High pay and good conditions are something most employees aspire to. If the business is making money and is able to reward its workers accordingly then why shouldn't they enjoy the fruits of their labour ?
Microsoft and Google are profitable and able to attract and reward the best people. Because they are able to attract the best people they are profitable and so it continues.
Ansett weren't profitable for many reasons so how were they supposed to sustain $70 000 flight attendents and $50 000 aircraft cleaners back in the 1990s ? The baggage loaders weren't exactly industrious and hard working either. Compared to other loaders I had experience of, the Ansett ones were paid twice as much, took twice as long and used twice the number.
B767s with flight engineers, cabin crew refusing to operate with one less even though they were still in excess of the legal requirement, pilots refusing a flight because the wrong meal was provided, incompetent management.
Then when the inevitable happens and things fall apart everyones in tears expecting the government to step in and keep it all going. Plus travellers got slugged with the Ansett ticket tax so the employees could get their entitlements.
The main difference was QANTAS in the past ran its business in such a way that it was profitable and could sustain a high cost unionised workplace. I have no doubt that QF pay and conditions were similar to or exceeded Ansetts, however they made money.
Different story today for QF, much stiffer competition and a global financial crisis. Back in the 1990s it was just AN with a similar cost structure, now it's Virgin and Tiger with their much leaner operations and efficient work practices.
If QF can continue with its pay and work practices and still remain in the black then fine. If they can't they must either change or go the way of AN.