Well, this thread certainly lived up to expectations.

- It’s okay to not render services paid for, if the airline doesn’t fully understand the rules because “when in doubt - take no risks”, which is apparently more reasonable than “when in doubt, engage the authorities who implement the rules”.

- But it’s the governments fault for making the rules so complex. Airlines shouldn’t be responsible for going back to the governments for clarification when required - too much effort. Just sell the ticket, collect money, and refuse transport instead depending on what the airline thinks it knows on the day (which may or may not be consistent with the actual rules). Much easier.

- Companies shouldn’t have to deliver services that they voluntarily sell, because it’s unacceptable to have them shoulder the risks associated with complex rules that they may or may not be able to train their staff adequately in. Passengers should bear all of the risk, because they’re only out a few thousand dollars each, which obviously has a smaller impact on them than a multibillion dollar company losing a few million. The airline’s financial well-being is the most important thing here. The corollary presumably being that we should all endeavour to keep that in mind and refrain from exercising APPRs/IDB rights etc.

- And (my favourite), there’s nothing wrong with companies providing inadequate training/making inadequate effort to clarify rules with authorities, resulting in personal hardship for individuals who’ve bought the service in good faith, because things are generally better now than for these individuals than they would have been in the Second World War. That was real hardship. Or something.

Flying to HK is undoubtedly a pain right now, but probably best to avoid airlines that make it even more painful.