HO/FO Ø10/23
PP F C O
RR KUALA LUMPUR
RR HONG AID
RECEIVED IN PSTRY No. 69
SEAD
FED. LITRE'S
(MER (DOT (MR HUNT)
see
2312
KITH/MARD | Lid
2 3 FEB 1982
DESK OF MI
PEX
PA
REGISTRY Action Teken
THIS 'TELEGRAM
WAS NOT ADVANCED
GRS 275
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG 230515Z FEBRUARY 82
TO PRIORITY F C O
TELEGRAM NUMBER 180 OF 23 FEBRUARY
INFO ROUTINE KUALA LUMPUR HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON
KUALA LUMPUR TELNO ALLOT 1: UK/MALAYSIA AIR SERVICES
WHAT CPA ACTUALLY SAID TO MAS WAS REPORTED IN MY TELNO 1679 OF 30 DECEMBER 1981. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE CPA REPORT OF THE DISCUSSION READS QUOTE I (MCARTHUR) AGREED WITH THOMAZIOS
(MAS) THAT CONVENTIONALLY BOTH SIDES WERE ENTITLED TO SHARE 3RD/4TH CAPACITY EQUALLY AND CPA WERE PREPARED TO DO THIS BUT WE HAD FIRST TO ESTABLISH (NEXT FOUR WORDS UNDERLINED) WHAT THAT CAPACITY WAS - AND THAT DID NOT INCLUDE THE 15 PER CENT
(OF) THEIR HKG/MALAYSIA V.V. TRAFFIC MOVING DIRECTLY TO SINGAPORE - NOR DID IT ENTITLE THEM TO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO CARRY THROUGH GOING TRAFFIC JUST BECAUSE THEY CHOSE FOR PROFITABILITY REASONS TO CARRY THIS OVER HKG (ABOUT 35 PER CENT OF THEIR CAPACITY IS USED FOR THIS PURPOSE) UNQUOTE.
2. LATHAM AND MCARTHUR DID DISCUSS DETAILED FIGURES WITH STEVENS IN THE MARGINS OF THE RECENT AIR SERVICES TALKS IN COLOMBO (MY TELNO 130) AND IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT MAS DO NOT HAVE A CASE FOR THE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY PROPOSED. STEVENS ALSO SAID THAT THE DOT WOULD REPLY TO MAS' LETTER OF 27 JANUARY (DOT TELNO ALLOT 14) SAYING THAT THE SCHEDULE PROPOSED DID NOT ACCORD WITH THE CURRENT AIR SERVICES ARRANGEMENTS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.
3. THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS IMPASSE IS FOR TALKS TO DEBATE THE ISSUES BUT, AS DEMANDEUR, THE INITIATIVE MUST CLEARLY BE TAKEN BY THE MALAYSIANS.
MACLEHOSE