Couldn't agree more... how about when you fly to DXB you get handled by DNATA or not at all. Can you imagine the screams if it was made law that carriers could only be self-handled or handled by QF or VA.

We just let everyone walk all over us. It makes me sick. For goodness sake let's become a republic as quick as possible, maybe that will change the mindset to Australia first instead of living our entire existence dependent or subservient to others.

In agreement Mr. perspective...

National interest means in the interest of nationals. Unfortunately ideology got in the way..
Gas from Australia, costing Australians more than foreigners, surrendering fifth freedoms to Arab ME carriers, for nothing,

Qantas being privatised, yet retaining its own act of parliament shows that somewhere there is national interest, but perhaps a residual veto stake was a smarter move. A bit like Air NZ, in the national interest..

As General Counsel Johnson stated fiercely when amendments to the QSA were considered, JQ is not Qantas as defined in the Act so Qantas management spent every waking hour trying to get around the QSA, setting up shop in any Asian country that would have them...(for a big fee of course!)

Spot on Mr Mach. The QSA was put there to supposedly protect Qantas but we all know the lazy, indolent Treasurer we had in the mid 2000s was happy to see a consortium nearly take over QF in what would have been completely against the national interest. We all know now that there would be no QF now had that happened or at the very least, a substantial government re-nationalisation to pick up the pieces.

That Treasurer is still lauded today for his work, which was actually the work of his predecessors and where is the guy now??? Can't get a job in the private sector.

National 'interest' depends on who's in government.

Australian airlines have the right to fly local passengers between the UAE/Qatar and other countries, they just choose not to, except QF that flies DXB-LHR twice a day.

Also Australian airlines have exactly the same rights to traffic on routes to the ME3, they could fly 21 flights a week out of SYD/MEL/BNE/PER out of each port and an unlimited number from DRW/ADL/CNS etc.

The biggest problem with these sorts of arguments is that they invariably ignore the elephant in the room the customer.
It's no bad thing imho to look after your own first, that should be the default position and in a way Australia actually does do that for its airline passengers already.
If you subscribe to the view that artificial restrictions are beneficial to the country as it protects industries and companies on the basis of a locals first policy then you have to accept the trade off that those same industries and companies have no real incentive to remain as competitive or to compete as vigorously. If modern industrial history has taught us anything it's that governments and their various ministries and quango's are utterly hopeless when it comes to operating efficiently along side the private sector, moreover the natural progression tends to lead to bloated high cost "businesses" that tend to drift out of touch with reality.
The trick if there is such a thing is to find the right balance of regulation v free market practises whilst ensuring that competition is healthy rather than one sided.
The reality as it stands right now is that in terms of airlines and international travel both QF and VA have been less than enthusiastic about risk and strategy and have instead focused far more on their domestic operations.
The customer in turn has far more choice than they ever have had and at a price that in real terms is far more affordable today than at any previous time.
If some think that it's in the national interest to restrict and block outside competition then that's an argument for the political arena, it's a concept that works in some regards in the US due to the numbers who live there, however in a country of less than 25 million at the arse end of the world that relies on significant amounts of external trade and inbound tourism it's a mindset that will lower standards of living and merely benefit a small fraction of the local population.
The other question I'd ask would be to those who feel that things should be restricted etc is, how many Pax do QF and VA now carry verses when there was less competition? and how does that compare to the numbers in terms of revenue now versus back then? (Time period to look at of your own choosing)

If you put Australia first, other countries will mostly likely do the same. Everything will get more expensive, thus less consumption. I'm sure that you can see the snowball effect coming. Free trade is the policy that took more people out of poverty, over 2 billion. If you want to go back in time, it is a valid option. Yet, you will have to pay the price.

There is already a call for New Zealand to retaliate against some of the things that Australia is doing to New Zealanders who call Australia home.

This is not aviation related but it illustrates what New Zealanders feel: Dear New Zealand: What did Australia ever do to you? | Stuff.co.nz

Are we paying less for electricity since the governments sold out
How about CTP insurance post GIO insurance only
Are banks doing the right thing by customers since State Bank and CBA were privatized
Or how is the price and service of Australia Post doing under private ownership (kinda)

Back in the 70s and 80s QF did not have the protection of the 2 airline agreement and competed with international carriers well and had around 50% of the market

What changed is that it was privatized meaning
It now has to not only break even, but give a return to shareholders and pay huge amounts to management

If QF international were returned to government ownership (in the national interest) profits could be rolled into
Fleet renewal
New routes
Returning maintenance to Australia

If QF international under government ownership went down this path, the net return to the government (assuming profits were rolled back into the airline) would still be positive
Extra income tax from re-created jobs in maintenance, extra flight crews, ground staff and admin
Less welfare paid for those who take up these positions

For every 1000 people employed there is a net gain to the government of around $22 million per year

Sorry Deano but your argument is flawed and simplistic

Back in the 70's and 80's there was also no internet, no social media, the tourism industry was a mere pup compared to what it is today and the average standard of living when comparing most metrics was inferior.
Economy's of the time were more centrally controlled Which led to the rise of incredibly wasteful policy making. It also meant there was very little choice, very little in the way of travel for ordinary people and perhaps worst of all a great lack of opportunity in comparison to today.

Wrong for half a hundred different reasons, put simply if QF was re-nationalised there would be no incentive to make a profit, the Govt of NZ when it bailed out Air NZ did so as a majority shareholder with the key difference to what you are suggesting being it compelled Air NZ to operate on a profitable commercial basis to return the sum invested in it..e.g like any other investor.
Making the assumption that profits would return to the airline also shows a considerable amount of naivety, politics would invariably get in the way of good business, and as the political winds ebb and flow so does the prevailing will of a government that might decide that it's better to invest any profit in a new school in Karatha or a computer system for ministerial expenses etc etc.
Quite simply Govt has shown it can't be trusted nor can it be genuinely held to account when it comes to running organisations for profit..except of course at the ballot box, where in all likelihood the running of the airline might be viewed as small potatos compared to other issues of the day....and you are essentially now back where you started with no money for anything, sound familiar?

Exactly
With so many now looking on Webjet etc, people are buying on price more than ever
Regular travelers will tend to look at comfort above price if there is not much difference
Other things factor in, like Manila locals will fly PAL to avoid the old terminal even if QF had a better service

A corporatised QF with a GM answering to a government instead of a board made up of bankers and investment fund reps would be little different
Other than profit would not be the primary objective

A larger QF breaking even or even losing $200 million a year would be more than offset by the income tax revenue from thousands of new or re-hired employees
Pilots, cabin attendants, engineers, admin etc

Legacy government owned airlines still offer great service at reasonable prices
Its the ones that are privately owned that struggle and fail

With tourism so important to our economy with the mining boom over, we need to ensure that this industry is strong and resilient
An inbound tourist that has a poor experience on a foreign airline starts and ends on a downer and is unlikely to talk up their holiday as much

Right now, if a QF international route fails to make money, its dropped
Just look at the farce with the 787 Mel-Per-Lhr and return which is downgraded from an A380
Passengers will now just fly Emirates with a mid way stop in a more comfortable aircraft rather than a cramped 787 stopping a mere 3 hours into the flight

Qantas was an icon under government ownership, now it is no better than Jetstar, actually you even have more personal space on a Jetstar a320 than a Qantas 737
Speaking of Jetstar, what a great joke that turned out to be
You often pay more on Jetstar than Qantas for the same journey

If things don't change Qantas will have no international network within 10 years

They were probably saying the exact same thing 10 years ago!

Or,
With tourism so important to our economy with the mining boom over , we can't afford to reduce the number of tourists travelling to our shores.

Well for one thing the people now running this country really don't mind dropping their strides, bending over, and taking it in. Seems like instant gratification has replaced long term vision.

And so what if you buy Australian, your boss will probably by anything but Australian from the profits you helped he/she create.

With middle and upper Australians now driving European luxury cars there aint many mugs left willing to stick with the local brand if they can avoid it.

Not me, I don't want to be seated next to a pedophile.

If you replaced CEOs that are just interested in growing bonuses, with CEOs who want to grow their business, the rest should take care of itself.

The only way to do that is allow them a long term view by changing how often they report to the market.

Apart from being completely wrong and ignoring history, your post says at first if Qantas were re-nationalize there would be no incentive to make a profit, then you claim that Air NZ was re-nationalized but makes a profit... make up your mind would be the first point. Secondly, you ignore history. All of the shares in Qantas Ltd. were purchased by the Commonwealth in 1947. The company continued to operate as an unlisted public company. I suggest you look through actual FACTS and you will find that in all those years of government ownership the total capital injected into Qantas was $164m - the company grew to be worth $2bn in that time - AND $80m of that was within the previous decade prior to the public float to provide capital base to raise loans to purchase the 747-300 and 767s. That means the government only contributed $84m in 37 years of ownership, then the $80m then nothing until it was fully floated. During that time Qantas managed to retain $967m in 'retained profits', ALWAYS paid the Commonwealth a dividend and the only assistance it received (we'll leave Bi-Laterals aside because that was the system at the time a quid-pro-quo exchange of rights) was that it was able to have it's loans for aircraft guaranteed by the government in exchange for making a substantial amount of the fleet available to operate on behalf of the Commonwealth at cost only in times of national need... which was often... cyclone Tracey, ferrying troops to/from SE Asia, etc.
During the 45 or so years of government 'ownership' as the single shareholder, the company I don't think EVER made a loss... maybe one or two years when the entire industry was in downturn but still made some sort of profit as it coincided with asset sales.
There is some evidence to suggest it's financial performance was more stable and better managed over the long term during those years than it ever has been during the second period of being a public company, from 1995 onward... profits increased after that float ONLY because the Keating Government put $1.1bn of the sale proceeds back into Qantas as a capital injection following the float (part of the deal with BA to pay a higher share price and have the company properly capitalized).
There is ample evidence to suggest that as a majority Commonwealth owned asset, Qantas would possibly do better than it is now - yes, it didn't make profits in the billions back in those days but it also didn't have a fleet of nearly 300 aircraft - and it's KPIs could be part based on serving the national interest. The UAE doesn't gauge EK's performance entirely on profit but also on it's contribution to the national economy and to tourism and foreign exchange.
There may not have been an internet and social media 'back in those days' but in the 20s, there were no aeroplanes that could carry more than one passenger and in the 40s there were no jet aircraft and in the 60s there were no widebodies and during the 60s mostly, there were no computerized reservations systems either... point is things change and you can't use social media and the internet as examples of paradigm shifts because there were equally significant shifts back then as well driven by technology... such as it taking 30+ hours to get to London from Sydney and not 3 days.

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.

I am suprised the case of Air New Zealand has not featured more prominently to illustrate that the purported paradigm of government inefficiency in SOE enterprises was simply ideology and politics mixed together...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11508152

It is a shame, Australian politicians are content to allow Qantas to be simultaneously hamstrung by the provisions of the QSA whilst somehow maintaining that the market ought control it. With nominee companies (foreign) and errant management fighting an IR war no matter what the cost am not quite sure how any 'national interest' or indeed employment would have been preserved...

Maybe PM Trumble could buy 15% of QAN?

Correct, and I totally agree, I suppose you could say it's the idea of traditional nationalisation v a Govt owned company run on a commercial basis. For the sake of accuracy the Govt of the day in NZ had the issue land in their lap so to speak...it wasn't some genius or political brilliance at play, they are still the same old self interested politicians.

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.