Some impediments
I have been following the arguments here with some interest. No I am not a Tech crew member, but do have a fair bit of experience on the other side.
The implied threat that the flying will be done by another entity does not stack up. Applying the figures quoted here against the total cost of operation of the aircraft (assuming lease costs, fuel, route service costs and direct labour), the margin that Mr Joyce seems to be driving is a nominal increase of 6% on a labour content that is less than 3% of the total cost of operation. That margin is in fact tiny in the overall scheme of things, and if, as has often been stated, the economics of the Sunrise flights would have to be extremely marginal at best. Board members would need to be VERY diligent about approving such a risky enterprise. But then again we have seen some decisions that would cause me to wonder about the obligations under the Corporations Law.
A statement that I have seen several times is that it is 'new' flying. I do not accept that. The city pairs that are contemplated are already served by QF. The method by which they connect those pairs (route) is the only change. In fact the 'slots' at each of those airports are 'owned' by Qantas (as are the capacity agreements) and they cannot be assigned / novated to other related entities. They can be sold, yes, but if Qantas Airways Limited were to divest themselves of those assets (sold by inter company transfer) then that triggers the phoenixing fundamental that would bring it to the attention of various regulators.
I would suspect that the 'take it or leave it' message is smoke and mirrors. There is a far greater agenda here in terms of future employment terms and conditions. If they were able to have created a new lower cost (Australian based) entity, they would have done it eons ago.