These two letters show the number of covers flown. The first letter sent on the 4th of December only included four of the six routes. The second letter of the 30th of December shows the number of covers flown on the other two routes. The second letter confirms the pilot was S. W. A. Scott, the International Airlines pilot who later become chief pilot with Provincial Airways when it ran a scheduled service in 1934 and 1935. It also gives the registration of the plane as G-EBZP. It was previously thought that the plane used was a new DH 80 moth which the airline had bought. G-AEBZP was a De Havilland 60 which was a two-seater tourer. Although a much smaller aircraft the covers only numbered just over 3000 which could comfortably be stored in the passenger seat. It does confirm though that there was no intention of carrying passengers and this was mail only. Another interesting point is that the plane was never registered to Provincial Airlines so it must have been hired for the event.

The Postmaster General Responds

Historic literature on this flight gives the impression or sometimes clearly states that the carrying of mail was stopped because of the intervention of the Postmaster General. We have already seen that this was a special flight for the carrying of first flight covers. No other flights were planned (they would not be first flights anymore). We see below four letters from the Post Office on behalf of the Postmaster General. The first is not till the 22nd of December, so clearly the PGs intervention had nothing to do with no further flights being organised. As we will see further down, Provincial from the end of January made it clear to correspondents that were not allowed to fly mail. A number of points arise from the letters below. Firstly, the Postmaster General got involved because the dealer George King abused the Poste Restante service. If he had not done this, the PG may never have known about the flights. Dealers often abused the Poste Restante service, but clearly not to the extent that George King did here. It was a common ploy to send first flights covers to remote destinations ‘Poste Restante’ and then write on the back. ‘If not collected within four days, please return to ….’. This way they would not have to collect the letters and the Post Office would have the expense of sending them to the dealer’s address. They got away with it for a few covers, but as can be seen George King sent far too many by this method. Secondly, the first letter is quite hardnosed. The PG is threatening Provincial with prosecution and threatening to destroy George King’s covers. They later softened their stance. Thirdly, the second letter maintains a hard stance and demands an explanation of Provincials actions. Unfortunately, we only have one side of the correspondence at present. I had hoped to find the other side at the Postal Archives, but this is presently closed. Hopefully in the future these letters can be matched. Fourthly, the PG has softened his stance and is now merely asking for assurances that there will be no reoccurrence of these flights. Fifthly, although we do not have the corresponding letters it is clear that Provincial have pleaded ignorance of the regulations and even has the cheek to suggest the Post Office didn’t properly advertise the situation. We know from the letter at this at the top of this page that this is not the case. Provincial knew exactly what they were doing but managed to convince the PG that this was not the case. It would be interesting to see Provincial’s letter as the reference to Railway letters is interesting. They may have seen GWR’s continuing use of a 3d air letter service and wondered why they were treated differently. The answer is that GWR asked the PG whether Railway letters applied to them as an airline, as they were a railway. He affirmed on the 27th of April 1933 that this was the case. It would not apply to Provincial as they were not a Railway. A bit unfair, but those were the rules.