News blamed for Ansett collapse
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airhag
Sometimes we find you quite funny at other times just plain boorish, it's hard to work it out sometimes.
I couldn't work out a way of editing your post to get your point across without deleting the lot.
It takes me less time to delete posts than it does for you and others to write them.
So play nice, you can have a say and I don't have to spend time playing Little Bo Peep.
Sometimes we find you quite funny at other times just plain boorish, it's hard to work it out sometimes.
I couldn't work out a way of editing your post to get your point across without deleting the lot.
It takes me less time to delete posts than it does for you and others to write them.
So play nice, you can have a say and I don't have to spend time playing Little Bo Peep.
elektra
a) Rupert never had a problem to start with as he got the TV station he was after.
b) Neither did the Australian gu'ment as they were flush with funds under ALP with all their other privatisations.
Nothing compared to the New Zealand tax payer for the air adventure they have been subject to thanks to Uncle Helen.
Hello, whats happening in the South sea isocommunity at the moment?
The Asian crises was not forseeable to many but you obviously. If you include the Sydney incident then granted.
If you include how NZ introduced their 744, then get st*ffed!
I'm leaving that one for the keeper!
Terrible to whome? It was paid for 55 hours a month and any over time was a bonus. Do you realise what the award was prior '89? NO!
Have no idea how much influence that one had. but it's just like saying Ansett had a chance if TL hadn't got involved, or either gu'ment.
As l said before get *&%#$@! unless you know the facts!
halas
a) Sell Ansett to anybody to fix up Rupert's budget problems and (b) sell Qantas to fix up their (Australia's other government) budget problems
b) Neither did the Australian gu'ment as they were flush with funds under ALP with all their other privatisations.
$1 billion dollars that would have fixed up Ansett. that figure ought to haunt any thinking ex-Ansett employee
(a) a truly terrible fleet mix
b) a truly terrible 747 led introduction to overseas routes
If you include how NZ introduced their 744, then get st*ffed!
(c) truly terrible losses fighting their own pilots in 1989
d) truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989
(e) truly terrible blood letting in the "price wars" fighting Compass Mk 1 in 1990/91.
As l said before get *&%#$@! unless you know the facts!
halas
Evertonian
Just a small point of order. The 747 didn't lead the OS expansion, that was done by the 762's to DPS, and that was quite an earner for the airline & the crews.
The only problem with the OS expansion, was the choice of routes & perhaps the 747 training, but I don't know about that part. All along, AN was dependant on foreign travellers using our service. They ignored where the Aussie traveller wanted to go (Bali excepted) and paid the price when the foreign travellers dried up!
The only problem with the OS expansion, was the choice of routes & perhaps the 747 training, but I don't know about that part. All along, AN was dependant on foreign travellers using our service. They ignored where the Aussie traveller wanted to go (Bali excepted) and paid the price when the foreign travellers dried up!
The Night Owl: I'm sorry but the dispute in 89 that I was involved in cost Ansett hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. That is fact, and it certainly didn't help things for the future of that company.
planemad 2: yes Sir Pete bought Bae146's by the dozens
12 737-200's 12 737-300's 10 Fk50's and 6 767-200's. Leased them all after selling the DC-9's and 727's we owned.
Made a killing selling the DC-9's to himself then onselling to companies in the US ( the USN were one )
planemad 2: yes Sir Pete bought Bae146's by the dozens
12 737-200's 12 737-300's 10 Fk50's and 6 767-200's. Leased them all after selling the DC-9's and 727's we owned.
Made a killing selling the DC-9's to himself then onselling to companies in the US ( the USN were one )
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
As for the '89ers.......it did NOT cause the destruction of the company.
Now you ARE correct on the one hand, in stating that is was NOT the actions of the '89'ers that caused Ansett irreparable - yes IRREPARABLE - damage, because if you recall, it was Ansett that voluntarily stood all of us aside, and shut down operations.
You DO remember that, don't you, TNO?
But I know of NO company - and especially one structured as Ansett was, with aircraft lease payments, and the promise to continue to pay ALL staff their salaries - that can endure 3 or 4 months of NO INCOME!
If you, TNO, do know of such a company you should incorporate and franchise it.
Abeles & Murdoch started the rot.
They very quickly depleted any reserves (that they hadn't plundered) over Ansett's previous 30 years of SUCCESSFUL, PROFITABLE operations, when they declared war on their pilots in 1989.
And as halas confirms, with his quip, "It was paid for 55 hours a month and any over time was a bonus.", the salaries paid post Dispute were UNsustainable, and weakened the company even further. (Remember, it wasn't the sc#bs who proposed the pay rates, it was Abeles & Co).
Ansett was ALREADY stuffed when Air New Zealand got it - they got a lemon.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 5 miles up
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you should step back a bit here, the facts are that LONG before "Air Sheep" decided to buy AN it was already terminal.
When Abeles and his "mate" Rupe took control of the Co. in the early eighties ------- rather stole it from Reg for FA, Ansett Transport Industries as it was then comprised:
Ansett Airlines and its Subsidiaries (ANSW,MMA,ASA)
Ansett Air Freight
Ansair - Bus Manufacturing
Gateway Hotels
Ansett Wridgeways
Bendigo Motors
Mildura Buslines
Hamilton Buslines
Diners Club
Channel 10 or O (forget when it chngd)
Hamilton Island
Proserpine Airport --- built by Ansett
AJC Finance - the undoing of Reg.
and some of you guros may be able to add others to the list.
All the a/c, buildings and most of the businesses were totally owned by ATI.
FACT IS THOSE TWO SOB's ASSETT STRIPPED THE COMPANY and within only a few short years Ansett the Company Owned nothing. They took it over for a song and made a huge personal profit from the liquidation of ALL the core assetts
'89 was but only one more nail in the coffin the Company was already well and truly dead. The fact that it survived/staggered for another 12 years is probably remarkable in itself - but IT WAS NEVER GOING TO SURVIVE NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY WAS THROWN AT IT.
When Abeles and his "mate" Rupe took control of the Co. in the early eighties ------- rather stole it from Reg for FA, Ansett Transport Industries as it was then comprised:
Ansett Airlines and its Subsidiaries (ANSW,MMA,ASA)
Ansett Air Freight
Ansair - Bus Manufacturing
Gateway Hotels
Ansett Wridgeways
Bendigo Motors
Mildura Buslines
Hamilton Buslines
Diners Club
Channel 10 or O (forget when it chngd)
Hamilton Island
Proserpine Airport --- built by Ansett
AJC Finance - the undoing of Reg.
and some of you guros may be able to add others to the list.
All the a/c, buildings and most of the businesses were totally owned by ATI.
FACT IS THOSE TWO SOB's ASSETT STRIPPED THE COMPANY and within only a few short years Ansett the Company Owned nothing. They took it over for a song and made a huge personal profit from the liquidation of ALL the core assetts
'89 was but only one more nail in the coffin the Company was already well and truly dead. The fact that it survived/staggered for another 12 years is probably remarkable in itself - but IT WAS NEVER GOING TO SURVIVE NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY WAS THROWN AT IT.
Last edited by FarQ2; 22nd Aug 2004 at 08:33.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
You are quite wrong Ralph.
We worked 9-5 from Friday, August the 18th until Wednesday, August the 23rd....but let a neutral party relate the TRUTH.
From p's 55 & 56 of Sky Pirates:-
Dad's Airforce
Contingency plans were rushed into operation on Wednesday August 23. Airline managements contacted pilots at home by telephone during the day and asked them if they would work as directed (ie. outside the 9-5 period). Pilots were suspended without pay when they refused....
Airline managements did not approach pilots already rostered on for duty until the end of their day's shift at 5:00pm. When asked to work normal duties, they refused and were suspended too. At 5:00pm on August 23, the domestic airline system was shut down indefinitely and planes were mothballed
PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RE-WRITE HISTORY, Ralph the s#*+!
Sorry ACMS however I believe the blame for the suffering of the Ansett staff needs to be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who caused it.
Attempts by some sc#bs to justify their actions by re-writing history is irksome - to say the least!
We worked 9-5 from Friday, August the 18th until Wednesday, August the 23rd....but let a neutral party relate the TRUTH.
From p's 55 & 56 of Sky Pirates:-
Dad's Airforce
Contingency plans were rushed into operation on Wednesday August 23. Airline managements contacted pilots at home by telephone during the day and asked them if they would work as directed (ie. outside the 9-5 period). Pilots were suspended without pay when they refused....
Airline managements did not approach pilots already rostered on for duty until the end of their day's shift at 5:00pm. When asked to work normal duties, they refused and were suspended too. At 5:00pm on August 23, the domestic airline system was shut down indefinitely and planes were mothballed
PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RE-WRITE HISTORY, Ralph the s#*+!
Sorry ACMS however I believe the blame for the suffering of the Ansett staff needs to be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who caused it.
Attempts by some sc#bs to justify their actions by re-writing history is irksome - to say the least!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Perhaps the spiel differed slightly, from port to port, air-hag...my recollection of the BNE "yakkity yak", was that the resignations would be used "only if necessary".
In retrospect, the adage "Loose lips sinks ships" was possibly one of the AFAP Exec's cardinal rules - imo.
Did the AFAP know that the airline companies were about to sue individual pilots for loss of revenue, due to their refusal to work outside the 9-5 period?
Was THAT the reason for the sudden, urgent call to the branch offices?
And the reason for the almost IMMEDIATE submission of the resignations? To prevent pilots from becoming liable to "loss of revenue" costs on future scheduled flights?
Those involved realised that for EVERY DAY we were rostered to fly outside the 9-5 period, but refused to do so, would make EACH of us SEPERATELY, FINANCIALLY, RESPONSIBLE for the companies' losses!
THAT is why things happened so quickly, air-hag.....................to save some peoples' asses!
In hindsight, it could probably have been done in stages - but then the companies had the capability of calling pilots out regardless of rostered duty.
Yes, Obie you are distinclty CORRECT, and more than likely it saved YOU a lot of heartache at the time!!
I remember seeing the guys who DID have writs issued on them - most were seriously beside themselves, wondering how they were going to cope with losing their homes!!
THAT was the seriousness of the situation, at that time.
So tactically - from an I.R. point of view - it might well have appeared the "dumb" thing to do - LEGALLY, it plugged the hole.
But who were we to know all of this.......we are just "glorified 'bus drivers."
In retrospect, the adage "Loose lips sinks ships" was possibly one of the AFAP Exec's cardinal rules - imo.
Did the AFAP know that the airline companies were about to sue individual pilots for loss of revenue, due to their refusal to work outside the 9-5 period?
Was THAT the reason for the sudden, urgent call to the branch offices?
And the reason for the almost IMMEDIATE submission of the resignations? To prevent pilots from becoming liable to "loss of revenue" costs on future scheduled flights?
Those involved realised that for EVERY DAY we were rostered to fly outside the 9-5 period, but refused to do so, would make EACH of us SEPERATELY, FINANCIALLY, RESPONSIBLE for the companies' losses!
THAT is why things happened so quickly, air-hag.....................to save some peoples' asses!
In hindsight, it could probably have been done in stages - but then the companies had the capability of calling pilots out regardless of rostered duty.
Yes, Obie you are distinclty CORRECT, and more than likely it saved YOU a lot of heartache at the time!!
I remember seeing the guys who DID have writs issued on them - most were seriously beside themselves, wondering how they were going to cope with losing their homes!!
THAT was the seriousness of the situation, at that time.
So tactically - from an I.R. point of view - it might well have appeared the "dumb" thing to do - LEGALLY, it plugged the hole.
But who were we to know all of this.......we are just "glorified 'bus drivers."
I left Ansett in 84 and thank God for that.
There are a few things I can confirm. ACMS is right about the sale of the DC9's to Evergreen, Les Hong (Evergreen President) was even at Lachlan's wedding.
Rupert and Peter did eventually gut the place but that was after I left. Peter Abeles was the only guy I know who could turn Greame McM into a shaking jelly.
The alarm bells we ringing for me when Ansett had the B767 pylon attachment crack problem. I got onto talkback radio one day with Twoomey trying to argue that it wasn't a problem.
They must have sacked the type specialists in engineering five years before that because thats about how long Boeing would have had an alert out over that issue.
Anyway Ansett wasn't meant to survive. There was only going to be room for Qantas, and Abeles wasa Sydney based (and biased)animal.
Same thing happened to the old CAC over the wamira project for the RAAF basic trainer. The airforce swore blind that they needed side by side seating, a 20 foot drop test and (wait for it!) airconditioning. CAC designed a plane that met these requirements and the RAAF recommendation was 1) the Wamira 2) the PC7 3) No way did they want the PC9. Beazley sucked up to his bankstown labor mates by making them take the PC9
There are a few things I can confirm. ACMS is right about the sale of the DC9's to Evergreen, Les Hong (Evergreen President) was even at Lachlan's wedding.
Rupert and Peter did eventually gut the place but that was after I left. Peter Abeles was the only guy I know who could turn Greame McM into a shaking jelly.
The alarm bells we ringing for me when Ansett had the B767 pylon attachment crack problem. I got onto talkback radio one day with Twoomey trying to argue that it wasn't a problem.
They must have sacked the type specialists in engineering five years before that because thats about how long Boeing would have had an alert out over that issue.
Anyway Ansett wasn't meant to survive. There was only going to be room for Qantas, and Abeles wasa Sydney based (and biased)animal.
Same thing happened to the old CAC over the wamira project for the RAAF basic trainer. The airforce swore blind that they needed side by side seating, a 20 foot drop test and (wait for it!) airconditioning. CAC designed a plane that met these requirements and the RAAF recommendation was 1) the Wamira 2) the PC7 3) No way did they want the PC9. Beazley sucked up to his bankstown labor mates by making them take the PC9
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kap - may I commend to you the oft-proffered advice to me from amos2 "...have a Bex and a good lie-down", you were obviously so incensed by my post that you failed to read it properly. What I said was that the '89ers did not cause the downfall of AN, with which you appear to agree, then you proceed to denigrate my non-existent business capabilities. How the two correlate escapes me, but your tortured reasoning somehow manages to marry them. My point in posting was to emphasise that, while the dispute caused untold financial and experience losses to the company, the demise was a function of appalling mis-management by successive owners hell-bent on looking after their own interests rather than those of the company they were supposed to be protecting.
As for "...suffering of the Ansett staff.......shoulders of those who caused it", I agree, and all you need is a mirror to see one of those who put the company in the position initially by your outrageous and unsustainable demands. While not being responsible for the eventual downfall, the '89ers did play a major part in exacerbating the problems the company faced.
There is no prospect, nor was there ever, of my starting a business, and the behaviour of people like yourself in pursuit of an unjustified and unsustainable claim convinces me that the necessity of emplying people such as yourself would preclude the possibility. Self-interest was not the motivation of ONLY Abeles/Murdoch, et al, your people showed more than a modicum of it in your approach to "negotiation".
ACMS - "...only people like us who went through the debacle have some idea"!! Yeah, right! Had you been somewhat more willing to look down from your ivory tower, you'd have seen the rest of us trying to keep the company together. Yes, you got "it" collectively stuck to you and, you may be surprised to read, most of us were almost as appalled as were you, but I'm afraid that you asked for it. Why you, in the form of the AFAP, couldn't accept what was staring you in the face, fall back, re-group and try again later will never cease to amaze me. I can only ascribe it to an unfounded belief in your collective unassailability. Well, I'm sorry, truly sorry, but to take on the power of a government determined to seize the opportunity to grab the chance to sort out a union once and for all had to be a monumental stupidity. What really galls is that you, collectively, handed the weapon to them on a plate, then had to retreat from the blows from your own, useless, weapon!
Over to you, Kap, et al, for the right of reply, my helmet is firmly secured!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
As for "...suffering of the Ansett staff.......shoulders of those who caused it", I agree, and all you need is a mirror to see one of those who put the company in the position initially by your outrageous and unsustainable demands. While not being responsible for the eventual downfall, the '89ers did play a major part in exacerbating the problems the company faced.
There is no prospect, nor was there ever, of my starting a business, and the behaviour of people like yourself in pursuit of an unjustified and unsustainable claim convinces me that the necessity of emplying people such as yourself would preclude the possibility. Self-interest was not the motivation of ONLY Abeles/Murdoch, et al, your people showed more than a modicum of it in your approach to "negotiation".
ACMS - "...only people like us who went through the debacle have some idea"!! Yeah, right! Had you been somewhat more willing to look down from your ivory tower, you'd have seen the rest of us trying to keep the company together. Yes, you got "it" collectively stuck to you and, you may be surprised to read, most of us were almost as appalled as were you, but I'm afraid that you asked for it. Why you, in the form of the AFAP, couldn't accept what was staring you in the face, fall back, re-group and try again later will never cease to amaze me. I can only ascribe it to an unfounded belief in your collective unassailability. Well, I'm sorry, truly sorry, but to take on the power of a government determined to seize the opportunity to grab the chance to sort out a union once and for all had to be a monumental stupidity. What really galls is that you, collectively, handed the weapon to them on a plate, then had to retreat from the blows from your own, useless, weapon!
Over to you, Kap, et al, for the right of reply, my helmet is firmly secured!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
...one of those who put the company in the position initially by your outrageous and unsustainable demands....the '89ers did play a major part in exacerbating the problems the company faced.
But the truly amazing thing was that the companies decided it was better for them to recruit an entire new set of pilots, train them, and then pay them 2-3 times MORE than we had been on, with overtime cutting in at 55 hours iso the 60 hours we had been on.
This was a company initiative, and showed the "Win at ANY cost" mentality of Hawke, Abeles, and Macmahon.
Why you, in the form of the AFAP, couldn't accept what was staring you in the face, fall back, re-group and try again later will never cease to amaze me.
Again, REFUSED by Abeles & Co.
..the demise was a function of appalling mis-management by successive owners hell-bent on looking after their own interests rather than those of the company
Guest
Posts: n/a
We did "fall back and regroup" TNO. I'm still having fun flying big jets around, still an AFAP member and happy to see the union alive and well and looking after members. Where's the 4 airlines that decided no price was too high to pay to "get rid of the union"? Didn't they follow your advice and "fall back and regroup"?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a rapid reply, Kap. on a grey day, are we?
You have an admirable way with words, my friend, cleverly used to obfuscate. Your "ambit" claim was never such in reality, an AFAP member told me to my face in the AN Sim Centre lunch-room, and I quote, "ambit be buggered, mate, we've got the b*****s over a barrel, they can't run an airline without us"! Ambit? I think not.
I suspect my apparent "selective memoty" is a phenomenon possessed by not only myself, Kap, the pilot body in Aus has long made public only the parts of the dispute which show them in a good light and the opposition as the ratbags they undoubtedly were.
Why, in God's name, would the AFAP expect a set of unprincipled b
like Abeles/Hawke/Kelty, etc., to give up an advantage you handed to them on a plate? Don't you think you are still being somewhat naive? It's all very well to maintain the moral high ground, Kap, but YOU are the people forced out of your industry into the big, nasty, wide, unprotected world of international aviation by putting your faith in the apparent infallibility of your representatives and proceeding blindly down a self-made path to destruction of not only your collective futures, but also the potential futures of the union culture in this country. It was obvious to all except you that your opposition had you in a squirrel grip and intended ONLY to tighten the grip in the vice provided by yourselves.
Yes, I understand that the current AFAP is active and well-supported, long may it remain so, but I'd bet London to a brick that it doesn't profess the power it once believed it wielded!
Negotiations nowadays are on a very different footing than 1989, the whip is now VERY firmly in the hands of employers. That is not meant to imply that the AFAP was instrumental in that, but they did go some way to enhancing the power-base of the anti-union brigade.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
You have an admirable way with words, my friend, cleverly used to obfuscate. Your "ambit" claim was never such in reality, an AFAP member told me to my face in the AN Sim Centre lunch-room, and I quote, "ambit be buggered, mate, we've got the b*****s over a barrel, they can't run an airline without us"! Ambit? I think not.
I suspect my apparent "selective memoty" is a phenomenon possessed by not only myself, Kap, the pilot body in Aus has long made public only the parts of the dispute which show them in a good light and the opposition as the ratbags they undoubtedly were.
Why, in God's name, would the AFAP expect a set of unprincipled b
like Abeles/Hawke/Kelty, etc., to give up an advantage you handed to them on a plate? Don't you think you are still being somewhat naive? It's all very well to maintain the moral high ground, Kap, but YOU are the people forced out of your industry into the big, nasty, wide, unprotected world of international aviation by putting your faith in the apparent infallibility of your representatives and proceeding blindly down a self-made path to destruction of not only your collective futures, but also the potential futures of the union culture in this country. It was obvious to all except you that your opposition had you in a squirrel grip and intended ONLY to tighten the grip in the vice provided by yourselves.Yes, I understand that the current AFAP is active and well-supported, long may it remain so, but I'd bet London to a brick that it doesn't profess the power it once believed it wielded!
Negotiations nowadays are on a very different footing than 1989, the whip is now VERY firmly in the hands of employers. That is not meant to imply that the AFAP was instrumental in that, but they did go some way to enhancing the power-base of the anti-union brigade.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let me REFRESH you memory here Kapt M, you said: that the companies stood you ALL down .
This is where you are trying to re-write history.
The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct. Not you you have tried to make out and misrepresent.
AS for calling me a "s#$$%", let me inform you: I:
1) Did not apply to airlines during an employment black ban.
2) Was not interviewed during employement bans.
3) Was not offered and not not accept employment during said bans, and,
4) Am not and should not be on an 'scab' list.
So stick it!
Your own attempts to sign up during the dispute have been often discussed on this forum. Your hipocracy in calling others a scab when you made attemps to enter the hallowed halls of scabdom are breathtaking.
This is where you are trying to re-write history.
The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct. Not you you have tried to make out and misrepresent.
AS for calling me a "s#$$%", let me inform you: I:
1) Did not apply to airlines during an employment black ban.
2) Was not interviewed during employement bans.
3) Was not offered and not not accept employment during said bans, and,
4) Am not and should not be on an 'scab' list.
So stick it!
Your own attempts to sign up during the dispute have been often discussed on this forum. Your hipocracy in calling others a scab when you made attemps to enter the hallowed halls of scabdom are breathtaking.