I concede that any thing CNAC does is potentially convoluted and obscure. Should the game plan be to divest monopolistic rights on PEK & SHA in order to get the CX/Swire spoilers off the KA Board, then it will probably be a damn good thing for KA in the long run.
But since posters here are asserting that Dragonair could not compete with Cathay, then I would like to draw your attention to the financial data at the bottom of the previous post.
A mighty substantial portion of CX's profit was derived from a mere 25% stake in KA... What does that say about the profitability of KA? To me it says that KA would be better re-investing that, rather large sum, into developing itself as a substantial regional airline rather than cross subsidising CX. It also means that KA is not the 'small fry' in comparison to CX that many of you make the mistake of assuming.
Cabin configurations (pop-down TV screens or pop-up toasters) are simply a matter of defining standards of cabin service. For god sake, QF don't have it and no one suggests that CX is going to drive QF into oblivion. If KA compete with CX, then I am sure they have the customer service savvy to do so - compete that is - using comparable standards of cabin service etc.
If there is a serious query about all this it is - why didn't/hasn't CX objected to KA's application for the 4 Asian ports plus Sydney?
I could understand both parties playing tit-for-tat in the game of blocking. So why is it one sided?
Only CNAC, Swire Pacific, CITIC & Cathay Pacific board members know the deals that have already been done.