Not to mention that the majority of directors of the Board are either directors or employees of John Swire.
Yes its a convoluted structure but it is un-deniable that ultimate control of CX rests with John Swire out of the UK.
Can you please desist from these false claims, you have a long track record on every thread that comes up about CX to make these false baseless claims.
These are the facts relating to the board https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/ ... rs/0293.HK
The majority of the board live and work in Hong Kong, the airline is majority Hong Kong owned, the two major foreign shareholders are Air China and Qatar. The control and place of business of the airline is out of Hong Kong.
Like I mentioned above it is as absurd as suggesting Virgin Australia is run out of the UK because is part of the Virgin group.
*Of course* Hong Kong entities are subject to Hong Kong corporate laws. That's an utter strawman, since no one has disputed that point. The fact remains that Hong Kong companies can have ultimate beneficial owners -- including controlling beneficial owners -- outside of Hong Kong. They can also have directors outside of Hong Kong.
Caveat: lots of countries, including the US, cap foreign ownership of airlines. (Seemingly Hong Kong does not, given the QR stake in Cathay and the fact that Swire appears to ultimately trace its ownership chain back to UK citizens. Who knows, maybe the PRC could try to impose such laws in Hong Kong next, which would effectively "nationalize" CX.)
Firstly you have disputed this so have several other posters, please understand fully what it legally means to be listed in the HKEX. CX is a public HKG company listed on the HKEX. The airline is majority HKG owned, the share ownership is available for everyone to see.
The two major foreign shareholders are Air China (which is diluted by the CX cross ownership of Air China shares) and Qatar. Swire Pacific is a very very large HKEX listed company, and in my view why CX is very successful against the 120 plus other airlines it competes against (many of which are state owned, or have state investment funds behind them) at its home base is the vertical integration CX has with the other Swire Pacific companies.
As for majority ownership rules, ICAO changed that years ago as it simply does not reflect the realities of global businesses like airlines. The major assets airlines have including aircraft, engines, terminal space etc are often not directly owned by airlines themselves.the shareholders of airlines often also include large institutional investors which themselves can have complex ownership structures.
Per ICAO Manual on the Regulation of International Air Transport Doc 9626
While the substantial ownership and effective control requirement are the most prevailing criteria used by States, some exceptions or deviations have long existed, including the following:
• Parties to the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA) grant overflight rights for scheduled air services to an “air transport enterprise” that is substantially owned and effectively controlled by nationals of a Contracting State to the IASTA. (The text of the IASTA may be found in Doc 9587.)
• Multinational carriers created by intergovernmental agreement, such as the Scandinavian Airline System (SAS) established by 3 Scandinavian countries; Air Afrique (now defunct) created by 11 African States; Gulf Air founded by 4 Middle East States. When one of these States wishes to designate their multinational air carrier to serve a third State, a modified ownership and control provision or other means can be used to ensure that the multinational air carrier will be authorized to use the commercial rights which the designating State has negotiated with that third State.
• A regulation of the Council of the European Union, effective 1 January 1993, allows a community air carrier (i.e. an air carrier majority owned and effectively controlled by member States of the Union and/or their nationals, with its principal place of business and registered office located in a member State) to operate air services anywhere within the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA).
• Under the Andean Pact (concluded by 5 Latin American States), an air carrier entitled to operate services within the Pact will be determined by national law of the Pact State designating the airline.
• The Caribbean Community Air Service Agreement requires that a CARICOM airline providing services under the agreement be owned and controlled by one or more member States or their nationals.
• The bilateral agreements involving Hong Kong, China, as a party allow the airlines designated by Hong Kong to be those which are incorporated and have their principal place of business in Hong Kong, China. The designated airlines of the other party may, however, be subjected to the traditional substantive ownership and effective control criteria.
• The plurilateral open skies agreement concluded by some APEC members in 2001 permits the designated airline of a party to be one whose effective control is vested in the designating party and is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the territory of the designating party. The traditional substantial ownership requirement is no longer a condition.
• The single aviation market (SAM) arrangement between Australia and New Zealand allows a “SAM carrier” (an air carrier at least 50 per cent owned and effectively controlled by Australian and/or New Zealand nationals, with its head office and operational base in Australia or New Zealand) to operate air services within and between both countries, but with limits on beyond rights.
In addition, some States have used the discretionary right under the bilateral agreement to accept, on an ad hoc basis, foreign designated carriers that do not meet the traditional national ownership and control criteria, although usually this involves negotiated concessions as a quid pro quo for the acceptance.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News