This is true as far as it goes, but also seriously misinformed. You're right that all the bill would do is clear up that Hong Kong is eligible as a "country" for purposes of the VWP. But in practice, that's the main impediment to HK's participation. The other requirements (a low percentage of visa refusals, passport security, and law enforcement/counterterrorism cooperation) are less likely to be problems. Note that we're not talking about something like what they were thinking of doing for South Korea before that country joined -- change the core eligibility requirements (in particular, the acceptable refusal rate) so they'd be eligible when they wouldn't have been before. (Can't remember if that was necessary in the end or if the refusal rate came down on its own.)

As I understand it, the issue with Israel is that they have a high-enough number of refusals for U.S. citizens trying to enter Israel that there's controversy over whether they satisfy the reciprocity requirement in VWP.

But we're veering OT. On the "how is CX affected angle" I'd go back and say Cathay Boy has a point that the high visa application cost only comes before the first trip. But...if that burden keeps a tourist from ever making the first visit, it's good for CX to have that barrier removed. I know a number of Hong Kongers who have been deterred from ever going just because other places are easier visa-wise.

Are all tourist visas to the US 10 year multiple? May not be?

This has nothing to do with the UK Government or BNO passport holders.

That seems to be the standard for people applying in HK.

Do you really think so? Even Hong Kong chooses to comply, the U.S. will throw number of stupid things on the table.

Beside - Taiwan is not a "country" per U.S. policy. So the entire amendment thing is simply a sideshow.

You are correct on the visa refusal rate on Israel.

I am not trying to argue anything, but simply want to point that a low visa refusal rate
(as there are other countries who are in the same boat as Hong Kong) does not mean you can get it.

The original legislative intend says so.

Remember - only a country is eligible for VWP participation.

So in other word, the U.K. Government will have to fight for the BN(O) (as well as other British passports). Diplomatically, it will be incorrect for PRC Government to ask on behalf of BN(O).

There is no visa requirement for US citizens to enter Israel, but I do not know the rate of denial at Israeli immigration.

A few random thoughts: with hundreds of amendments to the overall immigration bill being considered in this Congress, the proposed one discussed here will need to have sponsorship and solid support on the House side too - assuming that it will survive the long process in the subcommittee, full committee and the full Congressional body as it move along. Don't hold your breath on this until it is is voted overwhelmingly wihout opposition - sometimes, it can be and do get modified and/or dropped as a result of negotiations and compromises.

The White House has not taken a position on this specific amendment, which is usually reflected in statements and official comments issued by the Dept. of State (Consular Affairs) or during their Hill testimony as the entire bill, including amendments, move along in the legislative process ?

And, if HKers that qualify to travel under this scheme can fly non-stop to HNL, then how would CBP limits travel only to HI and not the other 48 states & PR - it's much more complex ... The gains would be positive for the mainland as well, making it easier to take an Alaska cruise or see the Yellowstone, etc.

As for OneWorld carriers, CX would not be the only ones considering adding non-stop flights to capture the traffic and the mileage runners would be drooling all over with the stopover.

A little Googling would dramatically improve this forum's signal-to-noise ratio. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the U.S. does treat Taiwan as a "country" for just about every purpose short of official recognition. So the issue under discussion here with respect to Hong Kong was never an issue there. You think they're proposing this HK-related amendment just for fun?

As I understand it, the precise issue is the number of (Arab-)Americans getting turned away when they present themselves at Israeli immigration control. But I'm not an expert on exactly what's going on there.

Do you mean AA? They may just as well turn the business over to CX and just do code-share.

Back On Topic : I think the biggest likely impact would be on potential leisure routes, so as I think about it I wonder whether CX really will see a huge effect.

For business-heavy HKG-??? city pairs, a Hong Kong businessman will go to the trouble of getting the visa anyway given how much money is potentially on the line for him. It's the tourists who tend to get turned off by visa hurdles.

But since just about any route to the U.S. from HKG is going to be a very long-haul, they depend on filling J and F seats at a stiff premium for the economics of the routes to work out. Not sure how many leisure travelers do that.

Well, if Taiwan is any indication, the VWP didn't drastically improved Taiwanese going to US for tourism. There was a spike in the first few months, but now it's back to normal. As suspected, the total cost of traveling to USA is just too great when you can get the same experience nowadays in most Southeastern Asian nations. Not to mention the horror stories from Taiwanese tourists on how they were mistreated by US custom agents (rude interrogation, impatience, yelling at you, etc.) That ultimately turned many Taiwanese off from USA destinations.

Hello Gary, you said at post#15 above "In a simple way to explain - VWP allows citizens of certain countries travel to the U.S. visa-free. Hong Kong is not a country. So by the mean of the law, without the amendment, in order for the U.S. to grant Hong Kong People visa-free, the U.S. must grant People's Republic of China visa-free so that HKSAR Passport holders can get visa-free, and the U.K. Government must argue that for BN(O) Passport holders."

In reply I said that this matter (of whether HK people can travel to US visa-free) has nothing to do with BNO passports or the UK Govt.

What you now say (quoted above) seem to be disconnected/contradictary to what you said in #15 above.

In any case, UK Citizens basically travel visa-free to the US. BNO holders are not British citizens hence need visas.

Yet the point is that this topic of whether HK citizens need visas for travelling to US does not involve BNO holders or the UK Government. Period.

Exactly what I was thinking - AA and CX code-sharing with each other ... (Going east to west) I would hate to fly SFO/LAX to HNL on narrow-bodies and then switch to a 777's for a direct flight or deplane while more pax get onboard during the layover. Alias, I'm sure they will figure out the logistics & who has what in their fleet, etc. etc.

The other major consideration for the carrier(S) on this potential new route, assuming that there are no landing rights issues, which I'm clueless on - is how much cargo is going to be on them? Is there enough to fly the birds daily and run a profit, especially in the "front" of the bus paying a hefty premium instead of mostly upgrades?

The VWP would open up all 50 states to folks qualifying from HK, from my additional reading on the proposed legislative amendment to the main Senate bill this year - I'm not so sure some of the other states are as gung ho on this matter as Hawaii. Here in the NY area, the premium outlets are welcoming the "mainlanders" with seemingly unlimited cash to buy until they ran out of space in their new suitcases purchased on the spot

Seems like the world is catering to the Chinese except USA. A colleague who went to France for assignment told me that at an high-end store, a Chinese female started to smoke in the store! The store clerk immediately walked up to ask her to stop smoking, and the Chinese female replied: "I plan to spend 30,000 Euros at your store if you let me smoke", and the clerk did so and personally escorted her around the store, picking items, all with a cigarette in her hand!

USA would be foolish to continue this hard-line stance against Chinese tourists in general. They are the new "money-tourists" in the world.

VWP is totally unrelated to cargo clearance. So to the (considerable) extent cargo loads factor into cx route planning, that's already accounted for before any VWP change.