Richatom,
Certainly I would not be too happy as a passenger if I had not been specifically briefed about what was going on...
I suggest that most punters would probably not know enough to be concerned, figuring that it would just 'be like a landing' and would actually think that it'd be fun to be part of something they could then boast about.
ATEOTD:
1. safety - I suspect the PIC and F/O did not have a collective death-wish and have a history of being competent as pilots generally and in handling B777 equipment in particular. Hence as a punter I would consider myself in as safe a set of hands as I'm likely to find.
2. procedures - there must be a set of procedures somewhere - either within the company or within the regulator of either the state of registration or where the impugned flight occurred - and if it runs counter to any of these, then there is an issue. If the company does not have procedures for non-standard flights (including any type of display), then it should. Procedures are in place (at least in part) to ensure, as far as possible, safety of passengers, crew and equipment.
3. employment - if the pilots' employment contracts contain sanctions for busting procedures (company, regulatory, or both), then they should be sanctioned accordingly. If not, then not.
I agree with an earlier poster that we are probably not hearing the full story here. If we are, then there is a breakdown in my 3 steps and the pilots have cause for grievance (not that anything a mere pilot may think carries much weight at CX towers...
)
Assuming we don't know the full story, then opinions here about the safety (or lack of) of the fly-by, or the fairness (or lack of) of the treatment of the pilots, are just that.