superbly put, Kitusune.
Perhaps the good Reverend will have to wave the white flag to his white knight in terms of accepting only a few cents on his invested dollar.
I had heard that the investment basis for Oasis was separated between the operating company and a separate entity that owns the aircraft. So perhaps the Reverend is protesting too much about having to actually buy the aircraft in the first place? He may still be holding some kind of tradeable asset - more than his cherished passengers, at least. This might be why the VC firm that put in $20m in October reckons it has some kind of come back on the liquidation? All of this is conjecture.
Clearly he is hoping that this "halt" in service will come to an end. Probably with HNA Group buying in? If so, the quality of management is unlikely to improve. Anyway, as lead shareholder, what was he doing accepting a low calibre of management in the first place?
The fact is that - outside of CX - management quality in Hong Kong airlines is very weak. I say this with full knowledge of the risk of the howl of protest from the hundreds of arm chair management experts who refer to anyone without a type rating as a "bean counter". Oasis didn't count its beans very well, did it?
Good people who leave CX go into other industries (and perhaps logistics etc). So the other carriers get CX/KA retirees and people who saw the writing on the wall in terms of their own career progression.
And, anyway, strictly speaking the best LCCs do not rely on traditional airline managers to run their businesses in the first place. The full service guys don't have the right mindset, at least for the majority of non-operational positions.