Ansett gone .......but ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFF Topic
Professor, your comments about the market will be true when the real world approaches the assumptions for the models upon which they are based.
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul KrugmanSqueezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul KrugmanSqueezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFF Topic
Professor, your comments about the market will be true when the real world approaches the assumptions for the models upon which they are based.
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul Krugman
Source:NYTimes
Squeezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis
Source:The Australian
Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology
Source:Bloomberg
Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Paul Krugman
Source:NYTimes
Squeezing workers worsens US downturn - George Megalogenis
Source:The Australian
Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology
Source:Bloomberg
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....err Professor, yes your last sentence is correct, you could see that when Trickie-Dickie sensed that Ansett was in trouble and short on equipment, he aquired 6 or so (faclons zxa, zxb etc) from BA and just flooded the trunk routes, so yes your theory of market forces is correct, Ansett needed equipment badly but no decisions were being made from the people with their hands on the levers and we know who they were by then and the management by then were paralyzed with incompetence.
Ansett problems started when by sheer magic Mr Keating decided to merge TAA and Qantas, so with a wave of wand, TAA became Qantas and the 750 million dollar debt that TAA had was just miraculously wiped of the slate. Here now Ansett was no longer on a level playing field, Qantas was handed a huge present and now the gov/taxpayer became a huge stake holder in Qantas.
So the motive of looking after Qantas has now became huge from the gov's point of view, Virgin was on the scene and this started to play into the gov hands, to look after Qantas and a low cost carrier in a deregulated market was a nice fit, in fact a strong Ansett with SQ's backing would be a huge threat.
ANZ were children in a mans game, they hated Ansett for ever going to NZ and start Ansett New Zealand on their turf, it was payback time, thanks to TNT, they aquired their half share, but everybody forgot that ANZ had the pre-emptive right to buy the 2nd half of Ansett, which to everyones disbelief they excersized that right, News Corp knew this, and why did News rather sell to SQ than to ANZ, after all SQ was offering 500 mill and ANZ finally paid 650 mill.
News was keen to sell and took the money and ran, now ANZ had this huge airline but could not afford it, meanwhile Trickie-Dickie had the gov. on side to protect Qantas. the gov. wasn't going to get rid of Ansett, but they made sure that would not be any help from them either, it was all goint to go to protect Qantas.
Had SQ got Ansett, then Ansett would have been a major player, in Australia and overseas, the level plying field would have been there with Qantas, but what transpired, it was doomed to failure with idiots like ANZ running things, look at the result, the New Zealanders spent 1.3 billion dollars on the Ansett debacle for zip, nothing to show for it except no Ansett to compete with on the Pacific.
sad:
Ansett problems started when by sheer magic Mr Keating decided to merge TAA and Qantas, so with a wave of wand, TAA became Qantas and the 750 million dollar debt that TAA had was just miraculously wiped of the slate. Here now Ansett was no longer on a level playing field, Qantas was handed a huge present and now the gov/taxpayer became a huge stake holder in Qantas.
So the motive of looking after Qantas has now became huge from the gov's point of view, Virgin was on the scene and this started to play into the gov hands, to look after Qantas and a low cost carrier in a deregulated market was a nice fit, in fact a strong Ansett with SQ's backing would be a huge threat.
ANZ were children in a mans game, they hated Ansett for ever going to NZ and start Ansett New Zealand on their turf, it was payback time, thanks to TNT, they aquired their half share, but everybody forgot that ANZ had the pre-emptive right to buy the 2nd half of Ansett, which to everyones disbelief they excersized that right, News Corp knew this, and why did News rather sell to SQ than to ANZ, after all SQ was offering 500 mill and ANZ finally paid 650 mill.
News was keen to sell and took the money and ran, now ANZ had this huge airline but could not afford it, meanwhile Trickie-Dickie had the gov. on side to protect Qantas. the gov. wasn't going to get rid of Ansett, but they made sure that would not be any help from them either, it was all goint to go to protect Qantas.
Had SQ got Ansett, then Ansett would have been a major player, in Australia and overseas, the level plying field would have been there with Qantas, but what transpired, it was doomed to failure with idiots like ANZ running things, look at the result, the New Zealanders spent 1.3 billion dollars on the Ansett debacle for zip, nothing to show for it except no Ansett to compete with on the Pacific.
sad:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While all that is true, it was a little more involved than that, particularly the involvement of various Australian Governments and Air NZ. 
After Compass had been operating for some time, and had picked up many new contracts, particularly with cargo, Air NZ were going to buy into and save Compass, as it was the ONLY way they could see to break into the Aussie market. Air NZ was ''convinced'' by the Australian Government not to rescue Compass on the assurance that the Government were going to introduce an open skies policy, and Air NZ would be able to operate IN Australia without buying Compass.
This of course did NOT happen once Air NZ backed out of the deal, and the Australian Government (primarily) closed Compass.
This left Air NZ, after being betrayed by the Australian Government, with only one option, to get hold of Ansett.
While I agree, the ultimate demise of Ansett was mainly because of Air NZ, they are NOT the only ones to blame.
After Compass had been operating for some time, and had picked up many new contracts, particularly with cargo, Air NZ were going to buy into and save Compass, as it was the ONLY way they could see to break into the Aussie market. Air NZ was ''convinced'' by the Australian Government not to rescue Compass on the assurance that the Government were going to introduce an open skies policy, and Air NZ would be able to operate IN Australia without buying Compass.
This of course did NOT happen once Air NZ backed out of the deal, and the Australian Government (primarily) closed Compass.
This left Air NZ, after being betrayed by the Australian Government, with only one option, to get hold of Ansett.
While I agree, the ultimate demise of Ansett was mainly because of Air NZ, they are NOT the only ones to blame.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...well thats as involved as it needs to be, various Australian governments, there is only one, and then the NZ one, yes you are right that the open skies policy was not going to be on, because of the investment that the Aussie taxpayer now had in QF, so ANZ took on this foolish expedition to control Ansett with out any thought to all the problems like paying for it...they didn't even do due diligence on the deal, this alarmed the people in the know like bankers and economists, in the end the NZ taxpayer had to bail in 850 million into ANZ to keep it afloat as it faced bankruptcy from this gross debarcle, so NZ saved ANZ and Aussie gov just didn't care as its interest was QF.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prof
I allowed my TGT to get a major fraction above optimal. I apologise.
No excuse, just engaging keyboard wihout brain online.
The outburst I apologise for but the content I stand by, but I do appreciate that you can see the plan behind the demise.
After plan A fell apart, I still feel plan B was to insert an SQ based carrier into the gap, but the drop in global travel was sufficient to make them hold off.
The lion sleeps tonight sort of stuff. Hold back and wait until upwind again.
I would love to know for sure as I im sure you would.
Best regards
Ron
EWL
I allowed my TGT to get a major fraction above optimal. I apologise.
No excuse, just engaging keyboard wihout brain online.
The outburst I apologise for but the content I stand by, but I do appreciate that you can see the plan behind the demise.
After plan A fell apart, I still feel plan B was to insert an SQ based carrier into the gap, but the drop in global travel was sufficient to make them hold off.
The lion sleeps tonight sort of stuff. Hold back and wait until upwind again.
I would love to know for sure as I im sure you would.
Best regards
Ron
EWL
Last edited by Eastwest Loco; 20th Sep 2009 at 11:55.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was with AN myself for nearly 30 years, prior to going to Compass in 1990, and have very fond memories of that great Company prior to then, however this was definitely NOT the same Company that finally failed.
Even prior to Air NZ taking control, AN was in big trouble.
I was also with Southern Cross (Compass 2 as some call it) for all the time we operated, and after they ceased operations I had the very sad task of going out to BNE airport where most of the MD80s were parked waiting to return to SAS, to help the Administrator, he needed my advice (or advice from someone) about what on the MD80s was owned by Southern Cross as opposed to SAS.
Anyway while we were there he said to me this is ridiculous you know, after I have done all this there will still be some money left over, or at worst maybe break even. IF I was to go down there (pointing at AN) and do the same I would have to shut them down immediately. I asked him why, and he said that AN owned nothing at all, everything was leased, they had large debts and were only surviving because of the massive cash flow from ticket sales.
Turned out the man WAS right, just it took another 8 or 9 years to finally happen.
Even prior to Air NZ taking control, AN was in big trouble.
I was also with Southern Cross (Compass 2 as some call it) for all the time we operated, and after they ceased operations I had the very sad task of going out to BNE airport where most of the MD80s were parked waiting to return to SAS, to help the Administrator, he needed my advice (or advice from someone) about what on the MD80s was owned by Southern Cross as opposed to SAS.
Anyway while we were there he said to me this is ridiculous you know, after I have done all this there will still be some money left over, or at worst maybe break even. IF I was to go down there (pointing at AN) and do the same I would have to shut them down immediately. I asked him why, and he said that AN owned nothing at all, everything was leased, they had large debts and were only surviving because of the massive cash flow from ticket sales.
Turned out the man WAS right, just it took another 8 or 9 years to finally happen.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re post 36
Guess I could say the same...eh!
Be assured I have no agenda other than to reiterate Haughtneys sentiments in post 41 (sorry H).
It is pleasing to see some here actually grasping the greater geo-political issues, but I find it puzzling that most Australians (some notable exceptions above) find it difficult to recognise the role of the Singaporeans and insist on predominately blaming the NZer's (or is this the usual churlish sheep rhetoric).
As a footnote, it's interesting to observe a similar management culture of excess at Qantas over the last few years, similar to that which existed at Air NZ and AN through the 1990's.... unfortunately I'd say .... "watch that space"
Be assured I have no agenda other than to reiterate Haughtneys sentiments in post 41 (sorry H).
It is pleasing to see some here actually grasping the greater geo-political issues, but I find it puzzling that most Australians (some notable exceptions above) find it difficult to recognise the role of the Singaporeans and insist on predominately blaming the NZer's (or is this the usual churlish sheep rhetoric).
As a footnote, it's interesting to observe a similar management culture of excess at Qantas over the last few years, similar to that which existed at Air NZ and AN through the 1990's.... unfortunately I'd say .... "watch that space"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: down south
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRSUPPORT, if that were true how then has the administrator been able to pull nearly a billion dollars out of the train wreck. This being in the aftermath of 9/11 when things were going cheap in the airline business.
Yes I agree they didnt own alot but considering Virgin was started with less than 20 mill why couldnt AN restructure and continue when it had a n assett base of $1 billion and a world classed brand .......maybe like thay say some people didnt want it to!
Yes I agree they didnt own alot but considering Virgin was started with less than 20 mill why couldnt AN restructure and continue when it had a n assett base of $1 billion and a world classed brand .......maybe like thay say some people didnt want it to!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what the Administrator said.
IF he had of done the same checks on Ansett in 1992, as he was doing on Southern Cross, he would have had to (BY LAW) shut Ansett down immediately.
I have NO first hand knowledge of what happened to Ansett after that.
IF he had of done the same checks on Ansett in 1992, as he was doing on Southern Cross, he would have had to (BY LAW) shut Ansett down immediately.
I have NO first hand knowledge of what happened to Ansett after that.
Last edited by airsupport; 22nd Sep 2009 at 01:43.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been thinking about this more, the demise of Ansett, as I said before I was with them for almost 30 years up until 1990, and regardless of who/what caused them to finally close, I think the slow end began when the Company was taken over by TNT/News, it was certainly one of the reasons I left AN to go to Compass when I got the offer.
Will NOT go in to anything controversial, but apart from anything else the whole culture changed from being a caring "Family Company" to just a very uncaring ''Corporate Culture''.
As an example some time after the takeover we had one of our Storemen go on holiday back to Ireland, he was involved in an accident an seriously ill in hospital, previously the local Management would have done whatever it took to get his Wife on an aircraft and off to Ireland and worry about sorting out the paperwork later.
However under the new Owners this was prevented, not only they couldn't do that but the new Owners insisted his Wife must submit an application for Staff Concessional Travel signed by the Employee (YES the one in hospital in Ireland) before THEY would consider letting her travel, of course what happened was what we all feared, he sadly passed away before his Wife got to Ireland to be with him.
Will NOT go in to anything controversial, but apart from anything else the whole culture changed from being a caring "Family Company" to just a very uncaring ''Corporate Culture''.
As an example some time after the takeover we had one of our Storemen go on holiday back to Ireland, he was involved in an accident an seriously ill in hospital, previously the local Management would have done whatever it took to get his Wife on an aircraft and off to Ireland and worry about sorting out the paperwork later.
However under the new Owners this was prevented, not only they couldn't do that but the new Owners insisted his Wife must submit an application for Staff Concessional Travel signed by the Employee (YES the one in hospital in Ireland) before THEY would consider letting her travel, of course what happened was what we all feared, he sadly passed away before his Wife got to Ireland to be with him.
AIRSUPPORT, if that were true how then has the administrator been able to pull nearly a billion dollars out of the train wreck. This being in the aftermath of 9/11 when things were going cheap in the airline business.
That is an easy answer. Ansett had negative equity - debt greater than assett. When a company goes belly up the receiver simply sells the retained assetts and hey presto has instant money.
The back lash to this is all the creditors are then in a line for the hand outs. Just look at the employees of Ansett.
Having step children who are both recievers and a daughter who is fast learning to become one, they study the Ansett debacle as a text book case.
Ansett was simply a company that was out of step with the rest of the business community with regard to work practices, ethics, equity and management.
They had a cost base that resembled a third world communist country and management that would have been well received on a Russian Collective farm.
Today I can still see examples of this, in fact a well known travel brand has a balance sheet that should see them instantly delisted from the ASX, but hey they chaired by a founding member of the ASX.
Nothing changes and people will never learn - today's history is just a repetition past mistakes.
That is an easy answer. Ansett had negative equity - debt greater than assett. When a company goes belly up the receiver simply sells the retained assetts and hey presto has instant money.
The back lash to this is all the creditors are then in a line for the hand outs. Just look at the employees of Ansett.
Having step children who are both recievers and a daughter who is fast learning to become one, they study the Ansett debacle as a text book case.
Ansett was simply a company that was out of step with the rest of the business community with regard to work practices, ethics, equity and management.
They had a cost base that resembled a third world communist country and management that would have been well received on a Russian Collective farm.
Today I can still see examples of this, in fact a well known travel brand has a balance sheet that should see them instantly delisted from the ASX, but hey they chaired by a founding member of the ASX.
Nothing changes and people will never learn - today's history is just a repetition past mistakes.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way Ansett is ''gone but not forgotten'' I was just reminded of, as we are every day, the clock (which maybe surprisingly) is still working perfectly that was presented to me for 25 years of loyal service to ATI by Sir Peter and Rupert back in 1988. 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett died in 1979 when TNT/NC grabbed control. Any financial statements after that were pure fiction, if they ever existed, the company being privately held. 1989 set the long fused detonator in place, not because of the dispute but in spite of it. That was the point at which economists started to assess its financial status and in 1991 the debt balloon was bulging as published. That it took another 10 years is extraordinary but demonstrates the idiocy of the headless chooks who were involved in running the joint.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can say that as often as you like, still isn't going to make it true. 
Air NZ may have hammered in the final nail in the coffin, but Ansett was in DEEP trouble (sadly) long before that.
Air NZ may have hammered in the final nail in the coffin, but Ansett was in DEEP trouble (sadly) long before that.
Evertonian
I think the "family culture" still existed in the trenches airsupport, but I agree with you corporately.
Best example of TNT/NC thinking I can think of was the pooling of parts between TN & AN. This was one of the first things stopped IIRC, and the first thing to bite them on the arse when we needed a spare!
Best example of TNT/NC thinking I can think of was the pooling of parts between TN & AN. This was one of the first things stopped IIRC, and the first thing to bite them on the arse when we needed a spare!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....ahhh krist....air and the spaz...still bitter and twisted after all this time, well as they say, you can take a horse to the trough but you cant make it drink, well better people than you two have never came to that concusion, its purely idiotic...let it go....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air and the spaz...still bitter and twisted after all this time
I am still somewhat bitter about what AN (among others) did to Compass, but have no feelings either way really about AN after 1990.