Virgin Boss Buys Island For Staff.

[airsupport]

Virgin boss buys island for staff.

The Age.
May 16 2003.


Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson has bought an island off Queensland's sunshine coast for Virgin staff worldwide to share.

Sir Richard told reporters in Perth that he and two others paid around $5 million for the 25-acre island, which is called Makepeace Island.

"When I think of the achievement that all of the staff have done down here - airfares have halved and hundreds and thousands of more people are travelling, who never have been able to travel before - none of that could have been possible had it not been for the staff," he said.

"As a thank you what we have done is we have bought a beautiful island off Noosa island for the staff ... where they can come and party and go away for weekends."

Virgin Blue currently employs around 2,500 people in Australia.

Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey added that the airline was stepping up its campaign to provide more air travel alternatives for business travellers.

The airline will offer early morning departures from Perth to Melbourne and Sydney from September 15 and October 27 respectively.

He added that the airline would take delivery of a number of new Boeing 737 new generation aircraft, two of which are earmarked to overnight in Perth in preparation for the new early morning services.

- AAP

[AN LAME]

For godsake, someone PLEASE get me a bucket...:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Bodie]

For godsake, someone PLEASE get me a bucket...

Do people always have to be so negative? I suspect AN LAME doesnt work for Virgin, and is probably jealous.

[High Altitude]

Oh to have money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope you clean up after yourself AN LAME, what? Can't handle the fact that VB are emmensly successful?

Just hope VB staff can take friends to the Virgin Island.

[Torres]

Sir Dickie bought the wrong island. Probably could have bought New Zealand for less money, got two islands for the price of one, and had an airline thrown in for free!!!!! :} :} :}

:8

[Ultralights]

Its good to see some CEO,s know how to treat their staff! and keep Morale high

[bitter balance]

I'm guessing Sir Dick didn't buy the island just for his staff. I wonder if there is a resort on there or he's putting one on there? If so some cheap accom for his staff is good publicity. You've got to give it to the man, he is a first class bull****ter!!

[greybeard]

:ok:

The Man has style.

Well done to those who made him think it was worth the effort to make the purchase.

What a difference to how others treat their employees.

C YA.


:p

[loungelizard]

Yes, Bitter Balance, as the ol saying goes "You cant bull**** a bull****ter". No doubt your possibly QF and know all about the subject of bull****. !!!!!!!!

[Hugh Jarse]

That's right. It was Jimmy Bowtie...:E :E

Not his exact words. However, they are about as accurate as Bob Hawke saying "No Australian child will be living in poverty by (whenever)".:} :yuk:

IMHO, a company's performance is directly affected by staff morale. Any sensible employer knows that.....

Staff goodwill cannot be measured.

[Hugh Jarse]

This comes from another message board:Sir Richard should have added as he made the announcement at Perth that none of his perth staff or staff at any of the other airports in Australia apart from syd,mel,adl and bne, will be able to use his "island" as they are contractors and don't in fact work for virign. So many of the people that committ to the success of DJ at places like cairns, maroochy, darwin, canberra, perth, gold coast, alice, broome, hobart, launy etc will not be able to take advantage of this magnificent offer as they are not employed by virgin. He missed that bit out of his press conference!

There you go. Balanced reporting.:}

[AN LAME]

... like I said, :yuk: He is a brilliant self promoter - and that's all. I wonder if all the Techies at VB think he's a wonderful employer?

[Buster Hyman]

Okay, here's the first things I thought of;

1. Is there an oil field near it?
2. Will he seceed(?) from Oz & create a tax haven?
3. Will he pay the FBT for the hard working staff of his?

As appealing as this sounds, I'd still rather have Hugh Heffner as my boss!:p

[Wirraway]

Sat "Daily Telegraph"

Island for Virgin staff
17may03

VIRGIN boss Sir Richard Branson likes his Australian staff so much he's bought them their own island.

The 10ha Queensland hideaway five minutes from Noosa will be redeveloped as a holiday destination for the exclusive use of Virgin employees.

Sir Richard, whose personal fortune is estimated to be more than $3 billion, kicked in the $5 million or so to buy Makepeace Island as a personal thank you to staff.

While other airlines struggled to stay solvent last year, Virgin tripled its profits, making $110 million.

The island will be redeveloped as an "eco-friendly" resort, with plans to retain the 1911 Queenslander house for entertainment and meals.

Guests will sleep in tents or tree houses.

=========================================

Sat "The Courier Mail"

River prize now a Virgin island
17may03

NOOSA'S only privately owned island has been bought by flamboyant Virgin Group chief Richard Branson for redevelopment as a staff retreat.

The 9.2ha Makepeace Island, in a broad stretch of the Noosa River, just upstream from Tewantin on the Sunshine Coast, does not have bridge access.

Sir Richard is believed to have bought the island from his own Virgin Blue Australian boss Brett Godfrey within the past week, with Mr Godfrey reportedly buying it from long-term owners, Brian and Beverley Spencer about six months ago.

When they originally listed the island for sale in 1997, the Spencers were seeking "offers in excess of $3 million".

Mr Spencer, an internationally recognised artist, and his wife had been living there since 1980.

A spokeswoman for Sir Richard said he would not reveal his actual purchase price, only that his total investment in Makepeace, including development, would be $5 million.

The existing Queenslander house would be for shared entertainment and meals and plans were being made for camping and training facilities, treehouse accommodation, nature walks, tennis courts and water-themed activities such as fishing, sailing
and water-skiing.

============================================

[compressor stall]

Nice place but its hardly "off the qld coast" like most of the media reports.

In a river mouth delta!

Still good stuff for morale.

[Tinstaafl]

Yeah. Bet the mozzies are looking forward to the expanded menu.

[Gnadenburg]

BIK

"I'm alright Jack, how about you?"

Coolangatta ground staff similar.

I wonder if Godfrey`s fixed costs are 30% less than Dixons? Buying an island that doesn't generate an income stream, greater than 3million price tag, requires a serious wage!

Good on you Branson, about time you invested some money on some infrastructure.

[Pimp Daddy]

I wonder if Godfrey`s fixed costs are 30% less than Dixons? Buying an island that doesn't generate an income stream, greater than 3million price tag, requires a serious wage!

Either that or a very clever way of packaging a bonus

[Apollo 4]

Team Building & Training

Sir Dick has come up trumps for his employees with plans for training camps and team building programs to be hosted on the island instead of in conference centres and hotels..... Huge cost saving here, Dick really knows how to manage.

I am informed that there will be hotel accommodation available in the future where all staff can come and relax and party on Virgin Island.. And for the sum of an invisaged $34.95 per person per night I think that is really reasonable. Bring your girlfriends, boyfriends, mothers and kids. $$$$$$$

Bet Sir Dick turns a big profit with a set up like that after all there isn't too much that he touches that doesn't make money.....

Good on him for scooping the headlines and the morale soring effect that his employees are currently experiencing. Nothing is free however $34.95 per night isn't that bad. For me give me a company hotel in the city at ID rates..

:E

[skywest_xr]

Virgin's philosophy has always been to put its employees before profits.

Keep staff morale happy, which in turn increases productivity which then generates profits.

However, in all Virgin pursuits, the staff tend to get paid less than what they would at a competitor, so all these "other" benefits are some what necessary.

I do feel sorry for those poor unsuspecting aero-carians at Perth yesterday holding up the pictures of Dick's new island. They looked rather excited aswell.

Ohwell, perhaps there one off christmas present this year will be a trip to the island.

O/T, but tomorrow is the first day that Aero-Care Perth are soley responsible for the handling of Skywest Airlines. Good Luck all.

[SLANDER IS A CRIME]

It is official, Richard and Brett have confirmed that Aero-Care staff and Jetcare staff are an integral part of Virgin Blue and as such are their staff are welcome to use the island alongside their Virgin colleagues! This was advised at the time of the announcement.

Well done Virgin!

[topend3]

i hope they do the same with staff travel then!!!

[HotDog]

No need topend, ID90 based on the highest fare tariff with most carriers, is not much cheaper than a firm seat with VB.

[Johhny Utah]

Given that a very vocal member of DJ management reportedly bought the island just 6 months ago for around $3.3m, I'd suggest that Pimp Daddy might be closer to the truth than any of the PR hacks would like us to believe. After all, a $1.7m gain on a piece of property is a nice way of giving certain management staff a very hearty pat on the back at a time when a $1.7m executive bonus package would mean that RB might have some explaining to do... and we couldn't have him speaking the 'plane truth' now, could we? ;)

As for people comparing DJ fares with staff travel- hardly a comparison! I know that I would much prefer to sit in a business class seat & be treated to the works (inclusive of such basics as 'legroom') for less than the price of a DJ fare.

As for DJ looking after their staff - please explain - once the PR spin & glamour of working for a 'virgin' company is removed - how virgin is either a) looking after it's staff, or b) putting people before profits - because I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me...

[GoGirl]

Bloody excellent and good on Sir Richard Branson; whether it be for publicity, for the benifit of staff morale, or heck, because he's just an all-round nice bloke, it's still an excellent move on his part...YET AGAIN :ok:


Love the guy, or dislike him, you have to admit, he's wearing a winners grin most days, therefore someting surely must be working over there at DJ

And if you want my honest opinion, (which you are going to get either way you look at it ;) ), that means happy people in jobs in Australia. Yep, this country :ok:


Sh!t, if I didn't have it so good in my current job, I'd be banging down Sir Richard's door!
Maybe that's just being a bit greedy....Noosa's only 20 minutes down the road from where I live anyway :p

GG

[dirty deeds]

Good on you Dick, I can't remember any other CEO/Chairman etc putting their hands in their pockets and giving something back to their staff (except their own board members, especially when they can see the s---t about to hit the fan). Our good old mate Geoff has taken his bonus last financial year, did any of the QF staff receive any of it, I don't think so. You can have the Business Class seats ( and don't forget they contribute directley to the operating costs of your airline, the last time I travelled business class at QF, it was full of staff, remind anyone of Ansett ). Something is better than nothing, and an island resort to conduct training courses, CUSTOMER SERVICE (does QF remember what that is) courses etc, compared the QCC building would suit me fine. Did anyone read the Australian newspaper a few Fridays ago. They mention an airline called SouthWest, has been operating for thirty years and has never failed to make a profit, and by the way did I mention that it is a low budget airline (funny that). Food for thought.

[bitter balance]

He certainly put his hand in his pocket and gave something to Brett Godfrey!!

[ER2nd.]

"...are an integral part of Virgin Blue ..." I thought Jetcare at least were being rmvd a bit at a time fm DJ support....

[Anti-ice]

I think all his staff would rather take home a decent salary than all this unashamed PR seeking.

I have a pal who is the in-charge crew member at VS (overseeing the crew/pax of an A340-600 ) & he still takes home less than some junior crew on other airlines.

So nice of him to buy an island to a destination where his loyal staff don't even fly to !!!

Concorde - - - tropical islands- - - leave it alone sir R , just pay your staff a decent wage.:rolleyes:

[feels]

Anti-ice,

Yet another rant from a disgruntled employee? Or are you just ignorant of the environment in which the industry is currently trading? Remember, if you're not happy with the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[SLANDER IS A CRIME]

I am not sure what is up with Jetcare/Virgin Tech, but Aero-Care has picked up another ground handling contract for Virgin in Alice Springs.

[Gnadenburg]

Feels

Virgin Blue is established, highly profitable and the number two airline in a very strong domestic economy.

No longer the little Blue battler starting out.

What's more management very publically indulge in the extravagent-Godfrey bought an island off the one of the hottest strips of real estate in Australia.

Just because he doesn't wear a tie doesn't mean Godfrey doesn't know how to screw Virgin employees for his island bonus!

Your suggestion Anti Ice leaves the kitchen would be valid but for the fact his conditions are about half of what the former incumbants offered.

Can anyone tell me if Virgin Blue staff still get their Xmas present from the company? The mixed case of the roughest and cheapest wines in the country. Wholesale value of $40 for the case but a little birdie from XXX XXXX tells me the wine costs Branson nothing, a kickback for stocking XXX'S XXXX wine on board.

"Merry Xmas Staffmember, I am paying you half the industry rate, this gift to you cost me nothing but is a gesture of my good will and gratitude"-Dick.

And Godfrey gets an island!

XXXX-censored for the obvious.

[topend3]

to all of you criticising the move, i think it is a bit game of you to knock it, here is a case of them giving something back to the employees, i guess big business can't win, if the ceo pockets a huge salary he gets knocked, he buys his staff an island and he still gets knocked, you can't win i guess.

dj fly into maroochy too lets not forget, a short drive from noosa where the island is located, so it would make for a cheap weekend, most dj staff are in bne so could drive up anyway.

and hot dog-

take a look at dj's staff travel mate - like -

drw-bne - $71 one way, bne-mel $37 one way, it doesn't even come close to the fully flexible fare, miles cheaper!!!

cheers

[Buster Hyman]

So, the island will be a staff holiday destination AND a training centre! That, for me, would be like spending my holidays at the Astrojet centre!!! No thanks.:hmm:

BIK, there'll always be someone who'll take their wage, no matter what. Be it a foot in the door to the aviation industry or whatever, there will always be another one lining up, especially if your company has just gone under & handed it's market share over. The gap between the haves & the have not's is widening in this country & this sort of erosion of conditions contributes to it.

[Gnadenburg]

BIK

Out of interest.

Are you a well qualified and highly motivated Virgin employee?

Liquidation a poor choice of words-neither QF or AN liquidated.

QF pays what the industry paid a few years ago. Virgin pays half. It would be reasonable to suggest that Virgin staff are paid half of the former industry rate.

On a positive note. In Virgin Blue you can fly 'til beyond 60. Plenty of time to pay off the little house under the flight path and fund a modest, working man's retirement. Unless somebody comes along and undercuts the industry further.

[Capn Laptop]

Gee I didn't know that QF paid $280-300 grand a year for a 73 captain!

Where do I sign up!!

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

I heard that complementry Hymens will be handed out to all "virgins" on arrival.

[topend3]

a lot depends on how grateful you are to be employed. former ansett employees may be bitter as they were paid unsustainable salaries , was good while it lasted, but in the end it hurt the bottom line and the rest is history.

myself included, most people employed in aviation are grateful of the fact that they have a job in such a volatile industry where staff cutbacks, redundancies and carriers going broke are unfortunately common occurrences. I would rather work for a profitable airline at a reasonable though not "over the top" wage and feel secure about my job than not be employed in the industry i love at all.

:D :D

[Swingwing]

Never mind the endless debate about pay, conditions, the good old days of Ansett and so on.

Is anyone else finding it difficult to get past the mental image of a tropical island full of bikini-wearing DJ hosties??
I might ring Godfrey and ask if I can rent an apartment there over summer!

:cool:

[feels]

Whingers,

1. don't like your conditions - leave
2. the person who risks the capital deserves the reward - put up or shut up
3. never look a gift horse in the mouth - Virgin staff have been given an ISLAND for crying out loud

Grow up kids - this is the real world and your industry is tough.

Have a nice day.

[RENURPP]

well condratulations to the staff who would like to use it. Correct me if I am wrong but it will some time before there are any facilities there that would make it a resort as such.

Surely even the most supportiveVirgin employee's out there see this for what it is, a PR stunt.

If you don't believe that was the intention. Answer the following.

Do you think Dixon would prefer to trade the conditions of all his QF employees to the same as VB are on and buy them the biggest flashest island in Aus ?

Would the QF employees trade their conditions for VB conditions and an island with an old Queenslander on it???

Reality is you guys chose to work for VB and hopefully most enjoy it. the island thing is a PR stunt that most would trade for better conditions, but it has probably had the desired effect.

[cnsnz]

It is amazing how many people that do not seem to work for VB are qualified to say what the staff want and dont wont.
So who cares if it is a publicity stunt or not?
The managment at VB consider that there staff should be rewarded ,does it matter that they also may use it for staff training or not.
Why dont you knockers just get on with your own lives or does the thought of another company prospering really worry you?

[feels]

1 week ago, VB employees' conditions were the same as they are now BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN ISLAND TO GO TO. Now they do - how can you criticise this? PR or no PR - how can this be criticised?Conditions didn't change - there was never an offer to change conditions. There is now the offer of an island.

[Gnadenburg]

Virgin Blue wages are everyone in the industries business. Dixon quotes their cost base and foreign airlines base their expat wages on surveys of what is on offer at home.

It is not nice to discuss what people do or don't get but the above are cold facts. Virgin Blue wages are dragging conditions down.

Yes VB is profitable, but so are the airlines who are putting pressure on their staff members' wages.

topend3 and cnsnz

The first a Kiwi and the the latter I will rudely assume. You are the Phillipinos of the South Pacific. Keep out of any debate on conditions for Australain workers.

Captn Laptop

I stated that the conditions VB offer are half of QFs, not wages.

Let me elaborate.

VB F/O conditions. Lets assume a young pilot out of GA.

69K a year-QF F/O by Dixons admission 30% more. I would say 35% more!

The other 15% to drag it down in terms of conditions as follows:

Borrow money for endorsement. Airfares and accomadation while doing the endorsement-compared to QF where you are on the payrole.

No simulator-QF 737 F/Os have access to a simulator at no cost. This not to be underestimated as part of a professional package. There is a lack of investment in training by VB.

Crew sanwiches-QF have access to crew meals and business class food. The cost here of not buying your lunch at the airport significant.

Superannuation-QF get better because of higher base wage.

Bonuses. Case of 40$ wine-versus QF shares.

VB pax down the back-QF pax up the front.

VB Rostering problematic-QF better.

Staff travel-QF has an international network to better VB.

As a total package Virgin Blue is about half.

The QF F/Os package management like, the VB package workmen like.

And it is our business because other peoples wages/conditions are now being based/compared to the above.

[EPIRB]

topend3, I was an AN 737 FO, now one with QF. The wages are slightly lower at QF but not that much. QF flight attendants actually earn more than AN ones. Virgin don't have to support hangars, their training costs are substantially lower, they have a one aircraft type fleet to support, they don't have kitchens and catering, they don't run buses around their base as it is not big enough too, they don't have their own simulators and support staff etc. So can you substantiate for me why you think AN's wages were unsustainable?

[Capn Laptop]

Gnadenburg,

You quote the base salary without the retention bonus which for skippers is 15000 a year. Sure F/O's are on a percentage of that.

We get crew meals.

Borrow money for endorsement - yes, BUT Virgin F/O's are on full pay from day one even during ground and line training. QF pilots are on PUIT pay for a period of time....so some (admittedly not all) of your endorsement cost is recouped by not being on training pay.

Super - Ok, but what is the QF F/O's base?

No Simulator - well not yet - there is a sim centre being built in Brisbane - but you can hardly add that into the salary package - that is like saying that we get hours on the 737, so lets factor that into the salary at say $3 grand an hour...I understand your point, but disagree that it is a salary issue.

Rostering - yes problems, but being fixed albeit slowly

Case of $40 wine - well mine wan't a 40 dollar case - I got quite a nice gift set and a picnic set thingie which would not have been particularly cheap

Duty travel - you got me there...

Staff travel - we have a good deal with Virgin Atlantic and a bette eal with express. We also get dseals with others.

Overall not too bad - and only a benefit if you travel a lot overseas. For domestic travel it is much the same as QF..

All in all, the VB package is below that offered by QF. BUT you don't have to ride around as a 2 striped passenger for years, commands are quicker - again clawing some of the endorsement money back, and it is a different style of operation.

Do I want more money - hell yes, but all things being equal I don't think that I'm being hard done by - a brain surgeon, or other very learned medico makes about what I do as a Virgin skipper. Do I reckon that my skill set matches theirs - wll in some regards yes, and some no. I certainly don't work as hard or as long as they do

Ultimately the salary people can justify is determined by the earning capacity of the aeroplane they fly. the bigger it is the more they can expect to draw from that aeroplane.

The 737 isn't a huge aeroplane and the salary I receive is not unreasonable for the work I do.

[crocodile redundee]

Enjoy the perks while you can VB people, within 5 years all will be gone - the scenario is being set a la AN collapse.

[Transition Layer]

Swingwing...

Is anyone else finding it difficult to get past the mental image of a tropical island full of bikini-wearing DJ hosties??

Tropical Island? My childhood memories of that part of the Noosa River are mudflats and mangroves...which stink like s*it when the tide goes out! Good fishing though!

Those DJ hosties in bikinis makes it sound a lot more appealing however...maybe their next photo shoot can be done there - fishing rods and VBs in hand?

:D
TL

[Gnadenburg]

Laptop

Virgin pay for brain surgeons? Wouldn't want to be on that operating table. You get what you pay for remember.

Every one of your points debatable.

We are comparing 737 conditions.( remembering the S/O does get an opportunity to be a 747 Capt eventually but irrelevant to our comparison).

I believe the difference in conditions rounded down to 50% less than QF, you seem to round up to Dixon's mentioned 30%.

How about we meet at 40%!

That is significant and hope you understand the "dragging the rest of us down" concern in the industry.

As mentioned earlier, though not polite to talk about your conditions, they do affect us all.

What about a QF 747 Capt. A 300k package? If Virgin Blue goes international in a serious way, I bet command of the international flagship will be a 180K package ie: 40% less than QF. That is if Virgin Atlantic doesn't crew.

Godfrey doesn't wear a tie and pretends to be an egalatarian style manager . But with cheap wine and a staff island as lubricant, bends you over as good as anyone!

[Capn Laptop]

Gnadenberg,

You need to get out into the real world, where people feed 3 kids and pay off a house and a car on 35 grand a year.

Yes QF pilots get well paid, but the point I am making is that the Virgin people get a reasonable wage as well -not brilliant - but reasonable.

To vilify the pilots who fly for Virgin and say that THEY (as individuals) are eroding the industry norm is unreasonable.

The QF guys and gals can mount the case that they are quantifiably better aviators than us Virgin pilots and they deserve the extra money that they currently get.

Us mediocre types will stick with our handfulls of shells and fly the little red aeroplanes....

[John Eacott]

Article in today's Hun (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6467933%255E662,00.html) believes that zoning restrictions may prevent development on the island :(

[Buster Hyman]

"It's not for a cast of thousands, just for staff to use from time to time."

Better book now kids!

And there were serious concerns about effluent and waste water disposal because part of the island flooded during heavy rain.

Survivor: Virgin Island!!!

The spokesman said Sir Richard would put a proposal to council and if they did not like it, he would try something else.

I wonder if he's a mate with the Minister for Qantas????:E

[cnsnz]

Gnadenberg
I thought this was an open forum?
You do not know where I work or whom I work for and for your information I have worked in Aus and who knows maybe I will again.
You blame VB for bringing down your conditions every airline to be viable has to have sustainable costs Vb have set theirs at a level they believed they required to make a sucessful entry into the australian market and the staff have agreed to it otherwise they would not be flying today.
Your organisation realises that in order for it to remain dominate and competitve it will need to bring its costs closer to its main competitor to ensure your future employment which I think would be fairly common practise to alot of businesses.
You control your future if you dont want to accept managements restructuring/cost cutting to ensure your future employment then maybe you shouldn't stay there

[Gnadenburg]

Captn Laptop

You are taking issues personally. Let's disassociate emotionally otherwise we will chase tails.

Your reference the "real world" simplistic. We are not comparing your wage to average wage of workers. We are comparing it as a 40% reduction in conditions to that of other 737 pilots in Australia.

The issues again.

1. Virgin Blue doesn't advertise. It has an effective publicity machine. It moans and groans and will do anything for publicity or attention.

2 It's conditions are about 60% of current and former competitors.

3 Airlines such as QF,SQ,EK,CX and many others not even associated with the region have extensive professional package surveys. They look closely at Virgin Blue salaries, keeping in mind Australia is close to the greatest exporter of professional pilots!

4 The Virgin management team headed by Godfrey adopt an egalatarian approach. No ties, load the bags on occassion, put a few beers on for the boys, Christmas presents etc etc.

In light of the above, Godfrey makes a million on an island, that the grating Virgin Blue publicity team describe as a staff retreat, while paying poor wages and pretending to be new age leader and having much more interest in his staff than say, the demonised Geoff Dixon.

What you accept is not my business I hear. Refer again point 3.

Godfrey a sodomiser of airline employees. That he kisses you first with the help of his publicity team makes no difference.

And you watch the bubble heads try and vote him Australain The Year.

[HGW]

I am sitting here watching the TV and what do I see - a Virgin Blue ad. I open my newspaper and see Virgin Blue ads. Apparently they do advertise and the moaning is usually related to them being screwed compared to QF. You would moan if the airport authority charged one user a certain fee and wanted to charge you three times more.

The new VB EBA for ground staff shows wages are almost the same as QF. One difference is the jobs are permanent full time, not part time on a six month contract.

[Buster Hyman]

Good luck to the DJ groundstaff then! Perhaps some "normality" might return to the industry & make it viable for the employees.

[esportadude]

Strewth , and I thought the Poms whinged ! ;) ;)

[airsupport]

Some things never change here. :rolleyes:

This was just a post about Richard Branson buying an island for his staff, yet even that turns into the normal slanging match. :(

[topend3]

EPIRB -

6 loaders on a 737 each on $60k - unsustainable

Gnadenburg -

I'm an Australian citizen, lived in this country for 17 years and pay taxes and work as hard as the next person, i do have the right to comment on australian pay and conditions and the fate of ansett!

[EPIRB]

QF six loaders on $70,000 plus. This is crap paying blue labour these wages.

[Gnadenburg]

topend3

Your prank at pretending to be an unemployed Ansett 747 skipper delivering pizza shattered your credibility-then we found you to be a New Zealander, a further downgrade!

Insensitive comments really, understandable if you were involoved in 89 but not as a baggage thrower/mouthpiece for Godfrey.

HGW

I find it hard to believe you are comparing Virgin conditions, improved under a new EBA, to those of full time QF groundstaff. Surely you are comparing to QF casual? And how much is "almost", as long as a piece of string?

Airsupport

Not a slanging match. VB employees underpaid, so maybe we are just seeing through another Branson publicity stunt.

[topend3]

you are a sad thing gnadburger,

i am only expressing my opinion on the issue, and i am quite qualified to do so, as for the pizza joke, you have a long memory, just a bit of fun!

lighten up! TRUE - BORN IN NZ, BUT AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN....and hardly a mouthpiece for Godfrey, you need to get that monkey off your back!

EPIRB-
How long will qantas sustain those wages? outsourcing is the way of the future son!

[Gnadenburg]

Topend3

Me sad? I exposed you as a fraud, had a little fun with you to protect a few colleagues who were taking kicks whilst down.

A joke in the poorest taste. And not unlike the attiude of your PM in the media, Kiwis on Bondi or my golf course, aswell as New Zealand contributors on pprune. Sadly your country may experience the social tragedy the collapse of a large airline brings, within say five years.

Many Ansett pilots did deliver pizza to support their families-did being past tense!

Your attitude, I will throw bags for half of what a QF loader will, not unlike the attiude of the New Zealand shearers who scabbed in this country not that long ago.

Not sustainable, probably right. If you can bring their wages/conditions down you watch the QF pilots come a tumbling too! And that indirectly affects me.

[ccy sam]

Lets face it, we at Virgin are mostly Qantas rejects and do not deserve to be paid a real pilots wage.

[Gnadenburg]

Nice try CCY, has nothing to do with being a QF reject.

I would even suggest career wise you may be better off.

The problem stems from relatively appalling conditions. Do bond with your colleagues and continue improve your contract.

Profits seem to manifest themselves into islands for executives. Get some of the pie.

The Virgin Blue wages' benchmark scares us all. Refer my point 3 above.

Pilots a funny breed. Ego driven in all aspects and though denied to save face, very wage sensitive. Look at the very personal responses on this thread. So hopefully the seed of wage unrest planted and your conditions, by your own efforts, raise toward a former industry standard.

[HGW]

Geez Gnadenburg, appalling conditions. What appalling conditions. Get real and get off your high horse.
Do you advocate VB staff to push for wage levels that Ansett staff enjoyed and then fall over because they are unsustainable.
Every person in this industry has a choice. If you don't like the pay then leave and find something better.
Is your job in danger?

[CT7]

TORRES:

I don't know about buying NZ. The natives aren't that friendly and the head honcho .... well.....

[elektra]

Gnadenburg

Someone mentioned before about democracy and votes etc. A good point. The public are voting with thier feet and they are voting NOT to support the high wage, high cost QF culture. They are the arbiters of what conditions will be and they support VB. That's not undercutting anymore than the local motel is undercutting the Hilton. The market is just much bigger (more jobs etc) if the fares are more affordable. And flying VB is fun too.

By their inaction in 1989 QF pilots voted in favour of labour market deregulation and day by day they are getting closer to the real world where they're to be paid what they're worth, not what they want. Not dragged down by VB but weighted down by their own introspection.

And lets face it, job security is about the biggest perk any pilot has right now and a growing VB is a good place to be.

[Johhny Utah]

elektra & others - I fail to see why you think that the slowdown in Qantas wage growth is so great. Sure, it might make those who don't work for QF or who want to take down the 'tall poppies' seemingly happy, but please stop & think for a moment. What effect will this have on any push for higher wages at Virgin? I'm sure Godfrey et al will make the most of any news & use it as leverage against the Virgin pilots at their next EBA. After all, why increase wages when the opposition have frozen theirs? No wages growth on the Virgin side will also present an opprtunity to Qantas management & the board to push to either increase efficiencies or attempt to freeze wages so that they can match those of its main competitor. At the end of the day - who wins? Shareholders, most likely, but certainly not the flight crew.

I'm all for guys flying for Virgin quite possibly getting a break & getting either into a jet in Australia, or getting back home after being overseas. However, just because you are willing to accept terms & conditions below the industry accepted standard, don't suddenly declare that they are the industry norm, and try and drag down any others who may be on more money.
After all, how would you feel if Singapore came into the market & declared that their subsidiary airlines Captains would be on $90k flat & FO's on $55k...and then declared all through the industry that they were the new benchmark & everyone else was running with excessively high crew costs...?

Just food for thought...

[Gnadenburg]

HGW

Appalling as in a 40% disparity in conditions between DJ/QF pilots.

If Ansett paid Virgin Blue wages the company would have still been unsustainable. Politics, poor management, poor parent company, recapitalisation ect ect.

But in a well managed QF the Ansett wages, in the most part, are sustainable. Although QF employee conditions are very publically under threat, because of the above mentioned disparity.

And if I were on a high horse I would be hinting at superiority. My slant obvious. The staff island publicity stunt offensive. Godfrey has lowered the bar on conditions, making as much money personally, as a demonised Geoff Dixon.


Elecktra

Some good and valid points. Can't help but think a lot of the validation due 89 and the concept that DJ an AFAP "Phoenix from the Ashes".

If DJ wasn't full of 89ers would your slant be that the 40% conditions disparity due the Scabs?

Better wages are sustainable at DJ.

If Perth was isolated due SARS or a couple of domestic aircraft were blown out of the sky by terrorists, job security would now mean nothing. Even with the low Virgin Blue wages.

Those are the scenarios that previously very strong airlines, who paid very strong wages, now face. Their present vulnerability has nothing to do with them not paying DJ wages!


Johnny utah

Couldn't agree more.

I can't stand the stereotyped QF long haul culture. I must add I have good friends in QF too.

But to see QF conditions come down due a poor DJ package, will not do me any good. International airlines monitor the QF package closely.


My Prediction.

Not a nice subject as judged by the personal responses.

A new wave of Australian pilots now abroad. To keep out of the dirt I will clarify and use the 150 or so former AN F/Os.

In 10 years time highly experienced and highly financial, like the 89ers before them, homeward bound they will come to a third airline,leisure airline or Australian basing for a foreign entity,who operates over the predicted open skies.

They will undercut DJ, with the same justification as the 89ers have used.

Sadly, in 10 years time DJ will probably finally have respectable conditions.

Or will DJ keep its wages down by using "Virgin Cadets" or more likely, take a leaf out of the Australian shipping industry book and use cheap Phillipino labour-in our part of the world that means New Zealanders. Not as unlikely as it seems, the New Zealand basing scenario.

In the above case another island for Godfrey(the Hauraki Gulf would be nice for a staff retreat) and another big bonus for 89ers in Virgin Blue pilot management.

[chockchucker]

Personally, I believe Ansett's wages were never the real problem. Especially as they made audited profits (refer Aministrators report to creditors) in the seven years prior to Air NZ gaining control of Ansett. Pity they couldn't keep it going longer than 18 months but, that's history.

As for VB, I'd just like to know when they are going to start making some serious inverstments in people, particularly in the area of say, heavy maintenance. Will they ever decide to actually train any maintenance staff? or will they leave that up to QF and just poach staff as they see fit. To get my vote, VB should start putting a little back into the people and long term future of the maintenance side of the industry. How about employing a few apprentices VB (albeit through Virgin Tech)?

And whilst you're at it, how about spending a little money on some spare parts of your own? (Funny how friendly Virgin can be to QF when they frequently need to borrow spares)

Then again, I guess you can't have multi-million dollar islands for the lucky few and spare parts for the aeroplanes as well now can we!


Flack jacket and helmut firmly attached.;)

[chockchucker]

Hmmm,

little response to my last question. Perhaps a little too difficult to answer? Surely, somebody in the know from virgin blue would like to elighten me with a sensible response.

[AN LAME]

... someone in the know from virgin blue would like to enlighten me with a sensible response.

There's your problem chuck... expecting a sensible response. Of course, they couldn't do that AND keep that perfect Virgin PR smile in place.:yuk:

Heard on the grapevine today that a couple of LAMEs have advised CASA of their grave concern over both the lack of licence coverage in Melbourne with Virgin Tech and the extreme heavy handedness of the local manager...with the Virgin smile on his face I presume! :hmm:

I hope they still have their employment after daring to
suggest that all is not roses on LaLa (is)land. Well done fellas.

[Capn Laptop]

Here is a question for you Chockchucker and failedairlinelame

Did Ansett and TAA and QF have apprentice programs in the first 2-3 years of operation?

Did AN and TAA ever trade spares?

I think you will find that QF doesn't LEND DJ anything - they RENT them at what can be described as an exorbitant rate.

Apprentice training will come when the type training of experienced LAME's finishes - they are spending a ****load on training engineers on the NG - probbly not at a rate fast enough to keep everyone happy, but at least they are training people.

With regards your comments failedairlinelame CASA have NO regulatory authority over the "heavy handedness" of the Virgin Tech management - if the LAME's you mentioned are too gutless to take the management on about a real (not perceived) problem then that is tough.

With regards the lack of licence coverage I have no idea, but again I expect that CASA has no ability to force manning levels upon a company AS LONG AS THE REQUIRED WORK IS UNDERTAKEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

IF that is NOT the case then the licenced engineers need to not sign for aeroplanes that they have not worked on - grounding aircraft soon focuses peoples attention.

[AN LAME]

You're not from uppercumbucktawest Capn... you're from fairy land. And I suppose Tech crew don't carry defects around either.

[chockchucker]

Captain,

to answer your first question, I have no idea about TAA but I do know that Ansett (R.M.) did infact employ and train people in the maintenance side of things within three years of startup. One of them served at Ansett for over 50 years, retiring as head of the engineering division in 1990.

Then again, R.M. Ansett probably didn't get into the industry to make a quick buck, and he certainly showed a lot more genuine interest in his employees than R.B. (my opinion).

As to your second question, yes, AN and TAA/QF did freqently borrow spares from one another (for a fee). They also used to pool spares on aircraft operated by both carriers i.e. 727, 737 etc. to actually cut down on costs. Point is that they both contributed to the pool of spares. I don't see QF seeking out VB for 737NG spares very much, but there sure is plenty of VB engineers coming to see QF. Like I say, I'm sure it's O.K. to spend millions in PR friendly items like islands but, in the area of spares (and apprentices), VB is sadly lacking.

As for LAME's not willing to take on management at VB or virgin tech/jetcare,

a) most of them are too busy to even scratch themselves because VB doesn't employ enough LAME's now.

b) those that did raise some concerns whilst at jetcare, curiously missed the cut when it came time to re-apply for virgin tech. (In MEL at least)

c)Others have had a gut full of the "run on the smell of an oily rag" attitute of VB with regard to maintenance and are preparing to leave the industry (some have already).

As for "grounding aircraft soon focusing attention". Yeah, that catches people attention alright. Problem is that it also does serious damage to the people paying your wage. It isn't the burning desire of LAME's to ground aircraft and inconvienience the public at large if we can avoid it. We'd just like the time, tooling, spares and support from company execs to do our job properly if you please. Not to be continually be put under the pump to bend the rules or not have your contract renewed.

Thing is, with the right attitude, VB could do tremendous things to help develop and protect the long term future of the maintenance side of the aviation industry in this country.Employing and investing in the young people of this country (i.e. people leaving school and looking for apprenticeships) and providing them with some terrific technical skills would be just the ticket. Currently, the only employer doing this on a large scale is QF (G.A. industry also does a good job) and as long as they continue to do so they shall continue to recieve my support (and carriage). Step up VB, you can't be a start-up forever. The Ball is in your court.

However, I fear that that doesn't fit in with Branson's "extract everything out of it you can and put back as little as possible" Modus Operendi.

Maybe that could change? Probably not in the near future though.

[topend3]

HI GNADBERGER,

ok so it seems i may have offended you with my comments, please don't take it so personally, and let's not get into the ansett-airnz argument again, people who are balanced and can see both sides know that there was fault on both sides here.

but that's all in the past now, so you do need to move on.

Sadly your country may experience the social tragedy the collapse of a large airline brings, within say five years.

i spend a good deal of time in my work analysing events in the industry and looking at airnz's recent performances and the fact that qf will most likely end up with a stake in them i would be surprised if airnz is not around in 5 years time.

anyway, hope you cheer up.

[Gnadenburg]

Topend3

A good tropical morning to you.

Although I didn't deliver pizza to survive, on behalf of the thousands of exAnsett who temporarily went to admirable lengths to support themselves and family, I accept your apology.

The New Zealand Bondi option beyond many

And your an Airline Industry Analyst too!

Time to move on? Professionally, always, but no need to suffer wannabe fools.

Hope the Island worth the conditions.

[betedete]

Gnadenburg,

I didn't see Topend apologise to you. Or are you reading something into it that everyone else isn't?

And who are you to accept any sort of apology on behalf of anyone except yourself? Me thinks you have an inflated opinion of yourself. :{

[Buster Hyman]

I think anyone who worked for TN/AN prior to the mid eighties would've known about the spares pool (worked well enough in MEL)

[Gnadenburg]

Betedete

Another incensed Virgin Pilot taking wage discussion a little personally?

Admirable CRM to leap to the defence of your Pitcrew re Topend3.

Aren't you ex KD CRJ?

Thought you may understand the offence taken at Pitcrew's comments, being retrenched and all that.

Unless , of course, you had the smooth transition of a KD AFAP Rep into Virgin Blue!

Enjoy your Island too.

[one ball]

Won't someone please take Gnadburger aside and teach him some semblance of grammar and syntax? Mate I have to tell you that the stilted news-reporter-style speech patterns are irritating in the extreme. Is it laziness or are you establishing your "style"?

Sorry, I know this is off-topic but I couldn't help it.






-------------------------------------------------------------------
in the land of the gelding the one-balled man is king

[Gnadenburg]

one ball

In a word. Laziness!

But thanks for the support. A topic close to home I thought.

If you spent as much time in management offices at EK, as you did at Ansett, you would be aware of the number of VB pilots on file. So many drop the wage bar at home and then move abroad for better pay. On top of this, surveys of pilot conditions, conducted by the likes of emirates, now focusing on a Vigin Blue benchmark.

Have hung on like a cattle dog here but didn't expect the boot from behind.

PM me. Always in the neighbourhood for beer. Teach me the keyboard and I will pass on a few handy phrases in Russian.

[betedete]

Gnadenburg

Thanks for your reply, but off the mark just a bit. Hope this clarifies it.

1st line No

2nd Thanks

3rd Yes

4th Can you clarify on what his comments were that
incensed you. I can't find them. Was it on this thread
or another?

5th No

6th Thanks

Have a good day :D

[one ball]

Oh.....Laziness. Why didn't you say so??? ;)

:cool:

[topend3]

betedete -

this is what incensed gnadenburg.

a lot depends on how grateful you are to be employed. former ansett employees may be bitter as they were paid unsustainable salaries , was good while it lasted, but in the end it hurt the bottom line and the rest is history.

not apologising, just making peace....

you find that with gnadenburg, every thread turns into a bitter and twisted ansett drivel session, and you can't win.

seems some people can't move on...

[EPIRB]

Topend3, why haven't you answered the question that I posed to you a couple of weeks ago? Why do you think that the unsustainability of Ansett wages caused their downfall? Particuarly seeing that Ansett was making a profit before Air NZ got their grubby little mitts on to the place. No. Ansett fell over purely through bad management. No CEO for months on end, sack all of the Australians with their years of knowledge and contacts and replace them with New Zealanders without any of the required knowledge or contacts. With a management style like that, is it any wonder they fell over? If their wages were unsustainable, why do Qantas pay comparably?

[The Enema Bandit]

I am getting the impression from topend3's posts that topend3 may have missed out on both Ansett and Qantas and is showing a little bit of jealously.

[topend3]

EPIRB-

I agree with what you are saying, bad mangement did cause the demise of Ansett, but to suggest that this is the ONLY factor involved i would have to disagree there.

Bad management
High wages
Too many aircraft types
too many staff
inefficient work practises

all of these contributed in some way or other to the collapse.
as for qf's wages at the moment, i can't comment as I am not sure as to whether they have come down since ansett's collapse or not.

ENEMA BANDIT-

fair point, it may seem that way, in fact i have never applied for employment at qf, but certainly would do if the right position came up, and would be reasonably confident of my chances of employment there...

[Australia2]

I dont know about others; the thought of sitting next to Topend3 for 16 hours at a time just fills me with joy, I can tell you !!

[Snowballs]

It still astounds me that people try and blame AirNZ, politicians or some other simplistic theory, for the demise of Ansett while totally ignoring reality or fact. Ansett was in an advanced stage of rigor mortis long before the ill-fated and ill advised takeover by AirNZ or SIA and anyone else for that matter.
Ansett, like the dinosaur was doomed because of high cost base, bloated infrastructure, lack of financial accountability and poor internal management and work practices which had evolved over many years.
The profitable years were a result of an unsustainable fare structure, creative accounting and management practices, like deferring or not doing, where possible, maintenance and much needed investment.
It is well publicized if people choose to take a dispassionate view, Ansett had significant issues and big problems with management and reporting from subsidiaries and various divisions within the company. What senior management were being told did not reflect the deplorable financial position at the time.
Within Ansett there was an incredible lack of financial accountability and lack of direction or vision.
Ansett spent, and wasted around $50 million on customer relationship software package which even the likes of United Airlines could not afford when off the shelf packages were available for around $5-10m
Around $80million was spent on a SAP engineering software package which was never implemented !
$13 million on a indirect procurement solution which was not implemented.
The list goes on and on ………….
Ansett was terminal, being torn apart by an internal cancer from ingrained work and management practices and high cost structure. AirNZ were just naive and hastened the demise.
All it needed was competition from the likes of VB or any other lower cost carrier to push it over the edge.
If it could have been saved it would have been, but like the dinosaur it was unable to change and beyond help.
:yuk:

[Lurk R]

Apologies for long post but this was cut and pasted from some business magazine at the time -before the whole Ansett II had been scuttled:


Part 1


The Ansett/Air New Zealand saga is not over yet, and in reality probably won’t be for some time. With the creditors meeting of the 29th January having passed without much outcome anything could still come out of left field. And why not? The whole business has been a volley of curve balls. With the Administrators now starting the spin doctoring and another 1000 jobs out of the picture both Andersens (reeling from Enron and HIH) and the ACTU may not survive too well if this falls over. And Chris Corrigan is still in play through Lang and Virgin.
Read the history of the airline and you begin to realise just how much of a loss its collapse has been. Since 1936 Ansett’s operation had been notable for its drive, determination and innovation. It was knocked about in the early days by then Victorian Attorney General Robert Menzies, with his introduction of the Transport Regulations Act (designed to stop road carriers competing with the railways – Reg Ansett’s first business). But after taking to the air it went on to benefit from the two airline policy for many years, so it wasn’t all hard knocks. Still, regardless of how you view it, the approach by Ansett to things as diverse as in flight service and computerisation was often marked by a singular determination to succeed with something new.
What happened in the last few years of Sir Reginald’s stewardship was not a new thing however. That was to lose focus. In 1976, after having built up a conglomerate of interlinked businesses he purchased Associated Securities. Its collapse two years later placed enormous financial stress on Ansett and gave opportunity for Robert Holmes a Court’s Bell Group, Ampol, TNT and News Corp to fight it out for control. 1979 saw TNT and News Corp emerge as victors with a 50% stake each. Sir Reginald moved to the position of Chairman and Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch became joint Managing Directors.
Rupert was keen to extract media holdings, including television operations, out of Ansett. Which he did. Peter apparently just wanted to run an airline. Which he didn’t. Poor fleet purchase decisions were compounded by no route yield management, inadequate internal reporting systems and poor board level management. Coupled with entrenched union demands and work practices which were not sustainable the whole thing was headed for disaster. And of course the owners were going to milk it for cash in the meantime. Failure to reinvest or recapitalise ultimately put the skids under the whole thing.
The savior in many respects, for both TNT and News Corp, was the deregulation of the Trans Tasman market and the perceived necessity by Air New Zealand to buy into Ansett (lest it be marginalised as a small regional carrier which, ironically, it now is). In 1996 Air New Zealand purchased TNT’s share of Ansett. News Corp was still holding a half share but clearly made a decision that its own focus on media was more important in the long run. And in reality the airline sector was just too risky given circumstances.
Enter Rod Eddington. It’s not clear what his exact brief must have been but perhaps it was along the lines of “Here you go Rod. You’ve got a chance to turn it around – make it a great airline and a great business. And if you don’t think that can be done, get it ready so we can flog it off”.
And he did. Taking over in 1997 there were numerous restructurings, reviews and positionings. But at some stage the option to sell became the driver and, by divesting remaining non-core assets, he drove a profit in 1999 of $140.8 million. Clearly it looked good to Air New Zealand and, in February of 2000, it announced it would purchase News Corp’s half share. Eddington departed Ansett in April of 2000 to take up a position at the helm of British Airways (…itself now in trouble, currently worth a half billion less than it was last year and more recent losses announced. Seems to be a pattern with Rod – Cathay, Ansett, BA. The joke now is how do you develop a great small airline? Give a big one to Rod Eddington). Air New Zealand moved in and Gary Toomey took up the reins, officially, in December of 2000.
It was not to be a happy time. In retrospect it is clear the Air New Zealand Board did not undertake competent due diligence in its purchase of the balance of the airline. Or perhaps they were just compounding an incompetent review when they invested in 1996. Either way, given that it was a shareholder since 1996 it just means that every board member of Air New Zealand were out and out incompetents. That applies to the SIA (Singapore Airlines) people as well. They certainly run a great airline in SIA but their investments in Ansett, Air New Zealand and Virgin Atlantic have been disastrous.
You’d have to ask about old Charlie Goode as well, or Sir Charles Goode as he likes to be known. Chairman of ANZ Bank, well known Liberal Party supporter and recipient of a very nice departing directors payout, he was one of many on the board responsible for the collapse of Ansett and the massive write down in Air New Zealand’s value. Certainly since the collapse precious little has been heard from Goode, Cushing, Farmer or other former board members.
At the time of the collapse all sorts of rumours flew around. Air New Zealand had purchased fuel on Ansett’s account internationally; simulators, parts and engines had been repatriated days prior to the collapse; management had exited Australia hurriedly and so on and so forth. But no evidence has yet come to light suggesting this to be the case. It appears that, in reality, Air New Zealand’s board and executive group simply engaged in what was appallingly bad management – making a series of incredibly bad decisions. (Interestingly this does not include Toomey, who was stifled in almost all respects. More of that later).
They were certainly unable to integrate the full operation. This extended to logistical management, in terms of support structures throughout the organisation, which were inappropriate. Admittedly they inherited an airline which had been badly run under News and TNT. Those two organisations lacked the ability, or desire, to reinvest adequately in the business - or to put the right people in the right places. But Air NZ compounded this. They wasted huge amounts of money through inappropriate resource placement. Though in this they were not helped by lack of strong feedback from key people in Australia - always happy to bitch about the problems to anyone prepared to listen - but never in possession of enough moxie (Ed - it's a word. First I'd heard of it but the dictionary says 'courage'. Will be a useful one for Scrabble) to front the Air NZ board and actually say it how it was. C’est la vie.
Big companies go under every day. Witness Enron and HIH. So when they do it makes a splash. But where you might have looked for something odd going on a la Skase, Pyramid, or Enron - in this case (Ansett) it was just out and out bad management. Which must make ANZ Bank shareholders nervous.
The ASIC investigation, and action by the administrators, may eventually uncover something not quite right. But even if they do, the payment on behalf of Air New Zealand by the NZ government has resulted in a release of claim against those directors by the administrators. And with jurisdictional issues and pragmatic governments on both sides of the Tasman it is unlikely any further action will be taken. (At the time it was felt that, even though the investigation was not complete and Mark Mentha felt uneasy about signing such a release, the ability to secure $150 million was a case of "one in the hand is better than..." This also enabled Ansett Kick Start to operate – supposedly helping to retain value in the assets).
No, the collapse will make for interesting business school case studies - and no doubt someone, somewhere, will try and craft a cheap PhD out of it – or worse, make a living in some third rate business school by writing a book on it - but it is everything else which has gone on before, during and after that is really interesting.
The issue of recapitalisation was not just one for News Corp and TNT when they were about the place. It rapidly became an issue for Air NZ as well. There were two attempts to secure funds, in both instances from SIA. But the first was problematic for major shareholder Brierley Investments. At the time Air NZ shares were trading around $1 but the carrying value of their holding was around the $2 mark. Obviously selling to SIA at that stage would have resulted in a loss. Investment by recapitalisation would have seen restructuring and a likely increase in share value. Hence the refusal to allow SIA to get the sale.
Round 2 sees Gary Toomey fly to Singapore and get a signed MOU from SIA enabling investment of $1 billion. And unofficial Foreign Investment Review Board approval had been given for the Ansett purchase. The bureaucrats in NZ were also giving the deal the nod. But it turns out that political imperative prevails in New Zealand as it does everywhere else.
Jim Anderton, Deputy Prime Minister, put his foot down on his desire to see anything and everything renationalised. Rail and banking had been, so now it was time for the aviation sector. Failure of Helen Clark to approve the move would have meant the end of the cosy coalition. So at the expense of close on $1 billion, market uncertainty about New Zealand as a place in which to invest and a direct loss of 17,000 Ansett jobs (and some at Air NZ) Clark and Anderton denied opportunity for SIA to increase its holding and effectively scuttled any real chance of recapitalisation.
Bad management had put Air NZ and Ansett in the proverbial. But it was political dogma that prevailed to hang 17,000 Australian workers out and charge the rest to the New Zealand taxpayer.
It is worth repeating. Bad (senior) management led to a very serious situation. However, politically expedient decision making prevented private capital being used to reposition a company with a consequent cost of $1 billion to the NZ taxpayer and 17,000 direct jobs in Ansett.

Part 2:

Of course Howard, Anderson and Dixon didn’t help. Despite Howard and Anderson being well aware of the problems facing Ansett and the steps required to provide a solution, they buckled to the lobbying of Qantas chief Geoff Dixon in seeking to prevent a threat to his airline. To be fair, Ansett was a foreign owned subsidiary operating in a competitive market. But the lack of spine from Howard and Anderson ran contrary to their stated concerns of employment for Ansett workers.
That being the case there is now no rationale either could offer to allow Mitsubishi, for example, to be subsidised again. SA state election or not. Mitsubishi management suggest they have a “business plan” - but so did Ansett. So, for that matter, did Air NZ under Toomey. No, the rationalisation for support of Mitsubishi went out the window with Ansett. That will make for an interesting decision when it comes.
With Ansett, neither Howard nor Anderson, nor any of their advisers, actually did the analysis to see where it may become problematic. What they needed to do was not put money into Ansett but to lobby. They were right that it was a company operating in a competitive market. But not to lobby the NZ government in the most vigorous way possible was inexcusable. They were happy to subsidise Qantas by omission.
For some while it had been a matter of conjecture about who would fold first, Ansett or Qantas. Ansett had its share of trouble but so did Qantas. A bloated operation, it had never really operated a very profitable domestic service since being given Australian (formerly TAA) and being absolved of a $700 million debt. The foreign routes were competitive and profitable, so they could continue to cross subsidise domestic operations, but with the advent of Compass I and II, Impulse, Virgin and the possibility of a revamped Ansett the threat was clear. And, again, the cost of operation inherent in a full service air line, together with the massive advertising budget, salaries and entrenched union positions on conditions and practices meant they were struggling. It was luck that kicked in. Had Ansett not gone under on September 14th and the terrorist attacks had still happened, Qantas would have found things very tight indeed. But they were saved from the massive overseas downturn by Ansett's failure and the subsequent ability to price gouge anyone forced to fly with them. Still, you can’t blame Dixon for doing what he did. He was trying to secure his outfit and fair enough.
His approach was mediated by old Max the Axe, Max Moore-Wilton, the head of the Prime Minister's department. And Max just loves Qantas. In flipping Howard over we ended up seeing messenger boy Anderson sign off on New Zealand’s reluctance to allow SIA in. Not known for his intellectual gifts “messenger boy” is really the appropriate role for him. And of course he was not going to stand up to Max or the PM. Especially Max. Anderson was, and continues to be, in the way. It is frightening to think of him having anything to do with aviation policy. And Max is welcome on the flying kangaroo anytime.
And Gary Toomey? Sure he wanted to be a CEO but the Qantas board chose Dixon over him. He was already leaving the flying kangaroo when Farmer, Cushing and others approached to see if he wanted to run things. His assessment was that things were rough – badly so. But recoverable nonetheless if recapitalisation became available. SIA were the logical choice and he secured that.
But surely ego took over. He must have been confident that he could roll the dice and succeed, even if he had no control over the NZ political agenda. Which of course he didn’t. But he gave it a go at a time when the Clark government was feeling especially sensitive and xenophobic (even racist). No, it was a good shot but fell short of the mark.
In reality Toomey and his team did achieve the targets set by the board when he was brought in. Hence he, and others, (including new Tesna/Ansett Mk II CFO Adam Moroney) earned their bonuses. He did identify huge savings to be made in work practices, had negotiated with unions and drove Ansett into profitability in the three months prior to the collapse. Looking to re-launch in March of 2002 he would have succeeded had he not been stymied by Clark, Anderton and Cullen. He is a convenient scapegoat - and arguably did not handle the crisis well by retreating to New Zealand. Had he come out in public and explained the situation to the media he would have been cleared in no time flat. But he made a rod for his own back in staying quiet. And despite claims that he misled staff and customers that was not the case. Sure, Air NZ had a billion dollars in the bank, but ratios on the borrowing covenants would have been breached if they had drawn down any more of that line of finance. The banks would have foreclosed on them (including Charlie Goode’s ANZ). The critical element for Toomey was the investment of $1 billion by SIA and that was set to go. And blocked. The union boys at Tullamarine probably did the right thing when Clark was held up. They had the right target but probably for reasons they were not aware of.
The other option for Toomey had been the purchase of Virgin Blue. At one time struggling, it would have provided an immediate boost of market share from 41% to 48% - with a payback in something around a year. It would have been difficult for Qantas to counter that. But Virgin recovered before Toomey could get that through and have been sitting well ever since. Now with 12% of the market (vs. Ansett’s current 6% and Qantas with 82%) they are going from strength to strength. They are running profitably at around 7.5 cents per passenger kilometer and calling on 100 staff per aircraft operational. Qantas are running at about 18 c per passenger kilometer with 180 staff per aircraft operational. No wonder Dixon is pushing to get the unions to agree to work practice changes. And he will continue to do so. The unions are on the back foot in this whole affair but they won’t say that publicly.
No, it was a sad state of affairs that led to Ansett’s demise. And what an interesting set of events followed it. With the World Trade Centre attacks making what would have been Australia’s most prominent corporate collapse a side show, that first weekend was an interesting one.
Price Waterhouse Coopers had been called in to administer the company. That was on Wednesday. By Monday they had resigned. Supposedly on the pretext that they had a conflict of interest in advising the Air New Zealand Board. But of course they had advised them. They were called in to provide advice on how a foreign subsidiary in a foreign jurisdiction under a foreign corporations act should be handled in administration. It’s like talking with the plumber about a problem and then getting him to fix it. They advised and were given the task.
The Corporations Act is an interesting one. A lot of it does not deal with a company in administration but the bit that does says basically that a company has three options. It can be sold as is (liquidated), the administrators can be removed by creditors or the whole thing can continue to trade in an attempt to move out of strife. And the Act also requires that once an administrator is appointed they need to do a few things very clearly. Make an assessment, make recommendations, ensure that a meeting of creditors is called on day 5 after their appointment, operate independently and maintain their absolute priority - which is to ensure creditors interests are placed first and foremost.
Which, from all reports is exactly what PwC did. In fact a buyer was in Australia over that weekend and willing, subject to a few provisos, to purchase Ansett and operate with a staffing level of 10,000. A point worth repeating. A buyer was is Australia that weekend talking with PwC and willing to purchase, likely before December 1st, and restructure at a staff level of about 10,000. That option was scuttled when other interests came to the fore (see below).
But the Act is really written for small companies. It’s easy if Fred’s Engineering goes through the hoop. The fifteen or twenty local creditors, 8 staff and the administrator can sit around the lunch table and thrash it out. And they can do that, physically, on day 5 and on the subsequent meeting required approximately 3 weeks later. It’s a bit difficult to do that with 17,000 staff dispersed over a country the size of Australia, with no or little communication, several hundred major creditors (secured and unsecured), 3 million smaller creditors and assets which are a mixture of fixed, leased and other.
Ansett’s demise has revealed a series of major flaws in the way the Corporations Act operates, or doesn’t, in the event that a large organisation falls over. It certainly does not deal with one that is a major entity, a foreign owned subsidiary with a geographic distribution of staff, operations and assets. Hence the regular appearances before the Federal Court where Justice Goldberg has been presiding.
He’s been presented with a number of difficult situations which have required pragmatic and timely decisions. Some of which have been understandable and, at the time, reasonable given information to hand. But in some instances, although the Corporations Act is loose and open to wide interpretation, many have seen the decisions as being law made on the run and to the detriment (read sense of fairness and natural justice) of many small creditors. Most notably in regards the fairness and representation of all employee interests.
(The union has conveniently forgotten middle management staff, many of whom have been with the company for 10, 20 or 30 years – sometimes more, have been members of the union for as long, had nothing to do with Air NZ decisions and in many cases were opposed to them. It seems the old perception of class war still exists in some quarters. If that’s the case why do they accept management staff membership dues? Could it be that the union business is just that, a business (a bit like the health funds – “not for profit” but we’ll take big packages all the same if you don’t mind)).
PwC were faced with an enormous task, a massive investigation over several jurisdictions and a pressing necessity to attempt a salvage and get things running as quickly as possible before people just bailed. Perhaps they may have been able to do that within the period of some 8 – 12 weeks – huge task that it was. Perhaps not. We won’t find out.
Unbeknownst to many the game of company administration is a competitive one. When it comes to Fred’s Engineering it will often be the case that a set of small company receivers will lobby and compete for the business. By approaching each creditor and arguing how they might get the best return for them they set up the chance on day 5 of being appointed in place of the administrator already there. But at the big end of town that is not how it is played. Or was until Ansett happened. Up until that time there was a gentleman’s agreement that basically saw each of the Big 5 back off once an administrator was appointed. Not in this case.

Part 3:

Enter Solly, his lawyer mate and the ACTU
Enter Arnold Bloch Liebler, the Melbourne law firm. Mark Liebler is a close buddy of Solomon Lew’s and, with little Bill Kelty on Lindsay’s payroll, you could always suppose that Mark calls his mates and says "have we got an opportunity for you!" But that might be a bit uncharitable. Anyway, the scenario goes something like this...
The ACTU eventually wake up to the fact that their position of influence in the aviation sector is under severe threat. Even more so if all positions at Ansett are put on contract. (What the buyer at 10,000 staff wanted to do). That would open the way for Qantas to do the same and it would be goodbye hold on the aviation sector. What do they do? Well, they needed a friendly administrator and ABL just happened to recommend Andersens.
You can imagine the call from Leon Zwier at ABL to Greg Combet at ACTU headquarters. The concern would have been noticeable. Although in this instance it appears that the concern would have been for that of the position of the union hierarchy, not for any of the members. (From all accounts it took a fair number of explanations to get those bright sparks at ACTU headquarters to realise their own predicament). The pretext is developed of conflict of interest and the call is put through to Peter Hedge at PwC from Combet that, sorry Peter, you’re doing a great job but we can’t co-operate with you anymore. So of course he has no choice but to resign and does so in tears of frustration. It wasn’t just the fees that he was losing it was the opportunity of having a significant number of Ansett staff back at work very quickly. Albeit all on contract.
That concept being too much for the ACTU the spill was completed with a visit to the Federal Court and Justice Goldberg. Who proceeded to allow Andersens onboard provided approval was given at the day 5 creditors meeting the next morning. Interestingly, he also gave approval for the ACTU to represent, by proxy, all members in the Ansett staff, despite no authorisation being given to the ACTU by individual staff. The rationale was that, because of physical limits and the rapidity of events, in order to comply with the day 5 creditors requirement of the Corporations Act, basic rights and representation (informed or otherwise) would have to be discarded. And Goldberg also figured that because the Unions had represented most Ansett staff in previous pay negotiations they automatically had a right to be the proxy voice for all in this instance. How democratic.
Should Goldberg have delayed the creditors meeting?
Sure, it was a difficult set of circumstances that were operating, but Goldberg seems to have placed all importance on the actual timing of the day 5 creditors meeting. No thought, apparently, to the notion of simply suspending the day 5 meeting for a month or so in order to secure appropriate, democratic and informed representation at the creditors meeting on behalf of all creditors. (Interestingly Goldberg has had no problem delaying the second creditors meeting. Why he figures the first to be writ in stone and the second not is anyone’s guess? It was pragmatism through and through, and although there were difficult circumstances applying, the results and decisions from the court are, in many ways, deeply disturbing. But with the usual apathy applying in Australia no bastard will challenge the decision. (You could just imaging little Johnny Howard saying something like “it’s un-Australian” if that happened).
To date not all proxy forms have been gathered. That appears to have just been glossed over, like so many issues in this whole business. Yes, it’s amazing just how pragmatic the courts can be when it suits them. Due process appears to be having more and more lip service paid to it.
Andersens and ABL appointed as buyer flys the coop
Following the appointment Andersens, the administrators appointed, guess who, ABL, as legal advisors. So it was jobs for the boys, a bit or work well chased down and won and we get to packet some nice fees. But that’s the competitive marketplace. After the Federal court appointment of Andersen’s the “mystery” buyers flew out of Australia, commenting as they departed that “it had all become too political now”. If you’ve been unemployed since you may want to consider what may have been.
Nevertheless, regardless of how they came on board, Andersens in their own right have been undertaking a huge job. It’s not just an accounting exercise but one of massive logistics, negotiation, retaining market confidence, risk management, politics, trouble shooting and wheeling and dealing. If creditors come out of this with anything it might be thanks to the team under Korda and Mentha. We’ll see. Or perhaps it will be in spite of them. But whether Andersens will be around themselves after Enron is anyone’s guess. Maybe PwC will do the liquidation.
The Marks should never have started flying again
In hindsight it would have been better for the Administrators to simply have grounded the whole thing and applied all their resources to driving the sale forward. Nobody now believes that any real value has been retained in Ansett by its continued flying operations. With all staff to the pumps and not having to worry about day to day operations the sale could have been completed by the end of December - with a new years launch. That may not happen at all now, at least with Fox and Lew, although they haven’t given up yet. But Sydney Airport is still proving to be a big sticking point. In fact many of the airports are a sticking point. Clearly the administrators and Fox/Lew assumed the airports would just roll over and wag their tails. Interestingly they forgot completely (or just didn’t care) about competition or advantage for the consumer. No, old Lindsay and Solly were quite happy to stick as little of their own money into the venture in an effort to stick it to the consumer. So maybe the various airports will be seen as champions of the consumer. Not through any real concern for the flying public but simply by virtue of circumstances coinciding.
The real problem at the moment is that Mentha and Korda are losing over $5 million a week in operating costs (they can’t stop because of forward bookings taken). Money out of the $150 million from NZ that could have been used to pay out entitlements and creditors. To date about $90 million has been chewed up in operating losses. Add to that another $45 million or so in fees and Ansett has a couple of weeks to go. Just enough time to secure the paperwork! Maybe.
The previous notion (in hindsight) of grounding, and an earlier sale consequently, is looking like it was the better strategy. Interestingly the one put forward by PwC. This is not to champion PwC (given any of the “big 5” are on the nose anyway) just that Hedge’s proposals now seem sound (contrary to Mentha’s comments who, in meetings with staff at the airports late last year, was all very scathing about the notion of grounding. And who, interestingly, stated categorically that Sydney Terminal would be retained for at least 12 months for separate sale to a buyer later in 2002, preferentially Singapore).
No mind, for the two Marks it was on with trying to secure the business and rights of the creditors. The ANstaff bid was doomed as soon as they headed overseas to seek funding. A great business plan from all accounts but no real backing. It was soon apparent that Fox/Lew were the go. Originally opening a data room for due diligence the current Lang Corp/Virgin bid is annoyed that (they say) they didn’t really get a fair chance to look things over. Whether that bid will go ahead now is still unsure but there were some put out people on that one. Of course Fox/Lew made it pretty clear that they did not want any counter bid reviewing the books, or they would walk, or sue the administrators, or both. Lang/Virgin were willing to take a legal approach too but this gave Andersens an out in that they could throw it before Justice Goldberg. Whichever way it went would be down to the court and not their fault. How ironic that Fox and Lew are now reportedly in London talking to Richard Branson as a last gasp saviour of their bid.
As it stands at the moment secured creditors (ie: employees, union and non-union (yes there are quite a few)) are likely to get all entitlements. Unsecured creditors are likely to get around 5 cents in the dollar. Still a sad state of affairs (for what might have been) given that Ansett, although badly run under previous senior management (ie: board and managing directors) managed to turn a profit on occasion. Had Toomey been able to complete his restructuring and launch in March this year it’s likely that it would have ended up a very healthy airline.

Part 4:

The Lang/Virgin bid is still on the table and active. Now, with Toll/Lang consolidating across the intermodal logistics structure this bid may be increased. Which would annoy Lindsay (and his budding entrepreneur son) and Solly who have spent about $40 million in costs to date. They may walk or they may up it again themselves. It will be interesting to see. So far the front cost to Chris Corrigan has been a single A4 sheet of paper containing his bid to Mentha and Korda. (Who from all accounts felt it was a little beneath them. Corrigan is probably holding the whip hand at the moment and able to put pressure on the administrators by upping bids and working the government controlled Sydney terminal element to his advantage).
The Fox/Lew sale currently puts in about $270 million cash and assumes about $244 million in transferred employee entitlements, although this figure has now fallen with only 3000 workers getting gigs with Tesna. What the entire sale will end up being valued at is open to debate at this time.
Unions have cost 7000 jobs so far
Of course the ACTU would not like to see a “Patricks” branded terminal at Sydney – or anywhere else - so the vested interest of the union hierarchy may well come right to the fore. White, Combet, Shorten and others of the ever shrinking union movement continue to manoeuvre. It is worth remembering that the ACTU has already cost 6000 jobs through self interest. And now a further 1000 have gone, something Greg Combet is hoping everyone will overlook. And still the whole thing may go to liquidation. In which case everyone ends up with about 5c in the dollar. Not a pretty state of affairs. The ASU has other reasons to be a little miffed (and indeed its members might rightly take to the leadership with an axe after this) in that the previous call centres have been right royally screwed – with the news coming in that a new call centre may be set up in Canberra! Linda White negotiated that well. And the ASU seemed so sure of itself when it told staff it had secured the best outcome at the aforementioned call centres. In the meantime Geoff Dixon continues to hammer the ACTU so Little Johnny must be rubbing his hands with glee.
With all the wheeling and dealing it is difficult to see how many motivated people (union and non-union) will remain on staff. Of course Tesna, and Lang, still need people.
Far too little information provided
Now an issue in its own right. The administrators, Tesna and KPMG have been guilty of providing too little by way of accurate information regarding employment. Start dates have been moved, cancelled or simply suspended. And the tone of many letters to staff has been intimidating at least (implied threats abound - see below).
The suggestion is that this whole thing is just a real estate deal anyway. The Financial Review’s Alan Kohler thinks this is not so but consider this. Holding companies, not just Queenscross, the first in a series of mechanisms to separate assets and lower risk profile, have been established. (That outfit is the one actually employing Ansett people). The scenario may be that, by hiving off terminal and other real estate into a separate holding company, the airline operation can be driven. If it makes a profit, great – that pays for our real estate say the boys. If it looks problematic, well, we just fold it up. The nice thing is that cash can be extracted (a la News Corp and Ansett) across to the property holding company.
The interesting aspect on the entitlements (transferred or not - and under award or contract - from Ansett) is that KPMG and Clayton Utz (now referred to in certain circles as Clayton Putz) have put together employment contracts for staff that have a very nice “out” clause and sufficient ambiguity and terminology references which are not defined (if you’d put a contract together like that in law school you‘d have been kicked out) that effectively remove entitlements liability. Yes, it seems as if Tesna is giving itself an option to fire staff in the event of a necessary downsize or fold, without the need to provide cause or entitlements. That’s a nice saving for them. Not terribly just, but then what has been in this affair? At least Lindsay and Solly will come out with some nice freehold real estate. They could call it the Yannon terminal.
James Hogan recreates the bureaucracy
But never mind. It may well all be just pissing in the wind. With the appointment of wunderkind James Hogan (who repeated year 12 in 1975 at Crikey's old school of Ivanhoe Grammar in Melbourne) the questions are starting in earnest. Ousted from British Midland following a request from the board to reduce costs and responding by increasing them dramatically (just what Tesna needs against a lean and mean Virgin Blue). He’s already paid himself and his friends a nice salary and, of greater concern, has brought back in all those organisational levels that were finally thrown out just a few short years ago. The airline industry cannot be that small that they continue to recruit people with no ability to learn from history or the experience of their own company. Well, perhaps it is.
Compounding this is his reported attitude of arrogance coupled with a predilection for employing a number of old faces that needed to leave some time ago and did. Don’t mistake them for the talent that left. These people have a track record of not contributing to Ansett. Everyone knows this except KPMG and Hogan it appears. His recruitment of individuals with dubious ability, except in the area of self promotion, raises serious question in regards any level of astuteness that he may have. One major problem is KPMG itself as recruitment adviser. They must have just dug up old files and decided, on the basis of who it knew in the bad old days, to recruit them. The team of 17 executives now surrounding Hogan has a few good people - but few is the operative word. This might sound as if it is just bitchiness but in reality it is an issue causing great concern amongst Ansett staff. The grape vine works quickly and it is affecting morale already – before the thing is flying. And it is not sour grapes. It appears staff are genuinely concerned that significant contributors to Ansett’s lack of competitiveness over the years have been recruited. Had KPMG any sense at all they would have done some serious question asking, quietly, of a range of people on a range of people. Too late now.
It’s not all over yet, not by a long shot. And we wish the new Ansett well. But a tough road it will be, with the likelihood that Qantas is going to pull a few tricks out of the hat. With frequent flyers and golden wing members to be shafted the big Q is probably going to offer a deal on points outstanding and, voila!, goodbye loyalty. Fox and Lew are wrestling with that one now. Diners Club already have and are losing ground fast. Despite the full page advertisements suggesting how caring they are, their membership base is collapsing around them as people move to Visa. Diners is too expensive for most merchants in Australia (and abroad) and no longer has any points advantage.
Virgin still runs rings around both Qantas and Tesna in terms of staff motivation, efficiency and economics. They are not full service but they have a good niche and 20% of market share is not an unreasonable target. Chief front man David Huttner figures 12 months tops for Tesna – more likely 6 months. With the arrival of new jets for Q, Australian kicking off later and possible capital injection through a float or joint venture for Virgin, Tesna will have to move quickly.
Goodbye to union feather-bedding
In the meantime the ACTU is likely to get a bagging at the hands of Geoff Dixon, so perhaps the stranglehold they have had on aviation for so long will end. And not before time. For years the travelling public has subsidised these guys with exorbitant ticket process just so they can unload the plane in an hour and break the china. Or kick in with a refuellers strike just to annoy you. It will be nice to see that behaviour out of it. Sharan Burrows had been noticeably distant from Combet over this issue and he has backed off with alacrity as well. Too late.
With a bit of luck Ansett Mk II will get there. They’ve re-signed the AFL and there is still huge goodwill towards them. The best thing about Ansett is the people – and they really do make it a great outfit. Hopefully it will survive to fly again. We’ll see after the 30 days. At which time the potential for legal action against the administrators and members of the creditors committee will become clearer. Either way there is now a chance we all might be departing from the Patrick Terminal rather than the Yannon Terminal soon. But don't discount Fox/Lew or their investors/partners. Regardless, Greg Combet is not looking as secure as he once was and this can only contribute to an acceleration of the decline of the ACTU as the truth behind their involvement in the Ansett administration comes out.

[Gnadenburg]

Topend 3

Your lack of credibility is now displaced by your cowardice! Not unlike the land from which you came-New Zealand.

To paste a recent argument about wages to rally support because of its insignificance, cowardly.

On wages I have always said that AN would still have gone broke if it paid VB wages. Eddington put that fact plainly to AirNZ-even with 100% load factors AirNZ/AN would go broke due their inability to recapitalise.

To refresh your memory we go back to a thread on "AN Pilots, Where Are They Now". There was a character called topend purporting to be an exAN pilot delivering pizza to make ends meet. Didn't sound like an 89er so was interested in who could take such great, but un-Australian, pleasure in kicking people whilst down.

A little prodding and discover topend to be a VB employee and a New Zealander. EB prodded again and we discover an AN knockback(big deal).

So we have a VB employee, New Zealander, AN knockback(big deal) kicking exAN employees whilst down in a very difficult post Sept 11 period. No apology so his profile undisputed.

There is my beef and as a final to topend, in this illustrious industry you will fall over a few times. Sinking the boots in an indication you haven't been humbled yet.

On the Island.

The Ansett Staff Island was called Hamilton Island. Beautiful. I think it is reasonable to suggest the VB staff Island a further decline in conditions.

EB.

Your handle does little for your anonymity. I here you are well. When you are next doing your walkaround in Darwin, give a loud mouthed Kiwi a clip over the ears.

Years ago ground handling in Darwin the domain of the Nightcliff Footy Club-whose famous sons include N Buckley, A McCleod and Mick McClean-now pervaded by Kiwis?

Woomera

Have kept on topic for the most part but will wander back to my kennel.

[Kaptin M]

"The Ansett Staff Island was called Hamilton Island." - I don't think so Gardenbug, Hamilton was owned by Keith Williams.

Ansett used to own Hayman....or was it Lindeman?

"I think it is reasonable to suggest the VB staff Island a further decline in conditions."???? It's a NEW acquisition - who knows what might be next?....Hamilton Island??

As a neutral observer, Gardenbug, I detect a frequent note of envy in your posts, wrt DJ.
Just an observation. ;)

[Gnadenburg]

Kapt M

Figuratively speaking of course Kapt M. Free airfare to Hamilton Island then the discounted facilities. Was great.

Not envious just giving as good as I got.

I couldn't afford to work for VB either, just like you?

White Knights of 89 have gone quiet on VB of late. Realising the employment Frankenstein the AFAP helped create?

Back into my kennel and I don't think I will return in case of a mauling!

[one ball]

Quote:

"As a neutral observer, Gardenbug, I detect a frequent note of envy in your posts, wrt DJ.
Just an observation."

Isn't the above a contradiction in terms? Neutral yet having a dig at the same time? Just wondering.

Check your PMs.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
getting tired of one ball slapping.....

[topend3]

all this tripe about me having a kick at ex an employees while they are down...what a pile of drivel!!!!

i have never shown any disdain toward anyone because they
WORKED FOR ANSETT !!!

I have nothing against anyone because of who they worked for, you sir Gnadenburg are the poor person with all the bitterness about your previous employer and can't handle the fact that DJ is doing so well!!!

As for me being a kiwi, yes i was born and grew up there, and this fact obviously incenses you even more as you obviously feel we are all personally responsible for the collapse of YOUR airline.