Kiwis have chips on both flaps
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widening the thread a little
First of all, to EWL: Mate, your post is, as usual, a study of moderation and common sense. You and KSP sidle up to an issue which is wider than aviation. We see it at work in the QF/ANZ proposal, but it doesn't stop there.
The issue is, of course, the question of where NZ sees itself in the world, and whether our nominal independence is worth the price to be paid by NZers. It's a stark choice: to submit to the perceived yoke of an Australia which has treated us shabbily in the past, or to accept the slow retreat to third world status that our size and location demands. In this circumstance, it's understandable that we can get snippy from time to time.
A little history lesson might help here. In 1707, the United Kindom was formed by the union of England (and Wales) and Scotland. Both before and after the fact, vested interests in both countries whipped up public sentiment against the Union, making use of the same sorts of appeals to prejudice that we see on the Forum daily. Clearer thinkers, particularly in Scotland which had the bitter prospect of surrendering its, again, nominal independence saw through the specious arguments of separatism to the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. History shows that the union was a resounding success, and set the stage for the expansion of the British Empire following the loss of the English colonies in North America.
Fast forward some 300 years, and on the other side of the world, we are presented with a remarkably congruent situation. For their entire histories, Australia and New Zealand have been the closest of neighbours, sharing a common culture of mateship and fair play. Our fathers fought together, not only at Gallipoli, but also in Flanders and Palestine in the war to end all wars; and with distinction on all too many occasions thereafter. Many of our civil institutions mirror those on the other side: there is broad cross-recognition of standards and qualifications in areas such as medicine, accountancy and science. However, an increasing gap between the two countries exists across standards of living and national outlook. It is this gap which initiatives such as the Closer Economic Relationship, and impetus towards merger of our stock exchanges and currency union seek to redress. From these startpoints, the endgame of political Union or Federation is a heartbeat away.
It's a question which affects both sides of the Tasman, as Australians slowly come to the realisation forced on New Zealand; namely, that neither of us is sufficiently large to survive in an increasingly hostile and competitive world. The English and Scots faced this question 300 years ago. Their choice, that a whole is greater than its parts should instruct us today. Nevertheless, all we see and hear in the media are the appeals to prejudice typified by the dole bludger or the ocker - a vested interest in selling papers obviates a more complete analysis of the issue. Disappointingly, it must be said that many contibutions to this Forum are patently the children of this media slant.
The AN bastardry of 2001 was not a Kiwi thing, any more than the HIH bastardry was an Aussie thing: it's just easier to sell papers that way. Unfortunately, complete and proper examination of the ANZ/AN shemozzle is likely to be impeded by those same News interests, and in any practical sense is likely to be a waste of time anyway. (Not that I wouldn't welcome an appropriately targeted hanging or three: it would give us all some sense of closure.)
Overall, I think we get far too possessive of our national airlines: after all, they're just corporations with strengths and vulnerabilities like any other. In the new world order, they can't even be assured of our loyal patronage if there's a cheaper fare going down the road. Are they really an appropriate repository for our national pride? - far better the ANZACs, Ed Hillary, Don Bradman, Howard Florey or Ernest Rutherford, people who embody those values we hold dear, rather than a couple of transport companies.
In this context, it's frustrating to see the ANZ/QF alliance being discussed, even on this professional forum, in terms of ockers v bludgers, ANZ incompetence v AN incompetence, or competitive bestial sex with a national animal ad nauseum, ad infinitum. (Namecalling and resort to proxy heroes or demons - All Blacks, Wallabies - is learnt early in the schoolyard, and is an easy option when we've run out of argument!) Surely we can all do better: indeed, I think we're going to have to.
The proposed ANZ/QF alliance throws up questions which cut across purely national boundaries: the AN drivers' 'Australian flying for Australian pilots' only made sense in a totally Australian context; in the context of an international network it is meaningless, as the definition of Australian flying collapses. We are told that the alliance will generate millions in cost savings through 'synergies'. Let's not kid ourselves: synergies mean productivity gains. Given that they can't work any of us any harder, the mathematics gives the result: job losses or delayed progression. How we counter this threat will take co-operation, rather than competition, from both pilots' bodies: otherwise we see the spectre of longterm wetleasing, competitive tendering and other measures being taken by our masters.
In this brave new world, it seems that we may have to learn to hang together, or we will certainly hang separately. It's a feeling our forebears could relate to!
(Climbs off soapbox, opens fridge: VB or Speights? Nah, a Stella I think!)
edited for the usual spelling phuqups and that UBB thingy
The issue is, of course, the question of where NZ sees itself in the world, and whether our nominal independence is worth the price to be paid by NZers. It's a stark choice: to submit to the perceived yoke of an Australia which has treated us shabbily in the past, or to accept the slow retreat to third world status that our size and location demands. In this circumstance, it's understandable that we can get snippy from time to time.
A little history lesson might help here. In 1707, the United Kindom was formed by the union of England (and Wales) and Scotland. Both before and after the fact, vested interests in both countries whipped up public sentiment against the Union, making use of the same sorts of appeals to prejudice that we see on the Forum daily. Clearer thinkers, particularly in Scotland which had the bitter prospect of surrendering its, again, nominal independence saw through the specious arguments of separatism to the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. History shows that the union was a resounding success, and set the stage for the expansion of the British Empire following the loss of the English colonies in North America.
Fast forward some 300 years, and on the other side of the world, we are presented with a remarkably congruent situation. For their entire histories, Australia and New Zealand have been the closest of neighbours, sharing a common culture of mateship and fair play. Our fathers fought together, not only at Gallipoli, but also in Flanders and Palestine in the war to end all wars; and with distinction on all too many occasions thereafter. Many of our civil institutions mirror those on the other side: there is broad cross-recognition of standards and qualifications in areas such as medicine, accountancy and science. However, an increasing gap between the two countries exists across standards of living and national outlook. It is this gap which initiatives such as the Closer Economic Relationship, and impetus towards merger of our stock exchanges and currency union seek to redress. From these startpoints, the endgame of political Union or Federation is a heartbeat away.
It's a question which affects both sides of the Tasman, as Australians slowly come to the realisation forced on New Zealand; namely, that neither of us is sufficiently large to survive in an increasingly hostile and competitive world. The English and Scots faced this question 300 years ago. Their choice, that a whole is greater than its parts should instruct us today. Nevertheless, all we see and hear in the media are the appeals to prejudice typified by the dole bludger or the ocker - a vested interest in selling papers obviates a more complete analysis of the issue. Disappointingly, it must be said that many contibutions to this Forum are patently the children of this media slant.
The AN bastardry of 2001 was not a Kiwi thing, any more than the HIH bastardry was an Aussie thing: it's just easier to sell papers that way. Unfortunately, complete and proper examination of the ANZ/AN shemozzle is likely to be impeded by those same News interests, and in any practical sense is likely to be a waste of time anyway. (Not that I wouldn't welcome an appropriately targeted hanging or three: it would give us all some sense of closure.)
Overall, I think we get far too possessive of our national airlines: after all, they're just corporations with strengths and vulnerabilities like any other. In the new world order, they can't even be assured of our loyal patronage if there's a cheaper fare going down the road. Are they really an appropriate repository for our national pride? - far better the ANZACs, Ed Hillary, Don Bradman, Howard Florey or Ernest Rutherford, people who embody those values we hold dear, rather than a couple of transport companies.
In this context, it's frustrating to see the ANZ/QF alliance being discussed, even on this professional forum, in terms of ockers v bludgers, ANZ incompetence v AN incompetence, or competitive bestial sex with a national animal ad nauseum, ad infinitum. (Namecalling and resort to proxy heroes or demons - All Blacks, Wallabies - is learnt early in the schoolyard, and is an easy option when we've run out of argument!) Surely we can all do better: indeed, I think we're going to have to.
The proposed ANZ/QF alliance throws up questions which cut across purely national boundaries: the AN drivers' 'Australian flying for Australian pilots' only made sense in a totally Australian context; in the context of an international network it is meaningless, as the definition of Australian flying collapses. We are told that the alliance will generate millions in cost savings through 'synergies'. Let's not kid ourselves: synergies mean productivity gains. Given that they can't work any of us any harder, the mathematics gives the result: job losses or delayed progression. How we counter this threat will take co-operation, rather than competition, from both pilots' bodies: otherwise we see the spectre of longterm wetleasing, competitive tendering and other measures being taken by our masters.
In this brave new world, it seems that we may have to learn to hang together, or we will certainly hang separately. It's a feeling our forebears could relate to!
(Climbs off soapbox, opens fridge: VB or Speights? Nah, a Stella I think!)
edited for the usual spelling phuqups and that UBB thingy
Last edited by Friendly Pelican; 21st Jan 2003 at 23:01.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 titan, no worries, what you actually said is pretty much the publicly canvassed options that SQ have thought about. What the SQ board talks about behind closed doors is of course not heard and not even filtered out.
The speculation of SQ joining QF is pretty laughable, I think the board of QF have this oppinion that the rest of the worlds airlines think the sun shines out of the QF backside, sadly it don't. There are things called luck and government assistance which SQ recognise.
SQ will do their own thing, they won't buckle to rumour and inuendo that comes out in the press by QF and vested interests in order to get them to declare thier hand early, it won't work Geoff.
We'll see what happens when and if the open skies thing happens as to what SQ will do, that will have some bearing.
Like I said though, and Choong said this himself in the Straights Times in Singapore that the fantasy of SQ joining up with QF is the fantasy in Geoff Dixon's head, it's not a fantasy in Singapore and the incoming new CEO of SQ has the same opinion.
The speculation of SQ joining QF is pretty laughable, I think the board of QF have this oppinion that the rest of the worlds airlines think the sun shines out of the QF backside, sadly it don't. There are things called luck and government assistance which SQ recognise.
SQ will do their own thing, they won't buckle to rumour and inuendo that comes out in the press by QF and vested interests in order to get them to declare thier hand early, it won't work Geoff.
We'll see what happens when and if the open skies thing happens as to what SQ will do, that will have some bearing.
Like I said though, and Choong said this himself in the Straights Times in Singapore that the fantasy of SQ joining up with QF is the fantasy in Geoff Dixon's head, it's not a fantasy in Singapore and the incoming new CEO of SQ has the same opinion.
