CONFIDENTIAL
3. LU WAS EVENTUALLY PERSUADED TO GIVE THIS POSSIBILITY FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS LEFT THAT IF HE WISHED TO DO SO HE MIGHT BRING INTO THE NEXT DISCUSSION REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMERCIAL
SIDE OF CAAC. IN THAT EVENT ROGERS SAID HE WOULD INVITE BA REPRESENTATIVES TO JOIN IN ALSO. LU MADE IT PLAIN THAT IF THIS OPTION WERE ADOPTED THE CHINESE WOULD STILL BE LOOKING FOR AN
IMBALANCE IN THE NUMBER OF REGIONAL ROUTES ON THE LINES OF PARA
4A BELOW.
4.
ROGERS ALSO EXPLORED WITH LU WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES LU HAD
IN IND WHILE MAKING IT PLAIN THAT HE WAS NOT HIMSELF DEPARTING
IN ANY WAY FROM HIS CURRENT INSTRUCTIONS. THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS
EMERGED:
A. BA WOULD HAVE OWN STOPOVER RIGHTS BETWEEN HONG KONG AND PEKING
(SEMI COLON) CAAC WOULD HAVE FULL RIGHTS ON THAT SECTOR (SEMI
COLON) AND THERE WOULD IN ADDITION BE A SMALL NUMBER OF OTHER
POINTS ON EACH SIDE WHICH LU INSISTED MUST SHOW AN ADVANTAGE
TO THE CHINESE SIDE.
3. BA WOULD BE TOTALLY BLINDED BETWEEN HONG KONG AND PEKING (SEMI
COLON) CAAC WOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS ON THAT SECTOR (SEMI COLON) BUT
DOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE RIGHTS BETWEEN HONG KONG AND CANTON. NEG-
OTIATION OF ANY FURTHER REGIONAL SERVICES WOULD BE LEFT OVER TO
SOME UNSPECIFIED FUTURE DATE.
5.
ROGERS EXPLAINED THAT HE WOULD WISH TO HAVE A MUCH CLEARER IDEA
OF THE OPTIONS BEFORE MAKING ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU.
HE COMMENTED, HOWEVER, THAT WHILE OPTION 3. ABOVE APPEARED THE SIMPLEST AND THE MOST BALANCED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT BA WOULD BE OPERATING AN UNVIABLE TRUNK ROUTE (SEMI COLON) CAAC WOULD NOT
RECEIVE THE EXPECTED PROFITS FROM THE PEKING-HONG YONG SECTOR TO SUPPORT THE VIABILITY OF THEIR OWN TRUNK ROUTE (SEMI COLON)
AND NO ARRANGEMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE
PUBLIC FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN HONG KONG AND PEKING AND SHANGHAI FOR
WHICH THERE WAS CLEARLY NOW A SUFFICIENT DEMAND TO SUSTAIN SCHED-
ULED SERVICES. BOTH GOVERNMENTS WOULD BE CRITICISED FOR FAILING
IN THIS RESPECT.
V
2.
CONFIDENTIAL
6. IN THE COURSE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.