DOCSLIB.ORG

International Regulation of Air Transport II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Regulation of Air Transport II Washington University Law Review Volume 1950 Issue 4 January 1950 International Regulation of Air Transport II A. J. Thomas Jr. Southern Methodist University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Air and Space Law Commons Recommended Citation A. J. Thomas Jr., International Regulation of Air Transport II, 1950 WASH. U. L. Q. 536 (1950). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1950/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REGULATION OF AIR TRANSPORT II A. J.THOMAS, JR. BILATERAL Am TRANSPORT AGREEMENTS Since there has been failure to adopt a multilateral treaty pro- viding for the exchange of international routes and air services by the members of the community of nations, the bilateral agree- ment between the governments of two states has been rsorted to in order to gain transit rights and rights to operate air trans- port services by the airline companies of one state into the terri- tory of the other state. These bilateral agreements have been of either a general or specific nature although the vast majority have fallen into the latter category. 110 A general agreement sets forth n conditions to be followed, but merely grants to the com- mercial air carriers of each country concerned a mutual freedom to establish and operate international air transport services. For example, the United States-Colombian Agreement of 1929111 per- mitted air transport operations of the United States to fly and land along both coasts of Colombia, while Colombian air ser- vices were granted such rights along the coasts of the United States and in the Canal Zone. The specific agreement grants the privilege to air carriers of each contracting nation to operate into the territory of the other, but, in addition, sets forth conditions and restrictions to be obeyed in the operation of such international air services. Route designations to be fol- lowed to and from each country are generally outlined. In the more recent agreements the point of departure in a con- tracting state, intermediate points, destination in the terri- troy of the other contracting state, and points beyond are all specified with exactness.112 At times, however, the air stops have not been described in such detail, but it has only been stated in the agreement that a reasonably direct route should 110. See LiSSITZYN, op. cit. supra note 19, at 379; TOMBS, op. Cit. supra note 2, at 113. 111. State Dept. Press Release, Feb. 23, 1929, see Lissitzyn, id. at 388. 112. See, for example, the elaborate routing schedule in the Bermuda Agreement signed between the United States and Great Britain, Treaties & Other International Act Series 1507 (Dep't of State 1926). Washington University Open Scholarship ECONOMIC REGULATION OF AIR TRANSPORT be followed between the two states. 113 Some countries have re- quired any route agreement signed to contain conditions accruing to their own advantage as in the case of Ireland. This nation requires that any carrier operating on an international trunk route thruogh its territory shall make Shannon airport its first and last European port of call."1 4 In most instances in connection with routing arrangements reciprocal concessions or substan- tially reciprocal concessions are made by the contracting states. One type of agreement is that wherein strictly recriprocal rights are granted on a designated route between the two states. 1115 For example state A and state B might agree that authorized air carriers of each state should be accorded rights of transit, non- traffic stop, as well as the right to pick up and discharge traffic on a route between city X in A and city Y in B; in both direc- tions. A nation like the United States with air carriers operating to the far corners of the globe would find such an agreement of little value, but requires an agreement which not only permits it to operate to a point or points within one nation but also to points beyond, along the international trunk routes which its airlines traverse. Therefore, a second type of air transport agreement has emerged wherein each state grants to the air car- riers of the other authority to conduct air transport operations within its territory which is a part of a trunk operation beyond its boundaries. The United States-Peruvian Agreement" 6 ex- emplifies this type of agreement. There it is provided: Airlines of the United States of America, designated in conformity with the present agreement, are accorded rights of transit and of nontraffic stop in and through the terri- tory of the Republic of Peru as well as the right to pick up and discharge international traffic in passengers, cargo, and mail at Lima, Talara, Chiclayo and Arequipa on the follow- ing routes via intermediate points in both directions: The United States and/or the Canal Zone to Talara, Chiclayo, Lima and Arequipa; and beyond Peru to points in Chile and Bolivia or beyond. Airlines of the Republic of Peru, designated in conformity 113. Interim Agreement Between the United States and Treaties and Other International Acts Series 1576 (Dep't of State 1945). 114. Agreement Between the United States and Ireland, Executive Agreement Series 460 (Dep't of State 1945). 115. See TOMBS, op. cit. supra note 2, at 113. 116. Agreement Between the United States and Peru, Treaties & Other International Acts Series 1587 (Dep't of State 1946). https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1950/iss4/3 538 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY with the present agreement, are accorded rights of transit and of nontraffic stop in and through the territory of the United States of America and in and through the Canal Zone as well as the right to pick up and discharge interna- tional traffic in passengers, cargo, and mail at Washington, D. C., New York, N. Y., and the Canal Zone on the follow- ing route via intermediate points in both directions: From Peru via the Canal Zone and Havana, Cuba, to Washington, D. C., and New York,1 N. Y.; and beyond the United States to Montreal, Canada.2 T Again a nation may grant to the air carriers of one nation the privilege to operate an air service to and beyond its territory on a route while the airlines of the first nation may be extended the privilege to fly to the other nation but not beyond its territory. The United States Agreement with Switzerlandl8 so provides. It reads: Airlines of the United States of America... are accorded rights of transit and non-traffic stop in Swiss territory, as well as the right to pick up and to discharge international traffic in passengers, cargo and mail at Geneva (or other suitable airport) on the following route: The United States, over a North Atlantic route to Ireland and thence to Paris and Switzerland, and beyond to Italy, Greece, and the Near and Middle East, via intermediate points; in both directions. Airlines of Switzerland authorized under the present agree- ment are accorded rights of transit and non-traffic stop in the territory of the United States of America, as well as the right to pick up and discharge international traffic in passengers, cargo and mail at New York, on the following route: Switzerland, via intermediate points (non traffic stops) to New York; in both directions.'" As to the privileges of operations over the route by the air carriers, these, too, are of a substantially recriprocal nature, al- though the agreement may provide for all five freedoms of the air on the international route, or only a portion of them. Again certain points on a route may be designated as non-traffic stops only, while others may be designated open to all five freedoms. Traffic limitations may be established in the agreement specify- ing the number of frequencies to be operated or capacity allow- able. Provisions requiring sufficient traffic stops in order to offer reasonable commercial services for traffic to and from a con- 117. Id. at 7. 118. See note 113 supra. 119. Id. at 5. Washington University Open Scholarship ECONOMIC REGULATION OF AIR TRANSPORT tracting country may be inserted, as well as provisions with respect to tariffs, reservations of cabotage, 120 and the like. By 1940 the United States was a party to a number of bilateral air transport agreements with other nations,121 but many of our operating rights along international routes were not acquired by government to government bargaining, but rather because of negotiations by an airline company itself with a foreign gov- ernment through whose territory the operation was to be con- ducted. In the pioneering days of international air transport, Pan American Airways was encouraged by the United States 122 Government to negotiate agreements with various countries. By this process Pan American obtained operating rights in Latin America, in the Pacific areas, in Africa, and in Europe. This type of direct negotiation for air transport privileges by the air carrier concerned with a foreign nation had one advan- tage in that the negotiating air carrier's government under the terms of such agreement was usually not bound to grant recipro- cal privileges or rights to the air carriers of the granting nation, although this was not always the case, for some such private agreements entered into were contingent upon a grant of recipro- cal rights by the government of the negotiating company.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit Into the World Trade Organization Ruwantissa I
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 61 | Issue 4 Article 2 1996 Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit into the World Trade Organization Ruwantissa I. R. Abeyratne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Ruwantissa I. R. Abeyratne, Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit into the World Trade Organization, 61 J. Air L. & Com. 793 (1996) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol61/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. WOULD COMPETITION IN COMMERCIAL AVIATION EVER FIT INTO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION? RUWANTISSA I.R. ABEYRATNE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 794 II. THE GENESIS OF AIR TRAFFIC RIGHTS ......... 795 A. TiH CHICAGO CONFERENCE ...................... 795 B. THE CHICAGO CONVENTION ..................... 800 C. POST-CHICAGO CONVENTION TRENDS ............ 802 D. THiE BERMUDA AGREEMENT ...................... 805 E. Ti ROLE OF ICAO ............................. 808 III. RECENT TRENDS .................................. 809 A. THE AI TRANSPORT COLLOQUIUM .............. 809 B. POST-COLLOQUIuM TRENDS ...................... 811 C. THE WORLD-WIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE. 814 D. SOME INTERIM GLOBAL ISSUES ................... 816 E. OBJECTWES OF THE CONFERENCE ................ 819 F. EXAMINATION OF ISSUES
    [Show full text]
  • The Bermuda Agreement 1945
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Collins, R. (2012). The Bermuda Agreement on Telecommunications 1945. Media History, 18(2), pp. 191-205. doi: 10.1080/13688804.2012.663869 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3891/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13688804.2012.663869 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Bermuda Agreement on telecommunications 1945. Richard Collins. Published in Media History. 18:2, 191-205 (2012). 1 Abstract. The end of the Second World War saw global telecommunications governance renegotiated. The dominant British Imperial (later Commonwealth) network experienced multiple changes: the tightly integrated and collaborative imperial governance system fell away as the governing partners increasingly pursued their own, rather than a collective agendas and as the “imperial” company, Cable and Wireless’, dominance gave way to a competition and interconnection based regime as American firms and their networks entered markets hitherto closed to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilaterial Air Transport Agreements: Non-Bermuda Reflections Z
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 42 | Issue 4 Article 4 1976 Bilaterial Air Transport Agreements: Non-Bermuda Reflections Z. Joseph Gertler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Z. Joseph Gertler, Bilaterial Air Transport Agreements: Non-Bermuda Reflections, 42 J. Air L. & Com. 779 (1976) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol42/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. BILATERAL AIR TRANSPORT AGREEMENTS: NON-BERMUDA REFLECTIONS Z. JOSEPH GERTLER* INTRODUCTION In this article it is not proposed to retrace the familiar well-trod- en grounds with respect to bilateral air transport agreements. There exists, after all, a fairly impressive, if not abundant, literature on the subject, albeit focused mostly on route exchange, capacity, traf- fic rights and tariffs.' On the other hand, the present widely felt dis- satisfaction with the existing situation in international air transport' and the resulting re-examination of its economic and legal structure * J.D., Charles University of Prague; post-doctoral studies in Air Law, Inter- national Law, Air Transport. Former Member of the ICAO Council and Chair- man of the ICAO Finance Committee and Legal Subcommittee on the revision of the Warsaw Convention. Former Consultant for Air Canada. Dr. Gertler re- sides in Ottawa and works as an advisor to the Canadian Transport Commission, International Transport Policy Committee (International Air Transport Branch).
    [Show full text]
  • FLIGHTS of FANCY and FIGHTS of FURY: ARBITRATION and ADJUDICATION of COMMERCIAL and POLITICAL Disputes in INTERNATIONAL AVIATION
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW VOLUME 32 2004 NUMBER 2 FLIGHTS OF FANCY AND FIGHTS OF FURY: ARBITRATION AND ADJUDICATION OF COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL DIsPuTEs IN INTERNATIONAL AVIATION Paul Stephen Dempsey* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 233 II. ARBITRATION OF INTERNATIONAL AVIATION DISPUTES ......... 236 A. BilateralAir TransportAgreements ...................... 236 B. United States v. France (1963) .......................... 243 C. United States v. Italy (1965) ............................ 246 D. United States v. France (1978) .......................... 248 E. Belgium v. Ireland (1981) .............................. 255 F. United States v. United Kingdom (1992) .................. 258 G. Australia v. United States (1993) ........................ 263 * Tomlinson Professor of Global Governance in Air & Space Law, and Director of the Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University; D.C.L. (1986) McGill University; LL.M. (1978) George Washington University; A.B.J. (1972), J.D. (1975) University of Georgia. Member of the Colorado, Georgia, and the District of Columbia bars. Copyright © 2003 by Paul Stephen Dempsey. Portions of this Article are based on earlier work published by the author in Paul Stephen Dempsey, Law & Foreign Policy in International Aviation (Transnational 1987). The author would like to thank Steve Rynerson, then a J.D. candidate at the University of Denver, for his assistance on the portion of this article addressing the dispute over aircraft noise regulations in United States v. Fifteen European States (2003). The author would also like to thank Dr. Assad Kotaite, President of the ICAO Council, Dr. Ludwig Weber, General Counsel of ICAO, and Ed Stimpson, U.S. Ambassador to the ICAO, for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript and providing invaluable insights as to the events described herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilateral Air Agreements
    Specific Problems Solved by the Negotiation of Bilateral Air Agreements Ralph Azzie * Three of the main problems which come up for discussion during negotiations are: 1. The "Agreed Services" on "Specified Routes"; 2. The problems of Capacity and Frequencies. 3. The Fares and Rates. 1. EQUITABLE EXCHANGE OF ROUTES. - Each of the parties to an agreement tries to obtain routes and traffic rights which are equivalent to the ones he is giving away in return. The traffic rights on these routes are known as "Freedoms" of the Air. On February 10, 1945, Canada signed and accepted the Inter- national Air Services Agreement concluded at Chicago. This Agree- ment provided inter alia that each Contracting State grants to the other Contracting State what are known as the First and Second Freedoms of the Air: (i) the privilege to fly across the territory without landing; (ii) the privilege to land for non-traffic purposes. 'Subject to certain rules for safety, security and military purposes, the granting of these privileges does not present any difficulty between States who are signatories of the Convention. But the real disputes begin with the three other Freedoms of the Air which do not only constitute privileges but traffic rights subject to an exchange * Chief, International Relations Division, Air Transport Board. Mr. Azzie, in his lectures, centered upon the bilateral air agreement as the pragmatic and popular means of negotiating aviation treaties. The Chicago Convention of 1944 convened with the hope of recognizing the principle of freedom of air commerce, but the majority of interested states, to the exclusion of the powerful United States, favored protectionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport Policy in Japan
    Air Transport Policy in Japan Hirotaka Yamauchi and Takatoshi Ito Working Paper No. 124 Working Paper Series Center on Japanese Economy and Business Columbia Business School September 1996 Air Transport Policy in Japan Hirotaka Yamauchi Professor of Commerce Hitotsubashi University Tokyo, Japan Takatoshi Ito Professor of Economics Institute of Economic Research Hitotsubashi University and Senior Advisor Research Department International Monetary Fund Washington, D.C. August 1995 Acknowledgment: The authors are grateful to Yoshiyuki Hiroki, All Nippon Airways, and Gary Hufbauer, IJE, for their comments on the earlier version of this paper. Views expressed in this paper are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect any institutions that the authors have been affiliated with in the past or present. Abstract This paper reviews the development and status of the airline industry of Japan and the points of debate in the recent Japan-U.S. airline dispute. Until 1986, international routes were given only to Japan Air Lines, while domestic routes were dominated by All Nippon Airways, with minor shares given to JAL (major routes only) and Japan Air System (local, short-haul routes only). A policy change in 1986 allowed the three airlines to mutually expand into each other's routes. Major deregulation on airfares did not come until 1995-96. The original Japan-U.S. treaty of 1952 was "unfair" in the sense that the U.S. carriers were given more freedom than their Japanese counterparts, especially in "beyond rights." The amendments of 1982, 1985, and 1989 expanded the routes of Japanese airlines (JAL and new entries of ANA and J AS) as well as those of the new U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport Services: International Regulation and Future Prospects for Liberalization Renewed Services Trade Negotiations in the WTO
    PREFACE The Industry Trade and Technology Review (ITTR) is a quarterly staff publication of the Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission. The opinions and conclusions it contains are those of the authors and are not the views of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner. The report is intended to provide analysis of important issues and insights into the global position of U.S. industries, the technological competitiveness of the United States, and implications of trade and policy developments. The information and analysis in this series are for the purpose of this report only. Nothing in this report should be construed to indicate how the Commission would find in an investigation conducted under any statutory authority. Inquiries or comments on items appearing in this report may be made directly to the author, or to: Director of Industries Industry Trade and Technology Review U. S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20436 Fax: 202-205-3161 Requests for copies of the ITTR, or to be added to the mailing list, should be address to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, or by fax: 202-205-2104 Quarterly Review Staff Larry Brookhart assisted by Zema Tucker Sharon Greenfield Contributing Authors Joann Tortorice Christopher Melly Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations Vern Simpson Director of Industries 12/99 ITC READER SATISFACTION SURVEY Industry, Trade, and Technology Review (ITTR) The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is interested in your voluntary comments (burden < 15 minutes) to help us assess the value and quality of our reports, and to assist us in improving future products.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bermuda Agreement Revisited: a Look at the Past, Present and Future of Bilateral Air Transport Agreements Barry R
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 41 | Issue 3 Article 3 1975 The Bermuda Agreement Revisited: A Look at the Past, Present and Future of Bilateral Air Transport Agreements Barry R. Diamond Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Barry R. Diamond, The Bermuda Agreement Revisited: A Look at the Past, Present and Future of Bilateral Air Transport Agreements, 41 J. Air L. & Com. 419 (1975) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol41/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE BERMUDA AGREEMENT REVISITED: A LOOK AT THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF BILATERAL AIR TRANSPORT AGREEMENTS BARRY R. DIAMOND* INTRODUCTION THE BERMUDA Agreement' between the United States and the United Kingdom has governed both countries' policy con- cerning the exchange of international commercial air traffic rights since its negotiation in 1946. The Bermuda Agreement operates, in the larger context of bilateral air transport agreements (BATA's),' and has been present in international civil aviation since the period prior to World War I. The aim of this article is to examine the operation of the Bermuda Agreement, past and present, and to venture some predictions as to its future role in international air transportation. To achieve this aim the following approach has been adopted. First, the general subject of BATA's is considered, with attention being focused on their background, elements, types, and manner of negotiation.
    [Show full text]
  • Airline Deregulation Legal and Administrative Problems
    Airline Deregulation Legal and Administrative Problems Jacob W.F. Sundberg Preface An outline and a questionnaire were sent out at the beginning of this exercise. They were drafted to be part of a general brainstorming. National and personal reporters were invited to pick and chose between the issues involved in the outline and to make contributions according to their own choice. When people respond to this kind of appeal the likely result will be a galaxy of reports, each written to cover a special field, but the reports will seldom be parallel in their structure or even overlapping. And so it happened in this case too. Had a more strict framework been set up in the outline and questionnaire, no doubt the general report had been easier to draft, but on the other hand it is less likely that so many reports would have been received. As it is, the reporter general is now blessed with next to 500 pages of reports coming from 16 different reporters and covering often widely differing fields. In this situation, the task of the general reporter is not to recapitulate them or digest them. The task is to build a coherent picture from the materials which they supply. In a way, they are replete with ‘loose ends’ and coherence can be found only by discovering connections of cause-and-effect betweeen the various elements. Such connections make clusters and those clusters have been chosen to be the backbone of chapters, and each chapter means a discussion of a problem of a legal or administrative kind, brought about by deregulation.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Beyond Bermuda
    4. Beyond Bermuda First published in N.M. Matte (ed.), International Air Transport: Law, Organisation and Policies for the Future (1970) 81–99. Reproduced by kind permission of the publishers, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill, Montreal, Canada. Thirty years after the coming into force on 11 February 1946 of the Air Ser- vices Agreement concluded by the United Kingdom and the United States at Bermuda1 the United Kingdom on 22 June 1976 gave notice to terminate it. Under its Article 13, the Agreement would terminate twelve calendar months thereafter, unless the notice were meanwhile “withdrawn by agreement”. 1 What constitutes the Bermuda Agreement may not be a simple question. At the end of the Conference held at Bermuda, 15 January – 11 February 1946, between the United Kingdom and the United States, there emerged a Final Act, signed by 8 out of the original 10 us del- egates who attended the conference, and by 5 of the 6 uk delegates. An Agreement, signed by 6 us and 5 uk delegates, was appended to the Final Act. The Agreement has an Annex which was initialed by the same delegates that had signed the Agreement. Under Article 14 of the Agreement, the Agreement, including the Annex, came into force on the day it was signed. No reference, however, is made in the Final Act to its coming into force. Yet almost all the principal features of what is sometimes called the Bermuda Plan are to be found in the Final Act. These include the provisions on “fair and equal opportunity” (para.
    [Show full text]
  • An Appraisal of the Bilateral Air Service Agreements: Towards a Liberal Legal Framework for International Air Transport
    \N AN APPRAISAL OF THE BILATERAL AIR SERVICE AGREEMENTS: TOWARDS A LIBERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT By MERCY WAMBUllKAJVlAU - REG: NO. G/62/P/8198/03 A PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE MASTERS OF LAW (LLM) DEGREE, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, FACULTY OF LAW HHIVERSiTY GF NAIROBI LJ&RAR* f. Q Box 3019? WAIRGBI I University of Nairobi, September 2005 DEDICATION Dedicated to my late Brother Master Samuel Mbatia Kamau, may God rest your soul in Eternal Peace. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To my supervisor Dr. Kithure Kindiki, thank you for accepting to supervise this project. To my research assistant Henry Waweru Njuru, thank you for your hard work. To my Secretary Anne Wanjiku Muchemi thank you for your support. To the following persons who offered access to their research materials: Mr. Kuria Waithaka of Kenya Civil Aviation Authority; Mr. Samuel Githaiga of International Civil Aviation Organization; Mr. William Yagomba of Ministry of Transport and Communications; Mr. Ano and Ms Mercy Awori both of Kenya Civil Aviation Authority. - iii - DECLARATION I Mercy Wambui Kamau do declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted and is not currently being submitted for a degree in any other University, CUaaA/J ' ercy Wambui Kamau This thesis is submitted for examination with approval as university supervisor. L Dr. Klthure Kindiki (Ph.D) - iv - TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION II ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Ill DECLARATION IV TABLE OF CONTENTS V CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction to the Study 1 1.1.1 Nature of Production and Trade in International Air Service....
    [Show full text]
  • No. 16509 UNITED KINGDOM OF
    No. 16509 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Agreement concerning air services (with annexes, exchange of letters and agreed minute dated 22 June 1977). Signed at Bermuda on 23 July 1977 Authentic text: English. Registered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 16 March 1978. ROYAUME-UNI DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD et ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE Accord relatif aux services aériens (avec annexes, échange de lettres et procès-verbal approuvé en date du 22 juin 1977). Signé aux Bermudes le 23 juillet 1977 Texte authentique : anglais. Enregistr par le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d©Irlande du Nord le 16 mars 1978. Vol. 1079, 1-16509 22______United Nations — TVcaty Séries • Nations Unies — Recueil des TVaités_____1978 AGREEMENT1 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KING DOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERN ING AIR SERVICES The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America, Resolved to provide safe, adequate and efficient international air transportation responsive to the present and future needs of the public and to the continued development of international commerce; Desiring the continuing growth of adequate, economical and efficient air transporta tion by airlines at reasonable charges, without unjust discrimination or unfair or destructive competitive practices; Resolved to provide a fair and equal opportunity for their
    [Show full text]