You're both essentially correct,only minor things need to be added.
As a 767 co-pilot,the main concern with HKG was the payload.If the wind changed and the take-off had to be performed towards the city and raising terrain,some 15 tonnes of payload had to be off-loaded,even then a fuel stop had to be reckoned with.
Alternatively,a take-off towards the sea with a 10 knot tailwind (max. certificated) meant a load reduction and fuel stop enroute.
HKG is on the list over possible Intercont. destinations,according to information received at management/pilot meetings recently.LAX is mentionned as a possibility ONLY if the business pax percentage shows significant improvement over the figures obtained while the route was operative.The commercial yield was not enough to warrant the use of a 767 on this sector.SFO is a most likely candidate for a new U.S. destination.Some people in the Business Division use the term "SFO and/or LAX",so it's not completely out of the running.If LAX re-opens,it will be from CPH as this is in accordance with SAS' present policy;all new European and Intercontinental destinations will initially be served with a daily flight from CPH.Only when this is running well,and demand exists,will ARN be considered and finally,OSL.
"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!