Air NZ announcement
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 89
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air nz cutting services
Air New Zealand is still a predator airline, if some one shows up on those cancelled by them they will relight the cancelled operations.
Some years ago a freight company was operating LAX to AMML via AKL.
An Air NZ sales rep appeared on the tarmac just as the cargo was about to be loaded. This rep asked for the consignee, and made this offer.
"WE ANZ WILL CARRY THIS CARGO FOR FREE IF YOU DONT LOAD THAT AIRCRAFT.
THE CONSIGNEE SAID YES LETS GO. the conversation went on and the offer was for the next night.
The Consignee said now it has to be in AMML by mid day tomorrow.
I was witness to this conversation, and interjected by telling the ANZ man to something to himself that was impossible.
DONT TRUST AIR NEW ZEALAND!
Some years ago a freight company was operating LAX to AMML via AKL.
An Air NZ sales rep appeared on the tarmac just as the cargo was about to be loaded. This rep asked for the consignee, and made this offer.
"WE ANZ WILL CARRY THIS CARGO FOR FREE IF YOU DONT LOAD THAT AIRCRAFT.
THE CONSIGNEE SAID YES LETS GO. the conversation went on and the offer was for the next night.
The Consignee said now it has to be in AMML by mid day tomorrow.
I was witness to this conversation, and interjected by telling the ANZ man to something to himself that was impossible.
DONT TRUST AIR NEW ZEALAND!
You hear many big companies these days, including Air New Zealand saying that the only thing that matters, is keeping their share holders happy, little ever seems to be said of the customers. Kaitaia in particular, needs some form of air link to Auckland, otherwise a four hour plus road journey each way, contending with large logging trucks, Dome Valley etc.
Now, as one of the major share holders in Air New Zealand is the NZ Government & that would mean any of the MPs, in the case of Kaitaia & the far north, Mr Mike Sabin, what action are you going to take to assist the people affected?
Now, as one of the major share holders in Air New Zealand is the NZ Government & that would mean any of the MPs, in the case of Kaitaia & the far north, Mr Mike Sabin, what action are you going to take to assist the people affected?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i assume that mr sabin would expect that the airline would continue to do its best to sustainably maximise its returns to its shareholders, one of which is the nz govt.
why do some folks think air nz owes a subsidised public service to some of its network? air nz is a privately owned business that quite rightly operates in the best interests of its shareholders.
if residents of a small town want an air service to somewhere, theres nothing stopping them from starting one.
why do some folks think air nz owes a subsidised public service to some of its network? air nz is a privately owned business that quite rightly operates in the best interests of its shareholders.
if residents of a small town want an air service to somewhere, theres nothing stopping them from starting one.
^^^ well said. The faster people realise that Air NZ is just a privately run business like any other then maybe they will stop 'expecting' them to provide loss making air links just for the hell of it. A small operator will step in, make a success of the route, try and expand, and will then be put out of business by Air NZ when they takeout the competition.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes Prospector, but not in this case. Total government buy in was 885m. Dividends and partial sell down returned 1.05b, plus the governments current holding is worth 1.3b. So a government profit of 1.465b to date. Not too shabby I would have thought. And that ignores the value of Air NZs contribution to the NZ tourism industry through off shore marketing which is not insignificant.
Oh, and how much do you thing share holders made in 2001? SFA. So in this case, public profit, private debt.
As for South Canterbury Finance, there you might have an argument.
Oh, and how much do you thing share holders made in 2001? SFA. So in this case, public profit, private debt.
As for South Canterbury Finance, there you might have an argument.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the debt is public the profit is private.
the nz taxpayer (and the rest of the economy) has done well out of that 885m. the consequences of letting airnz fail would most likely have been a lot worse.
i wonder how much tax airnz has gone on to pay since?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how much would they have lost?
i dont think they did too well as it was
i dont think they did too well as it was
WELLINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Twelve years in the private sector ended for Air New Zealand on Thursday, as the NZ government agreed to take back the controls in a NZ$885 million
(US$360 million) rescue plan.
The bail-out will see the NZ government emerge with about 83 percent of its national carrier, while the holdings of major shareholders -- Brierley Investments Ltd and Singapore Airlines (Singapore: SIAL.SI - news) Ltd -- will be hugely diluted.
Air NZ shares slumped 30 percent in the wake of the deal, as investors realised there was little value left in their holdings.
(US$360 million) rescue plan.
The bail-out will see the NZ government emerge with about 83 percent of its national carrier, while the holdings of major shareholders -- Brierley Investments Ltd and Singapore Airlines (Singapore: SIAL.SI - news) Ltd -- will be hugely diluted.
Air NZ shares slumped 30 percent in the wake of the deal, as investors realised there was little value left in their holdings.
Apply to JQ NZ.
They have lost a few FO's lately to the sandpit.
$94k base
$97k base early next year.
Expect about 15k in overtime.
They have lost a few FO's lately to the sandpit.
$94k base
$97k base early next year.
Expect about 15k in overtime.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong!
Air New Zealand Limited is a state owned enterprise. Accordingly, it has statutory obligations that other private companies are not subject to; namely:
4 Principal objective to be successful business
(1)The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—
(a)as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown; and
(b)a good employer; and
(c)an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.
So let's unpackage that:
4(1)(a) says that the enterprise shall be as profitable as comparable businesses that are not owned by the crown. Note it does not say that it shall be more profitable than et cetera. We always hear about the amazing profitability of the airline in the face of the conditions and how it is an amazing performer compared with other airlines.
Airline profits are crummy in the best of times so for Air New Zealand to be making a stellar profit year-in-year-out probably actually contradicts the statute because, rather than being as profitable as comparable businesses, it is being run more profitably than comparable businesses.
The second part of the legislation I have trouble reconciling with the reality of Air New Zealand's philosophy is 4(1)(c) which says the enterprise should
"[Exhibit] a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so."
It is hard to see how cutting services to remote towns in New Zealand is responsible to the community. Even if you took the 'when able to do so' caveat, you would stumble in the face of the fact that the airline has operated those routes for decades.
So you are wrong when you say the airline is simply a private interest. It has statutory obligations that I have briefly and clumsily outlined above. I do not believe it is currently fulfilling them.
Air New Zealand Limited is a state owned enterprise. Accordingly, it has statutory obligations that other private companies are not subject to; namely:
4 Principal objective to be successful business
(1)The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—
(a)as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown; and
(b)a good employer; and
(c)an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.
So let's unpackage that:
4(1)(a) says that the enterprise shall be as profitable as comparable businesses that are not owned by the crown. Note it does not say that it shall be more profitable than et cetera. We always hear about the amazing profitability of the airline in the face of the conditions and how it is an amazing performer compared with other airlines.
Airline profits are crummy in the best of times so for Air New Zealand to be making a stellar profit year-in-year-out probably actually contradicts the statute because, rather than being as profitable as comparable businesses, it is being run more profitably than comparable businesses.
The second part of the legislation I have trouble reconciling with the reality of Air New Zealand's philosophy is 4(1)(c) which says the enterprise should
"[Exhibit] a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so."
It is hard to see how cutting services to remote towns in New Zealand is responsible to the community. Even if you took the 'when able to do so' caveat, you would stumble in the face of the fact that the airline has operated those routes for decades.
So you are wrong when you say the airline is simply a private interest. It has statutory obligations that I have briefly and clumsily outlined above. I do not believe it is currently fulfilling them.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only Akl FOs regularly in overtime, most likely if Queenstown qualified.
So 125 extra hours a year (15k) probably a bit of a stretch.
Would also be an awful lot of work and probably not sustainable year in year out
Guest
Posts: n/a
Air New Zealand Limited is a state owned enterprise. Accordingly, it has statutory obligations that other private companies are not subject to; namely:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airnz is not a soe. it is a publicly listed company. the govt just happens to own some shares.
as for
wait, what?
as for
...so for Air New Zealand to be making a stellar profit year-in-year-out...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts