CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO 301745Z MAY 79
TO ROUTINE HONG KONG
CONFIDENTIAL
TELEGRAM NUMBER 347 OF 30 MAY
INFO WASHINGTON
HKK 184/1
ECEIVED IN A
5 JUN 1979
90.51
Nie
FOR WONG FROM COLEGATE, CAA. this Dept.
IN!
PA
REGISTRY
Action Taken
No
See
257
265
YOUR TELNO 600: HONG KONG-USA AIR CARGO RATES
1. WE WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH FLYING TIGER (FTI)'S FILING OF 20 APRIL (YOUR TELEX DCA 231 OF 25 APRIL), BUT THIS WAS OVERTAKEN WHEN, IN THEIR LETTER OF 1 MAY, FTL WITHDREW THEIR FILING AND CONFIRMED THEIR INTENTION TO IMPLEMENT THE EARLIER US DOLLAR FILLING (OF 7 DECEMBER 1977) WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
2. WE HAVE NOTED THE REACTION OF THE HONG KONG SHIPPERS, BUT BERMUDA 2 CONTAINS NO PROVISION FOR DISAPPROVAL OF AN INDIVIDUAL REPEAT
INDIVIDUAL CARRIER'S FILING ONCE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THE FILING
IN QUESTION WAS APPROVED AFTER HONG KONG HAD BEEN CONSULTED AND
HAD INDICATED SUPPORT, IN THIS CASE, WE WERE ONLY GUIDED BY HONG
KONG'S VIEWS SINCE NO UK CARRIER WAS INVOLVED AND WE HAVE NO
DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE MARKET OR OF CARRIERS' COSTS ON THE ROUTE,
3. WE CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE APPROVED A MATCHING FILING FROM NORTHWEST ORIENT (NWO). AFTER WE APPROVED FTL'S FILING, THERE WERE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH TO REFUSE THIS. NOR ARE THERE GROUNDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
ARTICLE 12(2) ON WHICH WE COULD REJECT MATCHING FILINGS FROM PAN AM
OR OTHER CARRIERS.
4. WE NOTE YOUR POLICY OBJECTIVES, BUT FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE
CANNOT PRESS FTL AND OTHERS TO REFILE, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FTL FILING IN QUESTION RESULTED FROM EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS WITH HONG KONG DCA. WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO YOUR TRYING TO REOPEN THE QUESTION INFORMALLY.
CARRINGTON
FILES.
MAER
HKQ G Q
NAD.
MISS BROWN
COPIES SENT TO CAD[DOT]
CONFIDENTIAL