Originally Posted by
spin88
I don't understand the need for this. My understanding is that no limiting authorization was needed to fly to Hong Kong and there was no route authority that was at issue (as with e.g. flights to LHR or HND (which are slot restricted) or say PEK which are limited by bilateral agreement) so there is no legal right/benefit that is being impaired.
Is this just an effort to have an explanation for underperformance?
I'm no SEC guru, but I believe they have an obligation to shareholder/potential investors to disclose when an asset is worth less, beyond normal depreciation. 737-max, a route impacted by low demand due to extended political unrest...