Sherm, as has been pointed out by others, you don't need a degree in forensic accounting to see what has been going on. Some of the actions, such as lowering of morale are impossible to quantify anyway.
Apportionment of costs to mainline.
I take you back to the introduction of Jetstar International. Qantas A330's on the SYD-PER-SYD route were accounting for 200 mill a year of mainline profit. Qantas management takes four aircraft, almost 25% of the fleet but none of the pilots, away to form the basis of Jetstar International.
Approximately 350 QF A330 pilots become massively underutilised for about 15 months but the pilot costs of Jetstar show up as less than mainline because they employed DEC and FO on substantially less. It doesn't matter that these A330's were extremely profitable, and much more profitable than the hangar queen 747-300's which came off other routes to fly to PER and establish a reputation for unreliability; the establishment of a low yield international airline took precedence.
The costs were all worn by mainline. Even mainline pilots who burnt leave, went back to rotating, and were paid to sit around doing nothing on 151 hour blank lines when formerly they had been flying back to back 175 hour divisors.
Some of the costs will forever defy forensic analysis.
What is the cost to mainline of management telling Qantas pilots they would "pollute the culture" of Jetstar?
Jetstar has never had to build a ground training centre, it is done at Qantas.
Jetstar has never had to build a flight training centre or buy and build a A330 flight simulator.
When there is a surge in pilots required, mainline pays for pilots to go overseas so Jetstar pilots can continue to use the Qantas A330 sims.
Jetstar has never had to expend capital buying and maintaining heavy tugs.
Jetstar got 180 minute ETOPS on the sole basis of using Qantas engineering.
Jetstar, when it does have to use Qantas infrastructure is quoted a price at a significant discount to other airlines.
Jetstar International can cover aircraft unserviceability at much lower costs than any other similar sized international airline buy invoking the "mainline to the rescue" clause.
What is the cost benefit to Jetstar of constantly invoking the Qantas name whenever an incident occurs?
Yet Jetstar is forever quoted by a compliant and unquestioning media as being the saviour of mainline. Patently it is the other way around.
I am not anti-Jetstar employees. I am simply over the constant parroting of an untruth conjured by a management that is pursuing an ideology more than the proper running of an airline that, given half a chance, could be the best there is.