The 'one airline - one route' policy was a shameless political manipulation on behalf of CX/Swire by the then British Colonial Government. It was blunt favouritism and protectionism.
It was this act of governance that strangled KA and lead to their near demise.
Yes - CX subsequently saved KA, but it is disingenuous to speak as if the former didn't happen and only the latter did.
What we are seeing now is the re-assertion of KA (thanks to CNAC having greater aspirations than the CX/Swire portion of the Board) as an opponent to CX.
But, I believe the pie is big enough for two. I think they both should prosper - afterall the real competition is SQ, UA, BA, QF etc. It will probably be good for CX, KA and Hong Kong (Airport and City/State) to have two viable and meaningful airlines operating from HKG.
The only point I would want to see is that KA get the same rights to CX ports as CX gets to KA ones. Given the historical strangulation of KA via the One Airline One Route policy, it is unfair to claim that they have to trade expansion on a Port for Port basis. Anyone can see that this would give CX access to KA's most lucrative routes and about 70% of their profit, while trading to KA a mere 3 ports in CX extensive network. This would penalise the victim of past skullduggery.
p.s. Mole - not at all misleading. I deliberately left the statement vague (ie a substantial portion = an indeterminate but large sum) because I am aware of the HAECO & Catering contributions.