A middle road?
First of all, apologies for the long post, but I've tried to keep it all relevant and (hopefully food for thought) for the topic of discussion.
Right off the bat, personally I have grave misgivings about the whole concept of overseas bases as too often they are used to dilute the work conditions of the home based crew, and of course they can also severely curtail the flying on offer to the home based crew. That's not to say I have a blanket hate of of overseas bases, but if one is going to support the concept it should be with several key caveats in place.
The prospect of an International base being set up as a sub-contract seperate company is disgusting... It's not just about saving some $ on some slip allowances, it's about carving off jobs from mainline QF under the contract you've fought long and hard for over the years, and about redeploying these jobs outside of QF to a seperate company with cheaper wages and reduced T&C. What is even more disheartening is how many QF mainline crew are looking at a LHR base as a chance for a juant to Europe, but not realising how this is potentially the start of a serious shift in out sourcing crew to sub contract and subsidiary companies within QF that have significantly lower wages and terms and conditions.
There are other alternatives however.
United Airlines, still one of the largest airlines in the world, has overseas bases in FRA, LHR, CDG, HKG and NRT. The bases in TPE and SCL, and the sub contract bases (more about them later) in SIN and BKK have recently closed.
Here's the thing. At UA, the crew at ALL Intl bases are members of AFA, the union for F/A's at United. Second, all Intl F/A's are employed by UA, and not any quasi-sub-contract outfit. Third, all Intl F/A's work to the same contract, i.e. same pay, terms and conditions etc. Finally, while there are locally hired crew, precedence is given by means of a transfer list for US hired crew to transfer to Intl bases. They can stay there as long as they like (subject to visa regulations), and they continue to accrue seniority, work at same rates of pay, under same contract etc.
So, the Intl bases are to all intents and purposes no different from a US base, with US crew able to work there, transfer in and out, enjoy same contract, etc. Locally hired crew can transfer to other bases, but only if they have sufficient work authorisations/visas.
Flights are usually crewed by a mix of Intl and US based crew. So, on a typical flight LHR-SFO, you'll have a mix of SFO and LHR crew. Some flights e.g LHR-ORD will be all LHR crew, some all ORD crew. US crew are not being denied Intl flying to these places altogether, but some savings and more flexibility in scheduling is acheived by having the Intl bases.
Significantly, United opened up two 'local' non-union bases in SE Asia. These crew were hired locally under different T&C (much to the chagrin of the union, the AFA). However, the union agreement with the company was clear - these non union flight attendants were on board in addition to the agreed minimum crew complement. Further, in the event of labour reductions, these bases would be closed before any layoffs of union members. As a result of the post Sep. 11 F/A reductions, these bases were closed before any union members were furloughed. It is unlikely that these or any other 'local' bases will ever again be opened even when hiring recommences.
Now, if QF were to open a base, offer precedence to all QF mainline crew, have the base as a QF mainline base and not as a Quasi-Sub-Contract-Seperate-Company, allow you to maintain and continue to accrue seniority, work to same T&C as now, and transfer in and out accordingly, and have a mix of UK and OZ based staff working all legs of the 'Kangaroo' flights.... This would all mean that QF is still enjoying some cost efficiencies by saving on allowances, but that the integrity of the contract currently enjoyed by QF mainline crew is preserved without dilution of 'cheap labour', 'sub contracting', and reduced flying. Any shortfall in positions not made up from transfers from QF mainline would be filled by locally hired personnel. These (UK/EU) crew would be employed by mainline QF on same contract as rest of crew, but could only transfer to other EU bases or OZ bases if they had relevant work authority/visa/residency etc.
A 'win win' compromise worth fighting for if push came to shove?