FL101 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:28 am
Britain let Hong Kong go because Britain had no choice. China wanted it and the UK wasn’t willing or able to fight for it.
Hong Kong returned to Chinese jurisdiction because the lease was up. Quite literally. It wasn’t a voluntary matter, and it wasn’t something that could be fought, like Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands could be fought. Britain bought a 99 year lease to the territory in 1898, and the Chinese didn’t want to renew it. The territory was always Chinese.
In 1997 most of the economic value of HK was as a financial centre; the two-systems was agreed by the Chinese so that HK wouldn’t drop to zero economic value with the cessation of free trade and the overnight introduction of communism when China took over.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Hong Kong returned to Chinese jurisdiction because the lease was up.
I might be wrong but I don't believe that's correct. It was only the New Territories that were leased to the UK. Hong Kong Island itself was actually ceded to the UK and owned outright by the UK.
Hong Kong returned to Chinese jurisdiction because the lease was up.
I might be wrong but I don't believe that's correct. It was only the New Territories that were leased to the UK. Hong Kong Island itself was actually ceded to the UK and owned outright by the UK.
Launchpad1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:45 pm
Hong Kong returned to Chinese jurisdiction because the lease was up.
I might be wrong but I don't believe that's correct. It was only the New Territories that were leased to the UK. Hong Kong Island itself was actually ceded to the UK and owned outright by the UK.
I have heard that too and that the UK felt that Hong Kong itself would be too small to be viable without the New Territories.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Slightly off topic here, but I wanted to know how is Air Canada limiting capacity in their aircraft in this crazy moments of COvid.
Example, United caps passenger at 70%, but available seats are showing on their website and the standby employee portal. Is this the same thing for Air Canada or are the seats completely removed from the inventory ?
I work for a US airlines, but live in Canada and I was looking on using our Jumpseat agreement to get back home (thanks for usual great service the crews provided, FA and pilots included, I always feel very welcomed). The Aircraft is a 223, what is the max number of seats available for a jump seater ?
Thanks everyone for your help and have a great day.
This will add to the difficulties travelling at the moment imho.
That's a good move, in my opinion.
Traveling may become more difficult. Travelers, however, could feel more at ease knowing their safety isn't being compromised. It's measures like these along with establishing travel corridors that will ensure the industry's survival through the pandemic.
The only morons I see protesting against this would be the "live free or die" and "anti-vaxxer" clowns.
The only constant is change, and these times are no exception to that. After 911 everything changed forever, this is far worse, airline capacity projections from Argus and other aviation business firms suggest air travel to be a max of 60-75% of what it was once this virus is under control. Again this fourth quarter is pivotal in that projection and it’s not looking good thus far.
I think to many people are banking in vaccine as back to normal. From what I hear it’s likely the first vaccine won’t be effective enough to drop the mask policy and social distancing. It looks like is may be 3 to 5 years before covid is really under control with an effective vaccine. Imagine that, we will be in masks for up to 5 more years...
I have family that are deathly afraid and won’t visit with me. I asked them are they really going to go 5 years without seeing their grandchildren? This might become the reality at this point.
Maybe it’s time to consider the “living with it approach?” I don’t know... 5 years sucks! But apparently this virus causes not only death, but every neurological and cardiac disease as well. Maybe we should just go back to lockdown.
We shouldn’t sacrifice the livelihoods and futures of the 20-60 year olds to help every 90 year old become a 91 year old.
This virus is new, but every virus is new at some point. New and deadly microbes have been popping up every decade or so. I’m worried we’ll still be recovering economically from COVID and another virus will show up and force us all back into lockdown..
The poverty around the world our COVID response is creating will cause more death and suffering than the virus!
The Liberal and Ford Governments and their media puppets have done a masterful job in stoking fear among Canadians.
There is a real "casedemic" right now, with relatively few deaths. Nearly zero deaths with no co-morbid or underlying health issues. (like being near the normal time of death anyway at 80+....sorry, but 80 is pretty damn good) There appears no end in sight after the government moved the goal posts from acceptable levels of hospitalizations, and not overwhelming the health-care system to the current target of "zero hospitalizations and zero deaths" which is completely unattainable and downright stupid.
So we all stay locked up to a degree, while bankruptcies rise, jobs vaporize, suicides rates skyrocket, small businesses are wiped out, national debt heads into the stratosphere, domestic abuse rises and a general feeling of hopelessness consumes us.
This is our new reality, and our new normal until the world rises up and says "enough".
Send the young and healthy back to work, open the planet back up to travel, isolate those who are afraid, and those who wish to be isolated under their own free will. Let the rest of us get on with our lives while practicing a bit of social distancing while we attain herd immunity like we did with the last 50,000 viruses that Humanity has faced over the eons.
