News blamed for Ansett collapse
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News blamed for Ansett collapse
AAP
News blamed for Ansett collapse
August 18, 2004 - 3:30PM
If News Corp Ltd had owned Ansett in September 2001 it would still be flying today, according to the airline's administrator.
News Corp, which sold its 50 per cent holding in Ansett in 2000 to the other stakeholder Air New Zealand, could have provided the financial clout needed to keep the carrier in the skies, Mark Korda from KordaMentha said.
"If News Corp still had owned Ansett it would be flying today because it would have had the capital base to be able to keep Ansett Airlines going," Mr Korda told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce yesterday.
Air New Zealand fully owned Ansett when it was put into voluntary administration in September 2001, after buying out its partner News Corp subsequent to paying TNT Ltd $475 million for its 50 per cent stake in 1996.
"Air New Zealand on the last count I saw had about 17 aircraft and it bought a company with 134 - give or take one, because Ansett records weren't that good that they could track every plane they owned," Mr Korda said.
"Ansett owned every sort of plane you could ever want."
He said former Ansett boss Sir Peter Abeles would go to the air shows every year in France and buy up large numbers of planes.
Sir Peter was joint chairman and chief executive of Ansett before stepping aside in late 1992 to become a consultant to the airline.
Mr Korda was also critical of the decision to put Ansett into administration on September 12, 2001 - the day after terrorist attacks on the United States rocked the airline industry around the world.
"If they had just sat back and looked at the situation they should have said to Air New Zealand and the Australian federal government, 'look what's happened to the airline industry, we can't keep propping up Ansett - we can do it for a couple of more weeks, but it's your problem'."
That is the course the US airline industry chose to follow, Mr Korda said.
"Most of the airlines survived in the US because the US government put $US40 billion into the industry," he said.
"If the Australian government had put the equivalent of $US40 billion into the industry the airline could still be flying."
Mr Korda said the administrators, who were personally liable for all the debts incurred - "obviously we don't own many assets" - had decided they would give Ansett one chance to fly.
High profile businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew had put together a consortium to buy the airline but pulled out two days before the deal was set to close.
"Solomon Lew got cold feet at the last minute - he was a retailer, he just got cold feet at the last minute," Mr Korda said.
When the bidders indicated they did not want to put in $400 million in capital, Mr Korda said the decision was made to sell the assets and pay the employees as much as they could.
"As of today, we have paid them $570 million with about another $150 million to come," he said.
In the six months to the end of June the administrators had sold $55.7 million of assets, nearly three years after the collapse.
"It's been a staggering job," Mr Korda said.
- AAP
=========================================
News blamed for Ansett collapse
August 18, 2004 - 3:30PM
If News Corp Ltd had owned Ansett in September 2001 it would still be flying today, according to the airline's administrator.
News Corp, which sold its 50 per cent holding in Ansett in 2000 to the other stakeholder Air New Zealand, could have provided the financial clout needed to keep the carrier in the skies, Mark Korda from KordaMentha said.
"If News Corp still had owned Ansett it would be flying today because it would have had the capital base to be able to keep Ansett Airlines going," Mr Korda told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce yesterday.
Air New Zealand fully owned Ansett when it was put into voluntary administration in September 2001, after buying out its partner News Corp subsequent to paying TNT Ltd $475 million for its 50 per cent stake in 1996.
"Air New Zealand on the last count I saw had about 17 aircraft and it bought a company with 134 - give or take one, because Ansett records weren't that good that they could track every plane they owned," Mr Korda said.
"Ansett owned every sort of plane you could ever want."
He said former Ansett boss Sir Peter Abeles would go to the air shows every year in France and buy up large numbers of planes.
Sir Peter was joint chairman and chief executive of Ansett before stepping aside in late 1992 to become a consultant to the airline.
Mr Korda was also critical of the decision to put Ansett into administration on September 12, 2001 - the day after terrorist attacks on the United States rocked the airline industry around the world.
"If they had just sat back and looked at the situation they should have said to Air New Zealand and the Australian federal government, 'look what's happened to the airline industry, we can't keep propping up Ansett - we can do it for a couple of more weeks, but it's your problem'."
That is the course the US airline industry chose to follow, Mr Korda said.
"Most of the airlines survived in the US because the US government put $US40 billion into the industry," he said.
"If the Australian government had put the equivalent of $US40 billion into the industry the airline could still be flying."
Mr Korda said the administrators, who were personally liable for all the debts incurred - "obviously we don't own many assets" - had decided they would give Ansett one chance to fly.
High profile businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew had put together a consortium to buy the airline but pulled out two days before the deal was set to close.
"Solomon Lew got cold feet at the last minute - he was a retailer, he just got cold feet at the last minute," Mr Korda said.
When the bidders indicated they did not want to put in $400 million in capital, Mr Korda said the decision was made to sell the assets and pay the employees as much as they could.
"As of today, we have paid them $570 million with about another $150 million to come," he said.
In the six months to the end of June the administrators had sold $55.7 million of assets, nearly three years after the collapse.
"It's been a staggering job," Mr Korda said.
- AAP
=========================================
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
One has to wonder if the truth will ever be revealed - probably not, because of the ramifications.
Abeles & Murdoch gutted Ansett when they took it over from Sir Reginald Ansett, selling off the aircraft that Ansett & East-West OWNED and leasing new aircraft.
But the final straw was the 1989 Dispute - quite simply all of the airlines involved ceased to have ANY income for far, far too long, and the airlines were forced to dip far too deeply into their cash reserves PLUS those of the Hawke Government.
Ansett was the last of the four airlines involved in the Dispute to die.
To publicly admit that the united pilot group (read "union") had destroyed the four airlines by starving them to death (which was what the airline companies had planned for the pilots), would be to admit gross infallability on the part of airline management and the support of the Hawke Labor government.
Hence the worldwide campaign since then to unravel pilots' unions ie. to remove the "Strike" weapon.
Abeles & Murdoch gutted Ansett when they took it over from Sir Reginald Ansett, selling off the aircraft that Ansett & East-West OWNED and leasing new aircraft.
But the final straw was the 1989 Dispute - quite simply all of the airlines involved ceased to have ANY income for far, far too long, and the airlines were forced to dip far too deeply into their cash reserves PLUS those of the Hawke Government.
Ansett was the last of the four airlines involved in the Dispute to die.
To publicly admit that the united pilot group (read "union") had destroyed the four airlines by starving them to death (which was what the airline companies had planned for the pilots), would be to admit gross infallability on the part of airline management and the support of the Hawke Labor government.
Hence the worldwide campaign since then to unravel pilots' unions ie. to remove the "Strike" weapon.
Last edited by Kaptin M; 18th Aug 2004 at 10:57.
Evertonian
But if only you'd used your powers for good instead of evil Kaptin!!! 
But seriously though...
Exactly why they sold when they did! Good heavens man, Ansett was about to cost Murdoch REAL money!!!!
News to me. I know of one time he did it, for the A320's, and then had to get Hawke to get the rules changed so it could do SYD-PER which it couldn't at the time of purchase!
Cold feet! Is that what you call it when your scam has been exposed! Full credit to SACL for that one!
And quite an earner for Korda/Mentha! I see they've decided to go into aircraft leasing with whats left!
But seriously though...
News Corp....could have provided the financial clout needed
Sir Peter Abeles would go to the air shows every year in France and buy up large numbers of planes
Solomon Lew got cold feet at the last minute
It's been a staggering job
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 5 miles up
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't often agree with you Kaptin M but this time I do. All the so called experts who were around when AN finally went down know SFA about the cancer within which Abeles and Murdoch set in place.
I still remember well my first excursion in the LHS of an A320 in early '89, and as I entered the cockpit an aluminum plaque showing a Japanese Co. Owned the a/c and was leasing it to some other obscure entity greeted me.
I am glad I chose to walk in August '89 and let the "heros" squabble over the dead carcass.
I still remember well my first excursion in the LHS of an A320 in early '89, and as I entered the cockpit an aluminum plaque showing a Japanese Co. Owned the a/c and was leasing it to some other obscure entity greeted me.
I am glad I chose to walk in August '89 and let the "heros" squabble over the dead carcass.
2001-1989= 12...That's one hell of a long "Last straw"!!!
It had nothing to do with '89...but I'm just not going to go there.
It had nothing to do with '89...but I'm just not going to go there.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a joke!
Once again I see KordaMentha trying to paint themselves as the 'good' guys, this time blaming News Corp rather then just getting on with the job of selling assets and giving staff THEIR money.
These guys are not just the ultimate vultures, feeding off the carcass of a dead airline, but they also have the audacity to try and score points off it.
Why has it taken so long to dispose of the assets?
Were they reasonably priced?
Are Kordamentha's fees reasonable and fair?
When are we going to see OUR MONEY?
It is about time an enquiry was conducted into this affair.
BTW Kap, I do think that most airlines did learn from the dispute to screw unions at all costs.
Once again I see KordaMentha trying to paint themselves as the 'good' guys, this time blaming News Corp rather then just getting on with the job of selling assets and giving staff THEIR money.
These guys are not just the ultimate vultures, feeding off the carcass of a dead airline, but they also have the audacity to try and score points off it.
Why has it taken so long to dispose of the assets?
Were they reasonably priced?
Are Kordamentha's fees reasonable and fair?
When are we going to see OUR MONEY?
It is about time an enquiry was conducted into this affair.
BTW Kap, I do think that most airlines did learn from the dispute to screw unions at all costs.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canberra Aust
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many many factors contributed to Ansett's demise and the the 89 dispute certainly was not one of them.
The final straw and the killa blow was ANZ first buying 50% then later being allowed to purchase the other 50%. As I have said many times that was like my local Primary School P&C launching a takeover for Woolworths. Totally out of their depth.
As for the major shareholder Ron B and his company forcing ANZ into that purchase......well for me I will never again purchase a product or service with any company he is associated with.
The final straw and the killa blow was ANZ first buying 50% then later being allowed to purchase the other 50%. As I have said many times that was like my local Primary School P&C launching a takeover for Woolworths. Totally out of their depth.
As for the major shareholder Ron B and his company forcing ANZ into that purchase......well for me I will never again purchase a product or service with any company he is associated with.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: PERTH
Age: 77
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newscorp
Yes when ANZ purchased the first half of An it was very adventurous,but when they jumped at the second half with apparently little due diligence it was foolhardy and destroyed a great carrier that should have kept operating with Newscorp as a shareholder until a buyer with adequate experience and resources could be found.My experience was that after the initial purchase not much happened and after they had 100% nothing happened and good management staff sat on their hands waiting for a statement and direction from ANZ,which never came.I believe it was simply a unbelievably geared share play which did not come off,but those involved should have given more thought to the damage that would be done.But perhaps Howard and Anderson are happy enough to have gone along with what ANZ did.Personally I have always felt that ANZ should have been liquidated as well and if they proceed with the large order of aircraft they have recently announced I think I will live to see just that.
There was another buyer....SQ!
Rod was doing his job on behalf of Rupert to bail out of AN.
Rod was on the final detail with SQ when NZ used their pre-emptive right to purchase the last 50% of AN as was agreed to when they bought TNT's half of the company earlier.
They didn't do due diligence, as they have admitted to, even though (for farks sake) they already owned half of it already!
How much due diligence do you need to do when you are on the board and are one of two partners???!!!!
Then there was the placement of a manager of the whole company after they gave Rod the flick and he got a prime job with BA. It only took six months after the purchase for them to coax Toomey out of his comfy QF gig to pick up the pieces that were created by god-knows-who left running the shambles.
To aid to his lament were the sackings (voluntary redundancies) of upper, middle and coal-face staff. If, as an employee, you can get a better offer elsewhere you leave, which leaves behind (or creates positions for) those who don't have somewhere else to go.
Now what a great airline we have!
Then there is the bidding war with QF for Sydney slots (Er, sorry ment to say Hazelton). How much over their list price did they end up paying for that goose? (With all due respect to HZ staff).
Come September 11 an easy out was opened for NZ without even trying.
At that stage NZ relied heavily on US traffic. That was about to cease immidiately.
Two nooses to face. Which is the EASIEST to avoid?
Ansett
Now, due to uncle Helen's unterferance, the New Zealand tax payer is an active share holder of a flayling business that is talking up it's future and placing orders for aircraft that the treasury can't afford.
Earlier someone said Sir Peter (May he r0t in peace) was a plane purchaser from heaven (At least that is what the manufacturers thought)
Let's look at NZ inventory
747
767
737
320
Not bad for 17 aeroplane company. (To quote KordaMentha)
Add 777 and 7E7 (Get's better doesn't it?) ((And who orders 2 of a new type?))
I think KordaMentha are lowest of the low. There is so much money left for them to make it's not at all laughable.
Think about how lucky the are!
Ansett collapses whilst they are employees of Andersons.
Andersons collapses and the emloyees become the employers.
They must be buying lotto tickets every day.
But then why would they? The lotto winnings are coming in every day for these pr!cks!
Every day is Tattslotto winning day, and will be for a long time yet.
Enough ranting......
halas
Rod was doing his job on behalf of Rupert to bail out of AN.
Rod was on the final detail with SQ when NZ used their pre-emptive right to purchase the last 50% of AN as was agreed to when they bought TNT's half of the company earlier.
They didn't do due diligence, as they have admitted to, even though (for farks sake) they already owned half of it already!
How much due diligence do you need to do when you are on the board and are one of two partners???!!!!
Then there was the placement of a manager of the whole company after they gave Rod the flick and he got a prime job with BA. It only took six months after the purchase for them to coax Toomey out of his comfy QF gig to pick up the pieces that were created by god-knows-who left running the shambles.
To aid to his lament were the sackings (voluntary redundancies) of upper, middle and coal-face staff. If, as an employee, you can get a better offer elsewhere you leave, which leaves behind (or creates positions for) those who don't have somewhere else to go.
Now what a great airline we have!
Then there is the bidding war with QF for Sydney slots (Er, sorry ment to say Hazelton). How much over their list price did they end up paying for that goose? (With all due respect to HZ staff).
Come September 11 an easy out was opened for NZ without even trying.
At that stage NZ relied heavily on US traffic. That was about to cease immidiately.
Two nooses to face. Which is the EASIEST to avoid?
Ansett
Now, due to uncle Helen's unterferance, the New Zealand tax payer is an active share holder of a flayling business that is talking up it's future and placing orders for aircraft that the treasury can't afford.
Earlier someone said Sir Peter (May he r0t in peace) was a plane purchaser from heaven (At least that is what the manufacturers thought)
Let's look at NZ inventory
747
767
737
320
Not bad for 17 aeroplane company. (To quote KordaMentha)
Add 777 and 7E7 (Get's better doesn't it?) ((And who orders 2 of a new type?))
I think KordaMentha are lowest of the low. There is so much money left for them to make it's not at all laughable.
Think about how lucky the are!
Ansett collapses whilst they are employees of Andersons.
Andersons collapses and the emloyees become the employers.
They must be buying lotto tickets every day.
But then why would they? The lotto winnings are coming in every day for these pr!cks!
Every day is Tattslotto winning day, and will be for a long time yet.
Enough ranting......
halas
with every utterance you've just made.Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to wonder about the purpose of Mr Korda’s dissertation. The pieces quoted appear to paint Mr Korda in the light of an ex-employee hard done by and dealing with a poor hand, rather than the person in the executive position responsible for decisions with great impact on the lives of others.
Okay, News Corp doesn’t, so what’s the point? There's a sucker born every minute and ANZ was one of them.
Oh really! So it's the government's fault? Has Mr Korda looked at the current state of financial affairs with the US airline industry? They might be flying, but only just. The injection of taxpayer funds has only deferred the inevitable, perhaps until after an election or two.
I'm not making a judgment on the collapse of Ansett, but I would have expected more from one of the people charged with recovering monies for ex-employees. Stand up and provide some direction and goals Mr Korda.
"If News Corp still had owned Ansett it would be flying today because it would have had the capital base to be able to keep Ansett Airlines going."
That is the course the US airline industry chose to follow, Mr Korda said.
"Most of the airlines survived in the US because the US government put $US40 billion into the industry," he said.
"If the Australian government had put the equivalent of $US40 billion into the industry the airline could still be flying."
I'm not making a judgment on the collapse of Ansett, but I would have expected more from one of the people charged with recovering monies for ex-employees. Stand up and provide some direction and goals Mr Korda.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
halas and Lodown - good point from both of you, I fully agree.
As for the '89ers, your actions had a lot to do with the difficulties AN faced after that disgraceful episode, but it did NOT cause the destruction of the company. That was ably acheived by that bunch of self-serving morons both across the Tasman and, as important, here in Oz in the form of our own government. Please, wallow in your own perception of your erstwhile importance, just don't ask all to believe that your "justifiable claim" was the downfall of a once-good company, you grant yourselves far too much relevance!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
As for the '89ers, your actions had a lot to do with the difficulties AN faced after that disgraceful episode, but it did NOT cause the destruction of the company. That was ably acheived by that bunch of self-serving morons both across the Tasman and, as important, here in Oz in the form of our own government. Please, wallow in your own perception of your erstwhile importance, just don't ask all to believe that your "justifiable claim" was the downfall of a once-good company, you grant yourselves far too much relevance!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Halas, that posting was one of the most sussinct discriptions as to the demise of Ansett that I have read. Well done.
Add this to the pot: In April 2001 I had a dicussion with a friend, a kiwi(an organisational change consultant), who asked "how do you think AN is traveling?" I replied "not well" and indicated that I was looking at certain carriers overseas as I could forsee some rather unpleasant restructuring ahead at AN. (I also felt like a bit of a change of pace). She told me at this time that looking overseas was a "bloody good idea".
After AN was sunk by TL, my friend told me that she had a sibling on the ANZ board and that the board were looking at ways to wind AN up because they could could not afford to restructure the company. I respect my friends action in not telling me this at the time as it reflects her integrety in in not blabbing sensitive commercial information(which she probably shouldn't have been privy to in the first place), yet at the same time she was warning me to move on before the crunch came.
THere was nothing wrong with Ansett that $1,000,000,000 couldn't have fixed. This would have been the cost of restructuring the company and streamlining the fleet into 2 or 3 types. Imagine how competitive AN would have been with a fleet of 50 A320's and 15 B767-300's. Such a fleet would have adequatly satisfied ANs' existing domestic and International operations. The question remains is to why exactly did Air NZ buy in when they didn't have this sort of money.
The reasons that TL bought the remaining 50% of AN from News was, in my mind, a commercial and political decision. Had SQ acquired News's stake, it had plans to expand AN international and begin operations to the West coast of USA(they made no secret of this). This would have resulted in infighting within an SQ/TL board regarding who would operate the services which would to some extent see AN competing against parent company, Air NZ. Sigificantly, SQ never made mention of plans to operate AN on European services.
However, by way of analogy, if you owned a half share in a run down house and the other co-owner wanted to sell their share to someone who was prepare to foot the cost of renovations, would you notwelcome this buyer with open arms?Yet this is exactly what Air NZ did when it prevented SQ from buying in. This simply defies belief!
There are several issues raised by Mark Korda that I do not agree with. Firstly, Sir Peter did not buy aircraft willy-nilly at every Paris airshow. He only ever bought 2 types: the A320 and the BAe146. The 146 was ordered by TNT(72 units, the entire production line for 5 years) so as to establish an overnight freight operation in Europe. At the time the 146 was the only aircraft that met the noise requirement laws for night operation. Owning the only type that could operate at night would have given TNT a monopoly on European freight and postal services. The deal unravaled and TNT did not get the contracts that it sought due to lobbying from the Europeans and Sir 'Peat' was left with a whole bunch of airframes that needed some place to fly. This why they went to East-West (who I understand wanted F100s').
Secondly, the Australian goverment had no interest in seeing Ansett do anything but sink. Honest John, the Minister for Qantas and Max the Axe were quick to cotton on the idea that by allowing Ansett and its heavily unionised workforce to sink would expidite aviation industry microeconomic reform(read: diminished conditions). This agenda would see the 'Bransonisation' of the industry as the lowest common denominator.
Ansett was great place to work with a great product and high caliber, inspiring people. The last year at AN were quite painful to watch and most were aware that a crunch of some sort was imminent. Sad, but most have moved on.
Add this to the pot: In April 2001 I had a dicussion with a friend, a kiwi(an organisational change consultant), who asked "how do you think AN is traveling?" I replied "not well" and indicated that I was looking at certain carriers overseas as I could forsee some rather unpleasant restructuring ahead at AN. (I also felt like a bit of a change of pace). She told me at this time that looking overseas was a "bloody good idea".
After AN was sunk by TL, my friend told me that she had a sibling on the ANZ board and that the board were looking at ways to wind AN up because they could could not afford to restructure the company. I respect my friends action in not telling me this at the time as it reflects her integrety in in not blabbing sensitive commercial information(which she probably shouldn't have been privy to in the first place), yet at the same time she was warning me to move on before the crunch came.
THere was nothing wrong with Ansett that $1,000,000,000 couldn't have fixed. This would have been the cost of restructuring the company and streamlining the fleet into 2 or 3 types. Imagine how competitive AN would have been with a fleet of 50 A320's and 15 B767-300's. Such a fleet would have adequatly satisfied ANs' existing domestic and International operations. The question remains is to why exactly did Air NZ buy in when they didn't have this sort of money.
The reasons that TL bought the remaining 50% of AN from News was, in my mind, a commercial and political decision. Had SQ acquired News's stake, it had plans to expand AN international and begin operations to the West coast of USA(they made no secret of this). This would have resulted in infighting within an SQ/TL board regarding who would operate the services which would to some extent see AN competing against parent company, Air NZ. Sigificantly, SQ never made mention of plans to operate AN on European services.
However, by way of analogy, if you owned a half share in a run down house and the other co-owner wanted to sell their share to someone who was prepare to foot the cost of renovations, would you notwelcome this buyer with open arms?Yet this is exactly what Air NZ did when it prevented SQ from buying in. This simply defies belief!
There are several issues raised by Mark Korda that I do not agree with. Firstly, Sir Peter did not buy aircraft willy-nilly at every Paris airshow. He only ever bought 2 types: the A320 and the BAe146. The 146 was ordered by TNT(72 units, the entire production line for 5 years) so as to establish an overnight freight operation in Europe. At the time the 146 was the only aircraft that met the noise requirement laws for night operation. Owning the only type that could operate at night would have given TNT a monopoly on European freight and postal services. The deal unravaled and TNT did not get the contracts that it sought due to lobbying from the Europeans and Sir 'Peat' was left with a whole bunch of airframes that needed some place to fly. This why they went to East-West (who I understand wanted F100s').
Secondly, the Australian goverment had no interest in seeing Ansett do anything but sink. Honest John, the Minister for Qantas and Max the Axe were quick to cotton on the idea that by allowing Ansett and its heavily unionised workforce to sink would expidite aviation industry microeconomic reform(read: diminished conditions). This agenda would see the 'Bransonisation' of the industry as the lowest common denominator.
Ansett was great place to work with a great product and high caliber, inspiring people. The last year at AN were quite painful to watch and most were aware that a crunch of some sort was imminent. Sad, but most have moved on.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thanks, Ralph, for your post, supporting every belief I have held as to the cause of AN's demise. I'm convinced to this day that the primary reason for AirNZ's purchase was that they could see SQ investing in AN, domestic OR i'nat'al, and wanted access to SQ's funds for themselves. This would have given them access to the Oz domestic market, as well as international, and kept SQ out of both.
Our Gov't, in the form of the Minister for Qantas, had a vested interest in seeing us go down, as you say it enabled them to begin the decimation of union power in the workforce, something the 89 dispute failed to achieve. B
I firmly believe that the purchase went ahead, despite ANZ not having the funds, with the backing of the NZ gov't which was unlikely to see the national carrier fail. I make no claim that the decision was made with the PRIOR backing of the NZ gov't.
May they all rot in their own, particular Hell!!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Our Gov't, in the form of the Minister for Qantas, had a vested interest in seeing us go down, as you say it enabled them to begin the decimation of union power in the workforce, something the 89 dispute failed to achieve. B
I firmly believe that the purchase went ahead, despite ANZ not having the funds, with the backing of the NZ gov't which was unlikely to see the national carrier fail. I make no claim that the decision was made with the PRIOR backing of the NZ gov't.
May they all rot in their own, particular Hell!!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is a FACT that ANZ wanted to enter the Australian domestic market in its own right and was stopped at the 11th hour by Laurie Brereton. On behalf of the Hawke government that wanted to (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.
Someone in a post above referred to the $1 billion dollars that would have fixed up Ansett. that figure ought to haunt any thinking ex-Ansett employee. That's about what Abeles and Murdoch (with Hawkes help) between them spent of AN shareholders funds on (a) a truly terrible fleet mix (b) a truly terrible 747 led introduction to overseas routes (c) truly terrible losses fighting their own pilots in 1989 (d) truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989 and (e) truly terrible blood letting in the "price wars" fighting Compass Mk 1 in 1990/91.
By the time Hawke/Keating (as agents for News Ltd) forced ANZ to buy Ansett as their only way of EVER getting into the Australian domestic market it was long gone. Lone gone. Mother Teresa could not have breathed life into the rotting cadaver.
A half decent California lawyer would be suing the AN receivers (and maybe a couple of former prominent ALP leaders) on ANZ's behalf for trickery and coercion.
AN was not EVER a thriving airline cut down in the prime of life. Let's get over that fairy tale once and for all. PLEASE>
Someone in a post above referred to the $1 billion dollars that would have fixed up Ansett. that figure ought to haunt any thinking ex-Ansett employee. That's about what Abeles and Murdoch (with Hawkes help) between them spent of AN shareholders funds on (a) a truly terrible fleet mix (b) a truly terrible 747 led introduction to overseas routes (c) truly terrible losses fighting their own pilots in 1989 (d) truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989 and (e) truly terrible blood letting in the "price wars" fighting Compass Mk 1 in 1990/91.
By the time Hawke/Keating (as agents for News Ltd) forced ANZ to buy Ansett as their only way of EVER getting into the Australian domestic market it was long gone. Lone gone. Mother Teresa could not have breathed life into the rotting cadaver.
A half decent California lawyer would be suing the AN receivers (and maybe a couple of former prominent ALP leaders) on ANZ's behalf for trickery and coercion.
AN was not EVER a thriving airline cut down in the prime of life. Let's get over that fairy tale once and for all. PLEASE>