The Economist is running a series of articles on the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on everything from trade to the island of Ireland, the economy to immigration, cars to retailing. This piece looks at the aviation industry.

THERE IS NOTHING to fear from a no-deal Brexit, say its advocates, because no such outcome would ever occur. Instead, they say, lots of “mini-deals” covering various industries would be struck. Ask Brexiteers for evidence of this claim and they point to aviation. Despite warnings from some that a no-deal Brexit would result in all flights between Britain and the European Union being grounded, in December the European Commission produced a plan to keep some air links open in that very scenario.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor’s Picks.

The European Commission was forced to come up with a proposal of its own because there is no existing regulatory fall-back option that would allow the continuation of flights between the EU and Britain after a no-deal Brexit. Aviation is one of the few areas explicitly excluded from the remit of the World Trade Organisation, so defaulting to that body’s rules is not an option. Yet the EU’s proposals are much less generous than they first appear, and would result in higher fares and less choice for flyers.

British carriers would continue to be allowed to fly over the EU and to make landings after Brexit, although they cannot pick up or drop off cargo or passengers. These are known as the first and second freedoms of flight. The EU also says it would allow flights between Britain and the EU to continue for 12 months after Brexit day (these are called the third and fourth freedoms). And it would continue to recognise safety certificates issued by aviation regulators in Britain for nine months after Brexit occurred. But British carriers would lose their remaining freedoms of flight in the EU. This means that British airlines would no longer be able to operate freely within the bloc. Nor would European airlines be able to fly passengers between two airports in Britain, unless Britain chooses to let them in.

This is bad news for passengers for several reasons. First, the proposals would keep bilateral links open for only a year after a no-deal exit. There would still be question-marks over what happened thereafter, extending a period of Brexit-related uncertainty that has already tipped Flybmi, a British carrier, into bankruptcy. Second, the proposals would cap the number of bilateral flights between Britain and Europe during that year at 2018 levels. As the number of flights between the two rises at a rate of about 2% a year, that would limit the number of seats available and push up fares. And third, the proposals could reduce competition on air routes, especially within Britain. Without Britain’s explicit permission, European carriers such as Ryanair, the continent’s cheapest and largest airline, would no longer be able to fly within the country, again pushing up fares.

The proposals would ensure that “basic connectivity” between Britain and the EU was maintained. But the terms of the EU’s plans are so limited in nature—and so temporary—that they seem to be designed primarily to put pressure on the British government as air traffic grows. Advocates of a no-deal Brexit are right that in some areas the term is a bit of a misnomer. But in aviation, at least, a mini-deal with Europe would be punitive and likely to force Britain back to the negotiating table for a more comprehensive agreement.

See more Brexit briefs:

What would a no-deal Brexit mean for trade?
What would a no-deal Brexit mean for the island of Ireland?
What would a no-deal Brexit mean for immigration?
What would a no-deal Brexit mean for the economy?
What would a no-deal Brexit mean for the automotive industry?
What would a no-deal Brexit mean for retailing?