qantaslink approves regional licence, page-2

Due tomorrow is the outcome of a long-running court case with far-reaching ramifications, but little publicity, - so far.

There is one busy inland route with 12 Sydney flights a day, 175000 pax a year, served by both Rex and Qantaslink. Up until last year, no security equipment was installed because broadly under CASA rules, legally none was required because both RPT aircraft were sub-20 tons.

Even though yield was relatively low but steady, Qantas decided to introduce an occasional flight using a larger aircraft. Hardly required by demand, but there was another reason as we will see.

This action forced the council to instal security equipment at a cost of $1m and $9 per passenger. For all passengers. The margin on flights is about $9.

Its a bit like your business existing happily, when suddenly a rival business up the street takes action that raises YOUR costs. Rex objected to this unilateral action and took the matter to court. Outcome due tomorrow.

Whichever way you look at it, Qantas' relentless pursuit of its 65% goal is a grenade that goes off randomly, ultimately affecting the whole Australian economy. Why do they persist with such a disastrous money-losing policy?

If I can't make money I'm going to make damn sure you don't either? And the travelling public with no alternative can go jump?