mrlasssen

Looking for the airport code for Jamestown, St. Helena South Atlantic. It is a territory of the U.K. Can anyone help me?

bensyd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_Airport

David-A

"HLE" I believe.
But it is not operational yet.

N.b. to be pedantic, you say "It is a territory of the U.K.". St Helena forms part of the British Overseas Territory of 'Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha' - however they are referred to as 'British' overseas territories, rather than 'UK' overseas territories. This is because they are not part of the UK. They are, along with the UK, British - i.e. the UK is British, the Overseas Territories are also British, it is something they have in common together, being 'British' - a concept broader in scope than the UK.
Accordingly, saying overseas territories are 'of the UK' can be a bit offensive in some overseas territories, as it suggests a very possessive nature of the relationship, which does not reflect how the territories involved see the relationship.

That said, you will find plenty of references to 'UK overseas territories', including in some official publications that should know better.

Antonio8069

The Guardian reports weekly flights begin in May. Until then, there is a mail boat:

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/20...leon-bonaparte

mad_rich

Further to @David-A's response, the complex relationship is explained rather neatly here:

David-A

While the untangling of the hierarchical structure and venn diagram is essentially okay, in term of the topic at hand I do take issue with the presentation of British Overseas Territories in the video.

Viewing them as 'colonies' (as the video suggests to understand them) is part of the problem.

In terms of the British Overseas Territories today, they and their histories are all different, so this is not a generic answer, however in some cases using the term 'colony' would not only be legally wrong, it would be completely misleading.

I say this on the basis that process under which they became 'British' does not fit the usage of term colonisation, nor can the populations be described as a deposited population of colonists, and it does not fit the nature of the relationship.

Indeed, in some cases, the word 'colony' only got applied to them very late on, and it happened almost by accident. Much bigger places were colonies, so for simplifciation, people started referring to them as 'colonies' as well.
Indeed, in some cases people have run the argument that the term 'colony' has never actually legally applied to some of them (it appeared on official documents, but it has been argued this was legally incorrect).
Regardless of the view on the historical arguments around erroneous use of the term, the term certianly does not describe their population, their status, or the nature of the relationship today.