There appears to be no end in sight to the ongoing rift between the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) and the well-respected travel trade title, Bangkok-based Travel Trade Report.

TTR’s recent online editions have been calling PATA hierarchy to account over its alleged lack of transparency in filing accounts and its "old boys’ club" mentality to decision-making.

PATA responded at its annual get-together in Hyderabad last week by asking its board of directors to sign a Code of Conduct designed to end persistent media leaks.

Clearly, that has not happened. The leaks continue.

In the latest TTR online John A. Semone, a senior staff member for 17 years with PATA, writes under the headline "Cronyism spells oblivion for PATA": "It is with considerable concern that the selection committee will continue to be composed of the old boys’ club of recent years and take on another crony to further the slide of PATA to oblivion.

"It seems unfair to those past leaders who have dedicated their time and energies to let PATA slip to the abyss of no return."

Semone added, "While some will say that the past objectives worked well in former days, the changes undertaken in recent years have failed miserably.

"It's hard to understand why a new PATA logo was necessary or that the annual conference was changed to a format called the CEO Challenge.

"No doubt with the latter, it satisfied someone’s ego. And why take away a strong marketing element in Europe and North America that provided business support to so many Asia Pacific members, particularly members within the hotel and tour operator category," Semone wrote.

PATA is currently seeking a replacement CEO to take over from Peter de Jong, who has unexpectedly sought to quit before his contract expires.

TTR editor Ross said, "There are some people who insist they do not know (the name of the next CEO). They are the association’s executive committee members, who have been assigned to study the qualifications of short-listed candidates before they are invited for interviews later this year.

"If they do know, it would suggest that all the other candidates could turn out to be pawns in an elaborate ruse to 'guide' the appointment process to a prearranged conclusion.

"If so it would demonstrate a lack of transparency that should disappoint candidates who applied in good faith."