FGD:
You assert that Qantas will go broke because of their prediliction towards outsourcing. You associate outsourcing with debt and it is this debt that you claim will sink Qantas.
The premise of your assertion is flawed, I respectfully suggest. Outsourcing does not require debt. An expense from outsourcing is no different to an expense arising from a function performed internally - the only question is whether you have enough dough to pay for it.
You seem to have a major objection to the idea of outsourcing. Perhaps this is because it wasn't in the widespread use in your day as it is today.
The theory of outsourcing is perfectly sound. It holds that the outsourcing of a particular function will be cheaper than to perform that same function internally.
Whether this is actually true for every application of outsourcing is debateable - as you would appreciate.
1. Outsourcing requires working capital.
2. I was a group general manager in one of the first outsourcing supplier companies.
3. Outsourcing works fine
where a vibrant competitive free market for your requirements already exists. Take photocopiers for example. Why would you possibly employ a photocopier mechanic or actually own a photocopier? You have dozens of choices and options in that market.
....however RR Trents are not photocopiers. There is no "competition". Adam Smith will therefore apply, and you will be royally screwed since you have foregone any other option. The "outsourcing" option is therefore entirely artificial. There are not Sixty plus RR Trent overhaul and maintenance companies competing for your business. Maybe there would be for the CFM 56, but I wouldn't know.