EWL.
Cool your jets sunshine. Twice now you have taken up an argument with me that I have never made.
I did not refer to TN at all.
I did not imply that you had an agenda.
“…can you not see SIA's failed Grand Plan?”
Absolutely. I fully agree with your comments regarding SQ…..Except for this:
“A bunch of life support systems for tea towels flying aeroplanes into stationary objects.”
This was certainly problematic. But when SQ was waiting in the wings as the Tesna operation was being launched, it was pretty obvious that the roadblocks being continually put in place were not constructed by terrorists but by political agendas and power plays in Canberra. Mr Cheong subtly attempted to highlight this point during a national radio interview. Obviously too subtly because very few people picked up on the message.
“Pointless any more discussion. Your agenda has been clearly annunciated.”
This comment was aimed only at Slamer. Any further discussion about AN’s demise is pointless with someone who is viewing the issue with dispute colored glasses.
For info.
I was not involved with the dispute. I was not employed by AN during its dying days. I was a non-flying manager with AN for many years and still to this day have a fond affection for the company and its people. I am a capitalist, pure and simple. My comments here on pprune clearly indicate that I am in favor of letting the market make decisions.
But what troubles me is that the collapse of AN was not such an example. A troubled carrier it was, but make no mistake, there were forces at play that ensured any financial weakness displayed by AN would be exploited to provide opportunity for change that is still playing out today.