[CathayLoyalist2]

How on earth he can be held, in part, responsible for employees protesting I do not know. His letter in rfergsuons post is an exercise of poltical correctness and I am not blaming him. Without that letter his pay off I guess would have severely reduced. I read that the “big four” accountancy firms are being targetted by Beijing as well.

[canucklad]

[quote quote=954017]His letter in rfergsuons post is an exercise of poltical correctness and I am not blaming him.[/quote]

I’m sure the truth of the story lies somewhere in the middle of him acting like Damocles and leaving before he’s pushed. T
It’s the corporate equivalent of footballs well versed “left by Mutual Consent” nonsense.

And from Cx’s perspective , even the rumour (true or not) of his actions should be enough to placate locals and stop the airline from the boycotts that are sure to become more prevalent as this continues.

As for setting up a secondary hub / base somewhere else in the region, especially Indonesia . I’d imagine would be a risk they’re not prepared to take !

on the other hand ” Cathay Malaysian Pacific” has a certain ring to it : )

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[IanFromHKG]

There is an interesting balancing act going on in boardrooms across HK at the moment as directors try to walk the fine line between antagonising protesters and facing disruption to their local businesses on the one hand, and antagonising Beijing and facing disruption to their cross-border business (or worse) on the other. They can’t overtly support one without upsetting the other. This explains why so many leading businessmen here have been so uncharacteristically silent (normally they toe the Beijing line quite assiduously).

Sun Hung Kai have put up a sign at one of their shopping malls saying police are unwelcome unless “in hot pursuit” (I’m paraphrasing) which was enough to prevent protesters moving in. No doubt their senior bods are now kow-towing to the big bear like fury.

CX made the double mistake of being (in essence) foreign-owned and foreign-run (from Beijing’s perspective) and of letting John Slosar publicly (and IMO foolishly) say they wouldn’t tell their staff what to think, with the result that they made themselves an obvious candidate for Beijing to make an example of them. One helluva warning shot across the bows to all HK businesses, and one which CX – being so heavily dependent not just on the China market itself, but also for much of its other business (and particularly its lucrative European business) on having overfly rights – simply couldn’t ignore. That Mr Slosar isn’t the one who was pushed onto his sword seems to me extraordinarily unfair, but I am fairly confident that those who were sacrificed will be well taken care of by Swire either by being moved elsewhere or by being generously pensioned off. I certainly hope so.

4 users thanked author for this post.

canucklad, CathayLoyalist2, K1ngston, rferguson

[cwoodward]

IanFromHK wrote:

‘That Mr Slosar isn’t the one who was pushed onto his sword seems to me extraordinarily unfair, but I am fairly confident that those who were sacrificed will be well taken care of by Swire either by being moved elsewhere or by being generously pensioned off. I certainly hope so.’

Sloser retiring later this year has been in the public domain for some time and I am reasonably sure that I read it in the Cathay published board notes some months back.
In my view accountants should never be CEO’s of airlines as Sloser was for some years in which time the airline seemed to stagnate, many services decline and some very odd decisions (no doubt accountants logic) made. Many of which were later reversed.

[Author]

Posts