QAN_SHAREHOLDER. Technical crew operating costs are in the order of ~3% direct operating costs, obviously +/- a bit here or there between operators. Traditionally QF crew were in the middle of the range globally.
The question you should really be asking management is why they are burning up to 50 tonnes per sector more than the competitors because of poor fleet choices for similar configurations. I think you will find that tech crew costs are a proverbial piss in the bucket compared to what is being wasted out the backend.
You should then ask management about the A380 fuel performance. The following is a summary from the then fuel pilot.
He had been asked directly by senior management why the A380 was not using 30% less fuel per seat compared to the -400. He went on to explain that the A380 was indeed performing close to spec WRT fuel burn. But management kept saying that it wasn't the 30% reduction that Airbus had sold it to be. He then asked about the QF seating config vs the Airbus configuration for the fuel burn figures (QF's 450 vs 650 airbus).
Senior management could not get their heads around the fact that there was essentially a FIXED fuel burn for an empty aircraft, and then a small additional fuel burn per full seat. Management assumed fuel burn was essentially a linear function. In other words if QF had a 650 seat config the fuel burn would indeed be 30% less than the -400, but not in a 450 seat config. This remember is many months after the introduction of the aircraft.
In other words, senior management appear to have ordered an aircraft without the most fundamental understanding of seat configuration vs fuel use. I can only surmise that there was zero in the way of engineering/flight-ops/flight planning input into purchase decision. In essence, management were appear to have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Airbus.
His advise was to give the aircraft to jetstar in a high density configuration if they wanted a 30% fuel reduction per seat mile.
Go ask them about it.