Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#191

Post by theseadroid »

raquo wrote: post #172
theseadroid wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said in the later comment that the Economist is in no position to judge. Can I be surprised that they made the judgement? Or my surprise has to be only about whether the safety concern is real or not? Let me make it crystal clear: I didn't necessarily believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern but I disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, because personally I think the Economist has no exp…

You don't "necessarily" believe, but provide an argument and a link to justify that belief (however ineffectively)? Have enough courage to own the ideas you propagate, this is pathetic.

My original links' parent's parent:

>The pilot is not politicized just because some people employed by her company are protesting.

My original links' parent:

>It could be disinformation, but I've read that some Cathay pilots and cabin crew were reprimanded for participating in the protests.

I was providing some fact from a relatively reliable and pro-HK reference to those commenters of which they are not aware, and has been grossed over by the Economist article.

To other HN readers, I'm sorry to drag you into this information sparse comment that concerns only my intention. I'm just not into being accused of something I didn't do.

To raquo, there's a guideline to avoid name calling[1]. Or maybe you think I don't deserve that kind of dignity? Anyway your personal attack is effective. I'll stop replying to you. Have a nice weekend.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#192

Post by raquo »

theseadroid wrote: post #191
raquo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't "necessarily" believe, but provide an argument and a link to justify that belief (however ineffectively)? Have enough courage to own the ideas you propagate, this is pathetic.

My original links' parent's parent: >The pilot is not politicized just because some people employed by her company are protesting. My original links' parent: >It could be disinformation, but I've read that some Cathay pilots and cabin crew were reprimanded for participating in the protests. I was providing some fact from a relatively reliable and pro-HK reference to those commenters of which they are not aware, and h…

In your original comment the second sentence is obviously reading as justification for your first sentence and for safety concerns mentioned by both parent and grandparent comments.

If as you say you intended to reference different, less related parts of parent and grandparent comments, that's just poor communication. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't own up to that either.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#193

Post by wendyshu »

groundlogic wrote: post #162
wendyshu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first hit on Google for "Rupert Hogg" gives a HK journalist claiming the story is a canard.

Jack Ma's and SCMP's neutrality is a bit up in the air at the moment, I feel. Last time I looked at that story it was just trying to sow doubt, without any evidence to the contrary. I'm sure you'd inform us in great detail if that had changed.

I literally said "some say". Chill out. I totally agree the SCMP is biased.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#194

Post by hktruth »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #185
jeremysalwen wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the 50 cent army ever came to HN, it would look like the above two comments.

With the regularity things get flagged off the front page, it's been here for ages.

I posted a comment which was flagged because it contained links to video evidence showing that protestors have been violent.

Here is just a selection. I wonder if this post will get flagged by the thought police.

https://twitter.com/sumtingwong2019/status/11584146357598331...

https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1161299001414578177?s=1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgsjUZO9y4k

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1161334705570009089?s=19

https://twitter.com/Komei365TKO/status/1158359746874707968?s...

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#195

Post by erikpukinskis »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #43
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't say "the west" because I think it's really "capitalism", but Global capitalism created this situation by deepening trade relationships with China to the point that we're all dependent on them to the point that there's very little leverage over their international behaviour. Look at how the PRC is behaving against Canada right now. Illegal torture-like detention of two of innocent Canadian citizens in China, i…

That is absolute bullshit. If Western countries had refused to trade with China for human-rights reasons, we'd be hearing accusations of economic imperialism! Now we're responsible for their ultra-nationalist authoritarian capitalism because we don't impose our imperial authority on them?

Arguing against unmade statements is bigger bullshit.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#196

Post by Tade0 »

chrischen wrote: post #90
throwaway2048 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, any western company that thinks the Chinese government is going to allow them to have a large market share in China long term is straight up delusional (or thinking so short term they don't care at all) Company after company has been raided for IP and forced out of China, stop falling for the siren song.

Apple still has a large market share in China. Maybe Samsung just sucks and couldn’t compete against Huawei? Only reason Huawei hasn’t beat out Samsung in the US is because of anti-Huawei sentiment in the US.

Samsung is making a killing on selling OLED screens to both Huawei and Apple - I guess they figured it's easier and more profitable this way than to try re-conquer a saturated market.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#197

Post by naniwaduni »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #80
chaostheory wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can do what the Chinese have done since the 19th century: move and adapt. It's what my family did. Easier said than done, but I feel it's pretty ingrained now when you can even find Chinese families in places like Africa.

It was much easier to move somewhere in the 19th century if you had the money. Its essentially impossible to move to another 1st world country without years (or decades) of process + usually a highly valued university degree these days

It wasn't exactly easier to have the money in the 19th century?

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#198

Post by y2kenny »

hker wrote: post #188

It seems like the most dangerous threat to Cathay is the following line from the article: > China’s airline regulator declared it unsafe Based on other sources it means that Cathay would be forbidden to enter China's airspace. It entails much more than not being able to land in China: since the airspace of Hong Kong is surrounded by that of China, it is virtually impossible not to enter China's airspace when using th…

If China is using "safety" as a political weapon, I think other countries need to respond with sanction. The idea of safety is not some abstract concept. Safety is an objective measures with international norm, standards and processes.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#199

Post by hker »

chrischen wrote: post #91
idlewords wrote: post #36

China is applying a lot of pressure on Hong Kongers right now, including searching devices at the border for any signs of protest photos. The Hong Kong police have requested Octopus card records (the mass transit card that is linked to individual user IDs) and CCTV footage of the airport protests last week. There is evidence of information sharing between Hong Kong police and mainland authorities. The implied threat…

I don’t think border searches like this are out of the norm even by Western standards.

I agree that border searches by Western standards have worsen recently, e.g., the US customs may ask for social media handles.

But the Chinese border searches have gone even further: they install additional tracking apps on travelers’ phones [1], and they make a copy of the phone data for later analysis (in Cantonese [2]).

[1]: https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/article/visitors-to-china-...

[2]: https://lih.kg/1384861

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#200

Post by hker »

spacehunt wrote: post #40

And today, Cathay Dragon sacked the head of the flight attendant's union. https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/video-gallery.htm?vid=1476318

The head of the flight attendant’s union was fired by Cathay Dragon, and according to her press conference regarding the termination [1], the case was based on her friends-only stories on Facebook ([1], 48:10 in Cantonese) which showed some post-it notes saying Happy Birthday to her colleagues ([1], 48:45 in English)—post-it notes are common in Hong Kong’s Lennon Wall—but it remains to be seen if there is enough grounds for termination.

[1]: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/646850612491620/

Post reply on HN