CONFIDENTIAL
Our Ref: E/78/02
15th April, 1969.
Hong Kong
I am sorry for some delay in responding to your letter 2-FD/24/643/01 of 28th March to Carter. You will not be surprised to know that I do not find a response to it, or to Hong-Kong telegram No. 227 of 15th March, an easy matter. Even now, I am afraid this letter cannot give all the answers but I have to leave for Australia this afternoon (returning at the end of April) and I cannot achieve more today.
2.
First, as I promised to do earlier, I attach a note on the "Colonial Formula".
3. Second, we have reviewed again the position about the need for runway extension. Our conclusion stated very simply - is that the proposed extension to 11,150 feet represents a rationalised figure that would enable Hong-Kong to maintain its position as a major international airport without incurring excessive expenditure it is a medium plan between the length of runway required to permit operations by the critical aircraft (and they include UK trunk-route aircraft) at their maximum weight under the most adverse conditions on the one hand, and severe pay-load and range penalties on the other (Kai-Tak is a "tricky" airport and airline crews spend much time in training flights around the airport).
4. It is thus true, as Hong-Kong telegram No. 227 claims, that BOAC (and similar airlines) could use the airport as it is with the new generation of aircraft with some penalty imposed on pay-load. The trouble is that, though we believe those penalties could have a severe effect on use of Hong-Kong by major airlines with the new aircraft, we still do not have a BQAC assessment of just how damaging failure to extend Kai-Tak would be from their point of view. And of course if, as there seems reason to think, that damage would be serious,
the same would apply to airlines of other countries and Kai-Tak would become less and less valuable in international negotiations.
5. We do not go along with the view expressed in Hong-Kong Telegram_227 that Hong Kong - 80 far as its "own" interests are concerned -- could make do very well without any extension. It is much more likely that the airlines carrying the bulk of tourist traffic (which must surely generate a pretty massive amount of employment and money in Hong-Kong) will change over to the new generation of aircraft before very long with the current 707/DC 8 types becoming commonly used by oharter and "second-line" operators.
6. On the financial side I think I should deal first with the idea, aired in the last two paragraphs of your letter, that the Dutch appeal for KLM rights at Hong-Kong having been turned down by the OPD we should now contemplate "selling" those very rights to KLM in return for financial assistance for Kai-Tak development. We cannot do other than regard this as a non-starter.
Any such
/proposal
R.H.J. Steel, Esq.,
Treasury,
Great George Street, S.W.1.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.