Yuropflyer economic yes (whether it is sustainable for HK is not certain) but certainly the EQ of Government and its critics has certainly gone down. Govt doesn't help its case by collectively lying even if the pan dems should not have made such a meal out of it - admit Chung-Yan received an exception, it did not cause a security risk and develop guidelines on how future cases will be handled.

Quite the mainland sentiment...

I'm with Percysmith and Yuropflyer on this one. Hong Kong's economy has done well under Chinese rule, but I think that's going entirely OT. But this, together with discussions about freedom and democracy is a topic for discussion in another place I think.

The reality is that CX would probably have done the exact same thing for any passenger, whether daughter of the chief executive or not. Maybe they were a lot more harried than they would have otherwise, but I don't see what the alternative is.

I also think the CE and his family should be allowed use of the VIP terminal -- in which case this entire discussion would be moot -- but I see many around here seem to disagree and expect him to stand in security like everyone else.

And let's also try to listen to the other side for once. CY said he didn't ask anyone to call him 梁特首, and correctly points out that he would have called some senior management at the airport authority if he really wanted to get special treatment. Sounds like there was a fair dose of creativity thrown into the fruit daily report.

Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation has accused CAD of misstating there was no non-compliance Chung-Yan's case https://www.facebook.com/HKCCF1300/p...314211057674:0

It asserted ICAO rules were broken. Specifically "「有任何手提行李可以交由並非乘客本人攜帶 , 甚至不確定是否曾過安檢 , 便進入飛機上」" should not be acceptable. But it did not quote the source of the rule quoted.

CAD issued a denial of non-compliance to press (not published in its own website) http://s.nextmedia.com/realtime/a.ph...647&a=54970734

I take it that is a direct quote or a translation of an ICAO requirement.
I am unable to find ICAO published the Chinese (Chinese is a UN language) of the HKCCF quote.
Nor am I able to find a ICAO English document relating to simultaneous passenger baggage screening.

I will be very surprised if HKCCF is able to quote from a ICAO document that is not public.
In the case it is, can someone provide the document reference and a more complete quote please.

What does the cabin crew federation have anything to do with this? Do they also cover ground staff and AVESCO?

No but I guess they can say if Avesco/CAD stuff up screening they are an affected party.

They are all f-heads (on a personal note. The cy "taxi" leung is a classmate of my sister and cy "plane" leung is the classmate of my flatmate's sis. Utter nightmare)

(I know he said he didn't but) he should have asked to be addressed as Chief Executive. This way we know he's exercising his Cap 494 s. 24(1) powers and no one will argue about non-compliance.

point made. hope you have received your CNY5 for speaking fluent english.

what good?

I hope you received your USD 10 for blatant anti chinese Propaganda. ..

Well if Govt is trying to assert that Chung-Yan's case is not non-compliance, document how similar cases will be dealt with in the future. If Chung-Yan "gets away with it" but Apple demonstrates airport staff stonewalling the next day, then it does become proven favouritism unless something is done about it.

This has gone off topic to CX so closing this thread.

Discussion continues here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hong-...ety-rules.html

sxc
Cathay Pacific Moderator