PDA

View Full Version : Kiwis have chips on both flaps


Wirraway
18th Jan 2003, 11:39
Sat "The Australian"

Kiwis have chips on both flaps
By Claire Harvey
18jan03

STRANGE things are happening across the Tasman. A Kiwi has accused his compatriots of being "irrationally" anti-Australian.

Most New Zealanders are proud in their loathing of "Aussie" and all that it represents -- from the sporting field to the spat over which nation actually invented the pavlova.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen says it has all gone too far.

Kiwis are being unfair in their resistance to a proposed merger between Qantas and Air New Zealand, Mr Cullen said in an opinion article published in yesterday's Dominion Post newspaper.

"Sadly much of the anti-Australian invective seems to reflect an inferiority complex," Mr Cullen wrote.

"The Government cannot decide this issue on opinion polls, or succumb to irrational anti-Australian sentiment which seems to be informing much of the public debate," he said, adding there was nothing sinister in a Qantas proposal to put two representatives on the Air New Zealand board.

"I am nonplussed by the assumption of many New Zealanders that if there are two Australian directors on the Air New Zealand board, they will somehow surround the eight New Zealand board members and whip the hell out of them," he wrote.

"The Qantas nominees will not have the power to veto board decisions, and the Air New Zealand board will retain absolute authority over Air New Zealand."

Last year's announcement of the planned merger sparked outrage from politicians, business leaders and average Kiwis, who rushed to the phone to tell talkback shock-jocks the deal was an evil Australian plot to crush another local icon.

"The kangaroo pockets another Kiwi," Opposition leader Bill English thundered.

Yesterday, Mr English denied he -- or any other New Zealander -- was motivated by hatred of Australia.

"Not on this issue," Mr English said. "The opposition to this deal is based on a loss of competition. Fares will go up and the travelling public are going to have to pay."

Mr Cullen and the Government were pandering to Australia, Mr English said.

"The current Government has really gone out of their way to help the Australian Government when they've wanted it.

"They've taken Australia's refugees, caved in on welfare issues and now this deal. I've got no idea why.

"Whenever the Australian Government has wanted help, this Government has stepped in."

A leading opponent of the deal, businessman Lloyd Morrison, said Mr Cullen's accusation was unfair.

"I think that's a cop-out by Mr Cullen," Mr Morrison said. "It's a convenient, inflammatory argument. In fact, Qantas has a better reception in New Zealand than most other places in the world but the best way to get service out of Qantas is to make them compete."

LooseConnection
18th Jan 2003, 12:40
Not being well versed in politics I'd say the Australian article was spot on.

Having worked in the "shakey isles" for a few years I came to loath the inhabitants of a beatiful country.

ALL had a "chip" on their shoulder, and the well balanced ones had a "chip" on BOTH shoulders!! :eek: :eek:

ZK-NSJ
18th Jan 2003, 22:34
well mr cullen was the one who was pelted with eggs by his own voters on the west coast, when labour brought an end to logging down there, this was after his boss helen called the coasters a bunch of ferals, i take what cullen says with a grain of salt

404 Titan
19th Jan 2003, 09:43
Kiwiís will complain because Qantas want to take a 22.5% stake in the company but at the same time are prepared to sell out to Singapore Airlines. I know who I would prefer to work for. Kiwis are going to have to come to the realization that they need a large dominant partner in Air New Zealand if it is going to survive.

They major downside of all this is that it is going to mean less competition. Whether it is Qantas or Singapore Airlines there will be less competition in the Australasian market and that isnít good for the traveling public. Hopefully airlines like Virgin Blue will expand and start operating in more markets to keep the two evil empires honest.

CI300
19th Jan 2003, 17:31
You know, the only people bleating negatively in this thread are quite clearly from the west island. In fact, the only people in this section of pprune that start and continue bleating threads which are generally about how bad everyone else but themselves; are from the west island.
If you spent a little less time bitching about each other and the rest of the world, then you might actually have time to brew a beer worth drinking.

TIMMEEEE
19th Jan 2003, 19:53
CI300 old boy, you may very well have a dig at us on the 'West Island' (very droll!) but lets face a few facts here.

Australia has had a steady stream of New Zealanders emigrating to Oz for years (a handful the other way) and until recently something like 29,000 were on the dole in Oz as opposed to 189 Australians doing the same in NZ.

The average Australian likes New Zealanders but as soon as they come here and start mouthing off about the beer, weather, how good the kiwis are at sport etc then the average Australian thinks to himself 'Why not just go home if you dont like it?'

The fact of the matter CI300 is that you're not doing your fellow countrymen any favours by knocking Australia or its citizens.
You appear to have a chip on your shoulders because you cast blame without justification and without firm facts.

Australia is not responsible for one of your former top celebrated businessmen (Sir Selwyn Cushing) leading the charge to buy an airline in Australia and effectively leaving some 45,000 Australians (direct or indirectly) unemployed after its collapse.

We were not responsible for Sir Ron Brierley holding out for more money from the Singaporeans to sell his bad investment in Air NZ untill it became almost worthless and watered down in the govt buyout.

Air NZ was technically bankrupt as a result of that consequence and saved only by the intervention of the NZ govt.
I suppose the big bad Australians were responsible?
Look at the facts CI300 and you tell me?

Your countrymen CI300 went into that investment eyes wide open after owning a 50% share for some years and without having carried out a competent due diligence (as quoted by a NZ report govt report) and almost bankrupted a NZ institution as well!
Now where would Air NZ be if the government didnt come to your rescue?
Im waiting for an answer CI300 - answer that succinctly.

You blaming Australians CI300 makes you look both stupid and petty.

Australia has provided some wonderful opportunities for New Zealanders (Sam Neill,Russell 'knock 'em out' Crowe to name but a few) and numerous others who have come to Oz, prospered and then taken their success elsewhere.

I dont hear 20,000,000 Australians complaining about the beer and isnt it funny when I go to Auckland to visit good friends they always have Australian beers in the fridge (or chully bun as you call it).
Its their first choice as well as mine.

Finally to quote the most famous kiwi of late on acceptance of his academy award,

"God bless America, God defend New Zealand and Thank Christ for Australia!"

The ball's in your court CI300.

CI300
19th Jan 2003, 21:30
Ahh, Timmeeee. I fear you have my post a little harshly and definitely in the wrong direction.
Let me start.

CI300 old boy, you may very well have a dig at us on the 'West Island' (very droll!) but lets face a few facts here. Yes it is droll, thats the point. Scan back through previous bleats. You will find a common feature, that is the reference to the "Eastern Island" or "the island to the east".

Australia has had a steady stream of New Zealanders emigrating to Oz for years (a handful the other way) and until recently something like 29,000 were on the dole in Oz as opposed to 189 Australians doing the same in NZ. Of no relevance to this thread.

The fact of the matter CI300 is that you're not doing your fellow countrymen any favours by knocking Australia or its citizens. I am not a NZer, although in fairness you dont specify whom my countrymen are. Neither was I knocking Australia, read my post again. There is nothing to read between the lines. It was knocking the few people in this part of the forum that spend their timing knocking others. They seem to be anti VB/QF/AN/NZ/OZ/KIWI and many are Australian.


You appear to have a chip on your shoulders because you cast blame without justification and without firm facts. I could go through every 'bleat' thread for the past 3 years and record who bleats and where they are from? Would satisfy your quest for fact? I suggest you yourself have no facts to back up a rather large portion of your post. Quite frankly, why I posted was opinion. Nothing more. How about you?

Australia is not responsible for one of your former top celebrated businessmen (Sir Selwyn Cushing) leading the charge to buy an airline in Australia and effectively leaving some 45,000 Australians (direct or indirectly) unemployed after its collapse. We were not responsible for Sir Ron Brierley holding out for more money from the Singaporeans to sell his bad investment in Air NZ untill (sic) it became almost worthless and watered down in the govt buyout.
Air NZ was technically bankrupt as a result of that consequence and saved only by the intervention of the NZ govt.
I suppose the big bad Australians were responsible?
Look at the facts CI300 and you tell me?
I reiterate, not being an NZer, Uncle Sel is nothing to me. I would also suggest that very few people in NZ have anything more than contempt from this grubby man.
As for the facts, you show you have little. Perhaps you would like to chat with the fine ex-AN gentlemen siting across from me? I have first hand experience with what happened. I am not proud, but I am not to blame. I will not be drawn into that argument, which is irrelevant to this thread anymore.
You blaming Australians CI300 makes you look both stupid and petty. I take it this refers to AN ? I refer to the above points.

Australia has provided some wonderful opportunities for New Zealanders (Sam Neill,Russell 'knock 'em out' Crowe to name but a few) and numerous others who have come to Oz, prospered and then taken their success elsewhere. Having met Sam once, he seems like a nice guy. He also lives in Queenstown. As for that nutter, your welcome to claim him. But let me add this is also irrelevant to the thread.
I dont hear 20,000,000 Australians complaining about the beer and isnt it funny when I go to Auckland to visit good friends they always have Australian beers in the fridge (or chully bun as you call it).
I am now the proud owner of a "chully bun". I did enjoy that one. But can I ask you what your good Australian friends are doing in bad old NZ?
My signature may give you a hint as to my first choice. Oh, its not from NZ or Australia. As Michael Jackson (the beer hunter, not monkey boy) writes, he never tasted a bad beer until he visited NZ and OZ. (thats not an exact quote, someone may know what it is. ) I do think those days are gone, there are many companies on both sides of the ditch producing fine drops. But it is fun to tease people about their beer. Nuff said.

Look, the bottom line is. I am not anti Australian nor other countries. BTW I am against the foreign policy of a few countries.
Knocking NZ politicians, businessmen companies without balance with your own is what is truly petty. Although in saying that, it does appear that NZ has more clowns to knock than its fair share. Dont forget, nobody was completely innocent.

edited for spelling, crappiness and Apologies for taring all with the same brush, not intended. :(

henry crun
20th Jan 2003, 00:41
Loose Connection. Over the years I have met quite a lot of Australians in NZ and their own country.
I have also helped to entertain some of them here in NZ.

Some of those I met were unbelievably rude, some were overbearing, and some did nothing but moan about everything.

However, unlike you, I do not tar all Australians with the same brush.

Kiwis, like most Australians, are known worldwide for being friendly and welcoming to those who visit their country, so maybe your attitude and behaviour had something to do with the impressions you formed of us.

frank Borman
20th Jan 2003, 01:21
Singapore Airlines have no interest in re-investing in AirNZ.

Astroboy
20th Jan 2003, 01:56
C1300. You may not be a Kiwi by birth, but you sound like a Kiwi at heart. The only people I have ever heard refering to Australia as the "West Island" are Kiwi's suffering from the "complex" which is now obviously recognized by the NZ government.

Additionally, your frequent use of the word "bleating" when many other words would convey the same message, I think might be a little Freudian.;) ;) ;)

mr hanky
20th Jan 2003, 05:25
Well, I'm as much of a patriotic Aussie as anyone, but couldn't help but think: what if you take this--

The average Australian likes New Zealanders but as soon as they come here and start mouthing off about the beer, weather, how good the kiwis are at sport etc then the average Australian thinks to himself 'Why not just go home if you dont like it?'

and substitute "Brit" for "Australian" and "Australians" for "New Zealanders"/"kiwis"??

I guess it's all relative..:) :)

404 Titan
20th Jan 2003, 05:50
Singapore Airlines have already stated that the void left in the Star Alliance that was created when Ansett collapsed needs to be filled. There are a number of scenarios that SIA have looked at so as to fill that void.

1. Start a new airline from the remnants of Ansett. Difficult now because of terminal space and the cost of starting a new airline.

2. Acquire a part ownership or partnership with Virgin Blue and have them join Star. This maybe not possible due to Virgin Blueís business model. Also Virginís owners may not want to have SIA on board.

3. Acquire a shareholding in Qantas if or when British Airways sells its stake. If SIA were to acquire BAís shares in QF it would indirectly gain a shareholding in ANZ if QF were to purchase a 22.5% stake in ANZ. Again this may not work because Qantas may want to stay in One World.

4. Purchase a 22.5% stake in ANZ, which is already in Star, and have ANZ team up with VB so that they now can compete head to head with QF and break its dominance of the Australasian market. SIA may not want to go down this road because once bitten twice shy.

At their last press conference, SIA said they are evaluating all options and that they are not ruling anything in or out. Therefore Frank Borman, what you are telling us is your humble opinion and is not based on any hard evidence or facts.

Bodie
20th Jan 2003, 07:30
It's strange to see that there is a mutual feeling of pet hate between NZ and Oz.

As an 'Englander' I am quite used to being hated by the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. However, they have good reason - we ruled them with an iron fist, murdering and pillaging for hundreds of years. hehehe :p

Similarly I get the sneaking suspicion that the same feelings make their way over from Oz. I think NZ don't mind us too much.

The English, however, like everyone. (except the bloody Yanks)

Bodie

frank Borman
20th Jan 2003, 20:47
I'm alot closer to the SQ action than you think. Believe me, I know the facts, I sit next to certain Singaporeans regularly and I can tell you, they are not interested in AirNZ. The other options you have mentioned have been canvassed, but not seriously, so before you go accusing me of not having access to the facts think about where some of the contributors here actually may work!

TIMMEEEE
20th Jan 2003, 20:59
CI300,if I mistook you for a kiwi then my apologies but to be honest as one contributor correctly pointed out your posting did sound a bit "choice bro" to say the least.
My apologies once again.

My mates in NZ are there because they are kiwis working for Air NZ and we flew for an airline overseas many years back.

To the punters speculating about Singapore possibly buying into Air NZ then forget it.
They have lost very serious face over this one and got a bloody nose to boot.
Having SQ members acting as board members on an airline that had to be bailed out by the NZ government after pending bankruptcy put even more egg on there faces.
A major embarrassment coupled with serious money lost which they will not repeat.

Have to agree that a go at QF may be a definite possibility.

frank Borman
20th Jan 2003, 21:20
TIMMMEEE the QF option was looked at seriously some years back, but lately, the fantasy of SQ joining up with QF is very much the fantasy in Geoff Dixon's head, not the SQ boards head.

SQ like to operate their own show, thats why when things pick up around the region, they'll re canvass options that provide them the opportunity to run an airline under their own steam. Won't be a domestic Oz operation though.

404 Titan
21st Jan 2003, 02:37
Frank, sorry if I mistook you for just another bloggs. This forum tends to attract people who are just mouthing off. You and I though appear to be coming from the same side of the argument. If you have a look at my last post, I gave the possible scenarios that SIA may be looking at, but then went on to say why I don't think they will happen. In my humble opinion the only fix to Stars void in the Australasian market is a shift in certain airlines alliances. Who knows this may just happen if and when the QF stake in ANZ takes place? This though may just be wishful thinking.

bentwings
21st Jan 2003, 07:08
ALL had a "chip" on their shoulder, and the well balanced ones had a "chip" on BOTH shoulders!!
It's tribal and happens everywhere:
Living in the Carolinas "Oh ... you're from the North"
Living in Perth "Oh ... you're from the East coast"
Living in Saudi "Where are you from?"
Give me a Kiwi artilleryman anytime, they saved
my a*se in SVN.
Thanks Kiwis. :)

KSP
21st Jan 2003, 08:01
Jeez fellows-lighten up!
I thought we're on the same side? Slagging each other is hardly constructive.

We've got Aussies/Poms/Canadians/Scots/SouthAfricans/Zimbo's working with us, and they're all good guys. Enough of this rampant parochialism I say.

KSP

I also freely concede that Aussies are much better cricketers than
Kiwi's. As for the beer-who cares? Both countries make beaut wines. :confused:

Eastwest Loco
21st Jan 2003, 09:59
Let us all face facts. A Kiwi dole bludger is an @rsehole - and Aussie dole bludger is one just the same.

I have numerous Kiwi clients - and some of them are total double epsilon semi-morons, and an equal proportion of Aussie clients that also came from the shallow end of the gene pool are just the same or worse.

The Air NZ disaster in attempting to manage Ansett out of an irretrievable situation involved Corporate malicioness on the part of the bowler exacerbated by Corporate ineptitude on he batting side.

The main gear were missing but the former incumbents didnt tell anyone and the incoming failed to notice it until full throttle was required to try and exit the runway.

Kiwis and Aussies, pull your collective heads in.

I would rather 20 Kiwis move into my street than various of the detrius of our world who are making our suburbs unliveable and unsafe moving in.

The fact that we are so similar is what makes us snipe at each other.

Our accounting system support line is NZ based, and wonderful support staff they are. JUST LIKE US everyone.


Best all

EWL

Friendly Pelican
21st Jan 2003, 22:49
First of all, to EWL: Mate, your post is, as usual, a study of moderation and common sense. You and KSP sidle up to an issue which is wider than aviation. We see it at work in the QF/ANZ proposal, but it doesn't stop there.

The issue is, of course, the question of where NZ sees itself in the world, and whether our nominal independence is worth the price to be paid by NZers. It's a stark choice: to submit to the perceived yoke of an Australia which has treated us shabbily in the past, or to accept the slow retreat to third world status that our size and location demands. In this circumstance, it's understandable that we can get snippy from time to time.

A little history lesson might help here. In 1707, the United Kindom was formed by the union of England (and Wales) and Scotland. Both before and after the fact, vested interests in both countries whipped up public sentiment against the Union, making use of the same sorts of appeals to prejudice that we see on the Forum daily. Clearer thinkers, particularly in Scotland which had the bitter prospect of surrendering its, again, nominal independence saw through the specious arguments of separatism to the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. History shows that the union was a resounding success, and set the stage for the expansion of the British Empire following the loss of the English colonies in North America.

Fast forward some 300 years, and on the other side of the world, we are presented with a remarkably congruent situation. For their entire histories, Australia and New Zealand have been the closest of neighbours, sharing a common culture of mateship and fair play. Our fathers fought together, not only at Gallipoli, but also in Flanders and Palestine in the war to end all wars; and with distinction on all too many occasions thereafter. Many of our civil institutions mirror those on the other side: there is broad cross-recognition of standards and qualifications in areas such as medicine, accountancy and science. However, an increasing gap between the two countries exists across standards of living and national outlook. It is this gap which initiatives such as the Closer Economic Relationship, and impetus towards merger of our stock exchanges and currency union seek to redress. From these startpoints, the endgame of political Union or Federation is a heartbeat away.

It's a question which affects both sides of the Tasman, as Australians slowly come to the realisation forced on New Zealand; namely, that neither of us is sufficiently large to survive in an increasingly hostile and competitive world. The English and Scots faced this question 300 years ago. Their choice, that a whole is greater than its parts should instruct us today. Nevertheless, all we see and hear in the media are the appeals to prejudice typified by the dole bludger or the ocker - a vested interest in selling papers obviates a more complete analysis of the issue. Disappointingly, it must be said that many contibutions to this Forum are patently the children of this media slant.

The AN bastardry of 2001 was not a Kiwi thing, any more than the HIH bastardry was an Aussie thing: it's just easier to sell papers that way. Unfortunately, complete and proper examination of the ANZ/AN shemozzle is likely to be impeded by those same News interests, and in any practical sense is likely to be a waste of time anyway. (Not that I wouldn't welcome an appropriately targeted hanging or three: it would give us all some sense of closure.)

Overall, I think we get far too possessive of our national airlines: after all, they're just corporations with strengths and vulnerabilities like any other. In the new world order, they can't even be assured of our loyal patronage if there's a cheaper fare going down the road. Are they really an appropriate repository for our national pride? - far better the ANZACs, Ed Hillary, Don Bradman, Howard Florey or Ernest Rutherford, people who embody those values we hold dear, rather than a couple of transport companies.

In this context, it's frustrating to see the ANZ/QF alliance being discussed, even on this professional forum, in terms of ockers v bludgers, ANZ incompetence v AN incompetence, or competitive bestial sex with a national animal ad nauseum, ad infinitum. (Namecalling and resort to proxy heroes or demons - All Blacks, Wallabies - is learnt early in the schoolyard, and is an easy option when we've run out of argument!) Surely we can all do better: indeed, I think we're going to have to.

The proposed ANZ/QF alliance throws up questions which cut across purely national boundaries: the AN drivers' 'Australian flying for Australian pilots' only made sense in a totally Australian context; in the context of an international network it is meaningless, as the definition of Australian flying collapses. We are told that the alliance will generate millions in cost savings through 'synergies'. Let's not kid ourselves: synergies mean productivity gains. Given that they can't work any of us any harder, the mathematics gives the result: job losses or delayed progression. How we counter this threat will take co-operation, rather than competition, from both pilots' bodies: otherwise we see the spectre of longterm wetleasing, competitive tendering and other measures being taken by our masters.

In this brave new world, it seems that we may have to learn to hang together, or we will certainly hang separately. It's a feeling our forebears could relate to!

(Climbs off soapbox, opens fridge: VB or Speights? Nah, a Stella I think!)
:p

edited for the usual spelling phuqups and that UBB thingy

frank Borman
22nd Jan 2003, 00:01
404 titan, no worries, what you actually said is pretty much the publicly canvassed options that SQ have thought about. What the SQ board talks about behind closed doors is of course not heard and not even filtered out.

The speculation of SQ joining QF is pretty laughable, I think the board of QF have this oppinion that the rest of the worlds airlines think the sun shines out of the QF backside, sadly it don't. There are things called luck and government assistance which SQ recognise.

SQ will do their own thing, they won't buckle to rumour and inuendo that comes out in the press by QF and vested interests in order to get them to declare thier hand early, it won't work Geoff.

We'll see what happens when and if the open skies thing happens as to what SQ will do, that will have some bearing.

Like I said though, and Choong said this himself in the Straights Times in Singapore that the fantasy of SQ joining up with QF is the fantasy in Geoff Dixon's head, it's not a fantasy in Singapore and the incoming new CEO of SQ has the same opinion.