Originally Posted by
haughtney1
You've misinterpreted my intent and the example...perhaps I should have said that the Air NZ bailout was effectively done on commercial terms, i.e. Much like a hostile takeover where the business case is sound but requires restructuring to ensure a return, where the investor took a hands off approach and allowed the business to recover, rather than running it from a parliamentary office and taking decisions based on politics rather than business.
With respect to the OP, his contention was that Oz jobs/companies should be put first..that implies to me a re-nationalisation process which is what I was alluding too.
I frankly couldn't care less about the history of QF nor it's past performances, we are discussing things moving forward in a modern context. If you want to debate the basis of my assertions that's fine...but let's lay out the context and parameters of the operating environment first, otherwise it's merely apples and oranges.
You have also misinterpreted my post. You referred to Air NZ being re-nationalised, that IS history too. Everything before yesterday is history.
My point is valid as you used the expression 'no incentive to make a profit' and I was offering 45 years of QF history and 16 years of Air NZ history to counter the argument that something being owned by government is inefficient. Qantas was not used as a political football or run from a parliamentary office in the past and Air NZ isn't today, both were allowed to operate independently. Your later post responding to Tuck Mach I agree with and was what I was getting at, offering historical figures only to support what I was saying.
Indeed the 'reputation' of government owned but independently run organisations being inefficient is puerile ideology and not supported by facts. Singapore Airlines and Emirates are both government owned.
The CSIRO is a largely independent organisation that has done groundbreaking work until the current government started destroying it for petty and totally ideological rather than logical reasons so that is an example of government being destructive and/or inefficient but the examples of Qantas and Air NZ prove the opposite is true in a hands off environment.