TNAG-2547-FCO40-3722-Air-services-agreement-between-Hong-Kong-and-Uzbekistan-1992 — Page 7

THE DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORT

EJ Hughes Esq

AMD

CL.S.

ла

M

Mul

AIR SERVICES

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

International Aviation

2 MARSHAM STREET LONDON SWIP 3EB TELEX 22221 DIRECT LINE 071-276 SWITCHBOARD 071-276 3000

GTN 276

5409

Room S6/15

My Ref:

Your Ref:

НКО

181/3 1

RECEN

8 MAY 1992

DESK OFF

INDEX

11

PA

Acton Zakun

ст

2

tw.

LONDON SW1

Dear John,

1 R-

UZBEKISTAN DRAFT AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT

30 April 1992

ce (with alterlets) to Mr Benjamin, Easten bet

ved ce

to

Spieley.

(523)-5/5.

see

The General Director of Civil Aviation of Uzbekistan has sent a draft ASA for the UK's consideration via his contacts at Birmingham Airport. We are writing to the Managing Director of Birmingham Airport thanking him for passing on the text and will also be writing, through Moscow (since we understand there is no Post in Tashkent as yet), to the GDCA to tell him that we are the competent authority and are studying the draft and will revert in due course. Richard Astle, British Embassy Moscow, rang us on Tuesday to say that he too had been provided with a copy of the draft and we have agreed that there is no need for him to send the draft on but we will circulate it at this end. I therefore attach a copy of the draft and would welcome your views, and those of Eastern Department, on the proposal and on handling.

We will be looking at the draft here in more detail against our ASA model text but would also be grateful for the comments of FCO Legal Advisers on the draft and whether it partially overtakes or sits alongside the existing UK/USSR air services arrangements of which Russia is now the keeper.

The attached draft designates Uzbekistan Airways to operate services to the UK and beyond. We have no information about that airline or whether they actually have plans to serve the UK. We can enquire about that in our reply to the DCA. For our part, there is

UK carrier licensed to

interested in serving Tashkent at this stage. As you know it is our usual practice to negotiate ASAS and designate UK carriers only where services are about to start, and in fact many services start on the basis of informal arrangements. However, in this case we are minded to agree to see the Uzbekistan authorities, once we have had time to study their draft, with a view to agreeing an ASA.

We rather assume that Uzbekistan is looking for an ASA primarily to distance itself from Moscow and Aeroflot. Aside of any political reasons there may be to help foster good relations with

HEJ

Uzbekistan by agreeing to meet them, on the air services front there is a very keen need to preserve the ability to overfly Tashkent for both UK and HK carriers on routes between Europe and Asia/the Far East without any charge, other than the standard navigational aids charges, to those airlines. Under the present * arrangements with the former USSR,

former USSR, British carriers have that right in return for Aeroflot having the ability to overfly the UK (Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the CMU of 25 - 27 March 1987 refer). That brings me to the most obvious flaw in the Uzbekistan draft which is that overflying rights are limited to the designated carriers of each side. Because we are not ready to designate a UK carrier and would be unlikely to be designating Hong Kong carriers under any UK arrangements, the effect on the basis of the draft offered would be that no UK or HK carrier could overfly Uzbekistan which is, of course, unacceptable to us. We need to have these rights either under a bilateral deal, as now, the very least under multilateral arrangements. But if Uzbekistan follows the Soviet and Russian examples it will want to join ICAO and sign up to the Chicago Convention but not to the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA) which gives the scheduled carriers of other signatories automatic rights to overfly on scheduled international services. That matter will need to be addressed in any draft we might send and across the table when we meet the Uzbekistan authorities. However we do not want to increase their awareness of our problem too much (to the extent they are not already aware) as this could of course result in the increase of any price they might be looking for.

or at

We will also want to look very carefully at the value of the routeing and traffic rights sought, particularly given that we will be seeking only overflying rights in return, and I need not rehearse here the problems we have with requests for trans- Atlantic rights or remind you of the very significant price we got for it when we granted such rights to the Soviets last year. Not only is it impossible that Uzbekistan will have rights of that magnitude to offer but we are particularly conscious that their neighbours, with whom overflying rights are also essential on the Tashkent route, will look for similar treatment when they come to seek ASAS with us. Again this is a matter we will have to pick up in responding (perhaps just by suggesting a more simple route schedule) and across the table.

I am copying this letter and attachments to John Grainger and Chris Whomersley, given their respective interests in the former Soviet Union. I am also copying in Martin Glass here in view of Hong Kong's interest in this matter. Perhaps I could ask you to arrange for a copy of the letter and attachments to go to Eastern Department. A copy of the letter only goes to Richard Astle in Moscow.

yous

Carel

лея.

M L FIELDER