Leaving aside the mind-numbingly boring and largely irrelevant-to-the-argument pages of dry economic theory, I think Sunfish is quite correct. JQ is structured to show a profit regardless. There is no more "raw" example of this than the Honolulu manager who tried to bill a million dollars worth of logistics support (A330 spares, and so on) to Jetstar on commencement of their HNL services, to be told by the accounts people that the bill goes to Qantas. On querying this, it was apparently suggested in no uncertain terms that he wind his neck in, and do as he's told.
Also, if you were a shareholder before the failed APA bid, I can't understand how you wouldn't be absolutely spitting chips if you sold your shares on the Board's (and hence GDs) advice, knowing how the bid ended up and what happened to the share price afterwards.
Under GD, Qantas has turned a good profit, and people may argue that this proves his credentials. However in the current environment, with the levels of protection QF has on the lucrative routes, Daffy Duck could also make QF turn a profit, and GD and his team have made some horrendous screwups along the way.