Ansett Royal Commission

[Ralph the Bong]

Like many other ex-Ansettt staff, I would like to see a Royal Commission into the Ansett collapse. I would like to know how one would go about instigating such an iquiry. Any ppruners who have knowledge about such a process are cordially invited to post or priv. mess, me. I feel that such an inquiry should address such issues as 1) What influence did the Australian Govt. have on the NZ govt. on prohibiting the further (bailout) investment of Air NZ by SQ, 2) What was the nature of the relationship btween Mr Max Wilton -Moore, the QF board and the Australian Govt.(This is particularly relevant as he is the chief of a major Australian aviation asset 3) Was there a preception within the govt. that the destuction of Ansett would bring about pressure on airline industry wages and conditions and was this in line with Liberal party industrial relations philosophy, 4) When Sir Richard Branson came to Australia in 2001 what was the nature of discussions with the Australian govt. regarding Ansett and a proposed merger/buyout with Virgin Blue(if any). 5)Deleted on advice. 6) Have there been any deals made regarding the current Minister for Transport and the QF board and , if so what is the nature of such an arraingment. 7) how can I get my hands on the mother *****er responsible and repeatedly jack-boot them in the balls Awaiting your replies :suspect:

[Casper]

Excellent idea!

Whilst you are at it, also suggest a Royal Commission into the realtionship between the silver bodgie and the fat man and the "dirty deals" done at the time which involved the RAAF, Dept of Immigration and ACTU etc etc... ALL TAXPAYERS' MONEY.

Forget Ansett. It once was a great airline and company but it's gone. It's time to get on with life....as many others have done.

[Airtart]

Totally Agree, I cannot understand why this hasnt happened.

I wrote a letter to the Prime- Ministers Office on the 27th March, outlining the key points I felt should be addressed:

1/Further Entitlements

2/ Unpaid Superannuation to ground Staff, and why this cannot be sought from ANZ.

3/Ansett Ticket levy, where will this money end up and for how long will it be around?

This letter was forwarded from the Prime Ministers office to the The Department of Employment and workplace relations , to be answered by an Assistant Secretary.

The response really stated nothing more then I should seek information from the Ansett Administrators. in their terms:

"As this legal is outside the control of the Government, you may wish to seek advice on this matter from the Ansett Administrators".

I have now sent a further letter to Simon Crean for clarification on the processes involved in a Royal Commission and why this has not happened in the first place.

Will keep you updated.

[airsupport]

While we are at it, even more importantly, there should be a Royal Commission into the collapse of Compass, in particular the shockingly unethical, immoral and illegal part Ansett played in the collapse. :( :( :(

[chimbu warrior]

RTB, a bit of advice. Get over it.

The last thing the Australian taxpayers need is a Royal Commission into something that had not one single cause, but many contributing factors stretching over 20 years.

If you want your payout, the last thing you should be doing is suggesting an enquiry which would only frustrate that process further and give the M & M's an excuse to keep their snouts deeply embedded in the trough forever.

As an aside, Royal Commissions are vastly over-rated as catalysts of change. Just take a look at Queensland politics.......

[Torres]

It's a foolish Government that approves a Royal Commission without first knowing the outcome.......... And the Government is under no obligation to accept or implement any recommendations.

The Ansett liquidation is a commercial and legal matter. You recourse is through a creditors meeting, if you can get the numbers and value.

[Snowballs]

An inane, naïve suggestion, and total waste of effort and money. Ansett fell on its own sword, over many years, through inept financial management. :p

[permFO]

Ralph - It would be nice to know the real story but hoping for a Royal Commission nearly 2 years after the event will just take up a lot of your time and energy with no chance of a result. The only way we will ever know of the Governments involvement is in 2032 when the Cabinet papers are released.

[Kaptin M]

...and will NOT result in the resurrection of Ansett, nor provide employment for those who still haven't found any.

Airtart, to believe that the ACTU (from where Simon Crean rose, like Bob Hawke, to enter politics) was not also deeply involved and with FULL knowledge of what was going on, is akin to believing in fairies.

That the Ansett employees were (once again) pawns in a match between Titans, was obvious at the time to many here on PPRuNe who voiced that opinion.

It's over! Game - Set - Match.

The politics involved in Ansett's final demise would prevent a genuine Royal Commission.

Australia - a secret country...read the book by John Pilger - it may be getting long in the tooth as far as the characters highlighted are concerned, but today's branches still grow from the same tree which is nourished by the same sources.

[esreverlluf]

I wish you Ansett blokes would stop whinging. Ex-Ansett employees have already got a hell of a lot more than those of just about every other Australian company that has ever gone tits-up.

Personally, I am owed many thousands in entitlements from a small company that I once worked for before it too went belly-up - and do you know what, no-body cares. The governmant didn't apply a ticket tax or similiar levy, the liquidator didn't give a sh** about employee entitlements or any other of the creditors (as long as they got their fat fee for doing very little). So I reckon you blokes have done alright under the circumstances.

Putting my steel helmet on now.

[jupiter2]

esreverlluf......

Frankly, my money is none of your business.

Please secure your helmet a little tighter.
Thankyou.

[esreverlluf]

Jupes - Please understand that my situation was also very personal to me!

[dirtylittlefokker]

If John Anderson, upon leaving the political arena, gets ANY remunerated postion with QANTAS, then there must be a Royal Commission.:yuk:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Sure bet he will!.

It may not be as obvious as a QF board seat but more likely through a consultancy practice - similar to Bob Hawkes' consultancy office in Sydney.



:*:yuk:

[Pete Conrad]

Kaptain M is spot on, the politics involved WILL prevent a Royal Commission.

Hey perm FO, hows life at QF? are the snot nosed little QF cadets giving you experienced jet pilots a hard time?

[Wiley]

Any such Royal Commission’s terms of reference should include the period from the purchase of AN by Murdoch and Abeles in 1979. That’s when the widespread asset-stripping of the company started, including the usually totally inappropriate purchasing (or usually leasing) of two or three examples of damn near every civil passenger aircraft available on the market at the time, which led in no small part to the so-called inefficiency of the AN pilot workforce – they were almost constantly doing conversion courses. (Another question they could seek to have answered is where the substantial commissions for these many leases went – I’d be willing to bet not into any AN main account.)

Then of course, long before they’d be forced to deal with the convoluted paths surrounding SQ’s attempted purchase, then Air New Zealand’s successful(!) purchase, Lindsay and Sollie and their ‘let’s-buy-a-terminal.. . I-mean-an-airline’, the short-lived ACTU-(dis)approved administrators, Mark and Mark and the costly, utterly ridiculous, pyrrhic final gesture of Tesna, was ‘that’ year twelve years earlier.

Before the ‘put all that 89er rubbish behind you’ brigade go into knee jerk mode, don’t for one minute imagine that 89 didn’t have a major impact on the airline’s final demise. And it wasn’t just that 89 stripped AN of its cash reserves, which it surely did, but, as unpleasant as this might be to accept by many of the post 89 staff, far more importantly, the events of that year stripped AN of much of its most important asset – capable people who knew their jobs and were willing to tell the emperor he was wearing no clothes. (And I’m not just referring to the pilot group here. 89 sent a clear message to all and everyone within AN that you toed the company line or you weren’t part of the team. Admittedly, under Abeles and the unspeakable ‘Bomber’ footballer, this was the way things were well before 89, which was one of the many reasons AN was losing so many of its best check and training pilots to overseas jobs.)

I won’t even enter in to what any such Royal Commission would find regarding the actions of one silver-haired gentleman who now enjoys a rich, waterfront retirement with all sorts of ‘consultancy fees’ to top up his parliamentary pension.

Before September 2001, I was frequently bemused (and just as frequently amused) after reading posts from two or three new joiners to the AN ranks who would vigorously defend the AN leadership (usually the pilot leadership) with a convert’s zeal, telling the PPrune readers what wonderful and thoroughly professional fellows these saviours of the new ‘lean, mean’ AN and of the Australian Aviation industry were. Frequently, these same writers would quote chapter and verse about how greedy, lazy and unreasonable the pre 89 pilot workforce had been. (One can only guess at the source of this information that the newcomers had gleaned about people and company practises most of them had never experienced first hand.)

I think many saw that they had at least got the ‘mean’ part right regarding their leaders when the time came to man the proverbial lifeboats after Sept 14th 2001. The events surrounding the many non A320-endorsed pilots TESNA ‘simply had to have’ immediately rather than employ already well qualified and A320-endorsed pilots from within AN might have opened a few eyes that much of what these newcomers ‘knew’ to be true about the pre-89 AN might in fact have been slightly skewed in the telling. The Royal Commission (or those investigating these people’s claims for wages from TESNA for the period of their A320 simulator training and endorsements) might also like to ask how much unnecessary expense that might have placed at TESNA’s door at a time when its operating expenses were being met by funds that should have been ear-marked for the (partial) payouts to hapless ex-AN staff.

Sadly, I don’t believe any such Royal Commission is ever likely to take place, for too many people still in high places on both sides of politics (or with mates in high places) would not be comfortable with the results, so simply put, it ain’t gunna happen.

[Casper]

As is the norm from you, Wiley, an excellent post.

[chimbu warrior]

Wiley is 99.9% correct................the only thing I would add is that a Royal Commission into all these matters might uncover the truth, but would certainly go to great lengths to quickly bury it. I therefore repeat that a RC would be a waste of time, a gross misuse of public money, and would only frustrate the winding -up process further.

Like Elvis, Ansett is dead. History cannot be rewritten. Get used to it.

[Sub-Sonic MB]

I doubt RTB meant to have a RC investigate as far back as 1979, forward to 1989, etc.
Such an investigation might exhibit Ralph and his fellow scabs in a light they would prefer to avoid.
It won't happen, of course. RC's are unbelieveably expensive, and the end result IS already known.

I forgot to mention, "Bong" in Vietnamese actually means "Scab".

[Andu]

I’ve read the Kelly book, ‘410’, (which I agree, is a bloody good read), but I think you might be drawing a bit of a long bow there, mate. (Although I guess there were more than a few of us who wished we’d been had body armour on the odd occasion in 89, if only when we were talking to our bank managers!)

I assume you’re comparing the colonial police’s use of informers (or ‘fizgigs’ – love that word, almost as good as ‘heroes’, isn’t it?), where 89 had sc… sorry, ‘heroes’ and people within the Feds’ ranks who were actually with‘out’. (That’s ‘without’ as in ‘without morals’, ‘without intestinal fortitude’ etc as well as out‘side’.)

OK, I concede that I can see there was a tenuous similarity to the colonial press refusing to print Kelly’s letters explaining his actions and the 89 media sticking to the company/government line.

Thoroughly corrupt police (or ‘traps’) in 1880 versus what in 89? - The Fat Man’s ‘mates in high places’? Hmmmm… Yeah, I might have to concede that point to you.

An indecently quick trial and execution for Kelly (to be over and done with before the running of the Melbourne Cup) versus… what? Bringing in the troops and foreign planes and pilots without resorting to arbitration? Hmmm… Shakey.

Kelly’s mum’s imprisonment on trumped-up charges (the whole reason, according to Carey, for Kelly’s ‘excesses’) versus... what? The personal writs, usually delivered after midnight?

OK, I’ve found one. Two Irish catholic boys a hundred years apart both taking on the protestant Establishment… and losing, (as well as both getting shot in the foot)? (The bodgie’s dad was a prod minister, wasn’t he? But I don’t think the prods would want to lay claim to the son, who I seem to remember disclaimed all belief in God quite some years ago. I’ll bet he’s hoping like hell that he’s right as the most looked forward to state funeral in some years gets ever closer.)

As I said above, I agree with ‘410’ that the Kelly book is a damn fine read, and I would agree that it shows pretty clearly that there is a fine tradition among Australian politicians of doing whatever it takes with little regard for the finer points of law to protect their own well-padded backsides. But does that make them any different to politicians the world over? Maybe our big mistake was in believing that things were actually different in Oz. 89 sure set many of us all straight on that point.



Oh, and ‘Wiley’, regarding your ‘unspeakable Bomber footballer’: that one took me a while to work out, but I got it eventually. 10 out of 10 for that one, mate. Remahabkly funny.

[Ralph the Bong]

The general consensus here is that a Royal Commision would be highly desireable, but unlikely to be instigated. That you all for your input. Been to Vietam and speak the lingo, MB? No wonder bar staff directed you to the toilet when you thought you were ordering a beer! :E In Vietnamise,"Bong" (flat tone) is a girls name, with a slight rising tone is "4" and with a waivering tone means "is nicely hung and makes love with a slow burn all night". Only the last translation causes my handle to make grammatic sense. Interestingly Xhuc Zichonic Em Di roughly translates as "coward who name calls from behind computer terminal" Enjoy your retirement..

[tsnake]

Ralph,
First rule of royal commission's - Work out the possible outcomes first. Second rule - If you have to blame someone make sure they are a. dead, b. in jail already or c. beyond the jurisdiction and unlikely to return. Third rule - Have secret final part of report referred to police/prosecutors for their action. Fourth rule - Make sure you don't accidentally shoot yourself in an appendage.
Model example - HIH Royal Commission.

An inquiry into Ansett would have the potential to damage both major political parties, the ACTU and some major corporate players. Such an exercise is not unlikely to be instigated. It will NEVER be instigated.

If you want to see what happens when a Royal Commission goes very wrong look at the two into the Voyager disaster. Those people who truly deserved to be supported and helped waited 30 years for justice while the Navy hierarchy blamed the innocent and did their level best to cover up their own inadequacies.

[Sub-Sonic MB]

Why, thank you RTB. I do enjoy my retirement actually, although how you knew I was is beyond me.
Yes, I have been to VN, in 1965 on a six month attachment to Vung Tau.
No, I have no idea about Vietnamese, what little I knew back then has long gone. It just seemed that given you have your location there, and with the topic you started, you could only qualify as a hero, so it seemed "Bong" could mean "scab" in your case.
As for “hiding behind a computer terminal” - Yep. Just like everybody else on this site, you included.

[Ralph the Bong]

Ah, yes. We all hide behind a computer terminal; nothing wrong with that. What I said was name call . Something that I refrain from doing unless unjustifyable provoked. Kind regards..:8 PS I have a crystal bong:hmm:

[airsupport]

Is Captain Truang (from memory that is how it is spelt) still flying for Vietnam Airlines?

He is the one that dropped the bombs on the Palace in the last days of the War.

He was just qualifying as a B767 Captain when I last saw him, about 10 years ago.

[Ralph the Bong]

'Bomber' Truong is still there, now the Fleet Captain B777. Decorated war hero ( oh no!! Not that word !! Ahh!!!). Has songs sung about him in schools, apparently. His F-5 is on display in the gardens of the Presidential Palace. There are two white circles painted on the roof where the bombs impacted. They failed to explode as they were dropped too low to arm. It's the thought that counts, I s'pose. Son-in-law PT Bihn also capt B777. Two fine gentlemen, excellent aviators and captivating story tellers. :ok:

[airsupport]

Yes that's him. :rolleyes:

He has come on, he was an F/O on the B767 when I was there.

He is a National Hero in Vietnam, but we all said he was a Traitor, but not to his face. ;)

He was handy to have on board, we were coming into Hanoi from Saigon one day, being terribly messed around by ATC, he got on the radio with a few words in Vietnamese, next thing we were cleared for a priority straight in approach. :D

Mind you I could tell you about another flight up to CKS Airport in Taipei one night, where he was within seconds of.......... (no I better not tell you)........... :rolleyes:

[whipping boy]

Has anyone suggested an investigative journo attempt to find the truth,instead of some fat cat retired judge who just happens to be a mate of many prominent pollies.
Now that Hawke is no longer PM perhaps Pilger is allowed back in the country and could attempt to look through the long and slow demise of Ansett.

[tsnake]

Whipping boy,
You demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the media with your post.
The Australia media couldn't care less about what happened to AN. It's an old story and newspapers are not interested in history.
And given that Rupert Murdoch owned 62 per cent of all the newspapers in Australia and owned half of AN for many years do you seriously think any of his newspapers is going to do a bucket job on AN. Get real.
And Mr Pilger. Well, he won't write for any Murdoch paper, he regards Mr Murdoch as akin to Satan, he can come back to Australia anytime he wants and his theories and books are laughable claptrap.
Auberon Waugh, a noted English journalist, coined a verb 'to pilger' which he defined as (and I am paraphrasing), selecting and publishing only those facts which suit your idea of how the world should be if you ran it.
Pilger would certainly find that the collapse of AN was the result of a CIA plot, engineered in collaboration with other Western governments, major banks and other unnamed elements, to ensure that the public as made to pay the highest possible cost for everything for as long as possible. Oh, and it was really designed to oppress the people of East Timor.
And believe me, there is not a journalist in this country with either the time, the inclination or the ability to conduct the sort of investigation you propose. I'll take the retired judge any time.

[SOPS]

Wiley, as always, has done another classic post. Many times on this Forum , I have suggested that, if he has the guts, GT do a bit of REAL journo stuff, and REALLY look at events from 1989 to present. He has not to date replied, and I do not expect he will. Or, if he does, it will to be explain why it is just not possible.


One day, be it when the one with silver hair, that has thrived on the destruction of many, when he has left the harbour, and gone to his judgment, maybe then, the FACTS will come out........somehow I doubt it.