Hacker News Reader

Comment by llIIlIlIllIIlIl | Hacker News Reader

> When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests, Cathay dumped its chief executive.

Question: Is there even remotely a legitimate security concern here? Let's say in a hypothetical scenario, the unrest spirals out of control into a state of complete desperation. The HK government and the CCP refuse to compromise on any of the five demands, and the protestors refuse to stand down.

Let's say politically polarized HK pilots and cabin crew are flying a plane full of mainlanders.

Would you be 100% comfortable being a passenger on that plane as a mainlander?

View on HN

If this is the case, seeing that there are lots of people around the world who are sympathizing with Hong Kong protesters, shouldn't the security directive also apply to every airline worldwide that have mainland Chinese among their passengers?

Yeah that could be one possible solution. Not allowing Cathay flights over mainland China could be considered another.

No, that's not a remotely legitimate security concern. The pilot is not politicized just because some people employed by her company are protesting. Even if she were politicized, what's she going to do, crash the plane?

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

Also, I don't necessarily mean a terrorist incident. Any kerfuffle at 35,000ft would be enough grounds to turn an airplane around and land it at the nearest runway as per standard safety practices.

With HK-mainland tensions at an all time high, I don't think this can be completely ruled out.

What kind of incident are you imagining happening on a plane, and is participation in the protest a reliable indicator for the likelihood of it?

Imagine knowing that your people are fighting for freedom from CPC rule and mainlanders flooding into HK, taking your jobs and housing and driving up prices for essential goods. Then you get a group of obnoxious and oblivious mainlanders heading to HK on a luxury spending holiday demanding this and that from the flight hostesses.

Now imagine being an HK Cathay cabin crew member making not so great pay and living in the most expensive city in the world by far. This could be a tinder box for incidents like verbal assaults, jostling and shoving and if enough passengers get involved, it could transform into a real flight risk.

> is participation in the protest a reliable indicator for the likelihood of it

Humans are capable of many things right or wrong when they are desperate to get their message across. Doubly true when they believe their fight is for justice.

You seem to be asking about an unlikely hypothetical for the sole purpose of legitimizing the actions taken, making the risk seem plausible.

Do you think the above scenario is completely implausible? If so, why?

Please don't make assumptions about my motives.

Whether or not it is your intention, all you're doing is sowing doubt and suspicion. You are NOT creating meaningful discourse.

I was a bit surprised the economist used the word absurdly actually. There are several incidents happened before China's aviation authority made the demand:

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/21/cathay-pacific-pilot-w...

This pilots announcement happened before July 26.

exactly, "absurdly", what journalism

The pilot talking about protestors at the airport he's landing, and supporting them did not imperil the safety of passengers. Claiming that is indeed absurd.

>did not imperil the safety of passengers.

This should be a claim reserved to the experts. If everyone can make those kind of claims why we need FAA? China's aviation authority's claim might not be reasonable, but I'm in no position to judge. And I don't think the Economist can judge either. It not only judged, but grossed over the few incidents with just one word, absurdly.

Now you are a pilot yourself, I'm sure you have encountered many aviation rules that seem redundant or even borderline unreasonable. But we would assume there are reasons behind them right? Again not saying China's aviation authority's demand is reasonable. Sometimes even FAA fucked up (737-max). But when it comes to aviation, non expert opinions are really irrelevant.

Speaking over the intercom about protestors is not a safety issue. You don't need the obviously politically motivated CCP "experts" to judge that. This has nothing to do with aviation safety and everything to do with (lack of) freedom of speech.

You have some anonymous user in this thread fantasizing about crazy scenarios that didn't happen, and you're propping them up with your own judgement, and then you're telling me to hold my judgement and trust the alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you.

No thanks, I'll take as much freedom in judgement as you afforded yourself.

>and you're propping them up with your own judgement.

What judgement has I made? I said I'm surprised the Economist used the word absurdly. Is surprised a judgement?

>alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you.

What's my position in this matter? Did I say it's a safety concern in any comment? Again is surprised == I agree with the demand? Or please remind me if I said something else that made you think I agree with China's aviation authority?

Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said makes sense.

This is the Economist sentence that you're commenting on:

> When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests

If you didn't believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern, you wouldn't disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, and then wouldn't double down on that by giving an example of an incident which you think imperiled safety.

Otherwise, if you didn't agree with those fake safety concerns, there is nothing surprising about the usage of "absurd" by the Economist.

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 expertise to judge.

If you buy into the mainlands propaganda, no, you probably won't be comfortable.

But the protests have been nothing but peaceful, so there really isn't any reason to have fear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com