The answer to your specific question re QF's lower frequencies to HKG,BKK etc is the quality of the respective network hubs. For CX vs QF on HKG for example, look at the catchment population of Cathay's network onward from or feeding into HKG and you'll find it's about 2bn if you include China,Europe etc. Even if you factor that down for the small (albeit rapidly increasing) percentage of Chinese who can afford to travel, it's still pretty impressive. Compare that with the QF mini-hub network to/from Sydney and it's just Oz & NZ at 30m....actually, it's worse because now CX fly direct to most of the major Australian & NZ cities so it's just regional NSW and Tassie at say 2m (I exclude Sydney & Hong Kong cities themselves as they're point to point and there's no network advantage). Scary stuff - in short, QF's frequencies must largely rely on point to point traffic whereas Cathay can take its 50% or so share of that AND fill extra aircraft with traffic connecting online through HKG. Moreover, once CX starts operating at much higher frequency than QF, even the point to point market starts to move their way because of the better choice of schedules.
Arguably, with its location at the far SE of the subcontinent and with direct services from most Aussie state capitals to major Asian and Gulf airports, SYD is no longer a hub even for Aus/NZ.
The QF business model of old is pretty much obsolete - it's just a shame that the process of change has been one of wrong decisions, wrong equipment, missed opportunities, eyes off the ball and arguably, board venality. At a time of huge change in the competitive landscape and when the organisation has needed leadership as never before, it's hardly surprising that the workers (and shareholders) feel let down.