beep88

why people don't have/buy insurance? Often posted on the AMEX and north american airline boards, people sometimes look forward to delayed/lost bags .. up to 1000USD covered by platinum card.

Of course this doesn't work for the singer but for other travellers?

garykung

Not trying to draw a heated discussion.

Read this first:

Taiwan’s ICAO ad campaign takes off

Then you know Taiwan is not even a part of ICAO.

Then I think anyone can do a simple Google Search and find out that all Greater China aircraft (PRC/ROC/HKG/MFM) starts will a B, right?

So my guess is Montreal Convention applies Taiwan through the PRC.

percysmith

No heat....in fact probably no real significance. Just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.

The ROC was an original signatory to the original 1929 Warsaw Convention - took some searching but found it:

http://www.transportoweprawo.pl/akty...zawska?lang=en

PRC acceeded to the Warsaw Convention on 20 July 1958 and claimed its accession applied to Taiwan too http://unidroit.info/program.cfm?men...tates&nid=1063 .

Diplomatically the ROC holds "there is only one China" so its aircraft will share the B- code with PRC (as well as HK aircraft).
But it is a step further to suggest the PRC can contract on behalf of the ROC. That is tantamount to the ROC recognising that the PRC can act on its behalf in diplomatic affairs - something the PRC has always claimed but the ROC has never agreed to.

Non-Chinese nations normally recognise either the PRC or the ROC - never both.
The original Warsaw Convention is an agreement that both parties can be party to cos it was signed before the establishment of the PRC and all parties recognised the ROC. The parties then switched their recognition to the PRC between 1949-1958 so it can join.
This "grandfathered" arrangement cannot be applied for Montreal. Most Montreal parties recognised the PRC only ever since its signing.

There's a Californian case involving China Airlines and the Warsaw Convention in 2002 http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...th/96/486.html . The Warsaw Convention and the ROC's "Rules of Compensation" were cited http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...th/96/486.html - US$20 per kilogram. At that time even the US is not a signatory to Montreal but even if it was, the ROC could never be.

ernestnywang

Can't see the connection between the aircraft registration prefix (B) and that Montreal Convention applies to Taiwan through the PRC. AFAIK, the ROC had been using the B prefix before the PRC was established.

garykung

It explains the tension between Taiwan and China, sort of.

garykung

One of the perfect example is WTO and WHO, maybe even ICAO.

So can we consider Taiwan acceded to the Montreal Convention through PRC? Maybe.

percysmith

Also between the KMT and the DPP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Chi..._within_Taiwan

Haha Ah Bian was alleged to have tried to rename CI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desinicization#Taiwan . Although even his govt backed down from that.

percysmith

I think its involvement in WTO and WHO is participatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign..._organizations . But it is participating as a "customs region" and a place respectively.

Membership of ICAO will be more troublesome as membership of ICAO are generally UN-recognised states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icao#Membership .

The Montreal Convention is an outright diplomatic document between nations. There is no capacity for the ROC as-is to sign it.

percysmith

CI Conditions of Contract says Montreal, Warsaw or the ROC "Rules Governing the Compensation..." may apply to international flights http://www.china-airlines.com/en/check/ci_important.pdf

I'm not sure if CI has fifth freedom passenger flights, but if it did between two Montreal countries, it will apply http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/East...Airlines.shtml
Also to its freight services outside Taiwan (e.g. between India and the UK)
And also to non-CI flights it tickets for perhaps.

garykung

So the Montreal Convention applies to ROC through PRC?

I know as a fact that Taiwan does give up 5th freedom to UA (TPE-NRT).

ernestnywang

The ROC (using the name TPKM) joined the WTO at the same time the PRC joined, and are clearly 2 separate members. You might be able to say that the ROC was in the WHO through the PRC, as some Taiwanese scholars went to WHO meetings together with PRC counterparts, but this is no longer the case as the ROC (using the name Chinese Taipei) is now an independent observer member in the WHO. The ROC has no representation in ICAO through any mean.

ernestnywang

There are certainly tensions between both sides, but I still fail to see your point.

garykung

The tension is how Taiwan should be interpreted...

ernestnywang

If you are saying Taiwan is part of China because Taiwan uses the "B" prefix, I can see the logic. However, to say that because Taiwan uses the "B" prefix the Montreal Convention applies to Taiwan through the PRC is beyond my comprehension, and, IMO, too much a stretch. Again, the ROC has been using the "B" prefix before the PRC was established and before the Montreal Convention came into existence.

percysmith

That will be tantamount to Taiwan recognising PRC's One country, two systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems. No major political party in Taiwan will support it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_cou...China.2FTaiwan


And to CX.
But is it reciprocated?