Disaster Story: Qantas Airways’ Legacy System Addiction
In 2018, Qantas Airways experienced an outage of their 40-year-old Amadeus reservation system that left passengers stranded across 15 airports. Check-in counters froze, boarding passes couldn’t be issued, and baggage systems failed. The airline’s backup procedures faltered as staff struggled with manual workarounds they had never properly practiced. The final cost: over $100 million in direct costs, compensation, and brand damage.
What made this story particularly tragic? For seven consecutive years, IT leaders had proposed replacing the system. For seven consecutive years, the proposals were rejected as “too risky” and “too expensive.” Multiple succession planning documents had identified the aging system as a critical vulnerability. The executive team acknowledged the risk—but feared the cure more than the disease.
The price of that fear? A catastrophic failure that cost far more than the proposed replacement.
The Trauma Index™ warned of disaster:
- Political Risk: 3/5 – Legacy system experts wielded excessive influence
- Career Threat: 4/5 – Previous replacement attempts had damaged careers
- Technical Difficulty: 5/5 – Deep integration with 13 mission-critical systems
The Qantas case exemplifies Corporate Stockholm Syndrome—an organization’s irrational attachment to the very systems that hold it hostage.
The Emotional Attachment to Systems That Kill Customer Acquisition
Corporate Stockholm Syndrome isn’t about rational decision-making. It’s about the emotional and psychological bonds that form between organizations and their legacy technologies—bonds that persist even when those technologies actively damage customer acquisition.
The Psychology of Technical Hostages
Research from MIT’s Sloan School of Management reveals that organizations exhibit classic trauma response patterns when facing legacy system replacement:
- Denial: “The system works fine for what we need.”
- Rationalization: “The issues aren’t that bad compared to the risk of changing.”
- Fear Amplification: “No one fully understands how it works anymore.”
- Identity Fusion: “This is how we’ve always done it. It’s part of our DNA.”
- Captor Appreciation: “The old system has served us well for decades.”
The Trauma Bond Warning Signs:
Warning Sign #1: The History Trap
When history and longevity become primary arguments for keeping a system, despite its limitations in acquiring customers.
Reality Check: A mid-sized Australian insurance company kept their claim processing system because “it’s been reliable for 15 years”—while ignoring that competitor onboarding times were 73% faster, directly impacting acquisition.
Warning Sign #2: The Expert Protectorate
When a small group of “system whisperers” gains outsized influence because they’re the only ones who understand the legacy technology.
Reality Check: A Melbourne retailer maintained their inventory system because replacing it would disempower the three developers who understood its inner workings. Meanwhile, they lost 8% market share to competitors with real-time inventory visibility.
Warning Sign #3: The Risk Reversal
When the risk of change is perceived as greater than the risk of staying put, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Reality Check: A Sydney telecom provider rejected three consecutive proposals to replace their customer management system as “too risky”—before a major outage cost them 42,000 customers in a single week.
Warning Sign #4: The Perfection Fallacy
When any proposed replacement must be perfect in all dimensions before it can replace the flawed but familiar legacy system.
Reality Check: An Australian bank spent four years evaluating loan origination systems, seeking one with “all current functionality plus enhancements.” During that time, their loan approval times fell to double the industry average, directly impacting customer
Leave a Reply