Snakecharma - The arguments that management understand are related to cost and commercial issues.
Agreed and that's fine for Qantas 'financial' management when the 'operational' protection is (was) built in down the line. There is no doubt that economies of scale and adaptation to changing environments is a prerequisite of a modern era. Fine with that and I would support it; but, the current situation raises doubt. Checks and balances are required; if only to 'externally' prove that the 'internal' safety net is properly maintained. That check comes from external oversight (CASA), the balance, if you like, is the ATSB.
But when the safety 'authorities' simply accept 'management' predictions of equivalent safety without a proper 'look-see', the holes can, do and have in the past aligned. When the CASA only appears (seen) to be doing and ATSB are prepared to allow it, then things can become potentially grim indeed. How is operational 'sanity' to balance management 'madness', or vice versa.
But yes agreed, the faux 'safety' card has been played much too often, much to the detriment and devaluation of potential real ones. Is that enough excuse though for the authority to simply ignore, waive off or pay lip service to any or all concerns; no matter how fatuous? They are paid to provide a full service to the public.