If they want to shovel $3 billion of their dirhams (the United Arab Emirates currency) into Virgin Australia and in so doing create Australian jobs and offer competition to a former monopolist like Qantas, then I say: “Well done. Keep the dirhams coming.”
The US has, without foreign involvement, a plethora of domestic carriers, while only with Arab money do Australian consumers have the option not to fly with the near monopolistic marsupial.
What, are star trek style teleporters taking over the airline world and QF the only one who is not on board with the new technology? Unless that is the case I think the example of Kodak is pretty inaccurate.
The problem with Kodak is their business literally changed on them. They where the best in the world when it came to film, and they had pegged on film still being a medium in 200 years time. The problem was that the world moved onto digital, an arguably much better technology and in a very short period of time. The main product which Kodak sold was no longer required and they did not have any major inroads with any replacement products.
Take Qantas on the other hand, their main business is air travel and air freight. Short of star trek style teleporters / some other ultra high speed transport becoming the new in fashion way from traveling from A to B, air travel will remain as king for traveling long distance. That is not to say that they are not fumbling around, but a lot of legacy carriers are fumbling around trying to work out what to do with LCC's. This is a very different proposition to having your core business no longer useable by the majority of your former customers through no fault of your own.
Remember that Kodak were early into digital (not sure, but it may even have been their invention) but were afraid it would wreck their film business. So they decided not to go forward but to simply defend their turf, with well known results. They ceased being a leader and were more concerned with self-preservation.In this respect, the comparison with QF has some validity.