VBA + AIR or AIZ (Air New Zealand)

[wirgin blew]

There is specualtion in the finance community that VBA will be shortly completing a capital raising:

Virgin capital raising won't fly
June 27, 2009

INVESTORS are expected to take a lukewarm approach to any attempt by Virgin Blue to raise capital to help it steer its way through the downturn in aviation.

Despite repeatedly ruling out a capital raising, Virgin managers are understood to have been canvassing investor appetite for the issue of new shares during a series of broker roadshows.

But analysts believe it would be difficult for Virgin to successfully promote a capital raising because the airline would be using the cash to fund losses rather than new investments.

"Their problem is a lack of demand," an analyst said. "I certainly wouldn't see [a raising] as a fait accompli. Virgin's problem is that they are losing money. [Investors] would be more inclined to say, 'Why don't you cut loss-making routes?"'

Management would also have to win the support of Virgin's largest shareholder, Richard Branson, who has steadfastly ruled out a capital raising for the airline. He would be loathe to have to invest more money into Virgin to avoid a dilution of his 25 per cent stake.

Matt O'Sullivan


Also over the last few weeks we have had this from Macquarie Equities - Mr Robert Shaw, who are probably keen to help with the capital raising as they would take a % if they got the job.

AIR New Zealand should consider an alliance with Virgin Blue to cut costs and create a stronger competitor to Qantas, Macquarie analysts led by Russell Shaw said this week.

A tie-up, through a takeover or "significant" investment by Air New Zealand in Virgin Blue, would improve profitability on routes and save money by eliminating engineering and maintenance duplication, they said. "With both airlines struggling in the current environment, we believe a merged entity or even some level of corporate investment by Air New Zealand in Virgin Blue would give these carriers improved longer term prospects," Mr Shaw said. A combined company "would stand a far greater chance of remaining competitive against regional powerhouse Qantas longer term". Macquarie said selling new shares to fund the deal might also dilute the government's 75 per cent stake in Air New Zealand, making it more attractive to domestic and foreign investors

Now rather than wait for AIR to take a stake in VBA and possibly they don't have the money to do it, perhaps VBA after a capital raise could look to purchase a stake in AIR to start to tie up schedules, code share, maintenance, ground handling, back of house facilities, etc.

The NZ govt would be concerned at the moment about the way the trans-tasman is being flooded with flights and may accept this as a way to get through the current downturn. With VA, QF, UA, DL on SYD-LAX they would also be concerned about losing market share to those who used to choose AIR to fly to LAX.

A tie up could see less competition on certain routes or at certain times of the day similar to the way QF and J* share the domestic ports in OZ.

This is all a little left of field and is the reverse of what has been talked about but I would be interested to hear what people have to say on this. I would imagine AIR also need to do something at the moment as PB and J* would be hurting them.

[wirgin blew]

Current Market Cap of:

VBA $323.05 M AUD - SRB owns 25%

AIR $972.65 M NZD - NZ Govt owns 75%

Estimated Current Cash Reserves:

VBA $550 M AUD

AIR $1400 M NZD

A complete merger would see the two airlines almost become as big as QF. Although I doubt that would ever happen as NZ public would be loath to let it fall into OZ hands. SRB loath for capital raising but has already commented on purchasing a part of BA so he may be keen. BG has always been keen on expansion of VBA.

[Mr. Hat]

Last time an aussie got involved with ANZ they went under.

[seneca208]

Good point Mr. Hat, they're finally getting back on their feet, somewhat, after the Ansett incident.

If they were to buy in, would that not also include PB? (Virgin Blue Holdings)

[Split Flap]

Air NZ buying into VBA would pick a fight with Qantas, something I would guess they are not keen on.

[27/09]

Mr Shaws analysis doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think AirNZ is struggling to the extent alluded to in his comments certainly they are doing no worse than any other airline and probably doing better than most airlines.

As for the comment on Qantas the "regional powerhouse", while AirNZ is much smaller I think it is in much better shape than Qantas, it seems to have much better staff "buy in", a management that is on the ball and respected by staff, and has a younger fleet that is better suited to the current climate.

The article by Matt O'Sullivan is probably closer to the truth. Why would AirNZ want to invest in VB if other investors are not keen. I don't see AirNZ wanting to invest in another Aussie bargain, once bitten twice shy.

I see AirNZ sticking to their knitting, keeping to themselves, and getting on with business. Airlines like VB/PB are most certainly a thorn in their side, however if the story is true that VB need cash just to keep going then the perceived need for AirNZ to do any deal might just disappear as VB/PB will probably make rationalisations to their operations.

[On Guard]

Would be a logical tie up but RF has said not on their radar and more important things to concentrate on. Although he did not rule it out completely.

[Pamelah Andersen]

Hang on wern't Macquarie and Co tied up in the very near fatal QF takeover.

Undoubtedly RF and cohorts would dearly love to get their fingers in the pie, asset strip both Airlines, ride off into the sunset never to be seen again leaving the village to burn.

Very reminiscent of Brierley and the 1990's.

:ooh:

[On Guard]

ANZ need a LCC or they are lost for growth and defence. With Freedom the idea was right but the execution and branding poor.

The LCC model has worked well for QF and they are now attacking ANZ turf. With PB ANZ could have a great tool for fighting JQ. Use PB to match JQ and atack whilst keeping ANZ for business and higher yield pax. At the moment they are trying to do it all with one brand.

V Aus not so good for ANZ. Can it and take the 777's?

[rescue 1]

I agree On Guard

The Ansett issue stemmed from the little fish buying the big fish, and then letting politics get in the way!

There is an urgent need for NZ to establish a LCC brand, and maybe this time the planets are in alignment and the trans Tasman marriage may well bear children...

[amc890]

There is an urgent need for NZ to establish a LCC brand, and maybe this time the planets are in alignment and the trans Tasman marriage may well bear children...
Why do think that?

[The Hill]

ANZ has no interest in VB

they are tipping PB will pull out of domestic NZ in 6 months.

Theres always this one though :)

SaverJet.com (http://www.saverjet.com/index.html)

[Chocks Away]

Yeh, well that little experiment (link above) fell flat, for ANZ... staff were disgusted at how low their company stoops for attention.
The "tipping they'll be out in 6 months", is on a losing bet too...
I see the Macquarie and Co "stunt" as nothing more than that. Putting some "ideas" into the media, to destabilize stocks, create uncertainty and hence gain from the fluctuations. "They" were obviously bored and thought this up over their Cubans and aged Scotch at the Gentleman club. :hmm:
I think they might have been tied up in the very near fatal QF takeover... and who got locked up over that???

[On Guard]

AMC- I said why in my post, growth and defence. PB/JQ have a lower cost base so at the same fare are making more/losing less than ANZ having to match those fares. They are being attacked domestically, trans tasman and more international to come I predict. Also regional NZ to come from PB.

PB out of NZ- maybe but why would they bring they EMB here and open up new ports. The EMB would be ideal to link those ports and offer more freq on the main truck and VB has excess of them. Had VB not got into trouble I may agree with you but the airframes are possibly better served in the NZ domestic markets than losing more in AU.

[goodspeed]

I can see where you all coming from, but cant quite agree on the Air NZ needing a LCC thing. PB are reducing the frequency of NZ domestic services. They have an $11M loss and are now trying to make money out of Dunedin and Hamilton on the Tasman. A typically big, ballsy move, and good on them.:D

But...
Could Air NZ already have a invisible LCC? Inside the 73 you have 2 types of seats, up front for the regulars and big fare payers more leg room etc and down back less leg room for the cheepies You have pricing on Grabaseat and fares outside peak business times are sure to be similar to the LCC competition. But you also have nearly all the business travel of NZ and the fares that come with that.

Is it possible to use the same branding, same aircraft, same staff to achieve the impossible of being all things to everything at once?:confused:

And as for cost base, surely running 50 aircraft domestically has its advantages of scale to operating 6 or so?

I really cant see anyone ever successfully taking on the regionals in NZ without a seriously large bucket of $$ and a large loose screw.

[27/09]

Yeh, well that little experiment (link above) fell flat, for ANZ... staff were disgusted at how low their company stoops for attention.


First I've heard that, my contacts within AirNZ have certainly not commented in a negative way, in fact more the opposite.

Have to wonder why VB/PB are going to places like DN and HN for trans Tasman. There might be a flurry of interest, especially with the tourism promotion that is being talked about by the burghers of NZHN, but I don't think the loadings will be sustainable.

The same external reasons that it didn't work for AirNZ at HN still exists for PB. AA is very close with plenty of choices (airlines) much better regularity and times of the day, and cheap prices.

Some of the cost structures may be lower but Air NZ has economy of scale. e.g. AirNZ has staff at these places doing checkin and despatch for other flights and extra Trans-tasman a day isn't that much more effort. If the business did pick up AirNZ would be back.

I think goodspeed has made soome very insightul comments.

The EMB may very well work but I think that was just a publicity stunt. Apparently MC looked at a jet option some time back. I don't think it stacked up.

[On Guard]

Godspeed, good points and I agree with them.

However Air NZ still has operating costs 30-40% above PB/JQ so even matching fares in the back they must be losing more than PB/JQ in comparison. Higher yeild in the front does offset this however. Economies of scale is in their favour along with a good feeder network.

If they had their own LCC they can match the cost base with totally sep. staff and wages and bottom feed using this vehicle. They could also gain by using their own check in and ground handlers, eng. etc, on a contract basis so sig. advantages their with the infrastructure already in place.

All I am thinking is how well JQ has worked for QF. Without it they would have given a LOT more away to VB.

EMB - HN and others would be ideally suited to the EMB both domestically and trans tas. But this does have training and engineering issues for PB which go against the LCC model.

[enalkay]

The government should have let air nz go to the wall in 2001 the tax payer over there should not have to have bailed them out again.Who do they think they are to be able to compete with the big guys when they only have a population of 4 million odd and i mean odd kiwis.Lets hope that somone wipes them off the face off the map.I say go get them and governments should stay out of the airline industry so the real players can do the best by the travelling public .

[fourholes]

Wow analkey. Off your meds ey? You give decent Australians a bad name:mad:

[yellow rocket]

I would never wish that Virgin or any other airline goes out of business, but if a capital injection from Air New Zealand is what is needed to keep Virgin from going under, then I'm sure there will be many Air New Zealand (and Ansett) people who have not forgotten Richard Branson laughing and ripping up a cheque 7 years ago.

[biton]

This whole issue is stirring up moot points. The idea was touted by someone at Macquaire :yuk: Yeah, like we're supposed to listen to anything that mob has to say, because they've gotten it sooooo right before. I can't believe anyone would admit to working there, let alone admit to it in the paper.

[slamer.]

The blockheads remarks at post #18 only cements mine and others views that Australians cant work with Kiwis. Memories of the shambles that was ansett and the personalities behind the scenes at Ansett are still fresh.

I suspect this latest suggestion is Virgin spin designed to take the spotlight off V as it goes down the plughole. I seriously doubt Air NZ would get involved.

PS dont mention to the Singaporeans their population aint big enough for the size of their Airline

[amc890]

Godspeed, good points and I agree with them.

However Air NZ still has operating costs 30-40% above PB/JQ so even matching fares in the back they must be losing more than PB/JQ in comparison. Higher yeild in the front does offset this however. Economies of scale is in their favour along with a good feeder network.

If they had their own LCC they can match the cost base with totally sep. staff and wages and bottom feed using this vehicle. They could also gain by using their own check in and ground handlers, eng. etc, on a contract basis so sig. advantages their with the infrastructure already in place.

All I am thinking is how well JQ has worked for QF. Without it they would have given a LOT more away to VB.

EMB - HN and others would be ideally suited to the EMB both domestically and trans tas. But this does have training and engineering issues for PB which go against the LCC model.




I am interested in how you KNOW that Air NZ costs are 30-40% higher, my point is just that it is easy to assume something to be so, then go make a whole arguement based on it as though it is fact.

[On Guard]

A quick search on the net finds VB's CASK of 9.05c in June 2008. Air NZ does not publish their CASK separtely but it can be worked out from financial statements. 30-40% is what we are told in AU and I have to assume those figures have been researched.

Out of interest the same search did bring up the cost advantage of LCC vs Legacy in US and Eurpoe.

US - Soutwest had 45% in 2001, 37% 2005
Eurpore - Ryanair 70% 2003, 60% 2007.

So it would be fairly safe to assume that JQ and PB do have a cost advantage over Air NZ when their wages are lower, fuel approx the same, and it would be safe to say overheads lower. The only cost I could think greater would be financing costs.

[The Green Goblin]

I would love nothing more than to see ANZ go to the wall. What they did to Ansett was disgusting. I hope VB as the ashes from Ansett light a big fire under their arse and give them what they deserve.

[porch monkey]

You're dreaming.

[porch monkey]

I see. So, Branson "rips up a cheque", and you feel that contributed to the downfall of AN? You didn't actually think AN were in any position to buy did you? You didn't really think Branson was going to sell, did you? At the end of the day, AN weren't going to be saved by ANYBODY, short of a Gov't bailout. And we know that wasn't going to happen. Your anger is misdirected in this case I'm afraid.

[Stubby]

You ANZ haters are fooling yourselves, granted that they didnt help and were probably the nail in the coffin for Ansett, however.... Ansett had been dieing a slow death for years, unrealistic costs base, ageing fleet mis management dating back into the 80's had a lot to do with it. Get over it !:ugh::ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

that they didnt help and were probably the nail in the coffin for Ansett

Probably????

Singapore Airlines tried to buy Ansett to gain access to the Pacific. GD went to Howard and had the sale blocked and so Ansett was offered to ANZ who jumped at the chance. Fact is they borrowed more than they could service and soon the spares were being pillaged and sent over the pond, All ANZ flights into AU were being fueled on Ansetts account and any profit Ansett made was brought across to stop ANZ going under. Ansett made 190 million dollar profit the year before ANZ got hold of it and in two years ANZ ran it into the ground.

The NZ government bailed them out and put the national budget behind for 4 years and every Aussie air traveler for the next few years paid an Ansett levy on all Air travel to give back to the families what the Kiwis stole hitting the average family in the hip pocket.

We have long memories and are patient.

[dueweno]

Yet another thread hijack by this Cant the word A......T be banned or sent off to jetblast or something

[tech-line]

i think the tie up would be nothing short of good business sense. ANZ already do the heavy checks for VB/PB alot of the mods and offers them good value for money or why would VB send a/c to NZ?
can you think of a better way of getting into a bigger market an AOC and excellent route rights?
hasn't VB/VOZ got rights to SA now if it wants pending delivery of the 777's?
add connecting flights to LOndon which ANZ already have slots for, maintenance and pilot and cabin crew based there and you have around the world connections to OZ and NZ. Links to the star alliance and Virgin Atlantic. This would be a formidable challenge for the flying rat and all this with a very young fleet and excellent choice in aircraft 777 200 and 300ER's of which ANZ start recieving this year to my belief.
What can QF offer aging 747 tired 767 and a few A380's.
Can Jetstar take the whole industry on with a couple more 330's?
the rich middle eastern carriers offering very high quality service to Europe erroding market share and now VOZ, ANZ UAL and very soon DELTA all to be operating the pacific.
With all this I think the tie up would be a huge benefit for VB as they will be able to use what ANZ already have in place much like what Jetstar does with QF.
ANZ could then offer single tickets and connections and frieght all over OZ
Just my opinion

[The Hill]

If your sitting back waiting for Air NZ to fail (as some sort of karma), you'll be waiting a long time. In the current climate, they are still managing to turn a profit.

[27/09]

GG & N-BW

Ansett was screwed by Aussie's for Aussie's, starting with News Corp and finishing with Qantas and your government. Air NZ was only a bit player in the outcome.

The Air NZ Ansett deal, it wasn't a good business decision but it was driven by the underarm deal Air NZ got from Qantas and the Aussie government with the so called open skies agreement.

You guys keep on about what AirNZ is supposed to have done to Ansett but you never hear New Zealanders whinging on about the way Ansett Australia screwed Ansett New Zealand and its' staff. People in glass houses.......

[waren9]

Exactly.

Had SQ or NZ been allowed in to the domestic market in the first place.....

[Sand dune Sam]

waren9, you obviously have no objection to Australia and Australians, seeing as a Kiwi you are working in Australia and reaping the rewards.....get one thing straight, and I know this is hard for you Kiwis to accept as you like to think you are one above Australians...a bit rich if you ask me, coming from a culture that stood in the docks in court and orchestrated a litany of lies with Erebus..but anyway, you guys in NZ have a chip on both shoulders...

Bottom line.....Air NZ didnt have to buy Ansett......they only did so as a result of the Kiwi small d!ck syndrome.....in a nutshell.

[Oktas8]

Outstanding economic commentary from PPRuNe as always.

Australians. Best in the world at nursing grudges and provoking pointless arguments.

Next there'll be a reference to 1989.

O8.
Australian citizen

[AN Flyer]

Guys. Emotional aspects of Ansett aside (and as the alias suggests, you wont hear any argument from me about what Air NZ did to AN), it was "absolutely" if you'll pardon the pun, criminal, this beat-up about a possible tie-up between DJ and NZ is just that - a beat up.

Macquarie is looking for a stir, and it has succeeded in providing the response it intended.

DJ/NZ are both very different entities with different objectives and markets. That they both offer a J class across the pacific as part of their international VA/NZ services and share some maintenance ventures is about all they have in common. I suspect the NZ equivalent of the ACCC would have field day trying to pick through any submission lodged, and from all accounts Fyfe seems too smart a man to repeat the arrogance of his predecessors. Add to that the start-up of JQ domestic within NZ, (teething issues aside), and the continued presence of Pacific Blue in their back yard - Air NZ will shortly have enough on their plate to deal with without considering "mergers and acquisitions".

[27/09]

Sand dune Sam

You sound like a well balanced person yourelf, a log on each shoulder.

a bit rich if you ask me, coming from a culture that stood in the docks in court and orchestrated a litany of lies with Erebus Coming from a person who lives in a country which was populated by convicts a couple of centuries ago. :D Apologies to the rest of you Aussies who are good guys.


Bottom line.....Air NZ didnt have to buy Ansett...... Correct, as in most things in life you don't have to do the things you might do. Though in this case I think you need a history lesson to discover why AirNZ got involved in Ansett to start with. Something to do with Aussies reneging on a deal.

[Chocks Away]

"Ansett made 190 million dollar profit the year before ANZ got hold of it and in two years ANZ ran it into the ground."
- :ugh: finally someone comes out with the truth. I saw it regularly, 1st hand, just before curfew out of Syd... and AN where actively recruiting, with awards from it's new international service and all (onboard chefs +service!)... it's sad that, that unique service wasn't (hasn't been) harnessed by those that drove it under... but then again you can't tell "lil'bro" anything without upsetting the chips on the shoulders with the massive tall poppy syndrome there and all, you said "Sand Dune Sam"! ...mind you Mr Hogan took that award winning service to the sand dunes and look what loads +service they have... I shan't go on suffice to say there are ALOT of lessons to be learnt from the past... if your mind is open to them!

I'll repeat my earlier post that the media have been "frothed-up" by the shonks, that should stay well out of Aviation Airline ownership (trying to influence the Chess pieces) and concentrate on the worldwide discord and backlashes (esp EU!) they have through their Macquarie Airports section!
Tidy up your front yard before you worry about elsewhere, I suggest, especially at a time when airlines don't have the margins to support your Cuban Cigar fetishes! Airlines can re-route/reduce frequency... Airports are a static asset with no choice... so look after the hands that feed you! .:rolleyes:

[fourholes]

I can understand that there are people still harbouring ill feeling towards Air NZ, but have a think about it.........Air NZ is a brand name, like Qantas. Yes, Air NZ bought Ansett (and god knows why..... I remember at the time talking to my colleagues and we were all concerned) BUT.....Air NZ was owned by Brierleys at the time. They were busy screwing AIr NZ staff over at the time as well! All of those Brierleys execs are long gone, Air NZ is owned by another crowd.. (yeah, yeah. The government). SO why is it there are so many people out there that wish Air NZ to go to the wall and me and 10000 other employees to lose their jobs? We were not responsible for Ansett's demise:confused:

[27/09]

"Ansett made 190 million dollar profit the year before ANZ got hold of it
Tell me, What had it made in the years before that? Might I suggest another News Corp manipulation of the books to make it look good for any prospective purchaser. Not to far different to what they did here in NZ with Ansett NZ.

News Corp raped and pillaged Ansett.

You guys (N-BW, Chocks away, The Green Goblin, Sand dune Sam etc) need to look in your own backyard to find many of the causes of Ansetts demise. I'm not denying that Brierley and Co had some impact but there were much bigger Australian factors.

Chocks Away

I agree whole heartedly with the second part of your post re Maquarie

[Oktas8]

An excellent and (IMO) well balanced article can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansett_Australia). It reports dispassionately on both Air NZ's mistakes and Australian business and political factors contributing to Ansett's collapse.

Some quotes:
- The purchase by Air New Zealand was widely viewed as a mistake. [No kidding - and if I had been directly affected, no doubt I would never want to fly on Air NZ again. But reading on.]
- The Australian government then changed the rules...
- Competition from Qantas ..., top-heavy and substantially overpaid staff, an ageing fleet and grounding of the Boeing 767 fleet ... left Ansett seriously short of cash, losing $1.3 million a day.
- Singapore Airlines then reneged on its July offer to inject over $500 million into Air New Zealand and Ansett...
- Ansett's administrators soon admitted there was no evidence of any asset stripping.

References are provided in the article.

[slamer.]

As normal this thread seems to be more about Australians slagging Kiwis.
I guess cause you see them as an easy target

If you want to point the finger at the real villians in this story...look to who pulled the strings behind Air NZ...... the Singaporeans.

Oh....but thats probably not as convenient

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
"Ansett made 190 million dollar profit the year before ANZ got hold of it
Tell me, What had it made in the years before that? Might I suggest another News Corp manipulation of the books to make it look good for any prospective purchaser. Not to far different to what they did here in NZ with Ansett NZ.

News Corp raped and pillaged Ansett.

Mate a few facts for you.

ANZ owned a 45% stake in Ansett with newscorp owning the other 50%. Singapore Airlines wanted the other 50% and in a web of politics and corporate deals Singapore was prevented from the deal under the table by Qantas and ANZ bought the remainder to keep Singapore out. If Singapore bought it they would still be flying today and VB would have gone tits up or remained something similar to Alliance in niche markets and mining/regional RPT.

ANZ with a 45% stake in the company already, had to know exactly what they were buying. To blame engineering practices when they stole all the spares is ludicrous and even more insane that they were mislead with the state of the companies finances when they already had a major share in the company. Bottom line is they borrowed too much, paying to high a price for the remainder and then when the 9/11 fallout hit and the revenue dropped they picked the carcass to prop up ANZ until it was either sacrifice the minor or the major.

IMO it would have been more prudent to piss of ANZ fly Ansett into the green and relaunch ANZ as a leaner greener machine.

10,000 jobless Kiwis is nothing to the 16,000 that were left in the lurch in AU along with 40 related suicides of which many of us were affected.

So keep competing with each other to get into your holy grail ANZ, just remember that it is still there because it shafted just about every Australian family doing so.

:mad:

[waren9]

Dont go making it 41 now Goblin, will you.

[slice]

10,000 jobless Kiwis is nothing to the 16,000 that were left in the lurch in AU

Oh I see, eveyone else can go to hell.

OZZIE! OZZIE! OZZIE! OI! OI! OI!:O

Let's face it people, IF Singers had got hold of ANSETT the only thing that would be the same today would be the name - just take a look at the management style at Rex to get an idea of what you would be in for. Any owner of ANSETT would have found it problematic. Great service, high standards etc., but just too much of a legacy Dinosaur to continue the way it was regardless of the inadaquacy of the owners.

[Stubby]

Boy some passionate responses......:} Cant wait until Aug 24 this year with the 20th anniversary of the Oz Pilot Dispute, i'm sure that will have everyone firing !!!
Now back to the original thread :confused: Uh what was it again??:rolleyes:

[sexy time]

Didn't that Ansett circus have 767s with a FE position ?

Ansett was a heavily unionised dinosaur that ANZ (or its representatives) were dum enough to buy!

[VBPCGUY]

Ansett did have the B762 FE positions and it took a very long time and alot of money to get rid of them.

Ground crew guys were also paid a garenteed/rostered 10hrs o/time every week:eek:

Have also heard that the engineers never went hungry and were regularly fed un-used 1st and business class meals:ugh:

Pushback were done with up to three engineers, two as wing walkers and one on the headset:rolleyes:

[slamer.]

Hmmmm..... so the post 89 pilot group were heavily unionised...????

[tech-line]

ansett is dead and gone and i think people just have to get over it!
who cares how much money they made before it went under or how unionised it was.
passengers and employees should be glad that vb and anz were able to survive and become respectable carriers.

[SOPS]

http://rosboch.net/aviationmedia/B767-277%20Ansett%20with%20the%20union%20mandated%20flight%20engi neer%27s%20station.JPG

[Sand dune Sam]

27/09...an atypical inbred response.........perhaps in Australia, we are not brought up to obsess about a country that is in every sense better than our own.....by the way, I'm proud to be of convict stock.......Australia was built on a mutli cultural society...........last time I looked, Kiwis didnt really add allot of value to Australian values and or culture....

[nike]

Forget all this bickering, lets all go get hammered, flash the guests down the hall and crap on a hotel floor.

[murdoch_disliker]

Hey sand dune sam, initially thought you were talking about Oz obsessing with USA in yr post. How ironic

[porch monkey]

I really do feel sorry for you NBW. You are simply making yourself appear just as morally repugnant as those you castigate for the closure of AN. I guess I just really don't understand why someone would lower themselves to the level of wishing unemployment on thousand of others, who's only connection to your own loss is simply that they work for a particular company. The main protagonists of AN's demise are either nearly all dead, or have moved on. Large numbers of the employees you wish unemployment on weren't even in the industry back then.

I really do wish you some success with the therapy.:(

[goodspeed]

:D Well said, could not agree more.

Lets move on now eh.