60% of something is still better than 100% of nothing though! I.e. If Virgin is not making any money (100% of nothing) and they think TT can (60%).
Of course. But you obviously can't grasp what I was getting at.
Its about how to mix between the brands, when both can make a return.
There are so many variables, but in a very, very simplistic example; let's say that out of every $10000 of ticket sales, on a particular flight sector, a "full service" brand can return $150 nett but a "lower cost" brand can return $200 nett.
At Qantas Group (all other things equal) they would axe QF and deploy JQ to increase return, simple. But at
Virgin Australia Group, deploying TT would only return to the group $120 (60% of the $200), so they may be better off retaining VA to get the $150.
Whereas, if the "full service" brand's ability to generate a return drops down to $100 nett, from every $10000 in sales, versus $200 nett from the "lower cost" brand, both Groups may be better off deploying their lower cost brands.
So, the threshold at which each airline group will switch to their lower cost brands (based on nett return) is different. With Virgin probably more likely to hold onto flying " full service" for longer than Qantas.