Bula,
I think you are referring to the 8th freedom or cabotage, whereby JC could operate domestic sectors in Australia?
Whilst the Single Aviation Market, between Australia and NZ allows it, the FWA prohibits such conduct for the reasons previously stated.
Given Qantas maintains a constant lobbying pressure in Canberra to stop cabotage by other carriers, it would be ironic if they tried to convince FWA that it was a legitimate operation and allow cabotage.
Qantas's stated position in FWA was that it was a separate NZ operation and thus not under jurisdiction of FWA (my paraphrasing)
So although the pilots ought have followed the money on JC in court and not FWA, IMO they tried to find the 'control' of JC in the wrong jurisdiction, they ought have tested it in the court system, whereby the salaries paid from Sydney, the fact the CEO didn't know directors and the 'capital return' had in fact been transferred from Sydney and then sent back, would have clearly evidenced control and therefore jurisdiction.
'Qantas attempting to claim JC is now just another subsidiary to fly domestic sectors, like Cobham for example, would require some doing!
It would require better legal preparation than the pilots demonstrated for the FWA hearing in 2012. The transcript is fascinating reading...
Jetconnect doesn't have a fuel bill, bot bad for a separate airline, which Qantas claimed was at arm's length!