Management claim to be able to predict the future with billions in Asian strategies which will, one day, be hugely profitable and influential to the QF group. We all wait with baited breath because, so far, the results have been stunningly short of the spin at the time. (HUGE credibility and integrity gap right there!)
On the other hand, the same people seem incapable of framing a believable plan for QF mainline because they can't seem to verifiably quantify "the problem". Evidently, new and efficient equipment stored around the world pending its utilisation is good sense for a LCC, but QF mainline can't expect new/efficient equipment until it gets more profitable with the old gear!
I believe "they" would gain huge support if they could simply use a bit more quid pro quo and define:
a. what they seek to achieve in terms of efficiencies, and
b. what resultant career/equipment/route structure would then become viable and expected for mainline in the years ahead.
"They" have created such an atmosphere of mistrust through part-truths and questionable financial engineering that no employee is disposed to volunteering for blind compromise if the result is accelerated career-slowing through further siphoning of the Qantas treasury for speculative ventures with absolutely NIL benefit to Australian employee.
At some point, there must be more than just "trust us". Some might call it a sadly lacking factor of the last few years; leadership.
