Protection costs jobs. It does not create them.
Lack of a second Sydney airport costs jobs. By artificially protecting the QF operation it costs more jobs by insulating the airline from the real effects of sub-optimal decisions.
donpizmeov is right. The best form of protection is to build a competitive company and grow it. An inconvenient truth for many is the fact that in starting Jetstar domestic in Australia management actually took a bold pro-active step to protect mainline yields and have a value focused cost-effective product to serve a growing segment. They have done the same with QF Link. The fact that the way they did things with JQ is hard to swallow is another point. The concept is excellent "a value focused cost-effective product to serve a growing segment"
Now imagine had they done that with each of the CitiFlyer and Long-Haul businesses too....."a value focused cost-effective product to serve a growing segment". And with Qantas Services (IT, Catering, Handling) Engineering and Qantas Training too.
All this could lie ahead. And should. And eventually will. But protection will slow growth, protect poor managers and send jobs off-shore. That is a reality. Another inconvenient truth maybe. We all need to face the opportunities presented by paradigm shifts, not hide from them.