Plovett, I disagree that the attempt to take QF private was above board although I'm absolutely sure it was technically legal.
The reason that the proposal did not get up was that it stank to high heaven which put off some institutional investors and one American corporate raider who had got wind of what was planned and bought about 5% (from memory) of the company who was too greedy; holding out for an hour too long in an attempt to get a better deal for himself.
The raiders almost got to the 50%+ compulsory acquisition mark.
The entire strategy revolved around an attempt to portray Qantas as a broken down wreck of an airline that a few kind hearted billionaires, assisted by a caring and sharing Qantas Board and senior management, would charitably purchase from the long suffering shareholders.
What do we see today? Exactly the same gloom and doom talk that destroys shareholder value.
Qantas makes a profit when other airlines do not precisely because it dominates the Australian Domestic and international markets. It has extremely strong leverage with Government, at the state level because air transport links are a major factor in economic growth, and at a Federal level because of its iconic status and defence implications.
Qantas goes to great lengths to disguise its profitability - it avoids telling outright lies by talking about making an acceptable return on capital without explaining just what that figure is or exactly who it has to be "acceptable" to - perhaps the tea lady perchance?
Furthermore there is no disinterested forensic aviation accounting or auditing capability in Australia that is able to give an unbiased and accurate opinion on Qantas. The capacity simply doesn't exist, nor do the regulators have it. I asked the ACCC about that during Compass I or II and was told that if a complaint was ever made they might be able to form an opinion "in about Six months" when we all knew that Six weeks would be too long for Compass to survive the predatory pricing assault.
For example, is there any auditor or accountant in Australia who is prepared to argue on detailed technical grounds whether a specific Boeing derived aircraft modification to a Qantas aircraft is a business expense (for example compliance with an AD) or something that merely improves service life (which would be a capital expense). Little devices like these were used to hide Ansett's profitability for years, at least until Eddington gutted it.
Qantas feeds regulators, employees and the public bullshyte every day, because they know they can get away with it.
The sad part is that all this wouldn't matter if they were making dog food instead of allegedly providing safe air transportation.
Correction: I guess it would matter to dogs.