The main trouble with our legislators' freebie to France with Cathay Pacific is that somebody opened their big mouth about it. And now we know who, where, what, when and how - the only part of the jigsaw with the slightest tinge of doubt about it is why. Frankly, Cathay's supposed reason - to "introduce" them to the Airbus 330 and visit the Airbus factory because Cathay intends to change to an all-Airbus fleet - is a bit airy-fairy.

It is no surprise to learn that our lawmakers have been accepting free trips from airlines since 2005, to mark such events as the delivery of a new jetliner or the opening of a new route, theoretically gaining a better grasp of aviation development and its latest technical advances.

We also learned from neo-democrat Gary Fan Kwok-wai, who was not invited and may have been suffering from a mild attack of sour grapes, that "it was rare" for Cathay to invite only some of the lawmakers. The inference here is that in previous cases the airline has invited all members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) - but, if that really did happen, nobody blabbed about it afterwards. Fan added that "lawmakers should judge prudently whether to accept such an invitation, to avoid giving the public the impression that they will benefit from the trip."

Claudia Mo Man-ching pointed out that none of the six Civic Party legislators was invited - which, in a way, could be interpreted as an inverted compliment. She added that the guest list gave a false impression because "they accepted the invitation as lawmakers yet took along their families". The same point also peeved her colleague Professor Kenneth Chan Ka-lok: "Visiting an Airbus factory is a business trip and it's inappropriate for the family to tag along".

Let's get down to basics. First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Cathay Pacific offering free "jollies" to anybody it chooses. Second, if we are absolutely honest about it, there is hardly one of us who wouldn't have put up his or her hand for a free return ticket to Paris or any other Cathay destination, especially if we were to be wined and dined in Business Class there and back. Third, if, for reasons of courtesy or whatever, Cathay chose to invite the politicians' spouses, too, that's their prerogative.

But each and every one of those legislators is, for the term of his or her office, in a position of trust and honor to serve the Hong Kong public to the best of their ability, and should therefore be bound not to be swayed or influenced in any way in future decision-making on subjects involving Cathay, or the aviation industry generally.

Right now Cathay is involved in a bitter fight to protect its interests against an attempt by the family of Macao casino czar, Stanley Ho Hung-sun, to horn into the Hong Kong budget airline bonanza via an aerial interloper from Australia named Jetstar, the cheap younger brother of the Australian national carrier Qantas. Leveraging on their conglomerate, Shun Tak Holdings, Ho has moved with dizzying speed on the deal, plunking down a cool $66 million into Jetstar from its previous 50-50 owners, Qantas and China Eastern Airlines, registering Jetstar Hong Kong, lodging an application with the Hong Kong government for an aviation license to operate out of Hong Kong, and getting Ho's daughter Pansy Ho Chiu-king appointed the new airline's chairman. (Ms Ho is already Shun Tak's managing director.)

Cathay Pacific is 43 percent owned by the Swire conglomerate, with the next biggest investor being the State-owned Chinese flag carrier Air China with 30 percent.

In total, 83 airlines operate from Hong Kong International Airport, which in 2012 handled 56 million passengers. The airport is also the world's busiest for cargo traffic, handling 4 million tons last year. Cathay is the airport's biggest user, flying from Hong Kong to 51 destinations.

In March last year, after a painstaking study of future requirements, the Airport Authority decided that a third runway was needed. Obviously the key factor in this decision was the assumption that still more airlines, including airfreight providers, would wish to fly to and from Hong Kong. The decision also affected Cathay's future planning, and the airline plans to buy 50 Airbus aircraft over the next eight years, taking full advantage of the extra runway.

As Hong Kong's flag carrier, and with its long-standing record of serving Hong Kong since soon after the end of World War II in 1945, Cathay should, on the one hand, be entitled to expect some preferential treatment from the government but, on the other, not want new rivals frozen out of opportunities, especially if they will offer cheaper fares. Why go to the expense of building a third runway if its use is to be restricted? And if airlines are to dictate policy, why have an Airport Authority?

Albert Lin is a PR and media consultant.

(HK Edition 09/13/2013 page9)