Good example. Air NZ plus Qantas' own history from 1947 to 1995 proves that it is ideologically driven to say government ownership = inefficiency.

For 35 years I've been hopping between Uk and Australia on private trips. (Self funded economy)
In the 80s and 90s on my own or as a couple we didn't mid paying a little more to travel with Qantas who at the time I felt had a great service.

But for the past 20 years travelling as a party of four (2 kids) the Qantas premium was too high.
My wife and daughter travelled to LHR in Feb for $999 return on a 787. Closest Qantas fare was $1500.

Within Australia Jetstar regularly are the lowest for regular trips to NZ and within Oz.
But for international Qantas don't make the cut.

All that and great service. At Qantas you get given the 3rd degree when you ask for anything, as if they are doing you a favour, by letting you fly with them.

And of course lets never forget when the little leprechaun stranded passengers all around the world with no notice, and his other personal habits which turn off a large percentage of the population.

Almost 3 times Air NZ price (on a nice new B787) to fly to LAX, on an old noisy, dry B747 and for that premium, you don't even get wifi

https://www.google.com/flights/?f=0#...017-06-17;sc=b

Indeed, this lie is trotted out by the government and their highly paid "private" advisors every time there is a budget shortfall to be plugged.

As others have quoted above, GIO and the State bank privatisation has lead to mass job losses, office/branch closures, hikes in prices, introductions in fees, reduction in competition and lowering of services, and the same can be said for every other public enterprise that has been sold off, despite the pollies promising the opposite.

Telstra, Qantas, the Electricity industry, same story every time.

Bob Carr and Michael Egan have a lot to answer for.

How about the possibility it was all an ideological shell game, dressed up under the cover of "academic rigour" to fleece the public by privatising monopolies?

Another way of viewing privatisation is the "privatisation of taxation", look no further than the M5 and other toll roads in Sydney or Melbourne. The residents of these cities are fleeced daily by a select few.

You might want to check out [haven't read it myself] "Game of Mates" by Cameron Murray released in the past couple of weeks. SMH book review.

He also recently appeared at the Queensland Crime & Corruption Commission (CCC) giving evidence [Submission evidence transcript] about property rezoning & political bribes, I mean donations. Follow the money, he does and you will have your answer why we don't put Australia first.

On top of what you are saying, in many cases these organisations were 'floated' and sold to the public, but the public already owned them.

In the case of the roads, particularly the Tullamarine Freeway, which is gridlocked more than it ever was under public ownership, the people had already paid for it once and now they are paying for it again to line someone's pockets. That whole stretch of road from Essendon Airport to the South Eastern freeway is privately owned and charges high tolls and it is gridlock every morning.

At least it's cheaper parking that the CBD. This and the tunnel still leaks because it wasn't built round which is the number one engineering rule for things going under water. We got a billion dollar tunnel which people pay for every day that didn't even follow the first engineering rule.

We had private operators take over the railways and buy hundreds of trains the wrong voltage (I guess we should be glad they got the gauge correct) that sat in sidings for 10 years awaiting modification.

But of course, government is so much less efficient than the private sector.

Legacy airlines are going the way of the dinosaur, we are living through a period of massive structural adjustment. Industries which sat comfortably for decades, such as Taxis, Video/DVD rental, music shops, book shops etc have had the carpet pulled out from under them by internet connectivity.

These days a generation have grown up being used to doing things online and will be followed by subsequent generations who will expect to be able to do anything via their smart phone. Read a book, download a song, watch a film, order a pizza, book a hotel room, buy an air ticket etc are increasingly done online and it's getting more sophisticated.

Unionised legacy airlines, charging high fares for poor service may have been profitable in the 1970s but not anymore. Even Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines have seen their results nosedive in the face of competition from low cost airlines at the lower end, ME3 at the middle and higher end and homegrown Chinese airlines.

Most industries will have to take a long hard look at their business model, and many will find it won't be sustainable in its current form if at all, in the years to come.

Forcing people to fly Qantas makes no more sense than banning the import of foreign cars and making us all drive Falcons and Commodores. Luddites used to destroy machinery during the industrial revolution as they believed it threatened their jobs, perhaps we should stop mechanised farming and start ploughing with horses again. Do away with the internet and go back to snail mail and telegrams.

How far back should we go ?

Just back to when people would dress nicely when they flew.

:)

Dean, you can stick your protectionist ideas about QF up your fundament. QF produce a low quality product that does not represent good value. It is a major blight on the Australian tourist industry and export oriented industries because it doesn't foster efficient good value travel anywhere.

I am writing this from the Silver Kris (business class) lounge in Singapore as I wait to board my direct flight to Melbourne. Good value, efficient, friendly, competent service from Singapore Airlines.

To put it another way : "I still call Australia home." Not. Qantas has outsourced everything overseas except the roo on the tail. "Australian icon" that is pure BS these days. It is badly managed and should be allowed to go bankrupt.

I often wonder whether the structual adjustment is real structual adjustment (ie increased efficiency) or just a hostile take over of a more expensive way of doing business. For example it is now more expensivs to hire a DVD than ever before AND you have to live somewhere that actually has decent enough internet. Uber is just flat out illegal, but somehow muscles in.

Same in aviation how can you compete with middle eastern airlines or Asian Airlines when they pay no or low tax, and have friendly regulators. Imagine what a EK captains salary would be worth in Australia. Norwegian is next where you basically shop around countries looking for the best regulatory deal. Once all the legacy airlines get destroyed I wonder how much we will pay airfares and at what quality of product

Sunfish,
Feel free to enjoy Singapore or any other airline of your choice.
I don't place much value on your opinions or assessments.
Qantas will survive or fail on its ability to compete with whomever it's competition is at any particular time.
It has done a pretty good job so far.
Hasn't needed chapter 11 unlike United,Continental, American.
Has seen off Alitalia,Olympic,JAT,KLM,Lufthansa,Air France,Philippine
Still fighting with SQ, Emirates, Thai,Malaysian,Cathay,Garuda, Etihad, + a few more
Didn't need to be bailed out like ANZ
Mopped the floor with Virgin so far.
Sorry to say it but saw the demise of Ansett.
So for all of its arrogance is still hanging in there.
Could I put to you that any perceived arrogance by cabin crew is the performance of the individual persons.
There aren't too many of these left who would have been employed by the legacy carrier.

At what percentage does the behavior cease being "performance of individual persons" and become company culture? 10%? 20%? 50%?

Sunfish
Perhaps Qantas would be up to the same standard as others such as SQ and EK if the Australian government enforced anti-dumping laws

You need to really understand what in fact is going on, it's not all about who is cheapest
The likes of EK, SQ, CX and any number of foreign carriers can compete for Australian passengers flying to Europe in 1 of 2 ways
1) Price, this is self explanatory
2) Offering a better product, this may be better leg room or better but less economical aircraft such as the A380 better lounges at airports or better seating for business etc
But all this cost money and has to come from somewhere and when fares are roughly the same, any educated passenger would opt for a SQ or EK A380 service over Qantas

But let me ask
1) If for example EK offers a superior product for the same price as QF supported by low taxes and subsidies, is this fair and a level playing field ?

2) If SQ has a sale from SYD to LHR during a quiet time of the year, is this contravening the anti-dumping laws ?
This question is important as the likes of SQ and the ME3 don't alter timetables often even though there are peeks and troughs in demand when they really should
So they flog of cheap seats to fill their flights from OZ and onward to other destinations, thus protecting their hub and spoke model

It's like Brazil harvesting too many apples, they are not permitted to just dump them cheaply into Australia
The same rule should apply to airlines