You usually have pretty sound arguments Sunny, but in my view what you proposed denies the realities of the free market.
If Qantas tried to hold anybody to ransom in the manner you propose, the next call made by the victim would be to the ACCC, closely followed by a call to John Borghetti, who would happily step into the breach to pick up the slack.
Granted the call to the ACCC would be relatively futile, but the call to JB would reap immediate benefits.
The threat to employees from a privatised Qantas would be a renewed drive to lower costs. That scenario would test the mettle of the workforce.
The problem QF employees face, and one which it seems the majority of employees are still doing their best to mitigate, is the trashing of the brand. Qantas' biggest differentiator has been in its brand value and safety record, which has allowed Q to charge a premium for tickets.
The safety facade collapsed long ago with the Bangkok incident and has been reinforced multiple times since. That's no real fault of anyones because it was always a facade. Anyone who pegs their reputation to not f@cking up in this industry is always going to come undone eventually.
The brand value has been trashed by the board and management, but its clear to see employees are fighting hard to arrest the fall. Unfortunately having mostly lost its safety and quality market advantage, Qantas will have to compete on price going forward. To do that effectively they need to reduce cost. There is no other way. Qantas will never recover its brand value to the levels it once enjoyed. The travelling public are just too well informed these days.
Once people travel with other carriers and learn that Qantas isn't actually special, their travel choices going forward will be made more on facts than the emotion attached to a children's choir.
The S-Curve isn't going to work either because Virgin can and will continue to match frequency/capacity, and it looks as though AJ has worked that out. The market is going to stabilise eventually, and it will probably look a bit like how it looked when there was only Ansett and TAA.
Whether it meets the career expectations of employees or not, Qantas has to lower its cost base, because it will never recapture the brand value that has now been lost. That's not to say that it can't be the airline that it once was, it just means that they are unlikely to ever be able to get the ticket premiums that they used to enjoy.
I believe that Qantas will always enjoy a small benefit from its brand, because it is quite difficult to completely destroy the image of something as iconic as Qantas, and I'm sure the new CEO's brief will be to rebuild what AJ has destroyed, but make no mistake it will be built on a lower cost base than what you currently see.
The reason I know this is that it has already been repeated many times all over the world. It's not rocket science, its airline economics. Look at the US majors. Granted that if it wasn't for Ch.11 probably none of them would currently exist, but they emerged leaner and stronger and are now making serious money because they have a lower cost base, a more consolidated industry, and a more focused strategy. Whether they can maintain it will be more a product of the workforce than the management. Ch.11 allowed them to circumvent the power of the unions for the moment, whether that can be sustained going forward will be interesting to watch.
By way of comparison, Australia has pretty much completed the consolidation phase, both major carriers have a reasonably focused strategy domestically, so that leaves the cost base. Virgin is currently competitive, therefore Qantas has to respond.
(F$cknose what the Qantas international strategy is, but I'm guessing it will look more like Virgin in 5 years time, than Virgin like Qantas. J* Asia I think is still in a state of flux. Looked good on paper, not so good in reality.)
Because Qantas and Virgin domestic operate in a protected environment, they are not highly exposed to global economic forces. i.e cheap labour in China cannot impact the cost of business in Australia (I am talking specifically about pilots here, I understand cheap labour dramatically effects many other labour groups) because Chines pilots cannot fly Australian aircraft (yet!).
There is always the chance that the next idiot will come along and try and start another LCC in Oz, but they will eventually go broke, as Virgin would have if not for Ansett's demise.
It is my view that the best chance Qantas pilots have to put a floor under conditions is to collaborate with the unions that represent Virgin pilots and have a relatively unified approach to the cost of pilot labour. To be clear, pilots are just a commodity, but one where the commodity has some control over the supply side through industrial legislation.
Of course Virgin pilots need to recognise the same problem, as they are more at risk. For Virgin to compete with Qantas, everything else being equal, they need to have a cheaper ticket. JB was gifted a lower cost base when he walked into Virgin and, despite having had a pretty good crack at increasing it, he will be continually striving to have a lower cost base than Qantas. So as Qantas lowers their cost base, Virgin will need to respond. Hence downward pressure on Virgin salaries going forward.
The days of regulation are gone for sure, and with it the ability to charge on a cost plus basis. This has been good for punters, but not so good for business owners or their employees. For Australian pilots to protect their conditions they need to be better organised than they currently are because the business owners are circling.
The answer is in AUSALPA, but I doubt that wounds have sufficiently healed for that to be anything more than wishful thinking for at least another decade. The problem I see is that if the pilots cannot learn from the past and move on, then management will continue to be one step ahead.