Lodown:
I still don't get it. The value is in domestic, not international. Buyers would be clamboring for domestic and the route structures. International doesn't seem to have any value to me. Can Qantas get around the sale act if they execs sell domestic and keep international only to fold it at a later date when it is "no longer profitable" into Jetstar?
How do you know the value is in domestic and all the losses are in International? You cannot know that unless you perform a complete contribution analysis and you need the management accounts for that - not the statutory accounts.
By way of example, there could be plenty of value in International. Give Qantas domestic the engineering and turnaround contracts for Qantas International, give them the terminal leases, then watch them suck value out of Qantas international - it's easy for any accountant!
Now watch Macquarie Bank get hired (more $$$$ for the "APA Mates") and they split the company - giving shareholders a share in each. Then do a share placement in the domestic entity to Emirates and voila!
McGrath50:
I don't follow your train of thought here Sunny, because we now elect women, non-Caucasians and non-Christians we can't judge their character?
Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse, so I'll explain:
We don't want psychopaths in management, but it is very attractive to them because of the power over others they can wield and because they have no empathy. High office is now the perfect "bait" to attract them. We don't want them because they can be unspeakably cruel to satisfy their own egos. We particularly don't want narcissists because they ultimately destroy long term corporate value in the search for a short term star performance and the riches that go with it. It has been suggested that 10% of business leaders are psychopaths.
The problem is compounded because psychopaths hire other psychopaths - they drive out good people who can't stand their behaviour, they either leave voluntarily or get back stabbed. They destroy the pool of corporate talent where the value of any organisation ultimatley lies.
The trouble is that the only reliable way of detecting these people is careful observation over time because they are excellent at camouflaging themselves. The best way to spot them is at the yacht club, the golf club, at school, University, Church, defence forces, the city club etc. etc. where their often strange and cruel behaviour over a few years gives them away and makes them easily detectable.
However McGrath we can't appoint our friends and members of the old boys club to Directorships and senior management anymore, can we? Even if I know, say, that a highly qualified and regarded Female business leader is a lying cheating creep who has destroyed dozens of her competitors and the lives of her subordinates, who should not even be allowed to own a pet dog, I cannot stop her promotion these days. Gender balance, experience and Qualifications are now all that can legally be assessed and taken into consideration.
To put that another way, I know one female who has left a trail of human wreckage and corporate destruction behind her - but no one could stop her rise - she is one of the original Margaret Whitlam "Old Girl" coterie. Same with some men I know. You cannot know what they are like unless you either work for them or have another opportunity to study them in detail.
To put that yet another way, when you find yourself asking "Why would such and such a celebrity/politician/business leader do something so obviously criminally stupid or hateful?" or "why are such good and hard working people suddenly leaving a department?" the answer is you are looking at a psychopath.
...And we have a few strutting the political stage as I speak. Also ask yourself what sort of airline managment strings out a decision over closing Two engineering bases for months - maximising the pain and distress of its employees? The answer is obvious.
There are some indications that HR practicioners are starting to react, for example the final interview my son had for an official appointment was what he termed "strange" - when he explained the questioning and conduct, it was obvious the interviewer was setting psychopath traps to see if he would fall in.
The questions and observations were "strange" and difficult to an ordinary person, but wouldn't be to a Psychopath. For example the question: "How would you go about telling a mother and Father that their son had just died in a car accident?" A psychopath would just jump in and answer that straight away - to him it would not be a problem. Do you now understand why the decision to ground Qantas, and the way it was allegedly made, was so revealing? Do you now understand who Gina Rhinehart really is - from her behavior towards her own children?