FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 1507.PDF
De Havilland's 14/17-seot Heron feederliner has shown that the small, simple airliner can make an important contribution towards improving "outback" communications. Air Commerce • • • Political Problems Shortly before the end of the war the Western nations, realizing that international air traffic would be a powerful force in die post-war world, met in conference at Chicago to determine, inter alia, a basis for the exchange of traffic rights. There was an obvious need for a wide measure of freedom if the long-range aeroplane's powers as a bridge between nations were to be fully realized. At the same time, the idea of full freedom—the ability of any airline to fly where it chose—was unacceptable to the majority of governments, bearing in mind the possible effects on national economies of a battle for traffic between subsidized carriers. The result of the Chicago conference was the system of Five Freedoms (illustrated on this page), which has since remained the basis of international air traffic—notwithstand ing numerous attempts to produce a multilateral agreement, the latest being at Strasbourg a few weeks ago. Every nation which has signed the Chicago Convention automatically gives Freedoms One and Two to the other signatories. This is the limit of multilateralism. The remaining Freedoms are granted by means of bilateral agreements. A typical agreement of this kind, between nations A and B, would permit: (a) Approved airlines of both A and B to carry passengers in either direction between A and B (Third and Fourth Freedoms). (b) Either party to increase its share of capacity on routes between the two countries, up to a reasonable point, and provided that there is a genuine demand for extra capacity. (This capacity clause is designed to control competition without over-restricting the growth of traffic, and is usually worded in rather vague terms.) (c) A measure of Fifth Freedom traffic: e.g., permission airline A to carry from C to B and B to C, or airline B to carry from C to A and vice versa. There agreements are negotiated by governments on behalf of airlines. In cases where Third and Fourth Freedom traffic is divided between two operators such as B.E.A. and Air France, details of changes in frequency are normally arranged directly between representatives of the airlines. Negotiation of bilateral agreements for a long-distance service calling at, say, six different countries involves complications which are best left to the imagination. Long-haul operators are natur ally anxious to obtain traffic rights on as many sectors as possible but this is sometimes impossible in the face of local desire to retain traffic for short-haul airlines. Complex, and on occasions restrictive, as this system may be, it is the inevitable product of nationalism. Being dictated FREEDOM 1 RIGHT OF TRANSIT WITHOUT LANDING FREEDOM 11 RIGHT OF NON TRAFFIC STOP FOR REFUELLING ETC..BUT NOT SETTING DOWN FREEDOM 111 OR PICKING UP LOAD RIGHT TO SET DOWN TRAFFIC FROM NATION A' AT NATION V FREEDOM IV RIGHT TO PICK UP TRAFFIC FROM NATION 'B' FOR NATION A' FREEDOM V RIGHT TO CARRY TRAFFIC BETWEEN FOREIGN TERRITORIES EG, NATION 'B'&'C FREEDOM VI (CABOTAGE) RIGHT TO CARRY TRAFFIC WITHIN TERRITORY. OF A FOREIGN NATION
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
