Data tells the story.
Their fuel included CASK is out of the park bigger, the problem for them is simply lack of fleet planning.
At some point they will need to fund it. At that point the tide is out and the market will see who was swimming naked.
With respect to the relative staff costs, if that argument had statistical credibility then the salary of say Philippines Airlines flight crew, office staff, cabin crew and engineers would see operating margins for PAL at many multiples those of their more 'expensive' competitors. That it not the case.
Qantas International is doing better than most of its competitors and has expanded it's market share ex-Australia over the past few years.
That isn't because Qantas has had a windfall from lower fuel costs. If that was the case, all of its competitors would be rolling in money.
Qantas International showed a net route reduction and static ASK from the 'terminal decline' year on.
With respect to the 'fuel windfall' it is their fleet metrics that mean they suffer more from rising prices and benefit more from falling prices.
Factually, from 2009 to 2015 the amazing year of 'transformation' the competitors were in fact, rolling in money.
- SIA Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD$ 3.4 billion
- CX Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD $4.5 billion
- ANZ Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD$ 900m
In the corresponding period Qantas by stark comparison had net losses of AUD$ 2.0 billion
That Qantas now have increased their ASK incrementally does not translate to increased market share, they have in actual fact surrendered market share ex-Australia as the JQ rollout continued. In so doing they hoped the consumer would brand substitute away from QF. The customers did, except they didn't substitute JQ for QF, they went elsewhere. The brand damage done by their 'strategy' is estimate by external research to total around AUD$1 billion. Having read the analysis it is really difficult to quantify, however in real terms the revenue of the group has declined. Brand damage and yield dilution is part of the result.
Swapping out an A380 for a B789 may improve yield but with far fewer seats their revenues decline markedly.
This is why another 'austerity drive' is on the cards.
Little Napoleon has much higher operating costs. Instead of correctly attacking fuel expense per ASK they hacked into staff.
Penny wise maybe, but pound moronic.