CONFIDENTIAL
CPA; however, feel that they were badly treated and take
every opportunity of claiming additional rights.
5. The Board of Trade have spoken to Mr. Fiennes of Messrs.
He is Butterfield and Swires, who virtually control CPA. prepared to come to a meeting to discuss the matter but his
views do not really differ from those of CPA in Hong Kong.
From a civil aviation point of view the CPA action
6.
to omit Manila on their service between Hong Kong and
Jesselton may be commercially sound; at least it would be
difficult to disprove this. The decision is also not
unwelcome to the Board of Trade because it means that CPA
could not later press for a continuance of traffic rights on the sector Manila/Jesselton when MSA are ready to start
their own service. If we were to try to use pressure on CPA
to continue to carry passengers via Manila, CPA would undoubtedly claim later that they had done something on our
behalf and would either demand to be allowed to continue
operating even after MSA started their service to Manila or press for other advantages in S.E. Asia which it might be
The Board of Trade extremely difficult to obtain for them. concede that from a political point of view CPA have acted
foolishly. They see no other solution than trying to bring
pressure on Butterfield and Swire here or asking the
Governor of Hong Kong to do likewise advancing political
arguments, with the probable commercial consequences outlined
I think we can only hope that after a short period
CPA may themselves decide that they have made a commercial
above.
CONFIDENTIAL
/mistake.