MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands actively seeking flight options, including some avoiding Latin America
The Falklands government, FIG, is actively seeking additional commercial flight routes to assist in the future development of the Islands, and is working on a number of options. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesFlights from South Africa and or Australia could be possible and will not be affected by Argentina`s Tantrums !!!
May 19th, 2017 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse +2Now, if I was one of them conspiracy-type theorists, I'd be wondering if that Ascension runway closure wasn't a way of testing out some other options.
May 19th, 2017 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately, I aint.
Honest
Via St Helena perhaps?
May 19th, 2017 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse -2Geeeeeeee.......
May 19th, 2017 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse -6Yet another “Super Idea” from them Engrish “Super Heads”...
Facto número uno...:
Nearest non South-American destination ~6.000km ( and still... “Am Arsch der Welt” ;-)
Facto número dos...:
Customer base ~2,700 pax...!!!
Facto número tres...:
Very costly Aditional Alternate Fuel requirements due to isolated location...
Facto número cuatro...:
Canibalization on the economic base of existing LATAM flight...
Please...,Think again...
They are thinking, Think. The airbridge from Brize Norton replaced with a direct route to Africa? Some thought gone into that. After all - who needs South America.
May 19th, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +5As for costs - depends on a lot of factors.
Mr. Lorton...
May 19th, 2017 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -7You say...:
“As for costs - depends on a lot of factors.”
I say...:
Jupppppppppppp...., as I already mentioned...:
Facto(r) número uno...:
Nearest non South-American destination ~6.000km ( and still... “Am Arsch der Welt” ;-)
Facto(r) número dos...:
Customer base ~2,700 pax...!!!
Facto(r) número tres...:
Very costly Aditional Alternate Fuel requirements due to isolated location...
Facto(r) número cuatro...:
Canibalization on the economic base of existing LATAM flight...
Just the four above mentioned “Factors” would set the price of a monkey class ticket MPN-WDH-MPN to ~£3,000.-
And what would a Kelper do in WDH...?
Please...,Think again...
Perhaps the abuses of “emergency” stopovers of RAF flights in Brazil may have had an impact. This press release clearly demonstrates a number of things:
May 19th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -81) The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute has regrettable consequences for everybody. The sooner the denial of the existence of this problem is overcome, the better.
2) Common sense indicates that, economically, geographically and logistically, the best hub for the islands is Buenos Aires. Invoking “security reasons” to reject flights from the Argentine mainland is risible. Discriminating Argentina while seeking Argentine support for this appears to be unreasonable.
3) Looking for flights from Africa, North Amewrica or Europe “avoiding Latin America and Argentine influence altogether” simply defies geography. The islands are located in the South Atlantic, in the South America region, not in the North Sea.
www.malvinas-falklands.net
@Marcelo
May 19th, 2017 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“Perhaps the abuses of “emergency” stopovers of RAF flights in Brazil may have had an impact”
The additional links suggested are not military air links, they are civilian.
The Brazilians have confirmed the stopovers are related to search and rescue missions.
”1) The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute has regrettable consequences for everybody.“
OK, go to the ICJ .
” Common sense indicates that, economically, geographically and logistically, the best hub for the islands is Buenos Aires.“
Why?
Buenos Aires, is not on the doorstep as far as the Falklands are concerned but 1000 miles away.
Are flights from Argentina economically viable, or would the Argentine government waste money by subsidizing flights?
”Discriminating Argentina while seeking Argentine support for this appears to be unreasonable.“
It is totally reasonable . Argentina has illegally discriminated against the Islanders for many years now and you are actually surprised that the Islanders have been deterred by Argentina's neanderthal actions??????
Cause and effect, the effect being caused by Argentina.
Classic, classic, Argentine philosophy= it's always someone else's fault!
”3) Looking for flights from Africa, North Amewrica or Europe “avoiding Latin America and Argentine influence altogether” simply defies geography.”
Are you in the slightest bit aware that aircraft are now developed to fly at longer ranges?
We are no longer in the era that you are stuck in, i.e. the past where aircraft like the DC3 were standard.
Skylon will shrink the world even more.
If South American does not want to deal with the islands then they will become irrelevant.
Geography is irrelevant.
The RAF airbridge bypasses South America altogether.
Some aircraft can fly from Europe to Australia without stopping at every single landmass they fly over to get to Australia. You would have these aircraft land everywhere they flew over.
What rubbish you type!
Are you really a professor?
Marcel Kohen
May 19th, 2017 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +81.) Please see a previous thread ”Brazil states RAF Hercules flights from or to Falklands are “humanitarian motivated”. There clearly has been NO abuse.
2.) There is no sovereignty dispute to settle. If Argentina were so sure of it's risible claim it would have taken it to the International Court of Justice.
3.) Common sense indicates that the Falkland Islanders should choose and decide their preferences for flights to and from their territory without any pressure or influence from Argentina or individuals such as yourself.
4.) The Falklands archipelago is located in the South Atlantic - many kilometres away from South America and, thus, has nothing to do with South America neither geographically nor politically!
5.) Please take you empty rhetoric elsewhere.
Any of the wide body longer range aircraft can route via either Cape Verde islands or perhaps the Gambia, both popular tourist locations both enroute to the UK 5000 miles from Stanley and 3000 miles from the UK. Spare capacity on civilian flights used by tourist traffic, I'm sure both locations would be delighted!
May 19th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +6seeking is not a new activity by fig. seeking has been going on for 35 years. continue to seek and you shall find. try, try and try again.
May 19th, 2017 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Dr. K.
May 19th, 2017 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Only Argentina is in dispute. A sovereignty claim without a case can only mean that it is illegitimate and worthless.
Nootka Sound, Treaty of Amity , Inheritance From Spain – Uti Possidetis Juris all not applicable to Argentina's claim.
Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Well, I for one recognise that there is a dispute and I'm, for the time being anyway, British. Ignoring a dispute doesn't make it go away. Then again, I'm as sure as the next man here in England that these islands belong to the United Kingdom (for as long as its lasts anyway) and the local government is no more than a Kent County Council in the southern hemisphere when it comes to the wishes of the people (or colonists as I prefer to call them). Now, where's that Union flag, so I can drape myself in it.
May 19th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -5@Marcelo Kohen
May 19th, 2017 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 02. By 'security reasons', they mean they do not wish to depend on Argentina for flights as this gives Argentina power over them.
3. Sure looking outside South America defies geography but if Argentina is blocking flights from South America then it is their only other option.
@Think
The customer base would be mostly tourists, not residents. But I agree the distance combined with small size may be an insurmountable problem.
@Brit Bob
May 19th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Here you will find a proper analysis of the dispute.
http://www.malvinas-falklands.net
Yeah, but that's a fairy story. And in the real world things aren't going to change. Hepatitis will fill you in, he's on a rolling 25 year time period that indexes a year every year. So change of ownership ain't gonna happen. Prepare for serial disappointment.
May 19th, 2017 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FRodriguez
May 19th, 2017 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Proper analysis of the dispute?
Nootka Sound, Treaty of Amity , Inheritance From Spain – Uti Possidetis Juris already dismissed above.
Argentina places great importance on UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Consensual Nature of UPJ - Some Argentine commentators give the opinion that in the El
Salvador/Honduras case the ICJ decided on its own, in the absence of the compromis to apply the uti possidetis juris. Not true -the actual ICJ judgment in the above case states, 'Both parties are agreed that the primary principle to be applied for the determination of the land frontier is the uti possidetis juris...' (El Salvador/Honduras Judgment p39, parta 40).
In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only among the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the
governing principles.133 ((Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p57, quoting Antonpoulos. C, 'the Principle of Uti Possidetis in Contemporary Law 1996).
So UPJ can't be used in any so-called Falklands dispute.
You got evidence with references or just fairy tales?
Do a UK/JoBurg/St Helena/Stanley shuttle, - Sorted.
May 19th, 2017 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see the photo-shop Prof has popped up. Still trying to promote that ridiculous book. Hard to sell it prof? Perhaps you should have tried the truth instead? And your junior partner too I see here. LOL Insufficient customers for that school essay? I did warn you.
May 19th, 2017 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +21. What dispute? Argentina opted to abandon talks and try trial by combat instead. The matter of sovereignty is settled. Takes 2 to tango, and we stopped dancing when you trod on our foot.
2. Argentines are not much inclined to use common sense, so it's hardly surprising if the Islanders wish to look at other options. Including visas for Argentines. The islanders do not seek Argentine support; they would far prefer your indifference. While Argentina is incapable of acting as a serious country, the islanders must look elsewhere.
3. The Islands are indeed in the South Atlantic - not in South America. There is a lot of Atlantic, and these days aircraft can criss-cross it without interference.
I doubt anyone will blame the Islanders for looking at all their options. Comes from having an aggressive neighbour who wishes to colonize.
As for that pamphlet of yours Doc - I suggest you try something larger, and with more detail (award winning too) :-)
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/
ps. Glad to see you dropped the photo-shopping for the English version ..... but when a name sticks........ :-)
Flights through Africa or Australia really? They are 4000 miles and 6000 miles from Mount Pleasant rather than 500 miles to Punta Arenas. It makes more sense to just fly around Argentine airspace if it even becomes a problem and not just baseless veiled threats which it is now. You don't have to support flights through Argentina to see how unfeasible and expensive flights from Africa or Australia would be. Just keep them coming from Chile, it works now and it doesn't seem to be under any real threat. There is no need to go out and waste more on finding a new route.
May 19th, 2017 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
May 20th, 2017 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse -4Argentina will eventually realise its claims to sovereignty of the Falklands archipelago are totally futile - this will happen in the same time frame that Hepatitis uses!
May 20th, 2017 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse +7First they invade our islands and then they complain that they are far away from home, bored and is difficult to fly anywhere. I am sure they are all emotional now after watching Pippa's wedding .
May 20th, 2017 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -6:-)))
May 20th, 2017 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Marcos, the FALKLANDS belong to the FALKLANDERS, you Argies are so head up your arse.
May 20th, 2017 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Who is Pippa?
May 20th, 2017 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which islands?
Who is bored?
Who can't fly?
Who is Marcos?
Marcos- Invaded? - Invade is when you arrive and forcibly take somebody elses territory or homeland from them. Like your ancestors did in the 1600s in what later became today,s Argentina - didn't have much time for the indigenous folks who had lived there for centuries did they. Oh yes- they repeated it all again in the 1860s in Patagonia didn't they!
May 20th, 2017 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +6I recall British forces arrived back again in the Falklands in 1833 - not shots were fired - to reclaim what had been British since 1765(before Argentina existed). No civilians forced out or forced to accept the change of rule - as you well know and is well documented in your own Arg naval records for 1833.
Think you will find the definition of “invaded”- suits 2nd April 1982 instead.
right ok, i havent posted here in a while and thought this is a good moment to say it how it is - again.
May 20th, 2017 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -9the problem here is that the colonial government of the islands is just so full of themselves and deluded to the point they think the world is desperately gagging for the opportunity to establish connections to these desolate, boring, and ordinary rocky islands with ghastly weather and inhabited by more sheep than people.
to you, mr summers and ms cheek: get over yourselves - you are still there because 35 years ago the UK sent a task force aided by the US, Chile, and europe to salvage their unpopular government.
direct flights from miami? london? paris? johannesburg? lol come back down to earth the best you can hope for is what you have now and you are lucky argentina allows your implanted population and chileans fly over its airspace.
Argentina's revisionist historians have done the Argentine people no favours. Now they see history through warped spectacles. Enforced by the continuous policy of indoctrination; it is hardly surprising that they cannot see further than 1833. The same year that Spain repeated to the Americans, its own claim.
May 20th, 2017 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +9Spain v Britain. Argentina was never on the field.
Marquitos Alejandrito
May 21st, 2017 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your juvenile whimpering brings nothing to the table as usual - even Kohen and Rodríguez, utterly deluded, warrant more attention.
@Troneas
May 21st, 2017 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse +5The existing flights from Chile are oversubscribed in summer due to tourists, that is why they are looking for an additional flight.
And lol at 'unpopular government'. Certainly one government was unpopular in 1982 and decided to start a war, but it wasn't the Falklands government!
DT
May 21st, 2017 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Good post!
Marcelo Kohen
May 21st, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute” Is disingenuous of you since the issue is purely a legal one that prohibits the UK from any other action.
“The only public commercial airline route to the Falkland Islands … there have been past threats from Argentina to stop it using their airspace.”
Perhaps Argentina should abide by the treaties that she is signatory to.
Chicago Convention which she signed on 4 June 1946. Also known as:
The International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944
containing what has come to be known as “The Two Freedoms” :-
1) The privilege to fly across the territory of a state without landing;
2) The privilege to land for non-traffic purposes;which she signed on 4 June 1946
Mr Hill, I have already answered the question of the 1944 Chicago Convention in the Penguin News some months ago: ”Last week in this section, Eric Goss and others referred to the “freedoms of the air” of the International Civil Aviation Convention and were astonished that the UK did not raise this issue against Argentina. They forgot a basic point: the sovereignty dispute, and the fact that the States concerned (Brazil, Uruguay) recognise Argentine sovereignty. This is the reason why the matter is not raised by the UK before ICAO. MLAs are aware that without Argentine consent there is no possibility of flight connections between the islands and South America. There is also a discussion whether it would be better a Sao Paulo or a Montevideo flight. There is no doubt that, strictly geographically and economically speaking, the simplest and most suitable air hub connecting the islands with the rest of the world is Buenos Aires. Maybe another approach to the question is possible.”
May 21st, 2017 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Marcelo Kohen
May 21st, 2017 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +8The “alleged sovereignty” issue integrity“ predates UN law and therefore cannot be applied to a retroactive claim.
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jenningsa Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, 'the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.'
What is legally binding is the views of nations of 1833 then, not one nation supported Argentina's claim their “silence” is indicative of support for the UK. Any change of opinion post 1945 is merely a none-binding political vox populi decision. As legally they are estopped from claiming later a different position. 'Allegans contraria non est audiendus (Jenk. Cent. 16): “He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. Says the Satyr, if you have gotten a trick of blowing hot and cold out of the same mouth, I've e'en done“ with ye.' en.wikiquote.org/wiki
How ever you want characterize it. Argentina is still in violation of International Civil Aviation Convention.
Marcelo Kohen
May 21st, 2017 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +4'They forgot a basic point: the sovereignty dispute, and the fact that the States concerned (Brazil, Uruguay) recognise Argentine sovereignty.'
Then you can mention one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before an international court - otherwise the claim is illegitimate.
TWIMC
May 21st, 2017 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I can find plenty “legal aspects that Argentina has to put before an international court” here...:
http://www.malvinas-falklands.net
(So can anybody that can read...)
I can find those debunked here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/falklands-history.pdf
May 21st, 2017 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Kohen's book is amusing more for what it omits. No mention of the 1811 claim by Spain to just ONE island. No mention even of Argentina's 1816 declaration of independence. Why? They stand as 'inconvenient facts.
He does the same with international law. Kohen distorts.
The ICJ has clearly stated that the right of self-determination applies to ALL the NSGTs - this he knows. (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.)
The UK does not complain to the ICAO for the simple reason that it would merely provide Argentina with another forum to regurgitate it sovereignty nonsense, without there being any realistic chance that Argentina would go on to acknowledge its international commitments. Unlike Argentina we know when to stop banging our heads against a brick wall.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 21st, 2017 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“legal ..international court”
According to MK without any supporting citation.
“The new states inherited the territory .., on the basis of the administrative divisions existing in 1810.”
The Spaniards were not in sole possession of the Islands. They were further barred from allowing Argentina to any claim under Utrecht Article VIII.
“.. it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his ...whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
Whereas Uti possidetis iuris was at best not applied until 1848.
“Although it is often stated that the uti possidetis principal was proclaimed by the newly independent republics, in fact very few constitutions actually used the expression uti possidetis.31 Of forty-three constitutions examined from the period 1811 to 1850. only one one mentioned the uti possidetis principle. … It has also been stated that the uti possidetis of 1810 was proclaimed by the Congress at Lima in 1848,49 but the statement appears not to be altogether accurate.“
”Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis By Suzanne Lalonde
Suzanne Lalonde is a professor of international law at the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal and a researcher associated with the ArcticNet network in Canada and the Geopolitics in the High North programme in Norway. She holds a PhD in publicinternational law from the University of Cambridge, King's College (1997).
http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/event/2013/Suzanne_Lalonde_EN.pdf
Funny you should mention UPJ Terence ..... an agreement between states regarding their borders. Nothing more. Manuel Moreno completely failed to mention the term in his protests to Britain in 1833 and 1834. Or indeed, ever. Argentina only sent minor officials to the 1848 Lima conference as Rosas didn't want to sign up to anything that might have restricted a further attempt to grab the Banda Oriental - or Paraguay.
May 21st, 2017 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Kohen and his lackey claim that UPJ is a recognised principle of international law. So recognised that the ICJ will not consider it unless the parties to any action either agree that it may be considered beforehand; or one or more have previously relied upon the notion.
UPJ is about boundaries - if it had been about inheritance, the benefactor would have signed. Apparently, Spain wasn't even asked.
Nice quote by the way - I may steal :-)
Talking of Spain, nobody seems to remember that after 1809, Britain was Spain's new best friend. Old differences put aside. I suppose that Kohen & Rodriguez will now further backdate Argentina's independence to 1808.
:-)))
Roger Lorton
May 22nd, 2017 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse +4“I may steal :-)”
Knock yourself out, you’re more than welcome.
Ahh, the British, talking about Argentine independence dates (of which they have absolutely no legal or historical no place to issue verdict on), meanwhile they are well on their way to their second BOTCHED election in the same calendar year.
May 22nd, 2017 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse -6First it was Camoron and his ignominious Brexit vote for purely personal politics which has set the UK on the trade winds of disaster.
Now it is Theresa Way that (as I predicted months ago), is on the way for the second disaster, just for petty personal politics. As I predicted in April, her insormountable lead has just about been surmounted. And when the new parliament is more gridlocked than ever, she will walk out on the EU talks, claim Britannia rules the waves again, invade the Andaman Islands (about the only islands left inhabited by stick and stone Peoples, which is how the UK nefariously built their empire), and then have her economy choke when 40% of the trade her country does in the world, and up to 6 million jobs, go back to WTO rules... hahahaha.
Who would have thought, the UK becoming the new basket case of World economics, with what Argentina now getting praised everywhere from WSJ to Forbes, to Fortune... and where is that imbecile Yankeeboy when we need an yankee, or imbecile (same thing): Argentina is getting its upgrade from frontier market to full emerging market, jumping two spots skipping the secondary emerging market step. That ranking was so dear to his heart after all.
I think the country taking Argentina's place in the Frontier Index is the USA, that's what the rumor says. Once Trump gets his tariff program online.
“Argentina now getting praised everywhere ...” LOL Really? And what has that actually produced, so far ............ exactly?
May 22nd, 2017 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse +4Argentina is a basket case, not because of its potential but because of the Argentine people. Been fighting amongst themselves since 1810. Still fighting each other.
I have no idea how Brexit will go, but this I am confident of - Britain will always remain way, way above Argentina. We don't fight amongst ourselves as much as we we fight everyone else.
The future is looking bright
At Marcelo Kohen, I am still waiting for you to explain why Argentine human rights outweigh those of the islanders. I fact I would like you to explain how you being only a second generation Argentine have more rights than islanders who are 8th generation islanders. You are neither a native Argentine nor an indigenous south American. To be a native of anywhere dear boy one must be third generation at least.
May 22nd, 2017 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse +6Think
May 22nd, 2017 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse +1Using Kohen's link, mention one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before an international court?
AustrOllOpithecus
May 22nd, 2017 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse +1Are you just recounting your most recent dream? Any remark which promotes Argentina is just plain silly!
Roger Lorton talks about infighting (any idea what is he going on about there?), when his own country is Exhibit 1 about intra-national infighting in the world at the moment. Or is the UK one big happy family?
May 22nd, 2017 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse -5Only a Brit could say what he say with a straight face (but crooked teeth obviously).
What would a Southern Ape know about teeth ?
May 22nd, 2017 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse +1We are one big, happy, family. Scotland voted to remain remember (actually annexed in 1707) and Wales didn't get the option. Northern Ireland to join Eire? LOL Hell would freeze over first. Cornwall could get a bit stroppy I suppose; but nothing a decent cider won't sort out.
That's why it's called the 'United' Kingdom.
:-)
What's up Austro?
May 22nd, 2017 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0After Frod and Ko got trashed you're not trying to change the subject are you?
AustrOllOpithecus
May 22nd, 2017 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You clearly haven't a clue about the British. We beat shit out of each other on the rugby pitches and disagree with each other about politics but when “push comes to shove” we are the UNITED Kiingdom - united against all comers and that includes Argentina!
setting aside the troubles for one moment, which will not be resolved in this thread, we will need to see if any commercial airlines are interested and at what price in response to the actively seeking exercise fig has signalled it has begun. all accident and emergency flights avoiding south americal will no doubt add to the cost. actively seeking has not yet been extended to all shipping links including the current containerised service avoiding south america - but watch this space!
May 22nd, 2017 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terry...
May 22nd, 2017 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2”Whereas Uti possidetis iuris was at best not applied until 1848.:
What on earth are dribbling on about...?
Uti possidetis iuris is a principle in Customary international law ..
It cannot be back dated or forward dated it's a one time affair and that refers to the date of independence not some time in the future...it isn't a declaration...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 22nd, 2017 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“What on earth ...? Uti possidetis … international law”
Well you’ll have to tell Suzanne Lalonde a professor of international law at the University of Montreal she’s wrong. Of course if you could prove it, unfortunately your personal opinion counts for nothing.
“Uti possidetis iuris is a principle in Customary international law...”
May 22nd, 2017 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So “customary” that the ICJ will not consider it unless a) the parties to an action agree that the principle is relevant and can be considered; or b) one of the parties has accepted or relied upon the principle before.
Not much use as a custom then is it? Bit like chasing cheeses rolling down a hill. Custom ! Hah!
:-)
Terry me ole son...
May 22nd, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You just don’t understand what you are reading…she is merely establishing that Uti Possidetis is a datum and that different Republics like Peru wanted different start dates for the principle due to their own boundary changes through war etc. in determining their boundaries…
This bears no relevance to Argentine claim of the administrative area of Buenos Aires that included the Falklands…
BTW..The Congress of Lima 1848 Article 7 of the final version of the treaty, signed on 8 February 1848, stated” “The Confederated Republics declare their right to keep the boundaries of their territories as they existed at he time of the independence from Spain of the respective Viceroyalties, Captaincies-general or Presidencies, into which Spanish America was divided”
Uti Possidetis principle by any other name…
Same source as yourself…
Perhaps you should actually read her book instead of part quoting the bits you like…
Roger...
Don't state...without links...
Like I'm going to trust your unbiased statements...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 23rd, 2017 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0“that included the Falklands…” You like Argentina claim much, but if there is no recognition then it’s an empty claim. First, it has to be recognized by at least two parties. Secondly, it has to have a starting date. Since at the very earliest possibility is 1848. The the UK has effectively controlled the Islands since 1832. It could not be claimed, as it is a claim of retroactive right which is barred under international law.
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jenningsa Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
What you trust, or not, is of no concern to me Voice. I talk of facts. Which is why Argentina has always refused to go to the ICJ. You don't wish to believe? Up to you. I'm past caring.
May 23rd, 2017 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go learn Voice
Consensual Nature of UPJ - it is on the basis of a mutual agreement between the two parties and not on its own that the ICJ will declare that uti possidetis juris will be applied to a particular case. This was again confirmed in the Opinion of 16th March 2001, when Judge Torres Bernárdez stated that, ‘Moreover, in the present case, Qatar rejects the application of uti possidetis juris in its relations with Bahrain. Therefore, there is no agreement between the Parties as to the retroactive application of uti possidetis juris by the Court to the present case.’ (ICJ Maritime Delimitation & Territorial Questions Qatar/Bahrain, 16 March 2001, Diss Opinion Judge Torres Bernádez, p372, para 430).
May 23rd, 2017 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse +2General Usage - A comparison between maps of Latin America under Spanish rule and at the turn of the twentieth century reveals that colonial lines accounted for only 10% of the new international boundaries. It can be argued that as a principle of Latin American Law, uti possidetis juris was applied strictly on the basis of a contracting-in by the parties involved.128 (Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, P56).
In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only among the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principles.133 ((Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p57, quoting Antonpoulos. C, 'the Principle of Uti Possidetis in Contemporary Law 1996).
Falklands – Uti Possidetis Juris
https://www.academia.edu/28967823/Falklands_Uti_Possidetis_Juris
Bob...
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse -1Nonsense...
In the case of Bahrain Uti Possidetis was considered and rejected for a completely different reason...
“In conclusion, Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma share the Court's analyses of the inapplicability of the principle of uti possidetis juris, to which they are committed as representatives of the various legal systems of the continent of Africa. But they note that it cannot be said that there was State succession in the present case, given that no new subject of international law was created.”
Also another judge...
“With respect to uti possidetis juris he concluded that it was inapplicable because the British Government, unlike the Spanish Crown in Latin America, had not acquired title.”
“reveals that colonial lines accounted for only 10% of the new international boundaries. ”
..but that 10% did include the Falklands...
and...
“In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principles”
In 1833 who was in possession of the Falklands and who was evicted...?
Roger
If you wish to spout your opinions backed by no links of facts...why should anyone bother to read them...?
I dismiss your input as the work of fanatical propaganda....
You are akin to a trainspotter...albeit, a trainspotter that only spots the trains he likes...
Dismiss as you will. The FACT remains that UPJ will NOT be considered by the ICJ without the consent of both parties unless one or more of the parties has previously relied upon the principle. Go learn, I don't give a damn what you believe.
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse +1...and yet you are not willing to prove what you say...
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse -3...dismissed...shut the door on your way out please...
I don't have to prove anything Voice. What I say is simply the truth, and the very reason that Argentina won't go to the ICJ. It's up to you to do the studying; I'll give you a hint. Try and find any case in the history of the ICJ where UPJ has been considered and imposed on any party to a dispute that had rejected it/not previously relied upon it.
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +3There aren't any. End of fool....
Perhaps if you had a brain beyond the average PC plod you would realise how your statement defies logic...
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse -5If both parties agreed to the principle of uti possidetis...there would be no need for an adjudication and the case would not be at the ICJ...
Oh dear...
How dumb are you? There have been many cases where both parties accepted the principle, but could still not decide upon how it applied. There have been none, where the principle was rejected by one of the parties, where that principle was still considered.
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1Go learn.
Voice
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse +2Disprove - Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Roger
May 23rd, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Is this more of your opinions, because I'm struggling to find this very important piece of legislation that governs all cases in the International courts...do me a favour and link it for me..
...but I won't hold my breath...
Bob
Didn't you just quote the Baharain case as proof that there was no agreement as the reason uti possidetis was dismissed...? Didn't I just prove that was not the case by direct quotes from the judges from the ICJ website...?
Perhaps you could supply the piece of legislation that bars uti possidetis...instead of opinions where it hasn't been used...
Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply a decision on boundary/territorial disputes, based on the parties involved ability to throw a custard pie.....either...
So what...
Show me the money...(legislation)
Legislation? LOL. Who would make that? What planet are you on? Do you really have no idea how the ICJ works? Now you are wasting my time. Go learn.....
May 23rd, 2017 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So no legislation...just opinions...
May 23rd, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -3So what is it...?
Customary or Consensual,,,?
If it's customary then it's not consensual is it...?
You need to learn...
Thought you were brighter Voice.. Obviously not.
May 23rd, 2017 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Who would make the 'legislation'? An international parliament?
UPJ is an agreement between certain States. It binds them only. UK has never agreed to such and the ICJ restricts it use of the principle to those that do accept.
That's a negative position i.e. I say there has never been a case in which the ICJ has attempted to impose the notion on a State that does not recognise it then all I can show is the ICJ's list of cases and challenge you to prove me wrong.
Stephen's post above says the same thing, albeit by an international law expert. . So, here you go, prove me wrong (I'm using a screen keyboard so please excuse any typos)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
Mr. Voice...
May 23rd, 2017 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I just luuuuuuv the way you put Mr. Lorton in his place...
He has gotten a bit too cocky since he was awarded that Colonial Plastic Medal for Services to the Empire... or something...;-)
Sooo...Roger we have finally reached the position I have been egging you along to...
May 23rd, 2017 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -5All these so called facts that you and Mr. Potts keep posting are opinions and not facts...
All ICJ judgements are individual and based on their own particular merits, there are very few precedents on which to base a judgement...
Opinions are divided in the International legal community on whether uti possidetis juris is Customary or Consensual law there are a few books and many articles on it by your “international law experts”.
If they can't agree what makes you so certain that it wouldn't be applicable...
The simple answer is you can't...
Oh...I may not be bright, but I'm certainly not I gullible...
Mr. Think...
;-)))
Voice/Think
May 23rd, 2017 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Consent is needed 'from both parties' to apply UPJ
Judge Torres Bernárdez stated that, ‘Moreover, in the present case, Qatar rejects the application of uti possidetis juris in its relations with Bahrain. Therefore, there is no agreement between the Parties as to the retroactive application of uti possidetis juris by the Court to the present case.’ (ICJ Maritime Delimitation & Territorial Questions Qatar/Bahrain, 16 March 2001, Diss Opinion Judge Torres Bernádez, p372, para 430). Qatar rejected its use so it was not applied.
Consensual Nature of UPJ - The consensual nature of the principle was emphasized in the Dubai-Sharjah Arbitration and by the arbitration tribunal in the Guinea-Bissau v Senegal Dispute which stated: ''in certain cases, the new States decided by common agreement that the international limits of their respective territories would be those which
already existed to mark the administrative divisions of the colonial period.'' (Delimitation of Maritime Boundary Guinea- Bissau -v- Senegal, 1989, R.I.A.A. 119, 143 and Dubai-Sharjar Border Arbitration 1993, 91, I.l.R. 543, 579).
So disprove - Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
You are part quoting out of context again Bob...
May 23rd, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -5That was not the reasons it was rejected by him...There are a dozen of them...
”There is therefore no agree- ment between the Parties as to retroactive application of uti possidetis juris by the Court to the present case.
431. Having said that, I now come to the crux of the matter, namely to the substantive conditions which must be met for uti possidrtis juris to apply to a specific case. Uti possideti.~juris as a principle or norm of international law has two aspects in that it concerns the delimitation of boundaries (which is not particularly relevant in the present case) and the question of title to territory......and so on and so forth...
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/87/7047.pdf
Always part quoting the bits you like...to make it appear there has to be an agreement...
That agreement was about Non-retroactivity....not the principle...
So disprove - Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
May 23rd, 2017 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Further - The doctrine of uti possidetis juris is of questionable applicability as a tenet of contemporary international law. As one study curtly put it, “[Because modern international law does not recognize the authority of fifteenth-century pontiffs to bind nations five centuries later, this theory carries little weight today.”60 Never mind that the Papal Bull of 1493 long antedated creation of the sovereign nation-state system and the Eurocentric corpus of international law
The fact remains that uti possidetis juris fails to square properly with the legal establishment of non-Hispanic states in the New World, as well as the more recently evolved principles of decolonization“ 61 and self-determination. 62 Further, save for Latin American states, succession from original Spanish rights has neither commanded widespread respect nor attracted international acceptance, either in practice or in principle. Hence, this apparent dearth of contemporary legal appreciation strongly intimates that uti possidetis juris contributes but a modicum, if indeed any, legal support to Argentina's position of valid title over either its South Atlantic or Antarctic claims.” 63
(Anglo-Argentine Rivalry After the Falklands/Malvinas War: Laws, Geopolitical and the Antarctic Connection, Joyner, C.C. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 1.1.1984 p477-478.
“The doctrine of uti possidetis juris is of questionable applicability as a tenet of contemporary international law.”
May 23rd, 2017 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2...and yet it is now known as a principle in customary international law and has been used countless times throughout the world...
It has nothing to do with fifteenth century pontiffs it is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States. Originally applied to establish the boundaries of decolonized territories in Latin America, UPJ has become a rule of wider application, notably in Africa.
How else would one define the boundaries of suceeding states if not by their original administrative areas...?
Certainly relevant in the case of the administrative area of Buenos Aires which included....Guess...
Voice
May 23rd, 2017 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Disprove- Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
So it can't be applied to the Falklands.
PS Thanks to people like you I keep finding these little snippets.
Cheers.
Bob
May 23rd, 2017 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -3That quote is meaningless drivel...
Why would an arbitration tribunal on their own initiative take a decision to apply uti possidetis...?
It would obviously have to be claimed by one of the parties...like Bahrain did...
Qatar...you say... didn't agree to it and yet it was deliberated upon by all the judges and dismissed as not relevant to that particular case because of other reasons...
So where was the formal agreement that you state has to occur before the principle is pertinent to the case...?
Like I said the quote is drivel and easily disproven...
I'm happy that you treasure easily debunked meaningless opinions...
Not an opinion, fact Voice.
May 23rd, 2017 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4You obviously cannot prove me wrong.
You've made yourself look rather dumb.
Job done :-)
ps. My “place” appears to be on top - Think :-))
Sorry..., laddie but...
May 23rd, 2017 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Reading the above exchange of opinions between Mr. Voice and you..., it doesn't appear to me that you were anywhere near any top at any moment...
That..., of course..., IMHO...
Still with the myopia Think?
May 23rd, 2017 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3My 'fact' remains intact. The ICJ have NEVER attempted to apply UPJ upon any party to a dispute when that party does not recognise the principle and has not previously relied upon it.
FACT
Therefore as a 'customary principle of international law' it lacks clout. It lacks application. Contentious even.
Voice is right in one regard, that the ICJ is not bound by precedent. That's 'BOUND' as they appear to follow previous cases anyway.
IMHO, Brit Bob gave Voice a kicking. However, I'm sure he'll get over it and return to being the intransigent nut job we've come to laugh at.
Have a good evening old man - and get those eyes tested :-)
Think
May 24th, 2017 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse +5The concept that Argentina had inherited the Falkland Islands from Spain is false. The law of the time did not accept inheritance without settlement and stated that 'an unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337) Vernet had sought acquiescence from the British consul in BUENOS AIRES on two occasions before establishing “his” colonies and the British protested when he was appointed military and political governor by the BA. Authorities. Jewett had no settlement. The concept of uti possidetis juris (inheritance of Spain) is only customary international law, applicable to those who choose to use it. Great Britain, France and Brazil have never opted to use uti possidetis juris,
In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only among the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principles.133 ((Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p57, quoting Antonpoulos. C, 'the Principle of Uti Possidetis in Contemporary Law 1996).
Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Vattel, LaLonde, El Quali -v- Think
“Certainly relevant in the case of the administrative area of Buenos Aires which included”
May 24th, 2017 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +3None of Patagonia for starters, during the 1830s, That was stolen off the Amerindians by Imperialist Argentina later in the 19th century.
Brit Bob
May 24th, 2017 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Maybe Marcel Kohen will be man enough to admit he is wrong!
gordo1
May 25th, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse +1Nah.
We're already a few times on the Falklands but we think there should
May 25th, 2017 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0be no more additional flights to this destination. The nature is very sensitive
and we should give the animals and the nature the time which they really
need. The Falklands are a paradise and they should stay.
Regards from Berne - Switzerland
René and Susanne
Hope they look further than another Lan flight as they have ripped us off for years, they even charge us an extra GBP100 if a flight is booked within 7 days of travel............
May 25th, 2017 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Kelper teaberry2...
May 25th, 2017 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Hope you realise that you Engrish Colonials have been ripping Chile of their Antarctic sector for ~ 80 years and importing Chileans to clean your toilets at the lowest possible market price...
Stop whinging about LAN prices..., you ungrateful one...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 25th, 2017 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When your fraudulent claims are exposed as in your latest narrative about Uti possidetis juris. Switch tactics and revert to your old standby of an argumentum ad hominem. What a piece of work you are totally given to viveza criolla.
Think.........am not ungrateful at all.....but when they rip us off darn daylight robbery.............just so you know i clean my own loos.........not one but three....
May 25th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile doesn't have an 'Arctic Sector' Think, anymore than Argentina does. just more South American fantasies. Still, when that treaty breaks, we may well be inclined to do a deal with Chile. Somehow I doubt we'll be prepared to do one with Argentina.
May 25th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wonder why?
Mr. Teaberry2
May 26th, 2017 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
《'..just so you know i clean my own loos.........not one but three....”》
I say...:
Does your local Pub..., family & friends also clean thir own loos...?
If Yes..., there are two possibilities...:
1) You are one of the two known abstemian proletars on them islands..., and one of them has only an outside thunderbox...
2) You are Chilean...
- Now..., seriously...!
LAN's incredible expensive airfares to Malvinas ARE a scandalous rip off... but...
That's one of the inconvenients of being a minuscule bunch of Engrish colonials, sailing down here and beeing the UK's excuse to keep messing with the two adjacent Countries territorial sovereignity over more than 12,000,000 square km.., lad...
Mr. Lorton...
You say...:
《“Chile doesn't have an ”Arctic Sector“ Think,”》
I say...:
Chile has no tradition of sailing to the other end of the world (the Arctic) and steal other Countries territories...
Your lack of attention to central details in all your work is worrying...lad...
Have that checked..., lad...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 26th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Chile doesn't have an ”Arctic Sector“ Think,”
Neither does Argentina, as they had an opportunity to legally verify them before ICJ in 1955. But, declined because they knew they’d both lose. Actions speak louder than words.
Geeeeeeee.....
May 26th, 2017 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Two Anglos in a row that don't know the difference between “Arctic” (North) and “Antarctic” (South)...!
And curiously enough.... two of them Anglos that try hardest to pose as experts in International Law..., History and....Geography...!
I would Chuckle... if it wasn't so sad...:-(
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 26th, 2017 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Thanks for confirmation of my last post. Your ‘silence’ along with Argentine and Chilean mean ‘acquiescence’.
So the acceptance of the status quo is duly noted.
Geeeeeeeee....
May 26th, 2017 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Anglo Turnip continues with his OCD behaviour... wihout even noticing his misake...!
Let's make him happy...:
I..., El Think..., hereby solemnly declare and confirm that neither Argentina nor Chile have or ever had an “Arctic Sector”...
Our “Antarctic Sectors” are..., of course..., a whole other story...;-)))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
May 26th, 2017 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Are an oversight, like I’ve said before I claim E&OE.
Our “Antarctic Sectors” are..., of course..., a whole other story. Exactly a story which if resurrected will prompt the UK to have matter put before the ICJ again. We all know what the response to that will be, end of story.
LATAM need some competition to bring the prices down and as for their agency in Stanley...
May 27th, 2017 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse +1Jo Bloggs...
May 27th, 2017 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse -1LATAM DOES NOT need any competition to bring their prices down...
YOU KELPERS need some competition against LATAM bring their prices down...
Ya problem is that the list of airlines cueing to service a market of 2,700 is short.., veeery short ;-)
As for “their agency in Stanley”...
Quite understandable that the Shilenos at Puerto Estanley office are fed up with those wannabee Engrish Lords that want Etihad service on Easyjet fares...
Just keep quiet, pay the asked price and be thankfull that the Shilenos do provide you that service...
Is that the same LAN agency in Stanley that refused to speak any Spanish according to the group of Argentines who got trapped on the islands?
May 27th, 2017 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jo Bloggs
You could always agree to that flight with American Jet, I'm sure they're cheap, and probably at least slightly more reliable than LaMia.
@Think
Britain's claim to the same patch of ice has made no practical difference to Chile for the last 80 years, any more than Argentina's claim to the same patch of ice has.
Think
May 27th, 2017 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Several airlines in SA are satisfied that they can offer a competitive service with cheaper prices than LATAM. They are ready to get going with it but the Argentine Government refuses to allow it to happen. If our chances of success were as unviable as you suggest, surely the Argentine Government would allow another flight from say, Brazil, to happen and then sit back and wait for it to fail. Then they could offer something more palatable to them, such as their own heavily subsidised national carrier.
Demon Tree
That is indeed the same agency and I heard that about them refusing to speak Spanish. Not all of them do speak it but some are fully competent so there is no excuse for not offering their (LATAM) customers proper service. Despite the fact that several of those Argentines that week were playing silly buggers.
Please be assured they don't offer their local resident customers a proper service either.
Stop dreaming and whinging..., Jo Bloggs...
May 27th, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- You squatters have had some good years..., with your economy on steroids..., but that's quickly coming to an end..., thanks to the failure of the Engrish Pirate Oil Adventure and Brexit...
We both know that you small Engrish bunch are geographically stuck down here at the Arsch der Welt...
You are doomed to continue leeching the RAF Airbridge and paying the prices LATAM asks you to pay....
Have a nice weekend
El Think...
@Jo Bloggs
May 27th, 2017 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's the problem with the agency? If the employees don't speak Spanish then I assume they are locals?
But I wouldn't get your hopes up about the flights, Macri has got bigger problems right now, and no doubt there are a lot of people in Argentina's congress who want to continue blocking them.
@Think
I just looked up the fares; ouch. EasyJet prices they ain't, I could probably fly to Chile from the UK for less. Although flying around Argentina doesn't look particularly cheap or convenient either; what you need is some Ryanair.
Woking hard on Norwegian Air Argentina....
May 27th, 2017 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1But wont believe it before I see the first plane fom Barcelna land in Ezeiza...
Think
May 27th, 2017 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You wish.
Jo Bloggs
May 27th, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I know...
Did I say Arctic? So I did. LOL Still, it remains correct. Chile no more has an Arctic sector than it does an Antarctic sector. Anymore than Argentina has an Antarctic sector.
May 28th, 2017 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why? Because neither Chile nor Argentina are strong enough to hold onto what they claim. And when that Treaty breaks, as it surely will, both Chile & Argentina will get knocked out in the rush.
What do Argentines think that military base on the Falklands is for? The Falklands? LOL
Ahhhhhhhhh..., Mr. Lorton...
May 28th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Engrish Colonial haughtiness and veiled threats pouring out of you again..., laddie...
And then you “wonder why” armed police must patrol the Birmingham Chooo-chooo-train...
Funny you should mention colonialism -
May 28th, 2017 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/presencethatchangedtheworld.htm
I'd passed that link on to another less than 30 seconds ago :-)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!