Talk:Cathay Pacific/Archive 1

CX 600-699 Series
Please note that CX has now utlilsed this series - it is used for CX693 HKG-PEN and CX692 PEN-HKG - both non-stop flights.

ZRH
Does anyone know why the service to ZRH has been withdrawn in 2001 (I believe)?

Accidents and incidents
I wish someone could put the old accidents and incidents list back on. Although Cathay doesn’t have much accidents and incidents, it surely has more than just two incidents. Surely we don’t want to be like the guys like Korean Air, covering all the facts in their wikipedia page. I remember there was one incident that Cathay’s aircraft had a tail-strike. En51cm 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found some information on accidents and incidents that cathay was involved, but I need some help with the editing.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6962

The full list is on that web-page. Cheers. En51cm 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Photographs
Those first two pictures are very similar. Are both really needed?


 * Yes, one is a longshot, the other is a closeup of the nose. Both have their place in my opinion - Adrian Pingstone 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Both are marred by a winglet from another aircraft covering part of the nose logo. The addition of another image at the top of the article makes this very cluttered. --Jumbo 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's very easy to be critical but to complain that a tiny bit of a winglet overlies the flight deck is silly. How disturbed do you think our readers are going to be by that! I took both those in question and my opinion is that, until better ones come along, those two will do just fine. Its good that someone bothers to put on pics so less nit-picking please because there was no angle which would have got that winglet out of my view. Your comment that the article is cluttered is strange, just look on down the article, there's acres of space for pics so just move one down into that area - Adrian Pingstone 15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I upset you! They are actually excellent photographs. I looked through my own stock - I recently flew SYD-HKG-KIX-HKG-CDG on CX (in J, bliss!) - and couldn't find anything better. It's just that the thumbnails give the impression that the colourful winglet is part of the nose art. I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes by moving pictures around, but I'll go and do it now. I might separate your two photographs, because they do look a bit similar. I'm flying MEL-HKG-FRA on CX in a few weeks (in Y, gloom), and I'll see if I can get some shots then. --Jumbo 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Route announcements
There are several lines which are apparently taken from press releases, announcing "the addition of a third daily service to Woop Woop", apparently inserted some time ago, as the dates referred to have passed. Perhaps these could be reorganised or deleted entirely? --Jumbo 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai Guangzhou

 * What does "Shanghai (Guangzhou)" stand for? olivier 11:12, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong is independent member at civil aviation organisations and airport council, and maintains its own economic policies. It comes up with bilateral aviation agreements at its own. Hong Kong-mainland China and Macau-mainland China flights are considered non-domestic (i.e. international) and reaches international but not domestic airports, such as Pudong but not Hongqiao at Shanghai.  Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China should each have separate listings.
 * Yes that may be true, but the destination listings all over wikipedia follow conventions whereby we list airports according to the countries they belong to, and HK and Macau are part of China. It is not a listing of independent airport councils and representation. Also, please avoid using terms like "Hong Hong, china," "Macau, China," and so on, because we are actually trying to avoid using redirects!--Huaiwei 10:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Hong Kong, China" and "Macao, China" are the official names that these two entities use to join international organisations. I don't mind using "bracketHong Kong|Hong Kong, Chinaendbracket" to avoid the redirects.
 * You said that listing should be according to countries that places belong to. Then Taiwan is part of China, though Taiwan is under the rule of another government.  China including Taiwan is one country under two regimes.  Why they're listed separately?
 * Would Hong Kong be listed under United Kingdom if it wasn't handovered? The same rule should applied for all territories that are under others' sovereignty, but is independent in all sense except national defense and diplomatic relations.
 * For the case of airports listing particularly, listing of HKIA and MIA under China would induce confusions, that Hong Kong-mainland China or Macao-mainland China flights are considered domestic.
 * My responses to each point above:
 * The official name under which Hong Kong joins international organisations has never been standardised. Some has it as Hong Kong SAR, China. Some say China, Hong Kong. To simply things, we refer to it as Hong Kong.
 * Taiwan's situation is clearly under contention, and that gives it special threatment, just like we dont classify Palestine under Israel either in general. Taiwan has never accepted the one country two systems form of government, and neither does it recognise Beijing rule.
 * A colony or dependency is different from an autonomous region of a country, and hence are obviously treated differently. We dont place Xinjiang, Tibet, or Nei Monggu as seperate entries either although they have some form of autonomy. Moreover, there is no standard level of autonomy accorded to various supposedly similar entities, so we cant be standardising this aspect of threatment.
 * If you feel there is a serious need to inform users that flights into and out of HK and Macau to Mainland China are considered international, then a paragraph explaining this situation would have worked wonders, which you have done already. Should there be a need to reconfigure the presentation of all similar lists thoughout wikipedia just to stress this one point?
 * In general, I hope you may engage in these discussions, and wait for a concensus to be taken before implimenting your edits across the site, especially when it is clearly under contention. Otherwise we will end up having to go after and remove your edits again if need be.--Huaiwei 13:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My responses
 * Hong Kong, China and Macao, China are the standard name that the two entities use to join almost all organisations. Please look up on the WTO, World Meteorological Organisation and APEC websites.  SAR is never included, and the order of China, Hong Kong or China, Macao is only used in Chinese (language).
 * Hong Kong and Macao are not autonomous regions, and are not like Xinjiang or Tibet. I would say it is like the relationship between Puerto Rico and United States to certain extend.
 * Theoretically and legally speaking, the PRC government in Peking cannot intervene into the two, though its legislature can scrap the SARs and take all the power back.
 * Taiwan has claimed over the entire China, and it keeps the title "Republic of China" (at least) until now. Obviously it is a part of China, although not under the rule of PRC in Peking.
 * Hong Kong and Macao shouldn't be regarded as part of mainland China, especially when dealing with immigration, economic and customs issues. They are separate and independent entities, and have the same status as mainland China.  The Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the President of PRC attends APEC Summit with the same positions.  I have no objections to list Macao and Hong Kong under PRC for diplomatic relations and national defense issues, but it IS inappropriate for other issues to list the two under mainland China for other issues.
 * -anon December 5, 2004, 14:07 UTC
 * I remember clearly that the Hong Kong contingent marched into the olympics stadium with the term "SAR" attached to their name. Informal references aside, is there an ISO or official document(s) indicating that Hong Kong should always be refered to as Hong Kong, China when refered to in international circles? And hence forth, are you saying we should consistently refer to Hong Kong as Hong Kong, China, in all references to the city?
 * Yes, a special administrative region is not the same as the kind of liberties given to Xinjiang etc, but where do we draw the line? To be honest, I find that overall, there seems to be this overwelming display of desires in threating the two SARS as thou they are independent entities in as many aspects as possible, and to say that the two SARS should be treated as thou they are independent in all economic-related issues is as good as practically every aspect of both entities, since for HK especially, its existance and survival is almost completely revolving around economics alone! And how about topics which cant be classified as easily? Education? Health? Sports? In fact, how the two entities should be treated as either SARs in their own right, or as independent entities, is proably going to be a major POV debate waiting to brew up.
 * The situation over Taiwan is not exactly unknown to most East Asian observors invluding myself. But to insist that they belong to the same country is obviously going to be an issue of POV. In general with regards to sitations like this, refering to it as either Taiwan or ROC is more then sufficient. There is no need to call it "Taiwan Province" for example.--Huaiwei 14:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong uses the title "Hong Kong, China" to join the Olympic Games, Asian Games and football matches . The Hong Kong team marched into the stadium with the name banner "Hong Kong, China" since 1998 Asian Games and 2000 Olympic.  Hong Kong has its own football team and compete with other national teams.  In the World Cup 2006 primary "Hong Kong, China" and "China, PR" were in the same group.
 * "Hong Kong" should be used in refering to the city, "Hong Kong SAR" or "HKSAR" should be used as a first-ordered administrative division of PRC, "Hong Kong, China" should be used in international events involving other sovereign states and territories. The same applies to Macao.
 * Yes Hong Kong and Macao are independent entities in all aspects except national defense and diplomatic relations. This is stated in the basic laws, the mini-constitutions, of the two territories.  It is part of the "One Country Two Systems" principle.  Both entities are granted autonomy on immigration, economic, etc. policies, and maintain their own currencies, with their own judiciaries.  They are de facto operating like other states except for national defense and diplomatic relations.  If you may know some sovereign states don't even have its customs and armed force.  An example is Liechtenstein, which interest at the EFTA used to be represented by Switzerland (or Austria? gotta double check), uses Swiss Franc, Austrian railway system, and national defense is Switzerland's responsibility.
 * And it is true that Hong Kong and Macao have their own education systems, and their own delegations in sports events, respectively. Both SARs (not to be confused with SARS) issued their own passports.
 * I understand that it might be hard for other people to recognise Hong Kong and Macao are indeed unlike other provinces or cities even after the handover. Nonetheless this doesn't mean that they are just the same.  To be frank, almost the entire colonial system is preserved, that the government of the sovereign country (London and Lisboa in the past, Peking now) do not intervene much.
 * sorry don't understand with "QUOTE since for HK especially, its existance and survival is almost completely revolving around economics alone ENDQUOTE"
 * Why don't we use "Taiwan, ROC" then? It is the way they put their name on products exported to other countries.  "Taiwan Province" is an administrative division under ROC, and there ARE some parts under ROC not on Fuchien (or Fukien) Province, and it still having that province in its administrative division.  And according to ROC's constitution, it still claims over entire mainland China (and outer Mongolia, well).  I don't see anything wrong to say ROC and PRC are both part of China, and China is one country, at least it's not wrong at the current moment.  Nobody can predict tho.
 * -- anon 17:06 December 5, 2004 UTC
 * To sum up my responce to the above, I no longer see it as you reiterating just how independent Hong Kong is from China to reconfigure the way the city should be refered to across wikipedia. In fact, you seem to prefer to hightlight aspects whereby the two are independent, but not those which clearly state that they are but one country. We are talking about countries here all along, not (economic/political/educational, etc) systems. In all, I feel that if you wish to pursue this further, especially when it is as controversial as this, you might be better off suggesting this as a topic to be brought up in our standardization pages (do refer to guides like Naming conventions and Disambiguation, as well as other related pages). Wikipedia does not function by a tit-for-tat, tug-of-war of edits when disagreements arise. Hence, I find myself chaing after your edits and undoing them, especially when you do not seem to be following proper procedures before redefining things in your fancy. You have been flouting too many "rules and guidelines" along the way, if no one has pointed that out to you yet.
 * As for taiwan, just let me ask this: Why do you write "Taiwan, ROC", and not "Taiwan, Republic of China"? To put it simply, you appear to be claiming standardisation when there are none. And again, this is the simple reason why I have to revert your edits again. I really hope you may at least respect our "codes of operation" before advancing further with your edits. (Thanks for correcting a typo on my user page thou! :D )--Huaiwei 13:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please refer to Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong).
 * For "Taiwan, ROC": I was just suggesting an example. "Taiwan, ROC" is what I found on the packings of products from Taiwan.  Yes "Taiwan, Republic of China" would be fine.  (Tho I prefer the formats "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.")
 * --anon 10:10, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Erm....I think you might have misunderstood the use of the conventions pages. These rules are supposed to be born out of discussions with everyone. Not cast in stone by one contributor and presented as such. As a result, I end up having to add a note at the top, as well as encourage discussions in the talk page instead.--Huaiwei 10:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --anon 14:25, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * From an aviation and immigration standpoint HK, Macao and China are seperate. Can people travel from Hong Kong to China without a visa ? ... pretending that HK is the same status as Tibet is rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.105.113 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight numbers
Paris Charles de Gaulle or Tokyo Narita.
 * The flight number list is very messy. Some Wikipedians edited it and some of the airport names are invalid links. I've just edited a part of it. I suggest everybody do it like this, e.g. When you need to link Paris Charles de Gaulle to the page "Charles de Gaulle International Airport", please link to them by their IATA or ICAO designators, like
 * "CDG|Paris Charles de Gaulle"→Paris Charles de Gaulle, or
 * "RJAA|Tokyo Narita"→Tokyo Narita instead of


 * Also, CX 9240, CX 9241, CX 9248 and CX 9249 are not codeshare flights within Europe, but are CX flight numbers for the Aeroflot HKG-SVO service.


 * Another thing is, I think we should add the Comair codeshare numbers into the list.

KK kap 07:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Flight codes
Will some clever person please move the huge list of Flight Codes into a new article and, of course, put a link to it in the existing article. Perhaps "Cathay Pacific flight codes" would be a good name. Scrolling down through that massive list is very irritating - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but like Singapore Airlines, we had a lengthy list of flight numbers, but it got deleted due to it being too long and listing every flight number run by SIA. As for this article, it does not apply with the Airline WikiProject and in their criteria this is CX-cruft. So any split will have the same fate as the SIA article. You may like to see the AFD here. --Ter e nce Ong (T 10:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the problem. So can the Flight Code section of the article be deleted? Are interested parties in agreement to the deletion? - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think it is somewhat bothersome to list the flight codes in this article. (Maybe it should be moved to WikiTravel?) But like the Singapore airlines example, you don't want all of that hard work being deleted.Herenthere 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but hard work may well have to be deleted if the article quality is worsened by the material. Like I said above, I found scrolling down through 6 screens-worth of flight codes, to get to the material below, very irritating. Our only concern must be the quality of WP not how much work someone put in. In any case I believe it should have been obvious that so much stuff on one topic would be too much - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be moved to another article or just simply deleted. It is very irritating scrolling down the list. And also, that information is not even necessary, you can get that info at Cathay Pacific website. FlyAirCanada 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then maybe we should just give that link to the CX webpage in the Trivia or some other section. The flight number list is detrimental to the quality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WasAPasserBy (talk • contribs).

Merge
Marco Polo Club should be merged into this page. It is another page on a frequent flyer program that is non-notable in itself. The only info that is likely to be put on the page is a list of benefits, participants, etc., which is directly available from Cathay's website and probably violates WP:NOT. DB (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Please comment here - type support or oppose and a brief statement of your reasoning.


 * OPPOSE -- The guidelines under WP:AIRLINES state "Frequent flyer program participation should... have their own articles if they are large or well known." Parnell88 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE -- MPO now is the FFP for both CX and KA so should have its own article. 64.69.108.254 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT -- As with larger US airlines, their frequent flyer programs are merged into the airline article. It is easier to read and access this way without having to change pages.--Golich17 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE -- This article needs to be referenceable from the pages of two airlines (dragon/cathay) so should be kept separate. it would be strange to find the ff programme for dragon air within the cx article. 131.111.8.102 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE -- Cathay and Dragonair share the same frequent flyer programme, but are distinct identities, versus American counterparts, which are all named after the mainline airline. However, I would also be okay with Dragonair's frequent flyer redirecting to CXs page. NagamasaAzai (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Be creative in writing articles but follow the rules cause they are there for a reason. Parnell88 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can do two things: (1) Respect the guidelines; (2) Oppose the guidelines.
 * If you respect the guidelines then the only question to ask is whether Marco Polo Club is "large or well known". It is not the largest but I would doubt anyone would argue it is neither large nor well known esp. given the recent addition of a second airline, Dragon Air, into the equation. There is potential for expansion (that is why stubs exists) and speculating what info might be put into the page in the future is a thin argument for keeping/merging the page.
 * If you oppose the guidelines then one can (1) do whatever he/she wants (this is the course advocated here by perpetuating these threads), or (2) he/she can try to change the guideline through consensus (also tried but with little interest so far).
 * This is not a discussion over guidelines in the Wikiproject; that should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. This is a discussion on the article about the Marco Polo Club. Guidelines under a Wikiproject are not "rules". If there is a consensus to remove an article, then it doesn't matter that a project says it's ok to have it. Besides, the project does not say this article must exist. The Marco Polo Club is not particularly large or well-known. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, there are many frequent flyer programs that are significantly larger than Marco Polo Club, but articles on them were all removed. These included Mileage Plus, OnePass, and Sky Miles. DB (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will add that the article meets none of the guidelines specified for products and services in WP:CORP. DB (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion started about 3 years ago and it seems the Marco Polo Club article has already been removed and merged. FYI, I have made extensive update to the Cathay Pacific and Dragonair articles recently (and took to GA-status for both), and I have transcluded the 'Loyalty programmes' section from Cathay Pacific into Dragonair, so whenever the info is updated in one, it will be reflected in the other. I hope this will solve this discussion. Aviator006 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Shareholding Realignment
Is the separate section on shareholding realignment really needed? It seems to have been taken word for word from CX's webpage, and it is already previously mentioned in the "History" section.WasAPasserBy 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note relating to the Reversion of the Edit by Russavia claiming that Swire Pacific is not the parent company. Refer to Note (d) on page 34 of the Annual Report here: http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/investor/2006_Annual_Results_EN.pdf which clearly states that Swire Pacific owns approximately 54.35% of the voting rights in Cathay Pacific, which makes them the parent company. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading thru' the whole section of Substantial shareholders on page 34 of the 2006 Annual Report:


 * Because of the Shareholders' agreement mentioned in note (a) among Air China, CNAC, CITIC Pacific and Swire Pacific, each of them were deemed interested in the total of shares they individually held, directly or indrectly, under the Securities and Futures Ordinance of HK for this disclosure purposes.
 * Per note (a):

Swire Pacific held approx. 39.99% of Cathay Pacific,

CITIC Pacific held approx. 17.5% of the Co.,

Air China & CNAC together held approx. 17.5% of the Co.


 * Per note (d) It is Swire group that held 33.28% in Swire Pacifc and approx. 54.35% of the voting rights, the subject company is not Cathay Pacific.

Therefore, apparently there's no parent company for Cathay Pacific. Swire Pacific is only the largest shareholder.

Furthermore, a glance at the list of directors of the Company (see latest 2008 annual report): the board consists of 17 directors. Amongst them, 4 are independent non-executive directors, 2 represent Air China, 2 represent CITIC Pacific, 7 are employees of John Swire & Sons Ltd (JSS/Swire group) and another one also on the board of JSS. Therefore, 8 of them are directly related to JSS, less than majority of the board. In conclusion, it's difficult to establish that Swire group has a controlling interest in the Co.

--North wiki (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * North wiki, I see this differently based on two things (one need more explaining than the other),

(1) (a) The Group, being Air China, CNAC, CITIC Pacific and Swire Pacific, is deemed interested in the total of shares (74.94%) they individual held, which means the Group has the controlling stake in Cathay Pacific; (b) Swire Pacific owns 1,651,008,919 shares out of the Group's 2,948,122,554 shares or 56%, which means Swire Pacific has the controlling stake in the Group; (c) Swire, as stated, has 38.50% of the issued capital and approximately 56.65% of the voting rights, has the controlling stake in Swire Pacific; Therefore, Swire has the controlling stake in Cathay Pacific, hence, the parent company. (2) the fact that all Cathay Pacific aircraft carry the Swire logo! Aviator006 (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

History
Why has the date of foundation been edited to 1947? Cathay Pacific's own website at http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/cxbackground/history states: "American Roy C Farrell and Australian Sydney H de Kantzow founded Cathay Pacific Airways in Hong Kong on 24 September, 1946."Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The 49'ers
Clearly as drafted this doesn't meet the Neutral Point of View requirement. Moreover, is an industrial dispute really sufficiently notable for inclusion? I am not convinced. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nfpjay edited my NPOV tag without comment so I have put it back, because this section clearly is contrary to Wiki NPOV Policy which is summarised as: "Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."

This section is clearly written from the point of view of one side in the industrial action and therefore violates the above policy. I do not have sufficient details to be able to rewrite the section neutrally, and in any case since an industrial dispute several years ago is hardly notable except to those directly involved I suggest that the most appropriate course would be for this section to be deleted.

Nfpjay - please do not simply remove the tag again without addressing these comments. If you are in a position to do so then by all means have a go at redrafting to meet NPOV guidelines. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, without trawling through the extensive history of changes, I'm not aware what balance the article had in April 2007. My opinion is that the article is relatively neutral and factual. The overall page content has far more trivial details than the concise history of The 49ers. Furthermore, I believe its relevance remains valid due to the ongoing legal action and the associated legal action that reached the House of Lords to modify UK Employment Law--Spartacusmillenium (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot better now than it was in terms of neutrality, which is why I haven't put the NPOV tag back. Notability I'm still not convinced about, but I don't feel strongly on this. Any other views welcome.Paul Christensen (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, so we may as well have the content correct - the AOA has a maximum commitee size of 21, and I've entered the correct name - two points that Mr Hopkins didn't quite get right. Gardner has now been replaced.--Spartacusmillenium (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Codeshare Agreements
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware that Cathay Pacific has any codeshare agreements with Mexicana, Philippine Airlines and Qantas (although CX operates a codeshare flight to Rome for QF). Ghfj007 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PR919 (HKG-CEB) is CX2921 but I can't immediately find flights operated by MX or QF with CX codes. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, CX does not operate flights for Mexicana. I will delete it from the list.  Ghfj007 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CX777-300ER.jpg
Image:CX777-300ER.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Flight Polar One
As a user edited the flight number of "Polar One" (The first flight arriving the present Hong Kong International Airport) from CX6889 to CX889, I would like to confirm, is the flight number really CX889?

Here are some online material I found using Yahoo, which are probably not copied from wikipedia:
 * http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/viewthread.php?tid=84076# on reply #3 (in Chinese)
 * http://www3.point.ne.jp/~akindon/frterm.htm#C (in Japanese)

CX889 now operates from New York-JFK to Hong Kong via Vancouver, and CX6889 now operates from Beijing to Hong Kong. 

Peter CX &amp;Talk 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it was called CX889 at the time of the flight. Now the nonstop flight is CX831.  Joblio 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was, was the flight specially called CX6889? Thanks --Peter CX &amp;Talk 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of refs in Destinations
After noticing a lot of edits by anonymous IP addresses in the Destinations section, I saw that there were no references at all in that section. This makes it hard for people like me to verify information, such as recent edits by 218.102.156.40 and 210.177.82.157. They added "On November 15, 2007, Cathay Pacific will add a second daily non-stop flight to New York-JFK with the new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (CX840/841). By then HKG-JFK flights will be increased to 3 flights daily." If you're adding a second daily non-stop flight to JFK, then how will your total HKG-JFK flights from JFK be 3? Two is not equal to three. -Herenthere (Talk) 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * JFK is also served by a HKG-YVR-JFK flight in a 747, so it would be the second non-stop flight, but third flight to JFK. I believe that the flight is on their timetable already, so do we need to source it and every schedule change to their timetable? Joblio 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not on their downloadable timetable, only the schedule if you do a request on their website. I agree - until the schedule is published it's a good idea to source these news items. Joblio 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco as a focus city?
I think there must be a mistake by putting San Francisco as a focus city of Cathay Pacific. I would welcome any comments. Ghfj007 05:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to find a route map on the CX website, but couldn't. But, personally, I'd think that Vancouver, BC although a CX hub would be a better focus city listing. Luke! 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is difficult to say that. Because actually a numbers of CX's destination are operated by airlines partners or codeshare service. This means that there is no exact a CX plane to go to those destinations and these are served by other partner airlines. In the cities listed in the FOCUS CITY boxes such as Taipei, Bangkok and Singapore, according to the web site of Cathay Pacific, there are CX planes flies via these places to another city. For example, CX planes flies to Fukuoka and Osaka (Of course there are also non-stop flight) via Taipei. Again, CX planes flies to Colombo and Karachi via Bangkok. However, the case of San Francisco is quite different. CX planes do fly to San Francisco but they do not further fly to other cities. Instead, there are partners airlines or codeshare services of CX in San Francisco to fly to destinations of American cities and Central America. I should say that I agree with Ghfj007 and I think that the article about FOCUS CITIES should state more clear about the definition of "FOCUS CITIES".(Addaick 06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Dubai could also qualify as a focus city-flights from there to several cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Comments are welcome. (Addaick 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Flying nonstop from San Francisco to its hub in Hong Kong does not make it a focus city. Cathay only has one destination from San Francisco is to its hub in Hong Kong. I don't think that SFO should be a focus city if it only flies to its Hong Kong hub only. Bucs2004 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Bucs2004 has removed San Francisco already. (Addaick 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

First Flight of 777-300ER
3 October CX 418 See here for a trip report: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/trip_reports/read.main/110235/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christensen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Focus City
Why Singapore isn't CX's focus city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1993923 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because CX flies to only 1 non hub city from Singapore. Bucs2004 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cadet Pilot Program
Cathay Pacific and their 100% subs. Dragonair operate a Cadet Pilot Program. If you example for Cathay Pacific/Dragonair, is it possible to work later or after finishing the program that the company wants you to fly the other carrier, or not? Dagadt (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange rendering
When I view this article in FireFox, I can see a sequence of strange 'edit' blocks that move around depending on the window size. does anyone else see that? I can't see anything wrong in the article. Scolbath (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Incident vs. fleet
If the article is to mention the low-level flyby incident, shouldn't it be in the incidents section instead of the fleet section? That doesn't seem like the logical place for it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This info was removed by on 1 August without explanation . I have restored it into the fleet section, as I don't think it qualifies as an accident/incident under WP:MOSAVIATION as no damage occured. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the 'Services' section needed?
This section reads like it was written by a Cathay advertising executive, and in fact, as originally comprised, was taken largely verbatim from the Cathay website. Over the past few months I have made some minor edits to this section to try and make it more informative and neutral but these edits have frequently been changed back or watered down. Is it really necessary to have such a detailed description of Cathay's in-flight entertainment systems and its refurbished aircraft interiors, that, in reality, seems like little more than free advertising for Cathay?Spinner145 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Cathay Pacific, and many airlines, is a service provider. So there is nothing wrong in describing its service. Also that section quoted some opinions from passengers, so I don't think it is very advertisment-like. – Peter CX &amp;Talk 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree that it is fine to describe the services, but I don't think the current section does this well. Most Cathay flights still have the older long-haul interiors or the regional layouts, which each have different seats and AV systems.  Only providing info on the new, premium product, largely using Cathay's own ad copy, doesn't seem like NPOV reporting but more like free ad space.  I have, as I mentioned, tried to make these section more informative and neutral, but these edits are often changed back to more Cathay friendly tone (see, e.g., most recent edits to the sections on business class seats).  So I wanted to bring this to the discussion page rather than starting an edit war with people continuously trying to make the article as favorable as possible to Cathay.Spinner145 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the services section should be kept -- however, the "seats" section seems to be taken word from word from Cathay's website. Edit: Will try to fix.WasAPasserBy (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had also tried to improve the section previously; I like the edits you made, thanks.Spinner145 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabin configuration
An IP user has reverted my removal of a link to flyerguide.com I would just like to make the following points, external links to wiki sites are not reliable sources and are links to be avoided #12. Also note that the cabin configuration of individual aircraft, reliable or not, is not encyclopedic. The fleet table already has information about seating and the official Cathay Pacific website has information on cabin configuration for each aircraft type and seating class. Also note this is an encyclopedia not a travel guide. With this in mind I will remove the external link. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's "encyclopedic" is an issue to be resolved by consensus, not by a single editor. ShondaLear (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have brought up the need for information on individual aircraft cabin configuration at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Next Generation subsection
This section reads like a sales brochure and I disagree with its placement in the article, the dates jumped all over the place, from 2008 to 2007, then to 2001, then back to 2007, 2008 and 2009. And I don't believe it is notable unless it is an industry first, differential product or prize winning ideas/services. At the very most, it should be part of the Services section, with ONLY the relevant information, and not in the History section. Interested in your thoughts on this one! :) Cheers.  Aviator006 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Invitations sent to SynergyStar, MilborneOne, WhisperToMe and Toyotaboy95 for opinion. Aviator006 (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure it is really part of history although not a lot of it appears to be particularly notable or unusual. I dont see anything that other airlines are not doing, all fairly standard stuff. If others think anything can be salvaged then a few lines in Services is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the spot is not really too good. But then again, it's part of "Present". CX Mobile is really an industry leader, see press release. I guess it could be rewritten a bit. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As per our comments above, Toyotaboy95, please remove the Next Generation sub-section from History section and move only notable parts to the Services section under appropriately heading. Thanks. As the article is under Peer Review and will be up for FA review afterwards, please kindly action asap. Aviator006 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion section needs some expansion
Hi I noticed recently that the subsection of the history section titled "Expansion in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s" desperately needs some expansion. There's gotta be LOTS more things that happened in those three decades than what is listed here. There is too much recentism crap in this articles, and I'm surprised that it's even a good article. If someone does not expand that section soon, then I think that the GA status for this article ought to be revoked. So, we need to expand the history section, and I mean it. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Flight 715
A minor incident with Flight 715 on 16 May 2011 has been added, it is clearly not-notable (engine failure, nobody hurt or anything, just a bad day at the office), suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove it. But beware, it will probably be re-added by .  &mdash;Comp dude 123 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cargo Fleet
In the cargo fleet notes section, multiple sentences are contradicting each other:
 * On 31 October 2011, Cathay Pacific took delivery of its first Boeing 747-8F.
 * In December 2011, the company took delivery of its first state-of-the-art Boeing 747-8F freighters (B-LJE) in the plane makers factory in Paine Field, Seattle.

I believe, not entirely sure, that the first delivery was as a matter of fact in October 2011.

81.205.41.254 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GA status
Compdude may not have meant it, but a good point is raised about the history section. I had a look around, but don't have access to any real reliable source. This looks like the most promising "Beyond Lion Rock: The Story of Cathay Pacific Airways". Does anyone have access to i, because I fear this article may be failing the broadness criteria. AIR corn (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

HKD$1?
"The airline was founded on 24 September 1946 by Australian Sydney H. de Kantzow and American Roy C. Farrell, with each man putting up HK$1 to register the airline." Erm... Where did this come from? Where is the source for this? Sorry if I messed up somewhere. Just noticed and figured I'd bring it to your attention. 220.246.216.73 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Cathay Pacific. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807190457/http://www.boeing.com:80/news/releases/1998/news_release_980521b.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980521b.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014012502/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/ews/2005/051201g.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/ews/2005/051201g.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023025233/http://boeing.com:80/news/releases/2006/q2/060601c_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q2/060601c_nr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014224402/http://www.boeing.com:80/news/releases/2007/q3/070807a_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q3/070807a_nr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228003018/http://www.travelweekly.com.au:80/articles/14/0c01f914.asp to http://www.travelweekly.com.au/articles/14/0c01f914.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326013915/http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20080711-147720 to http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20080711-147720
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130031215/http://mis-asia.com:80/news/articles/check-in-on-cathay-pacific-with-mobile-phones to http://www.mis-asia.com/news/articles/check-in-on-cathay-pacific-with-mobile-phones

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A new livery
The airline has got a new livery which found out that the brushwing will be more iconic when not in a green box with a red line under it. There should be a picture of one when a planespotter sees one. SuperArticleGuy (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cathay Pacific. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080511123835/http://www.swire.com:80/eng/global/home.htm to http://www.swire.com/eng/global/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cathay Pacific. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923140757/http://www.cathaypacific.com:80/cpa/en_HK/aboutus/cxbackground/partnerships to https://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_HK/aboutus/cxbackground/partnerships

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Cathay Pacific. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930193940/http://www.cathaypacifichost.com:80/blog/?p=163 to https://www.cathaypacifichost.com/blog/?p=163
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831135256/http://www.cathaypacifichost.com:80/blog/? to https://www.cathaypacifichost.com/blog/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025032419/http://www.seatplans.com:80/airlines/Cathay-Pacific/seatplans/B747-400-(new-product) to http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Cathay-Pacific/seatplans/B747-400-(new-product)#seat_stats

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Info box: Focus cities
According the Wiki, a focus city is: a destination from which an airline operates several point-to-point routes. Should Taoyuen and Suvarnabhumi still be considered 'focus cities' of Cathay? ---Now wiki (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Taipei yes, from there they operate to Tokyo, Seoul, Osaka, Nagoya, Fukuoka, in addition to Hong Kong. Bangkok used to have several destinations but those have been terminated so I don't think it's a focus city anymore. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ---Now wiki (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Info box: Airport lounge
A list of the names, but not of which airport, of various airport lounges in infobox would be meaningless to a novice. Suggest to improve e.g. adding name of airports or cities where appropriate.---Now wiki (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this come under travel guide stuff so we wouldnt mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

$1 share capital soap opera
The information in Flight International was just false and novelization of the history. According to the actual legal filing, the company, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, did established as a HK$1 share capital company, but entirely owned by Neil Buchanan in September 1946. Which in November 1946, according to the same filing document that could be found in Hong Kong Companies Registry, Roy Farrell Export Import Co. (of Shanghai) injected 4 Douglas C-47 Skytrain to Cathay Pacific Airways for new shares, which in turn making Roy Farrell owned 173,046 shares, Sydney de Kantzow 245,641, Neil Buchanan 24,416, Donald Brittan Evans 43070, Robert S. Russell 13,828 shares, for a total of 500,000 shares. Thus, it is not "dramatically" claiming Farrell and de Kantzow paying only $1 each, but injecting real machinery to the company for its establishment.

WP:OR is allowed to direct quoting fact from primary source, however, it seem better to dig out secondary source in order to incorprate above information to the main text of the wikipedia. Matthew_hk  t  c  09:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Circular referencing of Flight International
I removed the ref Flight International entirely. The initial access-date of the ref was mid-2009, but the ill factual error content of HK$1 dollar establishment (See Talk:Cathay Pacific) is well existed as unsourced (hoax) content back to 2005 (Special:Diff/22425315). I am afraid the content regarding the share capital of Cathay Pacific in 1948 (Special:Diff/22426163) which "citing" Flight International (the citation was added by other in 2009 Special:Diff/301499813) was in fact also hoax, as it was initial first existed in wikipedia also in 2005, with false name "Cathay Pacific Airways (1948) Ltd." Matthew_hk  t  c  10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

old Chinese name
Not sure it was encyclopedic or not, the whole 124 page scanned record of the old Cathay Pacific Airways, which was later known as Cathay Pacific Holdings, had some copy of business letter of Cathay Pacific, which the company refer itself 香港太平洋航空公司 (literally Hong Kong Pacific Airlines Company), may be it will be encyclopedic when secondary source digging out from https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk Matthew_hk   t  c  10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Roy Farrell Export Import as predecessor
The company, Roy Farrell Export Import, was stated as the predecessor of Cathay Pacific in a book that was published by a reputable book publisher of Hong Kong. However, it had some apparent factual error such was incorporation date (differ from Hong Kong Companies Registry record), as well as there is another company Cathay Pacific Airways Limited that already incorporated in 1946 (a month later than Roy Farrell Export Import), that matching date in the company history website of Cathay Pacific. It was hard to me to fact check the book (as it would be WP:OR), but it seem fine to remove it from the main text.

Here is the content that cited by me but later removed.

According to Hong Kong Companies Registry, a company The Roy Farrell Export Import Company (Hong Kong) Limited was incorporated in Hong Kong on 28 August 1946; According to author James Ng, Roy Farrell Export Import was considered as the predecessor of Cathay Pacific Airways. However, the foundation date was stated as 24 September 1946; According to Hong Kong Companies Registry, there was another company Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, that was incorporated also on 24 September 1946, which was renamed to Cathay Pacific Holdings Limited in 1948 and dissolved in 1953; The current legal person of Cathay Pacific Airways was nevertheless incorporated in 1948.

Lastly, as the main text implied, Roy Farrell entered the airline business before the establishment of Cathay Pacific in HK. He may indeed do business as a company that was incorporated in Shanghai, or an unincorporated business that did known as "Roy Farrell Export Import". However, as not much information on the actual start date, as well as conflicting establishment date of "Roy Farrell Export Import" (Roy Farrell Export Import and Roy Farrell Export Import Company (H.K.) may be two entities BTW), not mentioning any of the Roy Farrell Export Import, seem a better idea. Matthew_hk  t  c  09:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct myself, "Roy Farrell Export Import" indeed existed in Shanghai, according to CR. Which Roy Farrell Export Import Company (H.K.) seem a fail successor of that Shanghai company, as Cathay Pacific Airways soon takeover as the real successor. Yet, as there is not much information on the "Roy Farrell Export Import" (Shanghai), thus it should better leave out from the main text unless secondary source was dig out. Matthew_hk   t  c  09:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct myself again. Indeed "Roy Farrell Export-Import (HK)" was a genuine import-export company, according to the ad. It is common at that time to split the business into service company and company that own the plant and machinery and leasing the capital good to other, even the shareholders are connected. I did not have the copy of Beyond Lion Rock: The Story of Cathay Pacific Airways yet in order to add content to this en-wiki article. Matthew_hk   t  c  09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

When did Cathay Pacific drop "Airways" from its name?
It is mentioned in the history section but no exact date of the rebranding. CALDlykLIJ (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure, in Chinese it was always refer as 國泰航空, only sometimes "國泰". "航空" = Airline or just "fly". It may be not that encyclopedia to dig out why they drop that "suffix" .Matthew hk (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Cathay Pacific Airways is still the legal name, Cathay Pacific is just a branding thing, not sure why the article says Airlines rather than Airways. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , ping me if it happend. A LTA always vandalize this article by changing to Airlines . Matthew hk (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019
Please remove the duplicate p2= parameter, you can find it by searching the source for "p2". This will remove the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls 63.233.104.126 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Asia Miles section edit request
Asia Miles earned since January 2020 no longer expire provided the customer remains "active" (see the Asia Miles article). Please update the relevant section of this article accordingly. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Wefk423 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox correction
On 26 July, I moved the 'company slogan' from the infobox to the main article. On 27 July, user:CathayPacificFrequentFlyer reverted this technical correction. This parameter is not supported in infobox airline and places the article in the maintenance category Pages using infobox airline with company slogan. I have reverted this change. Please do not revert this technical correction. Dhpage (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information under Accidents and Incidents?
This is the first time I’ve commented on Wikipedia, so apologies if I'm not doing this correctly.

The first bullet point under ‘Accidents and incidents’ which begins ‘On 16 July 1948, Miss Macao…,’ ends with the line ‘This was the first hijacking of a commercial airliner in the world, which is contradicted by the following websites.

The reference under footnote 169 seems to incorrectly link to the following page, which is a dead URL: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19480717-0

The correct URL seems to be: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19480716-0

The latter page says: ‘''This hijack is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the first hijack of a passenger aircraft. This is incorrect as there were six prior hijack cases in 1948''.’ The following page then lists several hijackings prior to 1948, including other commercial passenger flights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

So it seems that the Miss Macao incident was probably not ‘the first hijacking of a commercial airliner in the world’, so maybe that line should be deleted from that bullet point. I’m sorry that I don’t know what the protocols are for correcting inaccuracies, and I don’t have much technical know-how either.

HalcyonGeezer (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

is it really the flag carrier airline
According to the definition of flag carrier in wikipedia, Cathay Pacific cannot be the flag carrier of hong kong. A flag carrier is connected to a sovereign state. Hong Kong is not a sovereign state 124.171.83.240 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism after the "World of Winners" campaign's opening in Singapore
Hello everyone, After the opening of "World of Winners" to entrants located in Singapore, certain edits has been made by a user with a goal to mislead other entrants. The edits pertained to the year of the airline's founding as it was one of the three questions. I hereby ask an admin to lock and protect the Wikipedia page until the campaign is over. Chaussettesarchiduchesse (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I noticed someone changed the year of founding from 1946 to 1947 within the competition entry frame. It has now been changed, but I fear that other pages could be vulnerable to someone changing other pages should something like this happen again. Eentelijent (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This has already happened multiple times prior to the campaign's launch in Europe. I am in favour of this page being semi-protected. Tingmelvin (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it a very good example of why people shouldn't use Wikipedia for answer their homework without cross referencing. Jomarcenter (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection after the wave of vandalism that started today. Hopefully this settles down soon. Regards, Fuwa (she/her)  ✉️ 09:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There we go. 3 months of semi-protection. Regards, Fuwa (she/her)  ✉️ 10:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)