Ridiculous: Cathay Pacific CEO “Resigns” Suddenly

Good Riddance. Cathay asked for it. How can their management be so dumb and irresponsible. They need to pay the price for their stupidity, endangering the lives of travelling passengers: it’s plain common sense – pilots and air hostesses are not supposed to engage in any such anti-social activities that are in direct conflict with their day-to-day jobs. Airports are a virtual home for pilots and air hostesses. There is no better example of a direct conflict of interests. It’s incumbent upon any Airline employer to immediately fire any of their airline employees who participate in such anti Govt rallies associated with rioting, arson and destruction of public property. Not doing so, geometrically increases the risks to all flights and their passengers. These airline personnel have direct access to security areas within the Immigration area and to critical areas on the aircraft’s in which they fly. What’s to prevent delinquent airline personnel from carrying out sabotage or acts of terrorism. Today it’s protesting and rioting at the airport terminal, tomorrow these radicalised nut cases could carry an offensive weapon or explosives on to the aircraft. Simply cannot be tolerated. They are free to resign from their jobs and become professional rioters. If not they should be fired forthwith and banned from the airlines. Senior management at Cathay who didn’t display simple common sense and responsibility to allow this to happen should also be placed under scrutiny for their sheer incompetence.

Don’t blame China for Cathay Pacific’s mismanagement and downfall. Chinese authorities, CAAC had already given CX the choice. Don’t fly into mainland China’s airspace and CX doesn’t need to comply with their directives. This was very clearly stated. Their country, their law.

@TheTruthIs - since you are on the mainland, that is probably why you see the coverage about the violence by the protesters also. In the US and UK, most people only get to see coverage heavily biased against the police. That is why most people over here thinks the protestors are peaceful and the police are brutal. Many people here are not aware that protestors are attacking the police and normal citizens too!

I used to think that too, until I started talking about this with my family in HK. When I told them about the police violence I saw on BBC & CNN, they were the ones who told me that is not representative of what is going on. What is felt by real local HK citizens is not what is being portrayed in the western media. Many local HK citizens do not like the protests, many local HK people condemn protester violence.

If I was a propaganda bot, I would just post a load of fake links. I wouldn't tell people to search for these incidents on the media outlets they like such as NY times! There is no need to insult people just because they do not agree with you. There is nothing wrong with letting people know there is more to the story than the 1-sided coverage they are likely seeing.

@TheTruthIs - we could also ask: If the mainstream media are so certain of the protestors' just cause, then why are they afraid to showcase the violence by the protestors?

I do not support censoring either, and I support democracy through PEACEFUL means. However most of what is being reported in the mainstream media is very 1-sided. Mainstream media constantly focus on "peaceful protestors" and criticize police for using standard crowd control tactics such as tear gas & rubber pellets.

However, if you watch some of the HK LOCAL news you will see that protestors are throwing bricks, corrosive acid, and petrol bombs at police, attacking police stations, throwing metal barricades on the highway, and attacking Chinese citizens at the airport. One of the Chinese citizens had a "I love HK police" T-shirt. The protestors beat him up, tied him up, and even blocked ambulance access to him. How can these people claim to be pro-democracy if they do not even understand what freedom of speech is?

If you want to verify that this is not fake news, you can actually read about this on the NY times, NBC etc. However, you will have to know about these things and search for it yourself. The mainstream media will never write a headline saying "Protestors attack Chinese citizens".
The mainstream headlines never mention protestor violence. This is why most of the western world thinks the protestors are peaceful and the police are brutal.

One BBC video showed a HK policeman pointing his gun at the mob, while not showing the video of him being attacked by the mob beforehand, and took out his gun containing rubber pellets as self defence. Why did they not show the first part of the video? What would a UK or US policeman do in this situation? I think they would do the same if not worse! After all, how many times in the US do we hear about police firing actual bullets at innocent people?

There are 2 sides to this story. Maybe only 1 side is being shown in the mainland. But similarly, only 1 side is being shown to the western world.

There is a big difference between legal protests and illegal protests. In most countries, protests are only legal if they meet certain conditions (e.g. peaceful, do not obstruct traffic, take place in authorised areas etc). Some of the HK protests are peaceful, but there are also a number which are violent.

There have been many verified reports of protesters throwing bricks, corrosive acid, and even petrol bombs at the police. Some protesters are setting fires outside police stations and breaking windows of police cars. Most recently, protesters attacked 2 mainland Chinese nationals at the airport who didn't even have anything to do with the protests. In response, the police use tear gas, rubber bullets (which are used by riot police worldwide).

These violence by protesters/rioters are grossly underreported by the media, with the headlines almost always focussing on the police. Here are some of the few English articles talking about it, but there are also lots of videos where you can see for yourself if you search on Google
(See: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-hong-kong-protests-undercover-18927233
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3021538/anti-government-protesters-unleash-chaos-across-hong-kong)

These VIOLENT protests (more like riots) are illegal in ANY country. Illegal protests are breaking the law, and would warrant police intervention in ANY country. Earlier this year, the UK police arrested over 300 PEACEFUL climate change protesters for blocking roads. The HK government response is actually quite muted in comparison to the UK one.
(See: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47945397)

@Lucky

This is a prime example of the way in which communist China reacts under 1 country, 2 systems. Their vindictiveness knows no bounds. They demand obedience and will use legal / regulatory means to ensure compliance. The whole reason we have this political crisis comes from China trying to use HK’s legal system as an extension of state control. This approach may work well with the slave culture on the Mainland but we will fight to our last breath to make sure it doesn’t happen here in HK.

BCKS and Yukon are right on. This is very bad news for CX employees, but I wouldn't say this is ridiculous or surprising at all (though it would be in America) -- it's business as usual in China.

a) This is how things work on the mainland -- senior official steps down and claims responsibility (scapegoat), then things continue pretty much as before.

b) From China's perspective, Cathay is arguably the most globally prominent legacy of colonialism in HK. I'm sure they want it to be more Chinese, less British. I imagine that CX made other concessions as well, behind closed doors, and we'll see their effect soon -- this is just the big symbolic one.

c) This is kind of a win-win for everyone who was at the negotiating table (though not for CX employees or your average Hong Kong person). Hogg will get a nice pension -- or a senior job in another Swire company. China gets a "win," and will likely ease the new regulatory restrictions on CX -- and Hogg's resignation allows them to do that and save face. It's a win for Swire, too - their investment in CX is protected. They may have agreed to start unraveling it (as someone predicted above), which we might see in the next year or two -- or not -- but even if that's the case, their capital is protected.

Ultimately, it's good deal for everyone in power, and bad for everyone else (especially CX employees). :(

@Yukon

I just wish more dumb kids like @Aaron gets to read and learn a bit more. Or people like @BiilC to understand politics and stop trying to force democracy everywhere. Hey democracy got USA Donald Trump, and got Boris Johnson for UK. Seeing how radicalized these kids are, I don't think school would stop them from protesting.
Beijing is just steps away of justifying the use their own version of riot control, not the HK police way. And I'll bet only UK and Taiwan will come out to condemn China, the rest of the world will support stability but will not call out Beijing. They will call for peace talks between protesters and China without pointing fingers.
They have to remember HK police are still their brothers and sisters and won't go ballistics. The PLA are not, and they won't show mercy.

@ Oliver
The language you use can hardly be seen as civilized or enlightened. It suggests to me that you are no more classy than the passengers you belittle.

It is also funny how you define a world-class airline as one "where passengers have to queue to board in an orderly manner and the crew insist on compliance with basic norms of etiquette, safety rules." Are you describing a police force or an airline? Do you evaluate a product based on its quality or its customers?

If, as you suggest, Chinese passengers' stopping flying CX would "ensure a more pleasant flying experience for the rest of CX’s civilised customer base.", Surely a private company like CX can also choose to exit the Chinese market, right?

CX does not discriminate against Mandarin-speaking customers; if that were true, CX would not be such a loved brand in Taiwan (to the extent that a lot of Taiwanese erroneously believe that CX is a Taiwanese carrier). Chinese passengers who feel "discriminated" against by CX cabin crew simply don't like the fact that CX is a properly managed, world class airline where passengers have to queue to board in an orderly manner and the crew insist on compliance with basic norms of etiquette, safety rules (e.g. not accessing overhead baggage during take off and landing) and consideration for the others around you. But if Chinese passengers hate flying CX so much they're always free to choose other airlines and ensure a more pleasant flying experience for the rest of CX's civilised customer base.

The situation is far more complex than most comments here indicate. Anywhere else in the world, senior management are not forced to resign because of these types of actions by employees of a company . In countries where the government doesn’t control the media, company management waits for the outcome of legal proceedings before deciding to terminate the employees unless the employee actions posed a immediate safety issue in connection with the operation of aircraft (feelings by passengers are not enough).

It is clear that Beijing forced them to resign for purely political reasons as there is zero evidence that aircraft operational safety was compromised in any way by the employees’ participation in any legal or illegal protests.

I have no doubt that mainland Chinese were made to feel inferior by CX staff. This has been the case for more than 30 years, in my experience living there, not just on CX, but in most parts of HK, where the general attitude was of a great superiority of HK “natives” over mainland “ cousins.”

Protesters have gone further than they ever planned. They don’t know how to how to stop. The worldwide (ex PRC) support they have received has unfortunately allowed the more violent among them to dominate the protests. Many psychological studies show that the majority will find it impossible to make the instigators stop or even stop themselves. Power is very seductive.

The current protests occurred because Beijing miscalculated by cracking down on the Umbrella protests and properly elected HK legislators which only encouraged young people’s pro-independence dreams. Today’s protests would never have happened if pro-democracy demonstrators/legislators had not been banned after those demonstrations. Most demonstrators are far too young to have any memory of the discriminatory undemocratic rule that applied to ethnic Chinese in HK before the handover ( when parks often had signs saying “ Dogs and Chinese prohibited.“ ) Everything will quiet down when school/university restarts in September. But they will be back next summer unless tone-deaf Carrie Lam resigns. Beijing has had a disastrous record of choosing Chief Executives in HK, starting with the first one in 1997. Maybe it’s time Beijing respected the true spirit of the Basic Law agreed with the UK and let HK people decide. Otherwise, one country, two systems is a meaningless joke (which Beijing’s ultimate goal, Taiwan, will never willingly accept). Mainland folks also need to understand that many of these HK people do not “feel “ Chinese. Many of their families fled to HK to escape the Communist Party in the years before the deaths of 20-30 million Chinese during the Great Leap Forward (completely overlooked in most PRC schools’ discussion of Chinese history).

To all sides: don’t believe everything you read. Question everything.

Perhaps not directly related to the protest, there is a consensus that if you are from mainland China and don't speak English, you are likely to be treated as a second class citizen on KA/CX flights. I don't want to call it racism but it is a systematic phenomenon that has persisted for years but the management chose to do nothing about it since the airline dominated all major routes between HK to mainland China with its abundant slot allocations. No surprise an overwhelming majority of Chinese citizens think it is well deserved when CAAC dropped the hammer on CX.

Guys, if you say something liberals don't like, your comment will be deleted!
BTW, those protesters were removed from departure lobby because they "attacked" passengers trying to enter security check points to leave Hong Kong.
Many passengers can barely enter security points and missed their flights which were not cancelled.
That's why authority can get Court restriction to remove them from departure lobby.
It's all been captured on video and can be watched online.
Liberals not only ignore the facts but also try to cover the truth.

Ben

Your comment is really ridiculous here, and I do see double standard right here

You posted about the 12 hour no drinking policy from United, and your support of that is between lines.

Here you stand against Chinese government (as always, we all know you) "requested that the airline start sharing all information about employees not only flying to China, but also passing through Chinese airspace."

So which comes first, democracy or safety?

If United could worry about safety issue resulted from a drunk pilot, why would not Chinese people worry about their safety resulted from a pilot/crew with a violent tendency. Chinese people do not want a 911. (Maybe you like it)

Finally the CPC has done with no one has managed to do before which is have incompetent CX management fired. Was anyone sacked over the fuel hedging which was the reason for the poor financial performance?

My only regret is they didn’t get rid of Slosar who is a complete muppet. And for the record I have met him a number of times so I speak from personal experience. But Slosar can’t be fired because he is the ultimate Swire lifer (Swire being a firm that promotes people based on long service rather than ability).

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that CX should have suspended the pilot that was arrested and kept quiet about what was going on. Slosar put his foot in it and Rupert and Paul paid the price. Unfortunately rather than bring in new blood they’ve hired another couple of lifers.

And for those who wish to take issue with what I’ve said the appointment of Ronald Lam (who has zero experience in running a budget airline to HK Express) proves CX values length of service over ability.

@BCKS
I think you are absolutely correct! When the cross-shareholding between Air China and Cathay Pacific was arranged a number of years ago, the purpose is to appease Beijing for having Swire Group (a non-Chinese government control entity, and a "western" entity in the eyes of China) controlling Cathay Pacific. I also want to point out that it is not a coincident that the CEO resigning is white and the replacement is ethnic Chinese. This is all about appeasing China.

As a Cathay Pacific shareholder myself, I understand the move; however, I was a bit surprise by the resignations by two gentlemen who have done a pretty good job turning around CX in the past three years. I feel sorry that things have to come down to this. It is truly a sad day for freedom!

In the grand scheme of things, this is the perfectly logical next step for China to take. China has been noticeably not even trying to calm down the situation in HK, because it wants to run HK into the ground. HK's economy relies on its stability (since its main focus is on Finance and Trade), with the chaos going on for this long, many businesses are already re-considering their future plans in HK. Destroying the pride and joy of HK (Cathay) and the best way in and out the market, is the obvious next step. Once the businesses leave, HK will lose any bargaining chips they might have left; and the the cities around HK, such as Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Guangzhou, even Xiamen, will welcome them with open arms and lots of grand promises. China wins no matter how this gets resolved.