2. WE AGREE WITH HANDLEY STEVENS THAT THE OUTCO OF THIS
ร
REVISŲ??
WAS HICHLY UNSATISFACTORY. CLAC DISPUTED OUR STATISTICS OF TRAFFIC
CARRIED DURING THE PERI UNDER REVIET, WHICH WERE BASED ON C...C'
OWN RETURNS TO THE CO IN HONG KONG, AN SOLL JOT PROTUTE
CO
RABLE STATISTICS OF THEIR OWN. IN THE ABSENCE OF VREME,T
OVER STATISTICS, IT PROVED I POSSIBLE TO HAVE CULSTATIVE DISCUSSIN
OF THE MAIN O.JECTIVE OF THE BRITISH TEAM - IS TO INCREASE CAPACITY
ON THE SHANGHAI-MONS KOM MITE PAKILO-HUNG KIN ROUTES WITH A
REASONABLE SHARE OF THE TRAFFIC SETV! CARTIED BY DRITISH AIPLI.ES.
CAAC REFUSED SERIOUSLY TO CONSIDER MOST OF THE PROPOSALS PUT
FORWARD BY THE BRITISH TEAM., AND THE HIGIRU BRITISH OBJECTIVE
AT THIS REVIEW - PERMANENT DESIATIS, FOR CATHAY PACIFIC V HA..
KONG-SHANGHAI WAS HOT CHIEVED. THE SOLE TANIBLE RESULT OF THE WEEK'S TALKS WAS A GENE 140 SEATS (IE 14 SEATS LESS THAN FULL 37 7 CAPACITY) PER WEEK INCREASE FOR CFA, THE PRICE BEING 28 BEATS FOR CAAC A PERPETUATION OF THE RIGID AL RESTRICTIVE 2 TO 1 RATIO.
WP
_MRA 184/301/1 (1981)
}
3. IN HIS LETTER OF 18 SEPTE BER 1991 TO YOU, SIR PERCY CHADO
EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT THESE TALKS WOULD RED REAL PRESSURE BROUGHT
ON CAAC TO ALLOW BRITISH AIRLIES TO ENJOY REASONABLE SPARE " THE
MIR SERVICES CAKE. UNFORTUNATELY, ALTHOUGH THE CHINESE WERE T ́LD
LOTH ACROSS THE TABLE AND IN THE SITELINES THAT WE WERE EXTREMELY
DISSATISFIED WITH THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENTS, THE BRITISH TEAR DID NOT
EMPOWERED TO BRIO THAT NECESSARY PRESSURE T: LE. EVERYTHIC
ABOUT THE CHINESE PERFORMANCE - THE FAILURE TO PRODUSE PROPER STATISTICS, THEIR REFUSAL TO DISCUSS MOST OF OUR PROPOSALS, OI
TO PUT FORWARD AIY SUBSTANTIAL PROPOSALS OF THEIR OWN, THE VERY
LIMITED SCOPE THEY CUCCELDED IN IMPOSING UP IN THIS REVIEW''
DEMONSTRATED THEIR GENERAL SATISFACTION SITH THE PRESENT STATUS
QUO.
4. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET REAL CHANGES UNTIL WE AXE PREPARED TO
MAKE IT UNEQUIVOCALLY, CLEAR TO THE CHINESE THAT THE STATUS QUO
CANNOT CONTINUE DEFINITELY. IN ADDITION TO OPERATING A STRICTER
REGIME ON NON-SCHEDULED FLIGHTS AND TIGHTEN UP ON THE OPERATING
PERMITS HK-TIANJIH AND HANKING, WE THEREFORE AGREE WITH STEVE IS (PARAGRAPH 4. OF TUR) THAT WE SHOULD AGREE TO SERVE ONE YEAR
NOTICE OF OUR WITHDRAWL FROM THE CHU GOVERNING RETIONAL SERVICEC.
STEVENS HAS RECOMMENDED THAT NOTICE SHOULD BE SERVED NOT LATER THAN
30 APRIL 1982. WE AGREE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACT THEN, TH FOR
THE REASONS STEVENS GIVES, AND BECAUSE, IF CIE YEAR'S NOTICE
WERE SERVED FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS BEFORE MRS THATCHER'S VISIT,
SITUATION WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO A HEAD BY SEPTEMBER. HOWEVER,
WOULD LE USEFUL IF THE PRIME MINISTER WERE TO RAISE BRIEFLY THE QUESTION OF AIR SERVICES DURING HER VISIT (AS IT WAS WHEN SPE
LITERVENED WITH HUA CUOFENG IN 1979).
}
THE
IT
15.