Taildragger - valid observation: the issue however is that the overlay is the IASC route approval(s) which is the instrument that facilitates the JQ offshore backdoor.
While the Act does not preclude Q from owning in part or whole equity in another carrier (also read quasi-franchise), the Q Sale Act has no jurisidction in the awarding of QF's route approvals.
The messy bit is when the 'majority owned' JQ franchisee is deployed utilising capacity on a QF approved route - in effect, there is real propensity for the JQ franchise deal to be even more attractive (particularly to China/Asian carriers) as it becomes a golden passport to access Australian bi-lateral freedoms.
How the Minister for Mascot's IASC can justify the para 4 & 5 criteria - that is such arrangements are "in the best interests of the Australian public" is beyond logic.
The really messy bit however is that Regulators, (including the QF/JQ rubber stamp called CASA), have diminished powers under such arrangements, therefore $afety becomes a low level, if not purely academic priority.
I said previously the regulatory environment is the new slash and burn green field frontier - the new 'panama flag' for aviation.
Under this flag there is no doubt that Australian jets and jobs will continue to be sent offshore. Australian employees and shareholders should be very concerned.
AT