Do not get me wrong, I loved working for Ansett, but when I saw the get up and go of the young whippersnappers on other carriers and the excesses and demands within Ansett I questioned how they could afford it.
The leverage was dependent on a market share of from memory around 41%, and for every percentage point lost without commensurate cuts then a downhill spiral ensued. When it got to mid 30's and companies gave their whole travel biz to another carriier then things went downhll fast.
I was VERY close to those that were in charge financially, and made sure that a friend did not buy a ticket to Hong Kong on AN887 the day before the carrier fell over. I have since had good discussions with many involved, including the key safety inspector who stopped Ansett flying and two of the key accountants.
Could it have been done differently, without grounding a fleet and suggesting to the media that flying Ansett was a RISK? I think so, and always will.
The Air NZ issue was a factor, but it was the lack of money from forward bookings that was a concern. Overly leveraged to such an extent after the purchase of equipment that a drop off in sales and consumer confidence was crucial.
The civil service mentality; that people were somehow guaranteed a job, was the main issue. They did not think of Ansett as a private company, it was a bottomless pit to go on forever, as part of the fabric of society. That fabric can however be torn.
Future bookings for BA will have dropped off dramatically, funds that are needed for cashflow, and Ansett showed that despite being loved, people are practical and if flying EK et al guarantees a safe journey and flying BA may have issues they will simply swap allegiance in droves, as service overrides loyalty.