TNAG-0871-FCO40-1081-Air-services-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 68

Your tuiTTO-

A

zeioris:

4: Air services n

1 We do not think that the position of the manliente CAA is as unfavourable as you suggest.

that section 3(1) or the Act favoura mitin ai'i and not Hong Kong-based airliner une

paragraph 4 of our to no 67.

itiribr

about greater cuota legislativa preludiog umste 3 We have never claim! that CAA is le plly entit! Guidance (Cmnd 640)) or to treat it an iiicnlly

We nevertheless question the validity

with that Section of the Act, te }

Appeal i ita legii

tinti.

A The Court

that paragraph 7 of the Suinance

3(b) were ultra vizes.

!

Accordini N

consent arison.

B e star by m? "revi un comm

the

}

Tudod.

i' apa'

that the CAA dog have dinerobi).

sphere of intemat molicy: this is clear

Court of Annoul. hile the UAA A

in the guidelines, it has direneti

it in each digalar care. Me

serve Lullan/North orth is an exarr !

discretion.

why it wlion tile

nem t the

.

decirion of the meml policy

(

I

temyint

of this

C

Paragraph

'

the Guidance ou

etill not

• Altrong. it

indicates some preference for Griti. E Caledoni

appear to exelate the grant of a lie ten

CAA will no doubt have in mini that,

the London-in-Kong route is emi

On the question of viren, we con doubt whether a irection to the A↑

M

British airlines would be intru vins •

is arguable. in ft, however, took in

J

* the applicants.

il cabota to route,

1

Acknowle wekr. ov!

inl

contrary

mich a