CX Still Overflying Russia
 

Cathay Pacific are still using Russian overflights. Interesting to note that they do not see any moral imperative to align with the rest of the world. THe almight dollar once again trumps all other considerations.

Moral bankruptcy is exhibited long before financial bankruptcy becomes apparent.

Cathay is a Chinese airline now. Are other Chinese airlines overflying Russia? Bet they are. But wouldn't they have problems once they are trying to cross into european airspace after overlying Russia?

This will be interesting to watch later.

'any entity dealing or having business with RF' could easily be applied within the aviation domain to anyone who is transiting and paying the overflight ATC charges.

​​​​​​If push comes to shove.

Let's hope PRC actually de-alignes from Russia and there would be no need for any such hostility, in exchange for their active involvement in stopping the madness.

CX and moral imperative in the same sentence. Now I have seen everything.

Since at least 1993, I have seen nothing regarding CX management that would suggest the word "moral" enters into their conversation.

But they have done a risk assessment. 🧐🙄

Apparently no one will accidentally target a cx aircraft. I recall the god of ops saying cx only fly no closer than 100 miles of Ukraine. (160 km) The little S400 missile range is 250-400 km depending on which nasty one you got in the cradle.

Not to mention the commercial risk assessment stupidity, with other brands pulling out, coca cola, maccers. Seems a conundrum that one side of swire associated with coca cola is puling out.

I might go via singas. 🤫

That's funny. There always seems to be a line of thunderstorms, 200 miles miles wide, right along the border with Ukraine. Doesn't show up on radar, must have a lot of ice in it.

Haven’t we become a group of pious princesses.

Whatever happened to the RPT operation into Vietnam throughout the 60’s and 70’s? The paying of Russian overflight charges with cash into a Swiss bank account? The airline that is 30% owned by a government that commits genocide on its own population, or harvests their organs?

I paint a lonely figure as the only remaining mercenary here amongst a group on their second career after failing the priesthood.

Agreed. Anyone making a living basically by burning Russian gas to transport Chinese goods should maybe keep a low profile :-)

Russia did not "start a conflict", they attacked a completely innocent country without any legitimation or reason whatsoever.

The US made many ill judgements in the past, for sure. But they never acted in such a barbaric and purely imperialistic way. Your comparison is absurd.

How about Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan for starters.

All just wars. Just not always the best ending.

The US did not 'start' the Vietnam or Korean conflicts, and was arguably justified in going into Iraq and Afghanistan, false claims of Iraqi WMD notwithstanding.

ALL invaders claim they're justified. Boring...

Of course some “Invaders” leave behind the local population in control… Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan for starters ..
whereas others completely obliterate any remnants of the population to self determination. In the History of the entire world , there has never been a nicer Invader than the USA.. and as for Vietnam, if you lived in Fragrant harbor and saw the 20 years of boat people that had to flee that country you would understand that a bit clearer.

Only the US has the moral right to decide where and when the next military conflict takes place. Look at all the ex pentagon shills with links to the ‘military industrial complex’ and working for mainstream media advocating and salivating as they push for US military involvement in the Ukraine.

Over one million dead Iraqis and for what. Saddam had no proven link to Al Quaida. No weapons of mass destruction. It was all a lie.

This tragedy for Ukraine could have been avoided. It’s what happens when you refuse to negotiate. NATO was a response to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed so why expand NATO with membership for former Soviet republics and have them bristling with US made sophisticated weapons. Surely not because there is lots of money to be made.
How would the US like it if there was Russian made weapons in Cuba and talk of Mexico joining a Russian led treaty.

For those politicians and shills wanting Western world involvement in Ukraine, send your university educated social justice warrior children and grandchildren to the frontlines. Assisted by social engineers. Bullets are inclusive and non discriminatory.
Enough good men on both sides of the conflict have died. Ukranians as a whole have shown the world their bravery but I also don’t delight in the gruesome deaths of conscripted Russian teenagers blown up in their tanks by US made stinger missiles.

All efforts now should be towards protecting innocent Ukrainian civilians by diplomacy and not arming Ukraine. Even if the price is guaranteeing a neutral Ukraine by following the Swiss model. But let me guess never going to happen as there is too much money to be made for the disgusting merchants of death.

Those Iraqis mostly killed each other as I recall, due to American incompetence rather than say deliberately firebombing of a children's hospital, or telling civilians to evacuate along a certain route, then shelling them as Little Vlad does.

You are simply repeating the lies of Putin.
There is not a single truthful argument in your absurd pamphlet.

While I have sympathy for a 80 year old half- illiterate granny sitting in a wooden shed in Siberia listening to state controlled radio believing russian propaganda, doing the same in the West with all the information in front of your eyes is simply pathetic.

1) Putin started the war while he pretended to negotiate. You claim the need of "diplomacy" and the "refusal" to negotiate by the West. What a cynical idea. Years, months and literally days before the invasion the head of states of European countries visitited Moscow and begged Putin not to attack, only to be lied in the face. Putin promised to Macron and Scholz to retreat his troops, only to attack the next day. It was Putin that over years refused to engage in talks with the Ukraine government, to this day. To accuse the West of not willing to negotiate is imbecile. Additionally, even if you would achieve the miracle and appease Russia, what is the value of any contract with Putin? You obviously have no clue about the existing contracts and treaties, painfully negotiated over years and of course broken by Putin. I suggest you research keywords like the Minsk treaty, the Normandy talk format and the treaty of the return of nuclear weapons to Russia by Ukraine in combination with the acknowledgement of independence signed by Russia in 1994.

2) The NATO expansion was 2004, so almost 20 years ago. Putin himself acknowledged back then that there is no threat originating from these countries. It is a fabricated and absurd idea that a country like tiny Estonia or impoverished Romania would pose a security risk for the biggest country in the world ( twice as big as China or the US). There are normally no US troops and never offensive US weapons in any East European country (but russian nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad only a few hundred km from Warsaw or Berlin ). You have no clue what you are talking about.

3) The secret power of the "military complex" is the mother of all conspiracy theories, made already responsible for the assassination of JFK etc. It is a completely fabricated and absurd notion to see this conflict as an opportunity to make money in the West. This confluct will cost billions. The idea of a secretely controlled West by the weapon industry is so absurd, so idiotic, so obviously fabricated, it beggars belief. The West has zero interest in this conflict. There is not a shred of evidence for that nonsense, all concerned parties in the West tried over years and years to appease Russia, there was no confrontation, no aggression, nothing.

4) There is no eastwards expansion of the NATO since 20 years, but indeed a westward expansion of Russia. You are blind to the facts.
Also to label a membership in a defensive organisation as "expansion" is a deliberate attempt to frame a threat. There is and never was and never will be a military threat to any non-member in the history of NATO. It is an organisation that only reacts if attacked.

5) The comparison of a NATO membership of Ukraine ( which had slim chances of success anyway) to the historic Cuban-Russian military union is ridiculous. As you may recall, Russia decided to secretely base nuclear missiles that could reach the US in Cuba.This dramatically shortened the distance of russian missiles over night. No East European country has US missiles, and even if they would have, which to be very clear they don't, it would shorten the distance by about 500 km or a few seconds of flight time. You have obviously no clue about the geographical circumstances, nor about the military purpose and character of NATO. And by the way, there are indeed russian weapons in Cuba, and not only there.

6) Yes, in hindsight the Iraq war was a mistake and many innocent people died. But to claim Hussein was not a threat would be proposterous. He attacked over decades his neighbours, refused UN weapon controls and repeatedly and illegaly used weapon of mass destructions as in chemical weapons against civilians. There is no comparison to peaceful Ukraine and Iraq whatsoever. Additionally, the whole idea to associate Iraq with Ukraine is illogical. Even assumed the US Iraq war was completely wrong, it would not justify an attack on Ukraine anyway, it is a futile and dead-end "argument".

7) You claim to admire the Ukranian army for their bravery in their fight, but at the same time you don't want them to be armed. You must see the absurdity here. This is just silly.

8) You claim that the Ukraine should now become Switzerland. May I ask you, what membership in what military organisation does or did Ukraine have? The Ukraine is in fact neutral to this day, and always was. The idea to convince them to become neutral is hence moronic. The Ukraine was neutral in 2014, when Putin invaded the first time and seized the Krim. the Ukraine was neutral today when Putin invaded again. You are again blind to the facts. Putin himself did not even ask for Ukraine neutrality, for the above obvious reasons, he wanted a reversal of all the East European membership countries, which of course is an unfulfillable demand. Additionally, Switzerland might be neutral, a relatively safe state when you are surrounded by Western European countries by the way, but it is certainly not unarmed. Putin however demands a demilitarisation of the Ukraine. That is like the Cribs asking the LAPD to give up their weapons. Or in other words the West would have to simply trust Russia, which is obviously never going to happen again. Nobody with half a brain will ever trust Putin's word, and he obviously must know that the invasion will indeed achieve the opposite, The attack will of course result in massive military investments in the West. So if you really must believe in a sectret military complex that wants to profit from arm sales, I suggest you turn your eyes eastwards.

There is zero difference between the US invasion of Iraq and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both were based on bull**** and lies. They all claim to be liberators. It is sadly laughable.

Same as US was bled out of there in defeat so will be the Russians in the end. Foreign money & weapons flowing in along with foreign fighters. Americans and their allies didn't even pretend to count civilian casualties they caused directly and neither will the Russians.

If the people of a country decide not to let an invasion succeed, it will not. Help from outside can be a deciding factor as it was in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your familiarity with yours and your own skew your judgment in thinking your country is right regardless of the facts and atrocities your side commits, in your name. But the other side your side is attacking (whoever it may be) have a say in that too and so do others who decide to help who you invade.

Americans didn't learn from Vietnam and repeated it all again in Iraq and Russians apparently didn't learn from Afghanistan and are now repeating it in Ukraine. British, French and Germans etc. have all done the same with the same results too.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Ukraine should be Switzerland is missing a key point. It is the Swiss choice to be neutral. They could change their minds tomorrow and join NATO or EU.

Russia doesn’t want Ukraine to have a say in the matter.

CX not flying over Russia now. Flew on CX251 back to UK on Monday and flew a more southerly route and not over Russia.

Noticed on FR24 … CX flights HKG-Europe & v.v. now avoiding Russian airspace

You gotta laugh, the remaining dregs of a once great airline trying to tell us all how the world really works and about the morality of others.

We are a semi Chinese company, been flying **** to and from China for decades. We live under a chinese dictatorship and now we have a conscience problem overflying Kamchatka. Suggest you lot worry about the 18 parked freighters that were making tons of money just three months agò.

I think its more like a majority owned colonial business, managed by the colonialists in 21st Century China, that is the problem.
If they were a true CCP airline they would have never rerouted their flights. Think this isn’t going to irk Beijing that fraction more?
BTW, the 18 freighters parked might have have something to do with that. This airline now has an identity crisis.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....09d182e7fe.png
This also doesn't help slapped on every airframe when you are not a majority shareholder......but that's the arrogance of the management. Maybe time for a Bohemia Flower Flag, or should it be red and gold.