FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0770.PDF
768 FLIGHT International, 17 May 1%2 AIR CO E R C E The Trend From The Sea FIGURES just published by the Board of Trade emphasize, when studied, the trend from sea travel to air travel. In the first half of 1961, some 2.4m passengers sailed into and out of British ports, compared with some 2.8m passengers who flew in and out. By coincidence, the same number of passengers travelled by sea (2.35m) and by air (2.35m) into and out of the UK in the equivalent 1960 period—i.e., January-June 1960. These figures are published in the May 4 issue of the Board of Trade Journal* which presents ten tables of statistics about the destination and origin and number of passenger movements in and out of the UK in the first half of 1961. As already recorded in these pages, it was the year 1960 in which, for the first time in the history of British transport, more people came to and departed from the British Isles by air than they did by sea. By far the most popular destination for air travellers from Britain continues to be France, which in the first six months of 1961 received 326,000 visitors from Britain. The following table shows the most * Obtainable from HM Stationery Office or booksellers. Editorial Offices: Room 2410, Board of Trade, Horse Guards Avenue, London SWL important countries in which passengers to or from Britain em barked or landed in the period concerned. At the bottom of the list is Australia (5,900 passengers to and fro compared with 5,700 in the previous half-year). By contrast, sea passengers to and from Australia numbered close on 50,000; and a glance through the tables of sea passenger movements indic ates where the potential air markets he. For example, sea traffic across the Channel to France leapt in the first half of 1961 to 310,000 compared with 286,000 in the first half of 1960. Other substantial sea increases were recorded on the shipping routes to and from Holland. AIR PASSENGERS, JANUARY-JUNE 1961 (january-)une I960 figures in parentheses) France USA Holland Switzerland Germany Belgium Italy Spain Scandinavia Canada To UK 316,000(265,000) 130,400 (130,500) 114,000 ((06,000) 104,000 (87,000) 105,000 (91,000) 80.000 (64,000) 72,000 (54,000) 56,000 (38,000) 53,000 (44,000) 45,400 (32,100) From UK 326,000 (276,000) 103,800 (95,700) 116,000 (110,000) 98,000 (84,000) 106,000 (95,000) 87,000 (67,000) 78,000 (56,000) 64,000 (43,000) 52,000 (44,000) 41,800 (3J,700) WHO MAY BE SUED? THE post-war international air law scene is littered with the tombstones of under-ratified conventions. Not one has enjoyed a success comparable with the 1929 Warsaw Convention which today is accepted by roughly 60 nations as diverse in character as the UK, the USA, the USSR, Red China, Japan, Switzerland, Ghana and Mali, to name but a few. HM Government has not even sought Parliamentary authority to ratify equally worthy conventions of 1948 and 1952. It is therefore somewhat strange to find the United Kingdom so anxious to ratify a convention signed in Guadalajara last September that a private member, who won the right by ballot, has evidently This stylish terminal building was opened recently at the new Belgrade airport of Surcin, which is about eleven miles from the Yugoslavian capital. The airport has a 9,840ft (3,000m) runway, and it took four years to build. It is said to be capable of handling up to 40 movements an hour been persuaded to use his precious chance for a Bill which is really the Government's responsibility. From September 18 in Guada lajara to November 22 in Westminster must surely be some kind of record in arranging the first reading of a Bill to enable HMG to ratify any convention. It is doubtful whether this indecent haste is justified. It is well known that the Warsaw Convention unifies certain rules relating to the legal liability of air carriers for death, injury or delay to passengers, and for loss of or damage or delay to baggage and cargo. This convention simplifies the plaintiff's task by saying that the carrier is liable in all these cases (except delay) unless the carrier can use certain specified defences. In return for this simplification of the plaintiff's task, the convention limits the amount of the carrier's liability unless the plaintiff can show that the carrier (or his servants or agents) were guilty of wilful misconduct or that there were certain documentary defects. Which carrier can claim the benefit of the Warsaw limits? This has never been clear. Is it the carrier who makes the contract for carriage with the passenger or shipper (the "contracting carrier")? Or is it the carrier who actually performs the carriage during which the alleged loss occurs (the "actual carrier")? Or is it both? Continental and English systems of law tend to arrive at different answers. From the earliest days when this dilemma was first appreciated it was suggested that this deceptively simple problem could be tackled by supplying a definition of "carrier." Despite theoretical objec tions, this would undoubtedly have been the most practical solution. Nothing on this subject appeared in the 1955 Hague Protocol (still not yet in force) which made various important amendments to the Warsaw Convention, including a doubling of the liability limit. Instead, we now have a separate convention, said to be "supple mentary" to the Warsaw Convention, requiring a minimum of five ratifications to bring it into operation. After many years in labour, the Guadalajara Convention provides
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
