That's actually a pretty profound question, people might have slight differences in opinion. It's usually agreed that it's an idealised thing, an idealised state of events rather than an actual thing. Basically, it is free from any so called "artificial" or "unfree" control on the market, anything that would distort prices or peoples behaviours. Taxes are out because they create a distortion between what the seller is making from the sale and what they're actually charging. Any kind of government regulation or almost any law is out too. Minimum wage laws and other things like that are also out because they force people to do things in a certain way and pay a certain price for labor.
Most people (unless you're like an anarchocapitalist or something) don't really want a totally free market. They just want to move either closer to a free market or closer to a controlled market. In my opinion, a totally free market would be a horrendous thing for society and a humanitarian and social disaster (imagine no minimum wage laws, saftey standards, almost any other laws, etc). Some others think differently.
The following definitions may help:
Definition of 'Free Market' A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability. In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.Investopedia explains 'Free Market' In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp Also see here -
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html .
Qantas is unlikely to be shut down. It seems to be doing OK in a business/accounting sense, it's not totally trash. As polo explains, it currently has to be majority Australian owned. Many other nations subsidise or even totally own an airline (Emirates is owned by the Government of Dubai, for example). It's not as unusual of a requirement or practice as you'd imagine.
I think the standard argument is Qantas will have more money if we allow foreign ownership. It's usually an ideological argument as well. The political beliefs of these people are such that they don't believe that we should have regulations like this (comes back to the free market thing), they think
ipso facto (just by their nature or mere existence) that they are a fundamentally bad thing.
I don't know how well Qantas is but i cant think of any sane reason, beyond pure ideological want, that we should alter the current regulations.
VIDEO