AIR RIGHTS Sta,—In a note on BOAC in 'Portrait of
the Week' in your issue of April 24, reference is made to our plan to fly from San Francisco 'to Tokyo via Hong Kong.' The intention (in fulfilment of a long-standing Anglo-American agreement) is to operate from San Francisco to Hong Kong via Tokyo—a difference of substantial importance from an airline point of view. The note also says that the Dutch have been refused the right to fly KLM aircraft to Singapore. This is not so. The position is that because of their enforced with- drawal from Indonesia and the need at that time to evacuate Dutch nationals, KLM, as a temporary measure, were allowed by the British Government five services a week terminating at Singapore; and notice was given that the frequencies would later be limited by degrees to one service a week. This frequency was considered to be reasonable for the Singapore/Netherlands traffic, particularly bearing in mind that KLM had not previously operated terminating services at Singapore.
In fact, the British Government's attitude to the Dutch on air rights has always been generous and KLM exercise considerably more traffic rights in British territories than BOAC, or any other British airline, exercise in Dutch territories.—Yours faith- fully, F. C. GILLMAN Chief Press and Information Officer British Overseas Airways Corporation, Stratton House, London, W I [We are sorry we went the wrong mule; as to the rest of Mr. Gillman's letter, it is such a perfect example of the large corporation finding excellent reasons for its own monopolies while inveighing against those of others ('as a temporary measure.' 'frequency was considered to be reasonable,' British Government's attitude to the Dutch on air rights has always been generous') that it speaks for itself—and us.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
