I just watched the interview .Very embarrassing , and totally cringeworthy .
He got away lightly with the questions from the interviewer . Personally I think she should have jumped on his answers and made him explain why he thinks a 1 billion hedging loss is good for business
His understanding of English is clearly lacking . Several of the questions were obviously mis-understood . Because the responses were totally irrelevant to the question .
"Fuel hedging is good for business" his words . Well yes it is , when you get it correct , but when you screw it up monumentally as we have done that is an indefensible position to try and hold .
As some of the previous posters have said , How could this company trot him out to answer questions ? He clearly has a problem with English comprehension, instills absolutely no confidence in the top management of this company.
I guess this is where the rot in this company starts , this is where a total shakeup is desperately needed . If the Board is prepared to accept this level of incompetence we are all doomed
Imagine if a pilot decided to taxi his aircraft through bunch of parked aircraft destroying 7 of them . That equates to about a 1 billion loss . At least Cathay might be able to claim on insurance . Not so with the hedging loss .
Do you think the company would just say . Well I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, so don't worry about it just come to work tomorrow .