they are doing it to
protect them.

I would hope that the CAA nor the DFT gets their way on this. There should
be plenty of comments from N-reg owners filed in response this, pointing out
that the problem is with the useless bureaucracy, not with the owners.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
> their aim is as stated above.
>
> This would be extremely bad news for practically all U.S. registered
> pilots based in the UK.
>
> It would also be bad news for the American GA aircraft market, which
> would get flooded with aeroplanes forcibly sold from the UK. Many
> aeroplanes have FAA approved features which are not European approved.
> These would have to be removed, or the aircraft sold.
>
> Cirrus SR22 (arguably the best U.S. GA success story) would also be
> evicted from the UK, as would the TBM700C2 and other types.
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

[Simon Hobson]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
(in message >):

> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
> anywhere.
>
> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>
> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.

Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
a full IR.

Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

[Andy R]

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>> anywhere.
>>
>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>
>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>
> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
> without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/1/AIP%20FRANCE%20ENR%201.2.pdf

Rgds

Andy R

[Andy R]

"Andy R" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
> et...
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
>> (in message >):
>>
>>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>>
>>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>>
>> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>> and
>> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
>> without
>> a full IR.
>>
>> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
> The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see
> http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/1/AIP%20FRANCE%20ENR%201.2.pdf
>
There are also other things things that make it not impossible to get about
without an IR. ie you can fly VFR in most French airways provided you're
not in cloud, and you don't need to be in sight of the surface. So if you
can find a hole to go up through and it's scattered or better at your
destination on occasions you're actually better off than in the UK with an
IMC because you can use the airways.

Rgds

Andy R

[Andy R]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Simon Hobson > wrote:
>
>>Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>
> Only in VMC and in Class G :)
>
>>and
>>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
>>without
>>a full IR.
>
> Plenty of countries have VFR allowed at night - the USA is one great
> example.
>
> But yes this can be an issue. However a much bigger issue is that the
> UK is unique in allowing flight in IMC (i.e. IFR) anywhere, and
> allowing it without any clearance or even any radio contact in Class
> G.
>
> Outside the UK, to fly IFR, one needs to be on an IFR flight plan
> (following the proper ATS routes, filed and verified via the Brussels
> computer, and amended en-route by ATC as they wish) and an IR is
> mandatory to stay legal. Same in the USA, except their flight plan
> handling and lots of other details are very different.
>
> If the British Govt kicks out N-reg aircraft, in addition to the huge
> costs (typically, 4-5 figures to move back to G, for a little plane
> with no certification issues, and impossible for many e.g. the SR22)
> they will strip a large number of pilots of their IFR privileges for
> European flight. This is a very poor thing to do for safety.

But a very good thing to do for civil servants/politicians who want control
of the populace at any cost. AIUI this isn't being pushed as a safety
measure and it's not even the CAA doing the pushing but the DFT.

Rgds

Andy R

[Brian Whatcott]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 9:02:20 +0100, Simon Hobson
> wrote:
> /// in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
>a full IR.
>
>Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>

This note is wrong in several respects

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

[ShawnD2112]

Not entirely true. You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is merely
to teach you to fly in marginal weather. Also you do need to have a Night
Rating (and pay the CAA for the privelege) but it requires neither an IMC
nor an IR rating.

shawn

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>> anywhere.
>>
>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>
>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>
> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
> without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
>

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
Simon Hobson > wrote:

(some stuff snipped)

> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

[xyzzy]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:

> In article >,
> Simon Hobson > wrote:
>
> (some stuff snipped)
>
>
>>Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
>>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
>>a full IR.
>>
>>Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
>
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

In the USA, you only need to be "night-current" to carry passengers at
night. You don't need to be night-current to fly solo at night. It's
just normal VFR flying.

[Bob Moore]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN > wrote
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating,"
> etc.

I don't think so, Orval....

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act
as pilot in command of an aircraft CARRYING PASSENGERS during the period
beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless
within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs
and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after
sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, and—

(i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).

[Sylvain]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

to carry passengers; if you go on your own, you don't even need that.

--Sylvain

[ShawnD2112]

Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.

You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.

Shawn

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>
>>You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
>>you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is
>>merely
>>to teach you to fly in marginal weather.
>
> Do you have an ANO reference for the last sentence of the above?
>
> The IFR privileges of the UK IMC Rating are essentially those of the
> JAA IR, but limited to the UK, no Class A, and 1800m min vis.
> Everything else is an opinion; fair enough but it's just that.
>
> One can do perfectly safe fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC, with its
> privileges. Just like the full IR, it needs currency and a suitable
> aircraft and these cost serious time and money.
>
> Unfortunately it's no good outside the UK, for IFR.
>
> Its possession removes the UK PPL *VFR* requirement to be in sight of
> surface and that removal is valid everywhere where they have not added
> the "must be in sight of surface" requirement to the ICAO PPL (got
> that in writing from the CAA).
>

[Simon Hobson]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 7:08:08 +0100, ShawnD2112 wrote
(in message >):

> Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
> I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>
> You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
> trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.

If you are referring to my post at 9:02 yesterday, then please go back and
read it again - I did NOT mention IMC rating or flying in IMC, only IFR !

IFR is not the same as IMC, you can easily fly IFR in VMC.

I wrote :

> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
> and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand
> that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not
> allowed without a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

In hindsite I suppose I should qualify that statement as "Hence even night
flying requires an IR IN MANY COUNTRIES outside the UK." since I am aware
that the UK is not the only place that allows night flight without an IR.

[ShawnD2112]

Good point. I'll read more closely next time.

Shawn

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 7:08:08 +0100, ShawnD2112 wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for
>> anything?
>> I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>>
>> You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
>> trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC
>> rating.
>
> If you are referring to my post at 9:02 yesterday, then please go back and
> read it again - I did NOT mention IMC rating or flying in IMC, only IFR !
>
> IFR is not the same as IMC, you can easily fly IFR in VMC.
>
> I wrote :
>
>> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>> and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand
>> that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not
>> allowed without a full IR.
>>
>> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
> In hindsite I suppose I should qualify that statement as "Hence even night
> flying requires an IR IN MANY COUNTRIES outside the UK." since I am aware
> that the UK is not the only place that allows night flight without an IR.
>

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:08:08 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
>I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>
>You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
>trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.
>
>Shawn
>
>"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>>
>>>You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
>>>you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is
>>>merely
>>>to teach you to fly in marginal weather.
>>
>> Do you have an ANO reference for the last sentence of the above?
>>
>> The IFR privileges of the UK IMC Rating are essentially those of the
>> JAA IR, but limited to the UK, no Class A, and 1800m min vis.
>> Everything else is an opinion; fair enough but it's just that.
>>
>> One can do perfectly safe fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC, with its
>> privileges. Just like the full IR, it needs currency and a suitable
>> aircraft and these cost serious time and money.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's no good outside the UK, for IFR.
>>
>> Its possession removes the UK PPL *VFR* requirement to be in sight of
>> surface and that removal is valid everywhere where they have not added
>> the "must be in sight of surface" requirement to the ICAO PPL (got
>> that in writing from the CAA).
>>
>

If you look at the ANO under Schedule 8 it gives the PPL privileges of
an IMC and Night Rating:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001562.htm

As for Operating Mimima this is in the AIP under Aerodromes General
AD-1. In particular from section AD 1-1-6:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/30101.PDF

As noted previously you may only wish to "fly in marginal weather" but
you can legally fly "fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC". The CAA may
wish to stress it's only to get you out of trouble but that is only
their recommendation.

I have an IMC rating and usually file IFR on longer flights in the UK,
especially as flights over the Cairngorm Mountains are rarely blue
skies! Sometimes I can get on top at FL70 to FL10. If only I could use
the IMC rating when on holiday..

David

[Bret Ludwig]

If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.

Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
country like Liberia?)

[Chris]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)

But there is a difference to Liberia and Panama as flags of convenience
registers.
In no way can the US be considered a flag of convenience registry in that
sense and as the biggest GA registry in the world it seems absurd that FAA
regs and licences are not "deemed to satisfy".

[Juan Jimenez]

Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)
>

[Tim Auton]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
>> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>>
>> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
>> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
>> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
>> country like Liberia?)
>>
>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.


Tim
--
You are being watched. This gives you power.

[Bret Ludwig]

> >>
> >Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
> >government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
> >incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
> >as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>
> Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
> that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
> government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
> be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
> deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?

I'm in the U.S., but I'm anti-globalist, and a heretic to boot-I
firmly believe GA here brought its own problems on itself and besides,
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > >>
> > >Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
> > >government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
> > >incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
> > >as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
> >
> > Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
> > that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
> > government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
> > be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
> > deal with.
>
> What are these onerous requirements?

Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
under flags of convenience.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)

The best support for this would be that if UK pilots had no choice but
to put up with the UK regs, they'd have more incentive to fight to make
them tolerable rather than simply dodging them. The only problem with
this is that turning back a few decades of regulation is nigh on
impossible and thus capitulating in this area verges on the suicidal.

-cwk.

[xyzzy]

wrote:

> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>
>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>deal with.
>>
>>What are these onerous requirements?
>
>
> Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>
> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
> for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[Chris]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
>>>>>quite
>>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
>>>>>anal
>>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>>
>>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>>deal with.
>>>
>>>What are these onerous requirements?
>>
>>
>> Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>>
>> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
>> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
>> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
>> for the JFK-LAX segment.
>
> Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
> (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
> refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
> it.

The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.

[xyzzy]

Chris wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
>>>>>>quite
>>>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
>>>>>>anal
>>>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>>>deal with.
>>>>
>>>>What are these onerous requirements?
>>>
>>>
>>>Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>>>
>>>FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
>>>carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
>>>JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
>>>for the JFK-LAX segment.
>>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
>>refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
>>it.
>
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.

But that's not a "domestic" flight. It's not analogous to the NY-LA
situation described above.

[Bob Moore]

wrote
> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates
> at JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a
> ticket for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
> Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
> under flags of convenience.

Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country permits
it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that originates and
terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of
another country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin
Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans.

Bob Moore

[xyzzy]

Peter wrote:

> xyzzy > wrote
>
>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>>to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>>allows it.
>
>
> Isn't this called "cabotage"?
>
> It is legal in the EU, as of recently.
>

For anyone, or just carriers from other EU countries?

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[[email protected]]

Chris wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> >> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
> >> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
> >> for the JFK-LAX segment.
> >
> > Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
> > (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
> > refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
> > it.
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.

This is not cabotage and is allowed in the US as well. I used to travel
from JFK to FRA frequently and you could often get a great deal on
Singapore Airlines (one of the world's best) because they would fly
JFK-FRA-SKG and while the FRA-SKG segment was always full there were
often a few dozen empty seats on the JFK-FRA leg which they would fire
sale for 1/3rd of the price on DL or LH.

Cabotage would be as for the example I gave above where the foreign
flight touches down in two or more US cities such as BKK-LAX-JFK, and
sells a ticket for the LAX-JFK segment. The only people this benefits
are US airlines, who at this point deserve only a little more sympathy
than French truck drivers. I supported the post-9/11 bailouts because
that was an extraordinary event and defense/nat'l security issues are
the most essential purpose of the whole federal shebang, but that's
behind us. The only people benefiting from the current system are
sleazebag airline execs who get paid millions to lose billions. Time to
let the free market sort things out, IMHO.

-cwk.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>> (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>> to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>> allows it.
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.
>
>
>

Last time I checked, and I could be wrong but, aren't London and New York in
to different countries?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> xyzzy > wrote
>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>>to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>>allows it.
>
> Isn't this called "cabotage"?
>
> It is legal in the EU, as of recently.
>

Is it completely legal or just within the EU among EU airlines.

[Jose]

> calling it indeed the fifth freedom.

What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)

I've never heard the expression before.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[xyzzy]

Jose wrote:

>> calling it indeed the fifth freedom.
>
>
> What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)
>
> I've never heard the expression before.

From:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/chicago_conf/intro.html

These Five Freedoms of the Air are:

Freedom of peaceful transit.
Freedom of non-traffic stop (to refuel, repair, or refuge).
Freedom to take traffic from the homeland to any country.
Freedom to bring traffic from any country to the homeland.
Freedom to pick up and discharge traffic at intermediate points.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[George Patterson]

karel wrote:
>
> But ISTR Varig carried people from Paris to Amsterdam
> on their DC10/MD11 coming from Brazil.

Since Paris and Amsterdam are in different countries, cabotage regulations
wouldn't apply.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bob Moore]

Jose > wrote in news:

> What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)

From a web site:

Air transportation is different to most other forms of commerce, not
only because of its international components but also because of its
governmental participation and the fact that many national airlines or
'flag carriers' are either in large part government owned, or, even if
not, are felt by the government to reflect the prestige of their nation.
In addition, nations often feel that they can only rely on their locally
owned carriers to have a commitment to providing service to their own
country. This is unimportant if you're a small country in Europe with
excellent road and rail service to other countries, but if you're a
remote island in the Pacific, air service is essential.

And so, for reasons variously good or bad, international air travel has
long been subjected to all manner of complicated restrictions and
bilateral treaties between nations. One of the main treaties that sets
out the fundamental building blocks of air transportation regulation -
the 'rules of the road' - is the Chicago Convention in 1944.

These 'building blocks' are widely referred to as the "freedoms of the
air", and they are fundamental to the international route network we
have today. There are five basic freedoms that are, more or less,
recognized by all countries, two others less widely accepted, and one
hardly accepted at all.

Each is subject to specific conditions, such as establishing the
frequency of flights, that are determined through bilateral agreements
between any two of the countries that are parties to the Convention.

First Freedom - The right to fly and carry traffic over the territory of
another partner to the agreement without landing. (Almost all countries
are partners to the Convention but some have observed this freedom
better than others. When the Korean airliner lost its way over Soviet
air space a few year ago and was shot down, the Soviet Union (among
other offenses!) violated this First Freedom.)

Second Freedom - The right to land in those countries for technical
reasons such as refueling without boarding or deplaning passengers.

Third Freedom - The right of an airline from one country to land in a
different country and deplane passengers coming from the airline’s own
country.

Fourth Freedom - The right of an airline from one country to land in a
different country and board passengers traveling to the airline’s own
country.

Fifth Freedom - This freedom is also sometimes referred to as 'beyond
rights'. It is the right of an airline from one country to land in a
second country, to then pick up passengers and fly on to a third country
where the passengers then deplane. An example would be a flight by
American Airlines from the US to England that is going on to France.
Traffic could be picked up in England and taken to France.

Sixth Freedom - The right to carry traffic from one state through the
home country to a third state. Example: traffic from England coming to
the US on a US airline and then going on to Canada on the same airline.

Seventh Freedom - The right to carry traffic from one state to another
state without going through the home country. Example would be traffic
from England going to Canada on a US airline flight that does not stop
in the US on the way.

Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country
permits it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that
originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an
air carrier of another country. An example of this would be an airline
like Virgin Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New
Orleans.

[George Patterson]

karel wrote:
>
> How so?

The situation that generated this discussion is called "cabotage." As Bob Moore
posted, it is defined as "the carriage of air traffic that originates and
terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of another
country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin Atlantic Airways
operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans."

Since Amsterdam and Paris are in different countries, cabotage regulations would
not apply. Allowing this sort of flight is not unusual.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Robin Birch]

What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?

Robin

In message <kh3Re.7748$wE1.6347@trndny01>, George Patterson
> writes
>karel wrote:
>> How so?
>
>The situation that generated this discussion is called "cabotage." As
>Bob Moore posted, it is defined as "the carriage of air traffic that
>originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by
>an air carrier of another country. An example of this would be an
>airline like Virgin Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago
>and New Orleans."
>
>Since Amsterdam and Paris are in different countries, cabotage
>regulations would not apply. Allowing this sort of flight is not
>unusual.
>
>George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

--
Robin Birch

[Dave Butler]

Peter wrote:
> Robin Birch > wrote
>
>
>>What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?
>
>
> Probably French, like many aviation terms

from http://www.dict.org:

2 definitions found for cabotage

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Cabotage \Cab"o*tage\, n. [F. cabotage, fr. caboter to sail
along the coast; cf. Sp. cabo cape.] (Naut.)
Navigation along the coast; the details of coast pilotage.
[1913 Webster]


From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

cabotage
n 1: the exclusive right of a country to control the air traffic
within its borders
2: navigation in coastal waters

[Robin Birch]

Thanks, I was wondering whether it had anything to do with Cabot
(sailor).

Cheers

Robin

In message <1125523124.533860@sj-nntpcache-5>, Dave Butler >
writes
>Peter wrote:
>> Robin Birch > wrote
>>
>>>What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?
>> Probably French, like many aviation terms
>
>from http://www.dict.org:
>
>2 definitions found for cabotage
>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
>
> Cabotage \Cab"o*tage\, n. [F. cabotage, fr. caboter to sail
> along the coast; cf. Sp. cabo cape.] (Naut.)
> Navigation along the coast; the details of coast pilotage.
> [1913 Webster]
>
>
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
>
> cabotage
> n 1: the exclusive right of a country to control the air traffic
> within its borders
> 2: navigation in coastal waters
>

--
Robin Birch