According to media reports, the UK plans to leave the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) by the end of this year. The BBC quoted State Secretary for Transportation, Grant Shapps, as
saying that this would “bring expertise home.” “Wishful thinking” are the first reactions from the industry to Whitehall’s plans.

Why continue to work well together for the benefit of many, if things can be worsened by doing the job alone? Mr. Shapps’ and the Johnson administration’s answer to this: quit EASA and build an
independent Aviation Authority under sole UK control which, in the event of legal differences, does not have to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice.

A remarkable, ideology-driven step promoted by the Brexiteers in Whitehall, building a new Hadrian’s Wall all around Britannia, thus marginalizing the UK’s influence in aerospace matters. 

111,000 jobs could be affected
Addressing Whitehall directly, Mr. Everitt demands safeguarding the jobs of 111,000 people working across the UK within the Aerospace industry, such as those of the 13,500 Airbus staff at
Broughton, Wales, who assemble the wings of all aircraft variants manufactured by the European plane maker. Besides passenger versions, this also includes production freighters such as the
A330-200F and possibly the A350 all-cargo aircraft, provided the Toulouse bosses give their go-ahead for this type.

Drastic consequences
This all leads to the cui bono question: who benefits from UK’s EASA exit?
Should Mr. Shapps’ plans be put into practice, and there is little doubt that this will not happen, the consequences for most areas in aviation will be drastic, to put it mildly. These areas
include: aircraft design, aircraft production, including highly secret military aerospace programs, maintenance/MRO and airworthiness issues, Flight Crew Licensing, Air Traffic Control matters,
licensing and supervision of air carriers, certification of aerodromes / airports, complying with the airspace structure and its SERA rules (Standardized European Rules of the Air), to name but a
few out of a long list of existing and EU-wide harmonized contractual agreements. 
Mr. Shapps says that he wants to poach the British experts in EASA (“return to the Empire”) in order to add their expertise to UK’s Civil Aviation Authority to beef CAA up. A lenient
threat to Cologne-based EASA, because the EU has terminated their legal framework on aerospace matters by and large, and audits in EU member states on behalf of EASA can also be carried out by
local experts, replacing their British colleagues.

Splendid isolation
So, the question hard core Brexiteers like Shapps, Johnson et alia should raise is:  who benefits from abandoning this fine-tuned legal framework? The answer is very clear: certainly not
British pilots, air traffic controllers, airlines and engine manufacturers such as Rolls Royce. They all would need new licenses, a new AOC, new certifications, etc. A costly and time-consuming
exercise. Or they build production sites and establish firms within the EU to bypass the consequences of an EASA exit.
Once the split has come into force, UK pilots will have to get national licenses in order to be admitted for flying an EU licensed aircraft. The same applies to air traffic controllers and
aircraft manufacturers.