PDA

View Full Version : Ansett gone .......but ?


RU/16
13th Sep 2009, 09:54
8 years ago the airline ceased operations in its major form.
Has the industry become any better for the loss of this world class organisation?
While we are in some shed waiting for Tiger, squashed in a Virgin tin can or sneered at up the pointy end of a QF filght do you lament the way things used to be?

wrongwayaround
13th Sep 2009, 10:48
:ok:

funny this thread should appear... I was watching some of their TV commercials on youtube yesterday.

i miss it to death....

as a passenger...... and as work (over 20 years ago :ok: )

Eastwest Loco
13th Sep 2009, 11:37
Ansett will never be forgotten, nor will TAA and East West,

AN did indeed technichally die when the aeroplanes Reg owned where sold off and the 737s and 767s were leased by the the Fat prick and Abeles.

The monies gained from that were stripped from the Company. The rest is history.

TN was is the same leaky boat after years of the Government stripping profits out of the operation and eventually was aquired by QF on Government order to keep it afloat.

East West on the other hand was aquired by stealth by the evil empire as we were a huge and growing threat. Ansett with its lame management had no idea how to run a lean machine and eventually shut us.

But back to the original question, the answer is NO. Ansett will be remembered not for the fat bastard that killed them but will most definitely be remembered for the terrific people that gave it a heart and soul.

Two generations down the track there may be a lack of knowledge in the general public, but the memory will live on down family lines.

Best all

EWL

airsupport
13th Sep 2009, 23:36
One BIG difference between then and now, a return fare from BNE to MEL (or CNS) was something like $800 or more, now usually can get them for $100-150.

Buster Hyman
14th Sep 2009, 00:54
RU/16 Better get used to it mate...any opportunity! :rolleyes:

Bottom line, Ansett was the beneficiary of some dodgy Government intervention & in the end, with a multitude of other factors involved, it was brought down by the same dodgy Government intervention.

As for service standards, well, as Airsupport says, $800 got you a little more polish on the flight, in the airport facilities, and other areas but most people just see the bottom line. As with life, society seems to bend to the lowest common denominator. People used to put on a tie & hat to go out, now, well, just take a look around.

Some companies can move with the times, others cannot, or will not. There was no one in upper management at Ansett capable of reading the times, so it fell by the wayside. Like Qantas has now, Ansett looked like it was starting to head down the path of lowering its services in order to cut costs. Alas, too little, too late...

Lookleft
14th Sep 2009, 01:13
Who says Ansett has gone? Been to the Sim Centre in Tullamarine lately? Ansett stuff everywhere right down to the Link Trainer. It is actually a good place for "if only" scenarios as an example of what could have been possible if it was run as a business and not as a plaything.

sru
16th Sep 2009, 10:34
Just wondering,

why was this this thread padlocked ????????????:rolleyes:

It was just getting to be a thread that was a display of some great memories and experiences, with minimal angst for all involved ! At least from my perspective, as humble as it may be :sad:.

Disappointed :*

SRU

satos
16th Sep 2009, 12:02
Ansett was the best airline compared to the crap around today.

ASX200
16th Sep 2009, 12:45
then why is is it not still here ah?

airsupport
16th Sep 2009, 19:26
Just wondering,

why was this thread padlocked ????????????

It was just getting to be a thread that was a display of some great memories and experiences, with minimal angst for all involved ! At least from my perspective, as humble as it may be .

Disappointed


Yes, why on Earth was it padlocked?

It was one of very few threads here worth reading and posting on, yet you lock it. :confused:

IF anyone was posting inappropriate things on the thread, then okay take action against them, but NOT the thread. :(

The Professor
16th Sep 2009, 19:42
Why is it not still here.

Because it was losing money.

Almost as much money as QF did as the Department Of Flying The Flag.

But alas, AN didnt have decades of tax payer money to prop it up.

Captain Sand Dune
16th Sep 2009, 21:22
Certainly the then PM's overt assitance to his best mate PA didn't help!:hmm:
A b*gga it, lock this thread too!!

FGD135
16th Sep 2009, 23:45
Because it was losing money

Its costs (notably the salaries of pilots, cabin crew and engineers) had grown so large over the years that it had become vulnerable to external economic factors. So vulnerable was Ansett that, in the end, no bang was required to knock it over - merely a whimper.

This was in large part due to the efforts of the various unions. Unions are supposed to look after their members but in all too many cases around the world (in not just airlines), it is their actions that ultimately put their members out of work. I am of course referring to the continuous upwards "creep" in pay and conditions.

It must have been great working there and being on the receiving end of those enormous salaries. I wonder how many realised the danger posed by those enormous salaries?

P.S. Great thread. A shame the original was locked as some photos were, I believe, just about to be posted.

Z Force
17th Sep 2009, 00:09
In actual fact the salaries were on a par with Qantas except for the flight attendants who were paid less than their QF counterparts. Ansett failed solely due to mismanagement.

Chadzat
17th Sep 2009, 00:35
"I am of course referring to the continuous upwards "creep" in pay and conditions."

So you would prefer all wages were kept stagnant for say 5 or 10 year periods while inflation (read- COST OF LIVING) rises annually. :hmm:

kotoyebe
17th Sep 2009, 00:45
So you would prefer all wages were kept stagnant for say 5 or 10 year periods while inflation (read- COST OF LIVING) rises annually.

No. He would prefer that wages FELL over a 5 -10 year period. It would let business create new "opportunities". (read - line management's pockets).

B*gger it. This thread will get locked, too.

john_tullamarine
17th Sep 2009, 01:06
So you would prefer all wages...

An unfortunately naive view of industrial relations...

Stand by for the implementation of the current Australian rule set (when we find out what it is).

I am fully expecting to have to retrench to balance the inevitable wages and conditions push in a very tight business situation. Sad, but if the troops want to push up their individual conditions, it very likely will be at the expense of a buddy's total conditions ...

Chadzat
17th Sep 2009, 01:18
I dont want to take this thread off topic as the last thread was a goldie.

My reply will be in a new topic in General Aviation q's section...

Richard Kranium
17th Sep 2009, 03:30
Ansett had to be gotten rid of because it would have been a huge threat to Air New Zealand and Qantas under the stewardship of SIA.

How is it that Ansett was Airline of the year 2 years in a row, Olympic official carrier then just vanish into thin air.

ANZ bought Ansett though it could not afford it, they paid 150 mill more than what SIA offered News Corp for their half, only to stop Ansett from flying across to the West Coast USA, as ANZ thought that domain belonged to them and Qantas exclusively.

They all new that Ansett was a real danger to them, as Branson said that Ansett International was the best airline service in the world.

So when the payment came up ANZ could not afford to make the payments and just let Ansett adrift after gutting all the assets, meanwhile Trickie-Dickie had Howard and co in his pocket, so no life-line, not like for the Auto industry or many other examples (Howards Bro.) where the gov bailed out troubled industries.:sad:

KaptinZZ
17th Sep 2009, 03:43
In actual fact the salaries were on a par with Qantas except for the flight attendants who were paid less than their QF counterparts. Ansett failed solely due to mismanagement.

Z Force, you hit it on the head there, and the pilots were actually costing a lot less post 89 than before, but let's not get into the pre/post $hit fight here.

Richard Cranium, you're no d1ckhead after all.

The minister for QF, John Anderson, insisted that ANZ buy Ansett (and he could have just as easily stopped them in the national interest) so that they wouldn't kill QF stone dead as would have been inevitable. SIA was and is a great airline from a marketing point, and QF wouldn't have stood a chance.

The pollies had to keep the gravy train gold passes on QF going. It'd be too tough if they had to pay for their own tickets, especially on the most generous superannuation in the country.

Obie
17th Sep 2009, 07:31
I think the moderator binned the original thread because East West Loco and me indicated that we had trouble with understanding the following.....



NOTE:

To post a picture on PPRuNe, it has to be on a website already - whether your own or someone else's. If it's not, all is not lost ...... read on.

If the picture already on a website .....

It will have an URL (the unique 'address' of that pic on the web)
To find the URL (using Windows):
Right-click on the picture and select 'Properties'
You'll see lots of info, including the URL.
Highlight and Copy the entire URL.
NB: Always highlight from the beginning or you may not get the full URL if it's long.

If the picture is on your hard disk .....

Option 1: Find a friend with a web site who will 'host' the picture for you They'll send you the URL for your picture so you can then post it.
or

Option 2: Use a photo-hosting site.

PhotoBucket seems to be the best, very simple to use and it's free.
An 'offshoot' of Photobucket is TinyPic but as far as I can see this one does not have a facility to resize the image.

Once you've loaded your picture on the host, it will give you the URL - or you can use the procedure described above.

Photobucket also allows you to reduce the size of any pics which are too big for the PPRuNe web page.

NB: Some photo-hosting services host your pics but won't allow you to link to them from another site.

Size is important!

Picture size must not exceed 800x600 pixels MAXIMUM, to avoid the PPRuNe thread viewing window becoming too large.

You can see the size of any image (in Windows) by right-cliking on the image and selecting 'properties'.

There are many ways to resize images, and since most photogs have digicams now and these normally come with image handling programmes it should not present too much of an intellectual challenge to produce the correct size!

There are many Shareware image handling programmes plus lots of FREE downloadable ones. A simple 'Google' search or read of a computer magazine or two will produce plenty of ideas. There are also several FREE 'on-line' image re-sizing sites. Here are a few links for you:-

1 Izhuk.com

2 Resizeimage.4u2ges.com

3 Resize2mail.com

4 Online-image-resize.kategorie.cz

5 Graphicssoft.about.com

PLEASE NOTE that since these are FREE they do impose certain restrictions on file types and sizes and normally require you to permit their 'cookies' onto your machine.

Now to Post!:

Begin to post as normal.

Click the IMG button - one of the buttons above the text box. NB: Ensure you have something other than 'BASIC EDITOR' selected in your 'User CP'/'Edit Options'

An 'Input Box' will appear.

Copy the URL into the address line as instructed.

Click OK.

Add whatever text you wish and Submit.

At first, as with any new process involving computers, you'll probably go through some moments.


Common Problems:

No 'Image' icon etc on the 'Reply' screen:

Wrong 'Editor' mode selected.

Picture doesn't display:

Your post may show a link, not a picture - edit your post.

Check to see if 'URL' appears anywhere in the web address of the picture. If it's there at all, it will be there twice. Remove both.

(You've used information from the URL, but those letters should not appear in the final address or you'll get a link instead of a picture.)

You have IMG..../IMG around the image:

You have copied an IMG tag from Photobucket rather than the URL tag. To get rid of it, either edit out the excess [IMG] [/ IMG] in your post or replace the code using the URL tag.

Copyright claims etc

In PPRuNe, we don't allow pictures which have any commercial links embedded or attached. Please 'edit' these out.


As usual, a PM to your local 'mod' will hopefully result in assistance if you get stuck!...



It would appear that unless one conforms to the mods standard of computer skills, then one is not welcome on prune! :ok:

sru
17th Sep 2009, 08:08
Nice one Obie,

Mmmmm ... Me, I'm Just a pilot, - Illiterate and can't add up :eek:, To wade through that hurts my head, so no pictures for me! :O

Anyway, lets pick up from the former thread. Stories - planes, people and memories.
Cheers all :ok:

Obie
17th Sep 2009, 10:07
OK!...So, now that we're back on again, we need one of the mods to take EWL's pics and put them on prune for us!

sru is obviously as useless as me and Loco, so we need the help of one of the mods, or preferably Bill gates, to access these exclusive pics!

It was you that pushed the wife of the Travelodge manager into the pool, wasn't it, EWL? [ fully clothed, I might add!]

RU/16
18th Sep 2009, 00:51
Read "A sting in the tail of $49 Tiger fare" and tell me you dont miss the Ansett experience!

slamer.
18th Sep 2009, 02:42
Thats a truly original version of events, especially the bit about Air NZ seeing AN as a threat......:rolleyes:

oicur12
18th Sep 2009, 04:24
"version of events" regarding "Air NZ seeing AN as a threat".

Actually, its an opinion, not someone's "version" of an "event".

And as an opinion, it is certainly valid.

airsupport
18th Sep 2009, 05:23
Now what? :confused:

You seem to have partially merged the two threads, but without saying it is a merged thread. :confused:

Makes no sense at all now. :(

slamer.
18th Sep 2009, 09:13
Version ... opinion ... how about ... fantasy.

Go look up a dictionary.

The Professor
18th Sep 2009, 09:40
Slamer.

And your version of events is based upon........?

Perhaps you were a senior level manager at ANI?

Or were you working for the Transport Minister?

Or maybe you were a lobbyist working for QF at the time.

I was one of these and have close friends who occupied the other positions during the final months and years of AN. The company was a small pawn in a wider game of chess involving many agendas - crushing organized labor, politicians dancing to the tunes of powerful lobbyists in Canberra, nationalistic flag waving involving 3 countries, incompetent NZ government (once described as children playing an adults game), even paybacks for disparaging remarks made about CASA by a senior AN manager.

Eastwest Loco
18th Sep 2009, 11:56
Prof

First of all, TN was not so much propped up by the Government over the years but rather was stripped of profits by them year after year.

If a fleet upgrade was needed they then had to go back to the government and beg for a portion of it back.

Secondly, can you not see SIA's failed Grand Plan?

With 2 members on the board of NZ, talk them around taking over AN. They were well aware that the NZ incumbents couldn't run a chook raffle much less AN and that it would collapse. The theory was that SQ would then ride in like a white knight and rescue the carrier and its people and be a hero.

Why you ask would they do it that way? Simple - by putting NZ in the driver's seat SQ would not lose face when it fell over initially. Why did they want Ansett? Rights to the Pacific ex Australia which they have lusted over for years were at stake, plus the domestic feeds ex Australia they were going to eventually lose whe AN self immolated all on its own. What buggered up the master plan? A bunch of life support systems for tea towels flying aeroplanes into stationary objects. Poor timing - not of their own cause.

SQ had 2 choices to rebirth the AN Empire, which was top heavy and management weak but with a first class front end.

One was to remove the top 3 to 4 levels of management and put their own selections into their seats. This would have been extremely expensive with redundancies, long service and the like. The other and cheaper way was to cause it to fail. That worked fine, but 9/11 screwed to puppy.

Let us be certain about one thing - SQ is the villain, and always has been. SQ was the disease, NZ was the vector, AN was the casualty.

The rebirth may well have worked, but for some very foxy stretching until all other consortiums fell away as the costs rose.

I would love to know the numbers on the cheques SQ wrote for that little excercise.

Sermon endeth, but have a good look at the events.

Best all

EWL

slamer.
18th Sep 2009, 20:45
At last..someone that knows what their talking about.

Dunnza
19th Sep 2009, 00:12
Nice airline, raped by AirNZ

slamer.
19th Sep 2009, 02:03
If I did I wouldnt be stupid enough to admit it. Those with integrity and sense stayed well away from what was clearly going to be a disaster. It was well recognized at the time they hardly had their .... "best and brightest" ... on the job.

Ask yourself, who owned Brierleys investments and where was that Biz based....?

EWL has made a fairly accurate summary

PS: Im sure the pre 89 Ansett was a fine company.

The Professor
19th Sep 2009, 03:26
" Im sure the pre 89 Ansett was a fine company."

Pointless any more discussion. your agenda has been clearly annunciated.

ozangel
19th Sep 2009, 04:47
John Anderson was to aviation as sandpaper is a toilet paper replacement - ie it does half the job and leaves the area bleeding and in need of a professional/doctor.

With cameras on him, he once shook my hand and asked me who I worked for.

I replied 'Alliance' (having just had JH onboard the week before after the 146 broke down).

His reply was a very awkward 'Oh, um, Oh, ahh... theyre owned by impulse aren't they?'

I replied 'no', and he turned the colour of the 'target' store logo he was standing in front of.

Eastwest Loco
19th Sep 2009, 13:05
Interesting comment Prof.

How has our agenda been annunciated?

You allude to knowledge from inside.I was at a fairly high level and through mates was privvy to P & L figures and a whole lot more. I was in the middle of the mess.

You make statements, and then back off in your last post.

I am not criticising, but would just like to know where you are coming from.

If the discussion is pointless to you Prof, then you are not and were not involved, but if you were then you were totally irrelevant,

That is the only reason I can imagine you would be so dismissive of an event that caused a great deal of angst, depression to the point of suicide and personal hardship to a great number of terrific people.

I was from a different culture, but the same sub species. We were all AIRLINE and in those days we shared a bond.

Once at least in your life, I hope you can find that bond wth a like group of people.

If you were a part of an Airline, I am sure you had no idea or need for the culture.

An Airline was something to treasure - and we did and still hold memories close. It is what we are and what provided the basis to our self esteem and self image.

Sermon endeth, but never underestimate the love of Airline workers for their carrier.

EWL

redsnail
19th Sep 2009, 13:56
I think The Professor's comments allude to Slamer's comments.

haughtney1
19th Sep 2009, 16:19
Eastwest has in my opinion written one of the best posts I've seen in the last few years re: Ansetts demise.

A little bit of self critical honesty, and good helping of cynicism would lead most clear thinking and rational individuals (I would think) to a very similar conclusion.
Its quite pathetic the amount of parochial and jaundiced vitriol that is thrown about in this discussion...when its quite clear SQ were the puppet masters.

The Professor
19th Sep 2009, 20:05
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.

lowerlobe
19th Sep 2009, 21:12
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.
I'm a believer in the capitalist system as well but a lot of the problems we have been created by the greed, immoral activities and policies of some board members.

This is the main reason for the current GFC...
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.
It's all too easy to blame someone else for the demise of a concern when poor management was the core problem to begin with.If there was no inherent problem then the other forces would not have eventuated or been able to have a significant effect....

breakfastburrito
19th Sep 2009, 22:24
Professor, your comments about the market will be true when the real world approaches the assumptions for the models upon which they are based.
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html)Squeezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26093413-5013592,00.html)

breakfastburrito
19th Sep 2009, 22:27
Professor, your comments about the market will be true when the real world approaches the assumptions for the models upon which they are based.
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html)
Source:NYTimes

Squeezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26093413-5013592,00.html)
Source:The Australian

Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah5qh9Up4rIg)
Source:Bloomberg

Richard Kranium
20th Sep 2009, 02:48
....err Professor, yes your last sentence is correct, you could see that when Trickie-Dickie sensed that Ansett was in trouble and short on equipment, he aquired 6 or so (faclons zxa, zxb etc) from BA and just flooded the trunk routes, so yes your theory of market forces is correct, Ansett needed equipment badly but no decisions were being made from the people with their hands on the levers and we know who they were by then and the management by then were paralyzed with incompetence.

Ansett problems started when by sheer magic Mr Keating decided to merge TAA and Qantas, so with a wave of wand, TAA became Qantas and the 750 million dollar debt that TAA had was just miraculously wiped of the slate. Here now Ansett was no longer on a level playing field, Qantas was handed a huge present and now the gov/taxpayer became a huge stake holder in Qantas.

So the motive of looking after Qantas has now became huge from the gov's point of view, Virgin was on the scene and this started to play into the gov hands, to look after Qantas and a low cost carrier in a deregulated market was a nice fit, in fact a strong Ansett with SQ's backing would be a huge threat.

ANZ were children in a mans game, they hated Ansett for ever going to NZ and start Ansett New Zealand on their turf, it was payback time, thanks to TNT, they aquired their half share, but everybody forgot that ANZ had the pre-emptive right to buy the 2nd half of Ansett, which to everyones disbelief they excersized that right, News Corp knew this, and why did News rather sell to SQ than to ANZ, after all SQ was offering 500 mill and ANZ finally paid 650 mill.

News was keen to sell and took the money and ran, now ANZ had this huge airline but could not afford it, meanwhile Trickie-Dickie had the gov. on side to protect Qantas. the gov. wasn't going to get rid of Ansett, but they made sure that would not be any help from them either, it was all goint to go to protect Qantas.

Had SQ got Ansett, then Ansett would have been a major player, in Australia and overseas, the level plying field would have been there with Qantas, but what transpired, it was doomed to failure with idiots like ANZ running things, look at the result, the New Zealanders spent 1.3 billion dollars on the Ansett debacle for zip, nothing to show for it except no Ansett to compete with on the Pacific.:eek:sad:

airsupport
20th Sep 2009, 03:42
While all that is true, it was a little more involved than that, particularly the involvement of various Australian Governments and Air NZ. :(

After Compass had been operating for some time, and had picked up many new contracts, particularly with cargo, Air NZ were going to buy into and save Compass, as it was the ONLY way they could see to break into the Aussie market. Air NZ was ''convinced'' by the Australian Government not to rescue Compass on the assurance that the Government were going to introduce an open skies policy, and Air NZ would be able to operate IN Australia without buying Compass.

This of course did NOT happen once Air NZ backed out of the deal, and the Australian Government (primarily) closed Compass.

This left Air NZ, after being betrayed by the Australian Government, with only one option, to get hold of Ansett.

While I agree, the ultimate demise of Ansett was mainly because of Air NZ, they are NOT the only ones to blame.

Richard Kranium
20th Sep 2009, 06:37
...well thats as involved as it needs to be, various Australian governments, there is only one, and then the NZ one, yes you are right that the open skies policy was not going to be on, because of the investment that the Aussie taxpayer now had in QF, so ANZ took on this foolish expedition to control Ansett with out any thought to all the problems like paying for it...they didn't even do due diligence on the deal, this alarmed the people in the know like bankers and economists, in the end the NZ taxpayer had to bail in 850 million into ANZ to keep it afloat as it faced bankruptcy from this gross debarcle, so NZ saved ANZ and Aussie gov just didn't care as its interest was QF.:(

airsupport
20th Sep 2009, 06:50
the involvement of various Australian Governments

Meaning more than one Government, both Labor and then Liberal.

Eastwest Loco
20th Sep 2009, 11:44
Prof

I allowed my TGT to get a major fraction above optimal. I apologise.

No excuse, just engaging keyboard wihout brain online.

The outburst I apologise for but the content I stand by, but I do appreciate that you can see the plan behind the demise.

After plan A fell apart, I still feel plan B was to insert an SQ based carrier into the gap, but the drop in global travel was sufficient to make them hold off.

The lion sleeps tonight sort of stuff. Hold back and wait until upwind again.

I would love to know for sure as I im sure you would.

Best regards

Ron

EWL

airsupport
20th Sep 2009, 22:33
I was with AN myself for nearly 30 years, prior to going to Compass in 1990, and have very fond memories of that great Company prior to then, however this was definitely NOT the same Company that finally failed.

Even prior to Air NZ taking control, AN was in big trouble.

I was also with Southern Cross (Compass 2 as some call it) for all the time we operated, and after they ceased operations I had the very sad task of going out to BNE airport where most of the MD80s were parked waiting to return to SAS, to help the Administrator, he needed my advice (or advice from someone) about what on the MD80s was owned by Southern Cross as opposed to SAS.

Anyway while we were there he said to me this is ridiculous you know, after I have done all this there will still be some money left over, or at worst maybe break even. IF I was to go down there (pointing at AN) and do the same I would have to shut them down immediately. I asked him why, and he said that AN owned nothing at all, everything was leased, they had large debts and were only surviving because of the massive cash flow from ticket sales.

Turned out the man WAS right, just it took another 8 or 9 years to finally happen. :(

slamer.
21st Sep 2009, 10:26
Guess I could say the same...eh!

Be assured I have no agenda other than to reiterate Haughtneys sentiments in post 41 (sorry H).

It is pleasing to see some here actually grasping the greater geo-political issues, but I find it puzzling that most Australians (some notable exceptions above) find it difficult to recognise the role of the Singaporeans and insist on predominately blaming the NZer's (or is this the usual churlish sheep rhetoric).

As a footnote, it's interesting to observe a similar management culture of excess at Qantas over the last few years, similar to that which existed at Air NZ and AN through the 1990's.... unfortunately I'd say .... "watch that space"

RU/16
22nd Sep 2009, 00:05
AIRSUPPORT, if that were true how then has the administrator been able to pull nearly a billion dollars out of the train wreck. This being in the aftermath of 9/11 when things were going cheap in the airline business.
Yes I agree they didnt own alot but considering Virgin was started with less than 20 mill why couldnt AN restructure and continue when it had a n assett base of $1 billion and a world classed brand .......maybe like thay say some people didnt want it to!

airsupport
22nd Sep 2009, 00:34
That is what the Administrator said.

IF he had of done the same checks on Ansett in 1992, as he was doing on Southern Cross, he would have had to (BY LAW) shut Ansett down immediately.

I have NO first hand knowledge of what happened to Ansett after that.

airsupport
22nd Sep 2009, 01:41
Just been thinking about this more, the demise of Ansett, as I said before I was with them for almost 30 years up until 1990, and regardless of who/what caused them to finally close, I think the slow end began when the Company was taken over by TNT/News, it was certainly one of the reasons I left AN to go to Compass when I got the offer.

Will NOT go in to anything controversial, but apart from anything else the whole culture changed from being a caring "Family Company" to just a very uncaring ''Corporate Culture''.

As an example some time after the takeover we had one of our Storemen go on holiday back to Ireland, he was involved in an accident an seriously ill in hospital, previously the local Management would have done whatever it took to get his Wife on an aircraft and off to Ireland and worry about sorting out the paperwork later.

However under the new Owners this was prevented, not only they couldn't do that but the new Owners insisted his Wife must submit an application for Staff Concessional Travel signed by the Employee (YES the one in hospital in Ireland) before THEY would consider letting her travel, of course what happened was what we all feared, he sadly passed away before his Wife got to Ireland to be with him.

dhavillandpilot
22nd Sep 2009, 01:48
AIRSUPPORT, if that were true how then has the administrator been able to pull nearly a billion dollars out of the train wreck. This being in the aftermath of 9/11 when things were going cheap in the airline business.

That is an easy answer. Ansett had negative equity - debt greater than assett. When a company goes belly up the receiver simply sells the retained assetts and hey presto has instant money.

The back lash to this is all the creditors are then in a line for the hand outs. Just look at the employees of Ansett.

Having step children who are both recievers and a daughter who is fast learning to become one, they study the Ansett debacle as a text book case.

Ansett was simply a company that was out of step with the rest of the business community with regard to work practices, ethics, equity and management.

They had a cost base that resembled a third world communist country and management that would have been well received on a Russian Collective farm.

Today I can still see examples of this, in fact a well known travel brand has a balance sheet that should see them instantly delisted from the ASX, but hey they chaired by a founding member of the ASX.

Nothing changes and people will never learn - today's history is just a repetition past mistakes.

airsupport
22nd Sep 2009, 23:53
Another way Ansett is ''gone but not forgotten'' I was just reminded of, as we are every day, the clock (which maybe surprisingly) is still working perfectly that was presented to me for 25 years of loyal service to ATI by Sir Peter and Rupert back in 1988. :ok:

Spaz Modic
23rd Sep 2009, 13:39
Ansett died in 1979 when TNT/NC grabbed control. Any financial statements after that were pure fiction, if they ever existed, the company being privately held. 1989 set the long fused detonator in place, not because of the dispute but in spite of it. That was the point at which economists started to assess its financial status and in 1991 the debt balloon was bulging as published. That it took another 10 years is extraordinary but demonstrates the idiocy of the headless chooks who were involved in running the joint.:eek:

Dunnza
24th Sep 2009, 00:11
Even prior to Air NZ taking control, AN was in big trouble.


Nope... It was Air NZ that screwed Ansett when they said no to SIA taking a slice of the cake

airsupport
24th Sep 2009, 01:40
You can say that as often as you like, still isn't going to make it true. ;)

Air NZ may have hammered in the final nail in the coffin, but Ansett was in DEEP trouble (sadly) long before that. :(

Buster Hyman
24th Sep 2009, 01:58
I think the "family culture" still existed in the trenches airsupport, but I agree with you corporately.

Best example of TNT/NC thinking I can think of was the pooling of parts between TN & AN. This was one of the first things stopped IIRC, and the first thing to bite them on the arse when we needed a spare! :rolleyes:

Richard Kranium
24th Sep 2009, 02:03
....ahhh krist....air and the spaz...still bitter and twisted after all this time, well as they say, you can take a horse to the trough but you cant make it drink, well better people than you two have never came to that concusion, its purely idiotic...let it go....:ok:

airsupport
24th Sep 2009, 05:34
air and the spaz...still bitter and twisted after all this time

IF you mean me? boy do you have it wrong, I wasn't even with them when they failed, then again your name says it all. ;)

I am still somewhat bitter about what AN (among others) did to Compass, but have no feelings either way really about AN after 1990.

airsupport
24th Sep 2009, 05:40
I think the "family culture" still existed in the trenches airsupport, but I agree with you corporately.

Best example of TNT/NC thinking I can think of was the pooling of parts between TN & AN. This was one of the first things stopped IIRC, and the first thing to bite them on the arse when we needed a spare!

Yes, not just spares either, same with manpower.

In the good old days at minor ports often used to be a case where if you got your aircraft out okay and the other mob was delayed you used to go help them, NOT post TNT/NC. :(

WellingtonFF
24th Sep 2009, 05:57
Yes, the then NZ Labour government would not allow SQ to take a larger stake in ANZ. I am an Australian that has lived in NZ for many years, and I still can't understand why the National Party didn't make far more of a political fuss out of a decision that cost the NZ taxpayer very dearly indeed, and was a disgrace.

A SQ controlled ANZ with AN still surviving but restructured would have been a very potent competitor for QF indeed.

I have fond memories of AN, but many of the contributors to this thread are absolutely right that the rot started when ownership went into the hands of TNT/News

Obie
24th Sep 2009, 07:57
Spaz is right on the money with his post above.

Wiley
24th Sep 2009, 08:20
When the Fat Man and Rupert bought the company in '79, a cartoon appeared on the Melbourne crewroom wall wondering if the airline would be re-named under the new ownership.

Playing upon Rupert's surname, the cartoonist put a drawing of a 727 with 'Murdair' on its side, a not so subtle dig at what he thought would become of the company. (He had a friend in the trucking industry who had bitter experience of the Fat Man with TNT- and who predicted, with telling accuracy, what would transpire after the honeymoon period was over.)

Seems to me quite a few here agree it was a pretty accurate summation.

Reg might not have been a corporate saint, but whatever his faults, he loved that company and understoood the incredible asset he possessed in his staff.

The people who ran the company post 79 (yes, '79, not '89) might have had any number of good points, but looking after the interests of their staff wasn't high on their list of priorities. Asset stripping, on the other hand, seemed to be very close to #1 on that list.

Prado
24th Sep 2009, 11:54
Airsupport,

ANZ's involvement with AN took away ANY chance of recovery from it's situation. It was "one of the world's great airlines" and was undergoing massive changes to get it back on track (under Eddington). ANZ exercising their right to buy, as outlined in Richard K's post, to beat their own chests was diabolical for AN - ANZ could not afford to refleet AN, which was desperately needed, and ANZ could barely manage their own operations, let alone a high frequency domestic operation and a classy international operation. ANZ got a hell of a lot more from AN than AN was ever going to get from ANZ. Sat up the front of an ANZ international flight? Very similar product to the award winning AN product - enough to make you cry really.

Cheers
Prado.

airsupport
24th Sep 2009, 19:21
Airsupport,

ANZ's involvement with AN took away ANY chance of recovery from it's situation. It was "one of the world's great airlines" and was undergoing massive changes to get it back on track (under Eddington). ANZ exercising their right to buy, as outlined in Richard K's post, to beat their own chests was diabolical for AN - ANZ could not afford to refleet AN, which was desperately needed, and ANZ could barely manage their own operations, let alone a high frequency domestic operation and a classy international operation. ANZ got a hell of a lot more from AN than AN was ever going to get from ANZ. Sat up the front of an ANZ international flight? Very similar product to the award winning AN product - enough to make you cry really.

Cheers
Prado.

As I have said several times, I have NO direct personal (intimate) knowledge of what happened to Ansett AFTER 1990, except for the story I posted about the Administrator in 1992, that is why I am reluctant to say too much about what happened after 1990, although I understand from various sources that it was Air NZ that drove the final nail into Ansett's coffin.

I do however have direct personal (intimate) knowledge of Ansett, and fond memories of it too, from 1963 until 1990, and I do KNOW that the long slow painful death of Ansett started back in 1979. :(

priapism
25th Sep 2009, 08:53
Air Support,

Ansett did nothing to Compass other than compete with it. Brian Grey started Compass with no where near enough capital then started a price war he couldn't finish. Choice of aircraft was also poor.

In the end bad management will end any company in such a cut throat industry. --- but then again , QF is still with us!!

airsupport
25th Sep 2009, 09:44
Air Support,

Ansett did nothing to Compass other than compete with it.

This thread is supposed to be about Ansett.

You obviously have no knowledge of the facts surrounding what Ansett did to Compass, so don't start that here please. :(

IF you would like to start another thread about what disgusting things Ansett (well to be fair mainly Sir Peter) did to both Compass and Southern Cross, go ahead but you won't like the truth.

john_tullamarine
25th Sep 2009, 10:58
Ansett did nothing to Compass other than compete with it. Brian Grey started Compass with no where near enough capital then started a price war he couldn't finish. Choice of aircraft was also poor.

The devil always is in the detail .. but the above probably is tinged with a modicum of pre-schooler simplicity ?

RU/16
26th Sep 2009, 05:04
Air support and others I started this thread actaully for peoples opinions of how the industry has changed since Ansett collapsed and with the luxury of hindsight what do we all think of it now, compared to then, with mainly the travelling public in mind not the opinionated pilots.
Yes airfares were high but so was service delivery, not the Virgin kind of service that they promote but im yet to see!
Clean aircraft and terminals, reasonable food and grog, reasonable lines at checkin, on time perforamnce, classy lounges, happy crew, legroom in economy etc etc.

airsupport
26th Sep 2009, 06:11
And I have gone to a lot of trouble to try to keep it on subject, you moron. :mad:

I really don't know why I bother. :ugh:

AN1944
26th Sep 2009, 06:31
The Nail Has Been Hit On The Head Destroyed By The Fat Man And His Rich Cronies And Polies (aust And Nz) They Destroyed A Lot Of Good Peoples Lives Rip The Boss Rma And A Great Group To Work With:=

Obie
26th Sep 2009, 08:04
So...could I suggest that you don't bother?...

and just go away? :ok:

airsupport
26th Sep 2009, 08:47
So...could I suggest that you don't bother?...

and just go away?

Yes, I think I will. :(

After more than 45 years in the Airline Industry, and many years here on PPRuNe, I just have had enough of the absolute rubbish posted here, by people who obviously know nothing about the Industry. :ugh:

Of course it is probably worse at present as it is school holidays, and some of you children have nothing better to do. :rolleyes:

Obie
26th Sep 2009, 10:56
Phew!...that's a rather childish comment, don't you think? :ok:

Eastwest Loco
26th Sep 2009, 13:27
John Tulla

I was called off the front end on Goloden Wing/FCL/JCL checkin at AN ADL into the ops room during a quiet time and handed a set of binocs.

I was told to focus on the main gear of a Compass A310 (the cleanskin they had chartered) and I did so.

The temp in the shade outside load control was showing 55 degrees C.

What AN knew and Compass didn't was that the tarmac where the parked was not reinforced.

The A310 taxiied in and within 20 seconds sank to the axles in the overheated tarmac.

The guys in Ops found it hugely amusing, but I didnt.

Just something about giving each other an even break I suppose.

We copped it a bit at DPO and WNY when East West first started down here, but if the AN battery cart failed we were on hand with ours to get their flight away. They indeed reciprocated after they figured out we were fair dinkum.

That was the days of real Airlines, with a culture and passenger care.If your aeroplane broke you would transfer (grudginly) to the other just to get them there and they would be carried at face value of the ticket.

It all went pear shaped when the fat prick and the silver bodgie decided they knew better.

EWL

The Professor
26th Sep 2009, 22:58
"That was the days of real Airlines"

You mean back in the pre dereg days when we had a 2 airline policy ensuring no competition at all. But very expensive airfares.

slamer.
26th Sep 2009, 23:19
Had SIA pumped more $$$ into AN all they would have achieved is to dig such a deep financial hole that neither AN or Air NZ would have climbed out. As it was it "very" nearly took the collapse of Air NZ to rid the industry of the BIL cancer. As long as BIL were involved (at all) the whole house of cards was coming down .... regardless.

So back to post 1.
As far as Air NZ's involment in this story. Air NZ has always been a good biz but was poorly managed through the 90's under BIL. Now its a great biz well managed. In my opinion a completely diff airline from 10 years ago.

PS: Interesting that one of the few here that has some sensible and informed discussion is told to "go away"...

WellingtonFF
26th Sep 2009, 23:31
Yes, NZ is a completely different business to 10 years ago and is well managed, and yes the BIL involvement was one of the major problems with NZ

john_tullamarine
27th Sep 2009, 01:09
The A310 taxiied in and within 20 seconds sank to the axles in the overheated tarmac.

I'd not heard the anecdote previously. However, quite apart from the sad "them and us" attitude, it does indicate that both Compass' ops engineering and the airport engineering approvals side of the coin got their work up due diligence grossly wrong.

We copped it a bit at DPO and WNY when East West first started down here, but if the AN battery cart failed we were on hand with ours to get their flight away.

All a bit long ago now for me to remember dates etc. but we very likely said g'day at some stage on the north coast .. Indeed, I always had a fond thought for EWA as it was my first target for airlines .. missed out on EW and ended up having to settle for AN.

That was the days of real Airlines, with a culture and passenger care.

And that applied to all the carriers of the day.

It all went pear shaped when the fat prick and the silver bodgie decided they knew better.

d'accorde !

You mean back in the pre dereg days when we had a 2 airline policy ensuring no competition at all. But very expensive airfares.

Your comment probably indicates that you are much younger than either East West Loco or I. Indeed, competition was somewhat artificial and the fares higher .. but, for those who did travel by air, the product was far "better" than what one sees today.

Horses for courses, I guess.

airsupport
27th Sep 2009, 03:07
Okay, I cannot just forget all about 45 of Airline experience just because of a few annoying children here, and others that obviously have no first hand knowledge of the Industry.

Yes I was with Ansett from 1963 until 1990 and have many pleasant memories of that time, a GREAT Company up until about 1979 when taken over by TNT/News.

Under the then highly regulated system we flew identical Aircraft, over mainly identical routes at identical fares and even usually at identical times, you had places like TSV and CNS with only 2 or 3 flights a day with each Airline (AN and TN) and the flights would arrive and depart within a few minutes of each other.

A very highly regulated system, at very high fares (compared to now) but at a very high level of service.

As I said before I have NO personal knowledge of AN after 1990.

With deregulation, and the arrival of Compass, this was the last thing TNT/News wanted as AN was already having financial problems, and YES there were some terrible things done by AN (TNT/News) to Compass, I won't go on about it all here, but I have first hand direct knowledge of a lot of the things, not just the things like mentioned before where AN stood by and watched but where they actively interfered. Things like trying to stop us getting fuel, having his mate the silver bodgie arranging nasty visits from CASA, and even when we had a breakdown one time in CNS and no other flight of ours going that way, we tried to consign the spares with AN on an AOG basis and they refused. THEY actually got into trouble over this as under IATA regulations one IATA Airline can NOT refuse to carry the AOG spares of ANY fellow IATA Airline.

Anyone just in case anyone still thinks that Sir Peter did not do anything to Compass 1 and 2, one of the worst things I have ever seen and I was personally there when it happened was with Southern Cross. We were over at McDonnell Douglas in the USA doing the MD80 Courses prior to start up, about lunch time on the second day our American Instructor was called to the office, we thought it may have been because he was in the National Guard and it was right after all those LA riots. Anyway when he returned he asked us who the hell was Sir Peter Abeles? We told him, and he said he has been on to McDonnell Douglas and threatened that IF we let you have these new MD80s, he will make sure none of his Companies like AN and TNT ever do business with us again. We said PLEASE tell us you are NOT giving into blackmail? They didn't want to upset him so they had agreed, but they arranged for SAS to supply us with older MD80s, apparently there was NO shortage of Companies that had no time for Sir Peter.

KaptinZZ
27th Sep 2009, 05:01
airsupport, you don't seriously expect anybody to believe the story that Abeles threatened McD and they backed down to him, do you???? Consider the relative sizes of the companies. McD could have financially buried Abeles in less than five minutes if they chose.

Abeles telling McD that he wouldn't deal with them is about as absurd as somebody posting here years back and telling (not asking) pilots to boycott Jetstar because they weren't paying enough. Nobody took any notice just as McD wouldn't have done.

My guess is that the company sourced second hand aircraft form SAS because they were much cheaper.

Regarding assets AN did or did not have, they did discharge $1.2 Billion off debt in two years prior to crashing, and that was BEFORE assets like the Hamilton Island airport were sold off. You either declare profit or discharge debt, but either way, the company makes the money. The owners bled all profits out of the company for years.

I recall doing a tour of Engineering, and a guy in the tyre retreading plant telling the story of where the company bought their tyres. The retreading shop sold them to a Bahamas company (owned by TNT/Newscorp) for a few hundred $$, and AN bought them from that company for thousands of $$. thereby putting AN's profit offshore. The tyre retreading company was only one of dozens of similar arrangements.

When Eddington was pushing a sale, the profits were redirected for a while and discharged some debt to make it more attractive.

But how has air travel changed in Oz since?? Well, travel is very cheap and service is very poor. My guess is that maintenance has suffered somewhat but they're getting away with that currently.

I'm grateful for my time with Ansett, still the best airline I worked for, and it's now been a total of five until my recent retirement. They were managed by a collection of idiots (just check out the fleet managers for a start), and they weren't without faults, but I loved being a part of the great airline they were, regardless.

airsupport
27th Sep 2009, 05:30
airsupport, you don't seriously expect anybody to believe the story that Abeles threatened McD and they backed down to him, do you???? Consider the relative sizes of the companies. McD could have financially buried Abeles in less than five minutes if they chose.

I really don't care what closed minded people like you think, it is a true story, I was there, as were many other Aussies.

frigatebird
27th Sep 2009, 05:36
Quote:
( recall doing a tour of Engineering, and a guy in the tyre retreading plant telling the story of where the company bought their tyres. The retreading shop sold them to a Bahamas company (owned by TNT/Newscorp) for a few hundred $$, and AN bought them from that company for thousands of $$. thereby putting AN's profit offshore. The tyre retreading company was only one of dozens of similar arrangements)

All International Operators do that ! I remember one RDB with a hanger in YBAF where the aircraft were overhauled after ferrying in, and a holding account in a nearby Tax Free country were the excess payments were sent while the direct cost was remitted to the hanger operation.
All while exhorting us to fly more, carry more, and accept less salary.
Standard Procedure.

airsupport
27th Sep 2009, 05:55
airsupport, you don't seriously expect anybody to believe the story that Abeles threatened McD and they backed down to him, do you???? Consider the relative sizes of the companies. McD could have financially buried Abeles in less than five minutes if they chose.

PS.... I didn't say they backed down to him, we were never told what they actually replied to him, just that they let him think he had won, then THEY arranged for the second hand MD80s from SAS, I guess without telling him. We understood at the time that they just took the easy option and avoided upsetting TNT, NOT because they were scared but guess it was better not to upset any big customer.

As I mentioned before we were about half way through the second day of our course at the time, we were sent home (not home to Australia but back to our apartments) for the rest of that day and one more while the Instructors altered the course to suit the differences between the New MD80s and the SAS MD80s, then we resumed the course, all thanks to Sir Peter. :ugh:

Richard Kranium
27th Sep 2009, 06:17
...what is it with you people, what the heck did Sir Peter have to do with Ansetts collapse at the hands of ANZ...they were the ones with their hands on the levers, if SQ got hold of AN then Ansett would have used QF as arse-wipe. ANZ would have been making money as well...

...and what is it that Ansett was the only one that caused the demise of Compass...wasn't Australian just as culpable in competing with Compass as well, what! AN and TN was supposed to do nothing, just let a competitor errode your customer base, what does QF, Tiger, Virgin, Jet*, they compete and let the customer choose.

...and why don't you guys talk about Douglas Reid your hero ceo of Compass MK-II.....didn't he get convicted and sent to jail for stealing millions from the company, so why is Sir Peter so vilified, he wasn't around when Ansett collapsed...:confused:

airsupport
27th Sep 2009, 06:42
...what is it with you people, what the heck did Sir Peter have to do with Ansetts collapse at the hands of ANZ...they were the ones with their hands on the levers, if SQ got hold of AN then Ansett would have used QF as arse-wipe. ANZ would have been making money as well...


IF you would read what is posted, nobody said he did, just that the rot STARTED with him.

and what is it that Ansett was the only one that caused the demise of Compass...wasn't Australian just as culpable in competing with Compass as well, what! AN and TN was supposed to do nothing, just let a competitor errode your customer base

Again you seem to have little knowledge of this.

TN competed with Compass, but in an honest manner, unlike AN. We used TN for all sorts of things, at the market rates. Nobody at Compass minded some good honest competiton, that was why it was started.

and why don't you guys talk about Douglas Reid your hero ceo of Compass MK-II.....didn't he get convicted and sent to jail for stealing millions from the company

Yes, Southern Cross, but that was nothing to do with Compass, OR Ansett for that matter. :confused:

KaptinZZ
27th Sep 2009, 10:52
frigatebird, the point I was making was not that "everybody does that", or that it's right or wrong, but that Ansett was making huge profits and they were being sucked out by the owners.

It wasn't a case of not making any money that sent it down the drain; it was a reluctance by the then Minister for Transport, John Anderson, to allow SQ to buy it as that would have killed QF stone dead.

There were a number of factors, of course, but the profits showed that even with mismanagement, it was still a hugely profitable organization. You don't discharge
$1.2 Billion off debt without the ability to generate profit. It is, after all, profit by another name; if it hadn't been taken off debt, it would show up on the balance sheet as profit, or as a finance chap in AN told me, not profit but operating surplus. Call it whatever you want, but it is profit.

AN had been making that sort of profit all along, but it was sucked out by Newscorp and TNT.

For the record, I thought Abeles was a good guy to work for. In the '89 thing, he did whatever he needed to do to run the business. He had an obligation to the shareholders to do so. Unpalatable to crew it may have been, but it was them or him. He was so far ahead of the AFAP in contingency planning that he was lonely. He made them look like rank amateurs, which in retrospect, they were.

MTOW
27th Sep 2009, 23:37
what the heck did Sir Peter have to do with Ansett's collapseAs has been noted already by Sir Pytor's good mate in the last post, he and Rupert Murdoch mercilessly asset-stripped the airline after buying into it in '79, leaving it in a parlous state. someone might like to list all the assets the Ansett group owned when TNT/News bought it versus what it leased, (as was quoted at the time, "right down to the paper clips"), by the time they sold it off.

Richard Kranium
28th Sep 2009, 02:37
...a couple of you guys here are just prized dills....what part of this...that you don't understand...Sir Peter was NOT around for a long time when Ansett went under....IT WAS AIR NEW ZEALAND....AIR NEW ZEALAND HAD THEIR HANDS ON ALL THE LEVERS, they were IN CHARGE, they had 100% of Ansett for quite some time, you want to talk about the assett stripping they (ANZ) did, you idiots are so bitter and twisted and cant see the wood for the trees, get a life, Ansett was going to be powerful force with SQ's backing, Trickie-Dickie who is from the heart-land of the National Party, had Anderson and other cronies in his pocket, they killed off Ansett to protect Qantas.:sad:

airsupport
28th Sep 2009, 02:56
Richard,

When the school holidays are over, and you are back at school, PLEASE have your teachers help you to learn to read English. :rolleyes:

BTW, absolutely LOVE your username, most appropriate. ;):ok:

slamer.
28th Sep 2009, 09:12
The Camerlin group, owns 24.4% of Brierley Investments Ltd (BIL), and, with TEMASEK Holdings of Singapore, controls the company. BIL, formerly a New Zealand conglomerate, is now headquartered in Singapore and registered in Bermuda. It still has major investments in New Zealand including.• Air New Zealand Ltd (30%; another 25% is owned by Singapore Airlines. As well as being New Zealand’s national airline with landing rights accordingly, it is a major owner of skifields and other tourist venues.

Ok ...so who were/are Temasek ...?

Some of you are taking a very simplistic view of things, Im starting to think Airsupport is correct about the school holidays.

The Singaporeans were controlling everything anyway.

slamer.
28th Sep 2009, 09:34
Temasek Holdings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temasek Holdings is an investment company owned by the government of Singapore. With an international staff of 350 people, it manages a portfolio of about S$185 billion, or more than US$127 billion, focused primarily in Asia.

AN1944
29th Sep 2009, 01:49
guess who was on the board of anz? the little rotund man was when i was at ansett :ugh:

teresa green
29th Sep 2009, 12:25
Fellas, settle down, as a proud pilot of TAA I am very grateful that this great country had such two great airlines as TN and AN, regardless of what happened nothing can take away the history and the proud records of these two fine airlines that can never be replaced, yes they might have cost a bit more but hey, the service was great, the public loved them, and they were a measure of the way the country was progressing at the time. 89 was really the end of them both (and we won't start anything there) the fat man and the silver bodgie made sure of that, but for the crews, both tech and cabin, the ground staff, nothing can take away the best years of our lives, yes we all went on to other airlines, other countries, but it was never the same, we are the lucky ones, what flying, what mates, what a way of life that never will be repeated, my kids now fly, (no doubt like some of yours) and they still love to hear the stories of the "good ol days' so pass the stories on, make sure the airlines are never forgotten, life goes on, times change, but would I swap those times, never.

emeritus
30th Sep 2009, 08:41
I want to talk about asset stripping.

By the time ANZ got involved in the corporate rape there was little left.
Abeles and Murdoch took over Ansett Transport Industries. This comprised..

Ansett Airlines.... Provincial Motors (Ford Dealer in Bendigo)
Airlines of NSW .... Wridgway Bros (Removalists )
Airlines of SA .... Ansett Hotels (Several Gateways + Hayman Is )
MMA .... National Instrument Co
Air North ?... Coach Building..Cannot remember the name!
Two TV Stations .... Avis Franchise
Pioneer Tours?... Diners Club Franchise
Ansett Road Freight,

and as far as I recall was wholly Australian owned.

Where is it all now? I had been of the view for many years after that AN was a big empty shell and their biggest asset was the terminal leases.

Rather glad RM was not around to see what was done to a lifetimes work.
I had never seen so much company loyalty and never will in this day and age!
Very proud to have been a cog in a great wheel!:D:D:D

Emeritus

Richard Kranium
30th Sep 2009, 09:28
...mmm-hmmmm....and your point is what emeritus?.....:confused:

airsupport
30th Sep 2009, 09:39
Coach Building..Cannot remember the name!

From memory it was called ''Ansair'', but I could be wrong.

Dunnza
30th Sep 2009, 09:58
Correct... Ansair

Excellent coach building company that were built to last! Excellent machines that ran and ran and ran, even with the shite kicked out of them

halas
30th Sep 2009, 11:42
Ansett Motors was in Hamilton and Casterton.

There were many factors in the demise of the company that l see, and many mentioned here.

Edington was a liquidator for his employer. Strip it, spruce it up a bit and sell it.
The stripping was successful.
Sprucing up was hard to do. Launch into asia just as they have an economic melt down, repaint the tired aircraft, tart-up the terminals, etc.
Selling appeared a problem, but ANZ walked in the door not knowing what due diligence meant, nor cared it seems.

I'm not convinced that AN would be a larger-than-life concern today if SQ had been at the reigns. It would be nothing more than a "domestic feeder" to SQ.

The Star Alliance is another hurdle. SQ, TG, NH wouldn't want them going into asia, whilst UA and NZ would make sure the pacific wasn't crossed. Two main markets they would have been denied access to.

As a humble 6 year (plus 7 years in the subsidiaries) employee up to the end, l did enjoy my time in Ansett. But if it weren't for ANZ and 9/11 it would have been SARS, Bird flu, Swine flu, credit crunch, Jetstar, Tiger...

halas

john_tullamarine
30th Sep 2009, 11:54
From memory it was called ''Ansair''

Indeed.

Originally seat manufacturer ChromeSteel, took over by Ansett and rebadged Ansair, heavily involved in various forms of seating (transportation and building), bus and office interiors manufacture.

Sold to Austral Pacific Group post '89 which ran the P&L into the ground and the shell eventually was wound up.

The remnants of the seating business was re-established by several folk who either worked for, or were associated with, Ansair and continues as Seats of Australia in Tullamarine.

If anyone still operates with Ansair aircraft seats and needs information I can put you on to a chap who holds the bulk of the design data for parts etc.

boocs
30th Sep 2009, 13:33
Halas, agree completely with your last sentence.
b.

MTOW
30th Sep 2009, 23:40
ANSW was a good example of a finely tuned, profitable commercial operation sent into the red by the Fat Man. It owned all its F27s, most of them (the -500s) relatively new, which were about as close to a perfect fit for its large network as an operator could ask for.

The Fat Man presented them with the unasked for F50s - and the costs of paying for their leases. And into the bargain, he opted for the 'cheap and cheerful' AN version (like no other F50 in the world) - without an APU - which was a bit like buying a new limo today to use to carry paying customers in really hot conditions and having the distributor remove the air con, to say nothing of the problems with repeatedly powering up and powering down an aircraft that ran almost everything on AC electrical systems.

Why buy (or lease, actually) unnecessary new aircraft? Shades of Lucius Tan at Philippine Airlines, because when you buy a swag of new aeroplanes, you sell (and pocket the cash) the wholly owned old ones. And of course, someone (I wonder who?) pockets the 2% commission on the price of the new ones.

airsupport
1st Oct 2009, 00:55
Yes, all true, and he ordered them, and the A320s although Ansett had previously ''GONE BOEING'' against the advice of Engineering, Flight Operations and everyone else, to please the Europeans so hopefully (him looking at HIS bigger picture NOT Ansett) the Europeans would look more favourably on his beloved TNT. :(

Buster Hyman
1st Oct 2009, 01:10
The way I heard it, after he'd ordered the A320's, Engineering was told to make them "fit" what we needed.

Is now a good time to mention how the A320's couldn't replace the 727LR's across the Nullabor, so the fat man got his mate to change the rules so it would? :confused:

airsupport
1st Oct 2009, 02:59
The way I heard it, after he'd ordered the A320's, Engineering was told to make them "fit" what we needed.

Yes true, but he was also advised by just about everyone NOT to get the A320s, F50s and also the BAe146, but he ignored all the advice. :(

Is now a good time to mention how the A320's couldn't replace the 727LR's across the Nullabor, so the fat man got his mate to change the rules so it would?

Too late, you already mentioned it............ ;)

3 Holer
3rd Oct 2009, 00:24
Why buy (or lease, actually) unnecessary new aircraft?

The kickbacks, Brother........................the kickbacks!:mad:

advised by just about everyone NOT to get the A320s, F50s and also the BAe146, but he ignored all the advice.

The kickbacks, Brother..........................the kickbacks! :mad:

airsupport
3rd Oct 2009, 01:13
Yes, as I said earlier, the ''kickbacks'' being stronger European support of his beloved TNT.

The Professor
3rd Oct 2009, 01:50
Ansett spent a considerable amount of its time as an appendage to a wider business goal.

The BAE146 was not a great aircraft for AN. But for TNT in Europe it was the only solution. Abeles managed to shut out the opposition in the night freight game in Europe for several years by virtually owning the production line at Hatfield. Throwing a few leftovers to AN was a small price to pay in view of the bigger picture.

Same goes for ANI pulling out of TPE despite making money on the service. News was desperate to get Star TV into China but only if the company and its affiliates severed business ties with ROC.

AN was not the core business in its later years and suffered as a result.

KaptinZZ
5th Oct 2009, 02:50
I think all quite true Professor, but if it hadn't been for the minister for transport insisting that ANZ be permitted to exercise their option (and he could have knocked it back in the national interest), and the SQ purchase had gone ahead (and maybe even if it hadn't gone ahead), then it would have been a very different picture.

However that all comes under the category of "that's life". Life is a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat!

Richard Kranium
5th Oct 2009, 03:34
...yes quite right ZZ....and the comments of deals done by Sir Pete are correct also.....but thats all neither here or there....the owners can do these things to make the business more suitable to them or get rid of of assets that don't suit them anymore....

...companies do this all the time....buying the A320 was dumb at first it seemed...but it seems it was a good move after all, the 320 is a very popular aircraft, err jet*, tiger, now even VB is thinking about it, and around the world its a winner...

...but this thread was about Ansett going under, and it went under while ANZ had their grubby hands on all the levers, and the Aust gov with the gross incopetence of Anderson, Moore-Wiltons total bias for QF and Trickies massive lobbying swayed the Government to let Ansett die...

...after all the Australian givernment should have chaised ANZ...but ANZ payed 150mill in graft money for the deal that they be left alone and not be taken to court....so the collusion of the Aust and NZ gov....as the then Helen Clarke said that Ansett was now the matter for the Australian Government, not the responsibility of the New Zealand one.

So as Howard said...the Australian gov is not in the airline business...not like with QF as they had a 750mill stake in it with the merger with Australian...or the auto industry...or his brother that had trouble...so Ansett was murdered...as Howard told SQ not to touch Ansett under any circumstances....

...this was brought out on 3AW, when Steve Bracks went to Singers to speak to SQ...they said they were totally confused, here the Vic gov wants us to buy but the Feds are saying stay away....the question is WHY....well...all to protect Qantas...I say the Australian gov was calpable after the event, they had no right to protect Qantas...Ansett should have been offered for sale to SQ after that debacle.....:sad:

Gnadenburg
5th Oct 2009, 04:57
There was a confusing about-face at the time with the Australian government and Singapore's investment in AN.

Snippets of information emerged of Singaporian military and industrial espionage against Australia at around the timeframe we are discussing.

They were caught red handed spying against a army signals and electronic warfare facility. And commercially, it never came out. But there was significant backlash against Singapore from the top echelons of Australian business.

And then it all went quiet. The Singaporians lost a billion dollars.

satos
5th Oct 2009, 14:38
Correct... Ansair

Excellent coach building company that were built to last! Excellent machines that ran and ran and ran, even with the shite kicked out of them

Ansair was based in Garden Drive Tullamarine next door to the Engine Overhaul Shop.

john_tullamarine
5th Oct 2009, 23:07
Ansair was based in Garden Drive Tullamarine next door to the Engine Overhaul Shop.

Previously at Essendon Airport for many years and, subsequently, Sunshine, eventually deteriorating into oblivion.

Buster Hyman
6th Oct 2009, 00:38
but it seems it was a good move after all, the 320 is a very popular aircraft, err jet*, tiger, now even VB is thinking about it, and around the world its a winner...

A319 & A321 notwithstanding, the A320 was not appropriate for runs over to PER until the rules were changed.

OlAME
6th Oct 2009, 06:18
Anyone remember the engine shop at Dubbo . What year did it close ?

Eastwest Loco
6th Oct 2009, 08:35
Didn't you read earlier Richo?

SQ would never have taken over AN directly.

That would have meant taking over an Airline with the top 3 levels of management totally innefectual and more interested in building their own castles over and above the welfare of the Airline.

That would have been a very messy operation, hence with 2 senior board members installed in NZ, push for them to take it over - it was a given they would collapse it due to NZ inneptitude and then ride in like a knight on a white charger and ressurect the beast without losing face - not to mention not having to pay out the contracts of the top 3 levels.

Tea towel wearing people who clean their rugs by banging them with their heads and had obviously belted a bad attitude into themselves by doing so ruined the plan the night before Ansett self immolated.

SQ stood back then - ran under the radar rather than lose face in an industry that had gone into recession overnight. Also you can't tell me that that other magnate and his mate that were involved in the alleged resurrection and spun the thing out to the point that all other possible consortiums ran out of fighting funds and finally walked away were not funded by SQ - probably to the tune of millions.

The thing SQ wanted and still desire with a passion are the rights AN held to the pacific cash bonanza. i feel the horse has now bolted.

Isn't it nice whe people like the Fat Man, the Bodgie and the introduced carnivourous pests can screw with the lives of people like you and me?

Be well aware Richo.

There were many more forces in play over and above the standard pap someone who has come in after the time could possibly be aware of. No shame there. We who were in the middle could not believe what we were hearing.

It was an Empire of Evil, started by TNT/News and their head scumbags and magnified by Australia's most corrupt Prime Masturbator of all time.

The whole thing was a circle jerk of epic proportion.

Best regards

EWL

Richard Kranium
7th Oct 2009, 02:26
...well maybe, maybe not Loco....I don't know, what would have happened after Ansett was cast aside by ANZ....it was all uncharted waters....

...but the fact is that ANZ were at the controls at the disaster point and the Aust Gov with trickie-dickie were up to there necks in murdering Ansett....Qantas went on to prosperity at the expense of Ansett's 16,000 employees...

I heard rumors of some white knight wanting to buy into Ansett...but the then prized slime ACTU pres. Combet... put an end to that as there was not going to be any compromises to wages and conditions under a new management....so thank-you ACTU...

...yes....9/11 couldn't have come at worse time....who would have figured that one....so everyone got gun-shy and investment in airlines vapourised over night...

Sir Peter was gone...TNT wanted out so they sold...no problem there....NEWS said we want out and sighted SQ not ANZ...well the rest I've been over....:sad:

OlAME
7th Oct 2009, 04:59
EWL , settle down old mate , take a valium , nothing in life is as bad as you make it. Pour me another red please nurse.

3 Holer
7th Oct 2009, 07:34
Who cares what or who caused Ansett's demise?

Like the horse and cart - Ansett ain't coming back.

Abeles is dead, Bob Hawke is a nobody (can't even get a gig these days giving inspirational speeches) and the rest is pure speculation! :{

Buster Hyman
7th Oct 2009, 07:41
With all due respect for the victims of Sept. 11, it actually helped me when AN collapsed. I fully realised that what I was going through was nothing in comparison, and at least I had an opportunity to start again...which I did.

AnQrKa
7th Oct 2009, 16:56
"Who cares what or who caused Ansett's demise? "

Ahhh, a lot of people mate, a lot.

Your comment is hurtfull to all involved. Maybe that was your intention?

If so, why? What did we do to you?

James4th
7th Oct 2009, 19:28
What have you to done to us (non AN people)? Well if I hear "This is the way we did it at Ansett" again I am going to snot someone!

There are other ways you know ........

No disrespect meant to any individual or the Old Airline but PLEASE stop saying it!

oicur12
7th Oct 2009, 20:01
Yeah, drives me nuts too.

This is how we did it at QF
This is how we did it at EK
This is how we did it at SQ
This is how we did at at . . . . .Yep, AN.

Do you think its an "ex AN" thing or just an "ex other airline" thing?

BTW, I would love to know who you currently fly for James?

3 Holer
8th Oct 2009, 02:18
AnQrKa

What did we do to you?

You provided great service, always freindly cabin crew and mostly ran on time.

Ansett was a great airline. Remember it as that.

Playing the blame game is not going to brink AN back to life. All the "what if this had happened" or "that had happened" or this should have happened and SQ should have been allowed to do this, that or the other thing.

If Aunty had had aggetts she would have been Uncle!

Build that bridge Mate and fast, life's too short to bemoan the past.:ok:

airsupport
8th Oct 2009, 04:30
Do you think its an "ex AN" thing or just an "ex other airline" thing?

A little off topic, but it is a general thing, certainly NOT just ex Ansett.

When Compass began operations, as anyone here should know it was a completely new Airline and started from scratch, I got so sick of hearing but this is how we did it at....... mainly QF and EW. :ugh:

Just human nature I suppose, people get used to doing something one way.

Gnadenburg
8th Oct 2009, 05:38
What have you to done to us (non AN people)? Well if I hear "This is the way we did it at Ansett" again I am going to snot someone!

Maybe you could learn something?

I have to say, in observation of the contemporary standards of Australian airline pilots. Ansett was very good in areas of technical knowledge and flying ability.

Maybe the job was worth putting some effort into?

Obie
9th Oct 2009, 10:10
Ansett was a great airline up to 1989.
Ansett was a poor airline after 1989.
Ansett folded in 2000.
Ansett is gone and Ansett is now forgotten.
QED!

Qanchor
9th Oct 2009, 12:24
I"m not ex AN, but proudly ex TN, and now, through no fault of my own a Q(w)anchor. I miss what we both had.
The formation flying from A to B, the overnights, the comaraderie, the mutual respect, we'll never see that again. I know things have to change, but it really was the best of times. Something our cadets, (young & old, but mostly old), will never understand nor appreciate.
Best wishes, good luck and safe flying to all ex AN folk :ok:

Reeltime
10th Oct 2009, 01:28
Ansett was very good in areas of technical knowledge and flying ability.

Therein lies the problem; ex-An pilots don't think they're good..they 'know' it.

When you reveal you're ex-An to the guys you're about to depart on a 6 day trip with, that strange look they give you isn't one of admiration...it's the dawning realization that it's going to be a loooong trip, filled with anecdotes of 350kt descents/the fat man/the 3holer/the bodgie/how(insert airline here) is not a patch on Ansett/I was a capt with Ansett/ I nearly was a capt with Ansett/this is how we did it etc

Time to give it a rest boys.

AnQrKa
10th Oct 2009, 02:31
Reeltime,

Yep, cos you QF guys are all aces and a QF 744 cockpit is a joyfull place to be.

NOT!!!!

Your comment is indicative of a culture that fears outsiders.

99% of QF pilots are single airline guys who have no other experience with which to compare.

Outsiders, be they from AN or Mars airlines, are difficult to deal with because they have a different perspective that you have never considered.

Zapatas Blood
10th Oct 2009, 02:47
The QF guys I have flown with in 2 airlines have all been good guys but bring with them some totally outdated SOP's and procedures etc. And yes, they cant help but big note all things QF. Its the same with anyone from another airline.

teresa green
10th Oct 2009, 11:48
Qanchor, like you I was a proud TNer but these young blokes don't understand, and why should they, their turn will come soon enough. Like you I miss the mates, flying around on Sat arvo picking up the footy scores, telling some bullsh%t story to the CNS refuellers and seeing if we could beat it back to MEL, and see how it had changed, the steaks at the "Breaky Creek" before they became upmarket, the food at "Phil the Greeks" in DRW and then on to the Officers Mess at the DRW Base and a few at the "Hitching Post". The Great Australian Air Race between the two airlines and the sledging that went with it, it was all bloody good fun, then came 89 and the fun stopped, and we went overseas, and became serious, and then came home after some time and joined QF and it became even more serious, and you sat up in a 747 and looked at where you used to push back and remembered the banter between the LAMES and your crew, the beautiful aircraft you used to fly (especially the 9) and looked at your slides where now sat 2 bars instead of 4 and you thought "what the fcuk" what happened, but would you swap it probably not, the last bit perhaps but not the first, so cheers to all AN and TN people out there, you were part of history of this great country, that no knocker can take away, no other airline can replace, the memories that cannot be destroyed, we were the lucky ones, Amen.:D

Eastwest Loco
10th Oct 2009, 12:07
I was a humble groundhog Teresa, but all you say rings true.

Those that knock now do not know an Airline that stood beside them instead of one that stands behind them with a knife in hand.

The old TN days were just as good as the EW days, and I would not trade the time with either Airline for anything.

If you don't get a tear in your eye when an aeroplane you have worked on departs for the last time then you just don't get it.

It's a "legacy Airline thing - you wouldn't understand".

Best all

EWL

Gnadenburg
10th Oct 2009, 14:05
Therein lies the problem; ex-An pilots don't think they're good..they 'know' it.

Don't feel threatened by the observation. I'm thankful for the Ansett experience and never have to bring it up as a credential.

Why do you hang out on an ex-AN thread BTW?

89 as a special case aside. Some former colleagues were bemused at the bitterness experienced at a foreign airline toward ex-AN pilots by incumbent Australian expatriates. It took a little while to find out they were unsuccessful in their AN applications. On multiple occasions.

AN was a simple process and we are sorry you missed out. An interview to ensure you were OK on overnights and a 727 sim ride to ensure you could be trained.

I have moved on and am probably better off for it. Peeves me though, that people with no association with AN want to begrudge you for having pleasant memories.

And it is nice to have flown a jet airline the old AN/TN way. A very solid grounding I am thankful to the prior generations for.

SOPS
10th Oct 2009, 14:47
Until the day I left...that day in 89..best job ever in AN. I miss it all every part of it..or, at least, what is was then. Every time I do a MEL overnight now and see the old Astrojet Centre.. I think of my initial interview there..(and the nervous night before NOT sleeping next door at once was the Travelodge)

I think of the interview sim ride in the 727 (God I wish I had flown it for real)..and the day I got the telegram(yes they were still in use) to say "Ansett is pleased to offer you a course starting..."

The best days of my life.......

Metro man
11th Oct 2009, 00:59
I remember travelling on an Ansett B727 BNE-CNS 1n the 1990s. That was when airline travel was an experience, not the bus trip it is today. Of course the fare was alot higher, luckily someone else was paying.

Would have been a great job flying for a real airline, good pay and conditions, reasonable flying hours decent benefits. I'm going to work later today and have just packed my own lunch because the company won't even give us a cup of coffee, I'm getting very close to my monthly flying hour limit as well. Shouldn't complain though with over half my pay dependent on how much flying I do.

I had my application in with Ansett and remember ATC sympathising with the crew as they cleared them to land during the days when the aircraft were being returned to base. Brief period of hope during the Tesna days then all over.

Got to fly with a few ex Ansett pilots since then and yes the phrase "That's not how we did things at Ansett." did get on a few peoples nerves.

So many things brought about the downfall, external factors beyond it's control, poor management, inability to change with the times. Had they kept going major changes would have been needed to compete with Tiger/Jetstar.

Low cost airlines just concentrate on offering the cheapest fares that's it, suits alot of people. Full service need to, have enough people prepared to pay more for something better, keep the fares attractive vs low cost and still make a profit doing it. Not so easy.

Could Ansett with its bloated overheads, poor fleet mix (A320 and B737), poor management, high costs and strong unions compete against lean operators with a brand new single type fleet, non or little union representation and much reduced pay and conditions ? I doubt it

Ansett goes down in history with other legacy airlines from the good days of air travel. This job isn't what it used to be.

airsupport
11th Oct 2009, 02:08
Yes many pleasant memories, I still remember like it was yesterday (they say that happens when you get old) the arrival of the very first B727, and also the very first DC9, at Essendon.

Kev9
11th Oct 2009, 03:01
OBIE
"Ansett was a great airline up to 1989.
Ansett was a poor airline after 1989.
Ansett folded in 2000.
Ansett is gone and Ansett is now forgotten.
QED!"

should read
"Obie a real dumb fwit pre 1989.
Obie a total dumb fwit post 1989.
Obie gone in 1989.
Obie is now forgotten but the smell is still there"
QED!"
your a funny dude Alex P
god bless ya:=

Zapatas Blood
11th Oct 2009, 05:24
Obie = AP

Awesome.

hey obie, could you update the list please. Its so important and relevant but its full of mistakes. A few guys "slipped under the wire"

Ahhhahhhhaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

tinpis
11th Oct 2009, 19:29
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/tinpis/PNG/ansettpomLarge.jpg

teresa green
11th Oct 2009, 22:47
Tinpis is that POM?

xrisi
12th Oct 2009, 08:43
Quote Obie = Alex Patto Awesome. hey obie, could you update the sc*ob list please. Its so important and relevant but its full of mistakes. A few guys "slipped under the wire" .................................

....................................... Poor old Alex.
Was the Judge, Jury and The Executioner.
Full of mistakes, many innocent sadly died,.
He could apologies for the losses but that's not a mad mans style.

Maybe he just forgot how good Ansett was to him???
I'm sure he feels the pain.
We forgive him....:ok:

Che cows with guns
13th Oct 2009, 00:16
Teresa it sure is Port Morbid. back when it was not quite as Morbid. The good old days
Che
fighting for Bovine freedom

teresa green
13th Oct 2009, 11:18
Those people who wanted it done the "AN way" were probably just as painful within AN as out. Have not heard to many TN people having the same problem, though there were a few that went into another major Australian Airline that were a pain in the ar#e, and probably still are. Me, I just kept my head down, and was quite happy to go along for the ride and pick up the pay check. I realised my career was over, and got very used to skippers younger than me, looking me over at sign on, and you could read their faces "what am I going to do with this old bastard, he is one of THOSE" I found if you just kept your mouth shut, only ever offered any advice on request, they tolerated you (just) some even made a effort to be friendly, some never did, it especially some of those silly old bastards who looked at you over their glasses, like you were something they found on their shoe, and to be honest, a couple I thought were freckin hopeless and would have been weeded out in TN quick smart. So I just took the money and sat there like a frog on a rock (as does most S/O's) and as I said before went along for the ride (all thanks to the silver bodgie and the fat man) thats how I dealt with it.

Obie
14th Oct 2009, 07:50
How could you possibly make that post TG?
You sell yourself so short it's embarrassing!
You're worth more than that, mate!
Well, at least I think so, even if you don't!

teresa green
14th Oct 2009, 11:17
Easy, Obie, I never doubted my ability, but my ability was never required, QF was/is a funny sort if institution, you get hold of a young bloke and "Qantasise" him (or her) and they have little conception of a world outside that. This is not a personnel attack on any individual just a observation I made at the time I was there. Of course it could have all changed, I am talking the middle ninties here. The whole time I was at QF I felt a outsider, a "backyard boy" as they called us, I never took it personally, every airline has its own way, and was glad for the money and the job with 4 growing sprogs. When you flew around the "backyard" we had different aircraft types, some had hubcaps, (the B727) some were untrustworthy little mongrels (the 9) but flying the 747 was sort of like having a old EK Holden, and was as boring as bat sh^t, and I used to look at some of the crew that took themselves so very seriously, and wonder how they would cope with a DC9 check list from OOL to BNE (which is equivalent to being a one armed paper hanger) you did not have time to be serious, these people were simply trained in another way, for another job, and it was interesting to note the difference. I guess in a round about way I was really commenting on the "The way we did it in AN" comment, I know it got up QF peoples noses, and that was my reason to be fairly careful in what I said or did, and to perfectly honest you felt a bit ashamed and probably suffered a little from a hurt ego, one minute your a skipper, next a second officer, and no spring chicken at that, sh^t happens and it happened to us, and walla, no career anymore and too old to get one. I have long since moved on, but the posts on AN and TN bring back a lot of memories, and perhaps some regrets, but life goes on, and cheers to you young blokes, may you have as much fun as we did.:D

Capt Snooze
16th Oct 2009, 00:49
Hi Teresa,


some had hubcaps, (the B727) ?????

B737 !!!

(but you knew that already :) :) :) )


Cheers......................................................


(someone had to say it)