|
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 20779243)
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. Assuming that this is true, the tourist should have respected store policies. |
Originally Posted by IncyWincy
(Post 20779429)
30K Euros is not a lot at a high end store, of course everything is relative.
Assuming that this is true, the tourist should have respected store policies. |
CX will be totally unaffected by this.
Given CX flying various U.S. cities, CX could have applied for a slot for HNL a long time ago. VWP will not accelerate. One good example is GUM (Hong Kong has Guam-CNMI VWP access. But the only airlines doing HKG-GUM is UA).
Originally Posted by cxfan1960
(Post 20776662)
There is no visa requirement for US citizens to enter Israel, but I do not know the rate of denial at Israeli immigration.
2011 - 6.9% 2010 - 6.4%
Originally Posted by Letitride3c
(Post 20777379)
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.
This is one of the reasons why GUM is messy now.
Originally Posted by Letitride3c
(Post 20777379)
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. :D
Originally Posted by CrazyJ82
(Post 20777861)
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?
Taiwan is not a "country" per U.S. policy. But Taiwan Relations Act allows the U.S. (not Taiwan) to "treat" it as a "country". My main point ever is to point out that the amendment is simply a sideshow. It does nothing improving Hong Kong getting VWP.
Originally Posted by CrazyJ82
(Post 20777861)
You think they're proposing this HK-related amendment just for fun?
For instance, under Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (or Credit CARD Act), a person can now bring a gun into national parks :confused:
Originally Posted by IncyWincy
(Post 20779071)
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.
1. Only a country or those treated as a country can be considered for VWP. 2. HKG is not a country by the mean of the U.S. law. Without this amendment, in order to HKG to get VWP, the PRC must get it for HKSAR Passport and the U.K. must get it for BN(O) Passport. Even BN(O)s are issued exclusively to people from Hong Kong, it is still a British Passport in the perspective of the U.S. It is the way how diplomacy works. |
Please stay on topics related to CX. Thanks.
cxfan1960 CX Mod |
Originally Posted by cxfan1960
(Post 20784005)
Please stay on topics related to CX. Thanks.
cxfan1960 CX Mod |
I guess the valid question here is: will HK VWP-US offers CX added opportunities in USA markets? The general answer is yes, but I suspect it will not increase it that much. Also, tour group rates are in general very cheap compare to individual rates. Even if CX is maxing out their Y cabins every flights with tour groups, is that something that will really generate profits for an airline as CX that sells higher services product based on higher fares?
I would suspect HK VWP-US would benefit more with HK up-start low-cost airlines that sells cheap fares to USA destinations with no-frills services and product, and if that is the case, maybe it's in the CX's interest to be AGAINST HK being included in YWP. |
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 20784693)
I guess the valid question here is: will HK VWP-US offers CX added opportunities in USA markets? The general answer is yes, but I suspect it will not increase it that much. Also, tour group rates are in general very cheap compare to individual rates. Even if CX is maxing out their Y cabins every flights with tour groups, is that something that will really generate profits for an airline as CX that sells higher services product based on higher fares?
I would suspect HK VWP-US would benefit more with HK up-start low-cost airlines that sells cheap fares to USA destinations with no-frills services and product, and if that is the case, maybe it's in the CX's interest to be AGAINST HK being included in YWP. |
Originally Posted by AA_EXP09
(Post 20784957)
But they are the flag carrier airline of HK and being against this would potentially make themselves look bad among their clientele (who naturally want less restrictions.)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:08 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.