Originally Posted by
chongcao
Oh by the way the lawyers in CX are not 100% right. Hainan and Qantas can register a company in Hong Kong as JetStar Hong Kong and/or change the name of Hong Kong Express to JetStar Hong Kong. JetStar Hong Kong can exist as a Hong Kong residing company and operate independantely out of JetStar Australia. As a company name JetStar Hong Kong still could be a Hong Kong headquartered company rather than JetStar (aka JetStar is JetStar, JetStar Hong Kong as JetStar Hong Kong). However it requires a lot of trust and special treatments to be given by JetStar to Hainan Airlines or Hong Kong Express. So instead of doing business together, Qantas just need to rent the right of using the name of JetStar to JetStar Hong Kong holding company (in this case even not HKE or HNA).
This is a dreadfully thin analysis of the meaning and practical implications of having a head office and management in HK, as opposed to in Melbourne. Do you think it makes sense for JetStar to duplicate in HK practically all its management functions, as opposed to leveraging their existing facilities? Of course not. That would kill the value proposition. The point made by Cathay is that they intend to argue that unless practically all of management is in HK - and not just a rented name and maybe a couple of people - the legal definition is not met. There is posturing involved for sure, but your legal analysis is no better than what you are criticizing.