TNAG-0965-FCO40-1184-Air-services-between-the-UK-and-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 115

10

5

c)

that it was in the interests of users of

the service that they be offered a wider choice

of service than exists at present;

a) that it would be unreasonable to expect British airlines, within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act, to be granted exclusive rights to serve the route when there was an airline in Hong Kong

willing to participate;

e) that there was force in the arguments for a

competing service based in Hong Kong, in the

light of the loyalty Cathay commanded locally and the London traffic it would expect to draw from its regional services to Hong Kong;

f)

that the CAA had placed too little emphasis on the benefits to the development of the UK civil

aviation industry of choice of service and

competition on a route such as this.

He concluded that the substantial new traffic likely to

be generated over a period by a wider variety of services would offer a reasonable prospect that four operations could over a period achieve an economic return on this route.

6 The Secretary of State acknowledged the force of the arguments put forward by the Hong Kong Government for a direction under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and recognised that the rejection of CPA's application could have very damaging effects on relations between Britain and Hong Kong in many fields. However, as he has felt able to direct the CAA to license CPA under the normal appeals procedure, it has proved unnecessary to use the powers given by Section 4.