Mate, if you are going to derogatory and resort to insults ("...sitting beyond the thunderdome...") you will quickly lose respect and attention. But I'm happy to ignore that for now.
It's actually not just what is best for the customer. And certainly not what's just best for Qantas. It's actually about finding the right balance, "partnership" if you like (sounds a bit stupid but that'll do) that works for both parties, from all points of view - schedule, frequency, commercial viability, etc.
By way of example, using your logic Qantas should be operating services to Algeria, Pakistan and Trinidad because that would be best for one of our huge customers: BHP Petroleum. But it just wouldn't be commercially viable for Qantas. So of course Qantas is not going to simply operate those services at a constant loss just because "it's best for the customer."
Now I don't know the exact numbers in the to/from PER market, nor am I the number cruncher. However if you reckon you've got enough people to pay the equivalent revenue Qantas would lose by swapping a 744/Skybed doing SYD-LAX with an A330 doing PER-SYD then go ahead and put it to Qantas; maybe they will take up the idea. But you know, despite your assertions I don't reckon people would really pay the significantly higher fare that would be associated with that. And there are smarter number-crunchers/analysts/market-surveyors (yes, true) in QF who I suspect would say the same.
The 744/Skybed is a large aircraft with a very low seat-pitch in a large % of its cabins, so it has to go a long distance and earn bigger revenues to pay its way. Despite what is best for some passengers. No airline would make any money at all if the latter was the only criteria. As far as I know, DJ is not putting a full Skybed equivalent into its A330s either. They plan to compete on price point and sounds like a cool product also. But not flat bed on a Red-eye.