Air Australia!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow talk about pushing your own barrow.
Who ever said that they were unsafe? That is an absolute slur on those that worked there and I think you should have a serious re-think about your comments.
Whilst you may have a hatred for the regulator, don't for a minute discredit the very capable and very professional staff that kept the airline safe through all this.
Bad taste.
MP
Who ever said that they were unsafe? That is an absolute slur on those that worked there and I think you should have a serious re-think about your comments.
Whilst you may have a hatred for the regulator, don't for a minute discredit the very capable and very professional staff that kept the airline safe through all this.
Bad taste.
MP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gobble, CASA's remit is not to provide health checks for an airlines finances. AA passed a safety audit weeks before they went belly up and that is that, CASA's job was done and they correctly ascertained that the airlines safety requirements were being fulfilled....
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gobbels, you are way off the mark here, as a matter of fact it is quite opposite.
The regulator can and does request a financial health check, I know because I have prepared one, as per any "accountant produced figures" they can be manipulated to represent any outcome you desire.
Regarding the "safety aspect" AA appears to be a very safety orientated, having intimate dealings with CASA on this I have seen how the regulator/FOI's can place undue burden upon an organisation in regard to the level of training, staffing, and the expense required to satisfy the regulators request.
AA have spent an absolute fortune on "training and safety systems" to overly satisfy the regulator. FACT.
Maybe if some of this overburden had not been spent on systems, consultants and contractors that were requested by the regulator then AA would have had more in the kitty at the end of the day.
The R part is one thing however, the lack of defined rules and process by some levels & individuals in CASA, is astonishing where perfectly working, internationally accepted method, process and qualification is accepted by one division/individual and not another is beggars belief.
I can tell you right now their are some individuals (CASA) who have constructed little empires in the belief that their instance of process and policy have had there desired result, AA is now the safest airline in Australia.... because they dont have an aircraft in the sky.
The regulator can and does request a financial health check, I know because I have prepared one, as per any "accountant produced figures" they can be manipulated to represent any outcome you desire.
Regarding the "safety aspect" AA appears to be a very safety orientated, having intimate dealings with CASA on this I have seen how the regulator/FOI's can place undue burden upon an organisation in regard to the level of training, staffing, and the expense required to satisfy the regulators request.
AA have spent an absolute fortune on "training and safety systems" to overly satisfy the regulator. FACT.
Maybe if some of this overburden had not been spent on systems, consultants and contractors that were requested by the regulator then AA would have had more in the kitty at the end of the day.
The R part is one thing however, the lack of defined rules and process by some levels & individuals in CASA, is astonishing where perfectly working, internationally accepted method, process and qualification is accepted by one division/individual and not another is beggars belief.
I can tell you right now their are some individuals (CASA) who have constructed little empires in the belief that their instance of process and policy have had there desired result, AA is now the safest airline in Australia.... because they dont have an aircraft in the sky.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not personally saying that AA was unsafe. I am saying that if you apply what is contained in the elements or components of an SMS then finances and resources, or a lack of, is classed as a safety risk. Apply that to what occurred at AA and you have, according to the SMS, a heightened safety risk.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets put this into perspective.
At the end of the day this is plain theft. The management knew what the position of the company was and chose to use creditors and customers money to fund an ill conceived venture. It never added up just like SAW. It was always going to end like this.
The day they used the money from a pre-purchased ticket as they only way to pay a liability was the day they were without doubt technically insolvent.
As for having the regulator decide a companies fate on the basis of financial viability. Give me a break... They can't manage themselves or regulate properly. To now have them as business advisers and assessors or know how to run a company is beyond belief.
I do agree that their job is to make sure all the requirements are met and yes they should be more vigilant when companies are under financial stress. It is a clear indicator but not one on which they should act alone.
At the end of the day this is plain theft. The management knew what the position of the company was and chose to use creditors and customers money to fund an ill conceived venture. It never added up just like SAW. It was always going to end like this.
The day they used the money from a pre-purchased ticket as they only way to pay a liability was the day they were without doubt technically insolvent.
As for having the regulator decide a companies fate on the basis of financial viability. Give me a break... They can't manage themselves or regulate properly. To now have them as business advisers and assessors or know how to run a company is beyond belief.
I do agree that their job is to make sure all the requirements are met and yes they should be more vigilant when companies are under financial stress. It is a clear indicator but not one on which they should act alone.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating insolvent. They had only 440,000 in cash and 90 million in debt, and not enough to pay the staff.
They were operating whilst they were insolvent. An illegal act.
They were operating whilst they were insolvent. An illegal act.
why do Australians always want to blame some third party eg banks, CASA, etc for the short comings of a commercial enterprise that failed?
The Soviet system that nothing failed because it was government owned and controlled failed too....
AA was a failed model from the start. Might have stood a chance sticking to FIFO charters but RPT is a different kettle of fish. You cannot sell $10 tickets for $9 and stay in business. Loads are nothing if the yield isn't there.
The Soviet system that nothing failed because it was government owned and controlled failed too....
AA was a failed model from the start. Might have stood a chance sticking to FIFO charters but RPT is a different kettle of fish. You cannot sell $10 tickets for $9 and stay in business. Loads are nothing if the yield isn't there.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TBM
I hope you were not suggesting I was blaming the banks for the failure. I agree 100%, it is not up to CASA or anyone else to oversee a company and its affairs like that.
However....Banks like ANZ do require property developers etc to have large ammounts of equity before they underwrite a project, so why is it that the banks take on such underfunded, under planned, and under resourced operations, when they would never do that for a land development?
I know only a little about this from talking to one of the big end of town ANZ lending exec's who explained this to me recently. My insides were rolling in laughter when I heard this and compared it to some other bad investments made by ANZ in recent years that were just coming home to roost. Clearly ANZ were not too smart in the last 5 years, and nothing has changed.
The problem here is the bank suffers losses that affect shareholders, and the mum and dad folks fees and interest rates all go up. So my question is .......Why?? How do the banks let this start...let alone continue
Not enough due diligence from all parties involved. And nothing to do with CASA, and best that way too, they have enough to do and can't.
why do Australians always want to blame some third party eg banks, CASA, etc for the short comings of a commercial enterprise that failed?
However....Banks like ANZ do require property developers etc to have large ammounts of equity before they underwrite a project, so why is it that the banks take on such underfunded, under planned, and under resourced operations, when they would never do that for a land development?
I know only a little about this from talking to one of the big end of town ANZ lending exec's who explained this to me recently. My insides were rolling in laughter when I heard this and compared it to some other bad investments made by ANZ in recent years that were just coming home to roost. Clearly ANZ were not too smart in the last 5 years, and nothing has changed.
The problem here is the bank suffers losses that affect shareholders, and the mum and dad folks fees and interest rates all go up. So my question is .......Why?? How do the banks let this start...let alone continue
Not enough due diligence from all parties involved. And nothing to do with CASA, and best that way too, they have enough to do and can't.
AA pre-sells lots of seats. Cash sits in the bank. Bank johnnies look at the balance. Mmmmm, business is booming let's lend against that. Aircraft flies, money goes out the door, more pre-sales...more $$$$
basically a pyramid scheme until the cash runs out.
basically a pyramid scheme until the cash runs out.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago I was told by a TAA finance guy that all monies collected for future travel was placed in an "unearned revenue" account and only brought to account when the ticket (flight coupon) was actually used.
The monies in this "unearned revenue" account was used to play the money market... so I was informed.
Has this system changed?
The monies in this "unearned revenue" account was used to play the money market... so I was informed.
Has this system changed?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One msut realise that there is 2 weeks of IATA/BSP trading held in the IATA coffers.
That would be millions of bucks plus. Who would know.
After the AN collapse that was returned to the Agents in the case of cash transactions.
The 2 Marks then sought to regain it despite the fact that there were flown revenue overides to multiples of the amounts they tried to rip back that were treated as unsecured debts.
It didn't work very well.
The largest slice of the revenue held by IATA by far will be credit card and will melt like the snow in Spring as reversals come in by credit card.
I had 2 bookings on cash for 4 people total that I refunded just after 0700 on the morning of the breaking news and for the sake of my clients I hope they go through but even if they are cleared by IATA I will have to wait over 9 months to see if I can clear the funds back to the passengers.
Animalclub - Your info is right on the money.
My dad after being a LAME for TAA for many years did night school and became a CPA for them.
He was responsible for loading the "unearned revenue" onto the short term money market over 30 years ago.
I cannot remember the dollar values but I can remember they were scary back then to an 18 year old.
There is no big business that doesn't do it.
Best
EWL
That would be millions of bucks plus. Who would know.
After the AN collapse that was returned to the Agents in the case of cash transactions.
The 2 Marks then sought to regain it despite the fact that there were flown revenue overides to multiples of the amounts they tried to rip back that were treated as unsecured debts.
It didn't work very well.
The largest slice of the revenue held by IATA by far will be credit card and will melt like the snow in Spring as reversals come in by credit card.
I had 2 bookings on cash for 4 people total that I refunded just after 0700 on the morning of the breaking news and for the sake of my clients I hope they go through but even if they are cleared by IATA I will have to wait over 9 months to see if I can clear the funds back to the passengers.
Animalclub - Your info is right on the money.
My dad after being a LAME for TAA for many years did night school and became a CPA for them.
He was responsible for loading the "unearned revenue" onto the short term money market over 30 years ago.
I cannot remember the dollar values but I can remember they were scary back then to an 18 year old.
There is no big business that doesn't do it.
Best
EWL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an adjunct to Jaba's post, when asked at the first creditors meeting about a possible or perceived conflict of interest, the administrators were very very quick in declaring that they were "acting as advisers to the ANZ" and not to AA. Says a lot really doesn't it 
Be that as it may, businesses start and fail with monotonous regularity and when they do fail there is always collateral damage. While we may find someone or something to blame an emotionally "soothing balm", dwelling on this will not help those affected move on. In time (providing the ANZ adviser has his cash) the reasons for the failure will come to light.
All of us at AA if we are honest with ourselves, new deep down that this was a rocky road we traveled, but loved the journey none the less. To be honest, if another "start up" was to be attempted again some time in the future I would have another crack at it. I'm just so utterly fed up with the monopolies (Coles-Woolies, Big Four Banks, Qantas-Virgin, Telstra etc etc) running our lives and the choices we have.
Some go to the fair and choose the roundabout, I choose the roller-coaster every time.
Be that as it may, businesses start and fail with monotonous regularity and when they do fail there is always collateral damage. While we may find someone or something to blame an emotionally "soothing balm", dwelling on this will not help those affected move on. In time (providing the ANZ adviser has his cash) the reasons for the failure will come to light.
All of us at AA if we are honest with ourselves, new deep down that this was a rocky road we traveled, but loved the journey none the less. To be honest, if another "start up" was to be attempted again some time in the future I would have another crack at it. I'm just so utterly fed up with the monopolies (Coles-Woolies, Big Four Banks, Qantas-Virgin, Telstra etc etc) running our lives and the choices we have.
Some go to the fair and choose the roundabout, I choose the roller-coaster every time.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 47
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spike
They were assigned and IATA number of 471. Just like QF is 081, Sing Air is 618, Ansett was 090 etc.
How then were Air Oz not IATA accredited? I issued tickets on them through IATA/BSP.
The cash refunds I processed for clients appear to have failed so now we must wait to see what comes of those. It was worth a shot.
The numbers that have come out aren't pretty but don't forget the 5.5 mil that their insurer is sitting on from the DPS breakdown, suibsequent HKT cancel and so on.
5.5 million is a nasty cash flow hole in anyones language.
Best all
EWL
They were assigned and IATA number of 471. Just like QF is 081, Sing Air is 618, Ansett was 090 etc.
How then were Air Oz not IATA accredited? I issued tickets on them through IATA/BSP.
The cash refunds I processed for clients appear to have failed so now we must wait to see what comes of those. It was worth a shot.
The numbers that have come out aren't pretty but don't forget the 5.5 mil that their insurer is sitting on from the DPS breakdown, suibsequent HKT cancel and so on.
5.5 million is a nasty cash flow hole in anyones language.
Best all
EWL
And, just for info.....
'The 'MALAISE' Continues.....
From the AvWeb site (USA),....
" INDIA'S KINGFISHER ON THE ROPES
Days may be numbered for India's largest budget airline but Kingfisher Airlines is soldiering on even though the Indian government has frozen its bank accounts and its pilots are becoming less interested in going to work since they haven't been paid since November. The accounts freeze came last week after the airline failed to meet a deadline to pay millions in back taxes. Somehow, the airline is still finding crews to volunteer to fly the 28 remaining aircraft still operational (from a total fleet of 68) and it's still finding passengers willing to join them. Kingfisher's flamboyant CEO, Vijay Mallya, who lives part-time in Marin County near San Francisco, says his company will survive."
What IS it with these people..??
Crews NOT paid since November last???
Accounts frozen?
And this 'flamboyant' CEO lives in California..???
Hello....Hello....crews... Still 'Volunteering..??
'Drift' I know...but a similar drift....to the left....!!
No Cheers 'ere....
'The 'MALAISE' Continues.....
From the AvWeb site (USA),....
" INDIA'S KINGFISHER ON THE ROPES
Days may be numbered for India's largest budget airline but Kingfisher Airlines is soldiering on even though the Indian government has frozen its bank accounts and its pilots are becoming less interested in going to work since they haven't been paid since November. The accounts freeze came last week after the airline failed to meet a deadline to pay millions in back taxes. Somehow, the airline is still finding crews to volunteer to fly the 28 remaining aircraft still operational (from a total fleet of 68) and it's still finding passengers willing to join them. Kingfisher's flamboyant CEO, Vijay Mallya, who lives part-time in Marin County near San Francisco, says his company will survive."
What IS it with these people..??
Crews NOT paid since November last???
Accounts frozen?
And this 'flamboyant' CEO lives in California..???
Hello....Hello....crews... Still 'Volunteering..??
'Drift' I know...but a similar drift....to the left....!!
No Cheers 'ere....