Sunfish,
I believe we share the same thoughts regarding the tone of the letter and the implications of driving down conditions further in the industry. However, your hyperbole regarding safety is not reflected in what is written. The COO has not said to "put the interests of the company ahead of the safety interests of the paying passengers" and "requesting unscheduled maintenance (for example a tire change), requesting extra fuel or any safety related action that costs the company money, for example a diversion due to weather or perhaps grounding oneself due to illness, is now forbidden under threat of career truncation" is just your take on the matter and is no way implied or suggested in his letter.
"fiercely loyal and company minded and going way above the call of duty especially in time of need for the company" to me could mean keeping my mouth closed and not moaning down the pub/on Pprune about the crap pay and working conditions, getting direct routings from ATC to save fuel, helping Granny Gumdrops on board with her bags when the cabin crew are busy and, in this particular instance (which I wouldn't, by the way) accepting sub-standard accommodation for rest. I'm sure there are a myriad of other examples where one is able to comply with the COO's demands and yet not compromise safety.
I am in no way trying to justify nor agree with either the literal or implied contents of the letter but I think your interpretation of the implications for safety are exaggerated and not reflected in what is written.
No, never flown for them (or any other Australian operator for that matter) but have been a very active pilot union representative in the past and am used to the drivel from Management.