Sunday on 9 tries to blame Anderson
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday on 9 tries to blame Anderson
Have a look at the transcript of this doozie.
Anderson put that blonde tart back on her a#se, after she suggested he was responsible for the New Zealands government being unable to make a decision.
Jeez. There must be an election going on.
And SIR Selwyn Cushings expression and body language was a joy to behold as he denied ANYTHING was his fault.
The conclusion seems to be that no one is to blame, but lets blame the Coalition gummint for it anyway. Trouble is that Anderson handles these journo jerks on a break. Didn't raise a sweat.
Anderson put that blonde tart back on her a#se, after she suggested he was responsible for the New Zealands government being unable to make a decision.
Jeez. There must be an election going on.
And SIR Selwyn Cushings expression and body language was a joy to behold as he denied ANYTHING was his fault.
The conclusion seems to be that no one is to blame, but lets blame the Coalition gummint for it anyway. Trouble is that Anderson handles these journo jerks on a break. Didn't raise a sweat.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would not be unreasonable to partially blame CASA for scraping the icing from the Ansett cake. Considering the thin industry profit margin, loss of even one percentage point of market share could have devastating effect on airline viability.
Toller and Co’s insane grab for media glory a few days before Christmas and Easter may have dealt the final deathblow to Ansett.
And Anderson – again - didn’t intervene.
The Nationals are almost a spent force in Queensland and about to fade into oblivion nationally. Anderson will go down in history as the Leader who rode a once great Country Party and Australia’s aviation industry into the ground.
Toller and Co’s insane grab for media glory a few days before Christmas and Easter may have dealt the final deathblow to Ansett.
And Anderson – again - didn’t intervene.
The Nationals are almost a spent force in Queensland and about to fade into oblivion nationally. Anderson will go down in history as the Leader who rode a once great Country Party and Australia’s aviation industry into the ground.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who Shot Down Ansett?
October 28, 2001
Reporter : Helen Dalley
This week, Sunday reveals who's really behind the collapse of Ansett Airlines.
At first glance, the Air New Zealand board seems most at fault but, as Helen Dalley discovers, there's a long list of companies, governments and people who were all, in some way, responsible for the final sad result. Air New Zealand certainly played a large part in the Ansett demise. They already owned 50 percent of the company and when the remaining 50 percent came up for sale, Air New Zealand's board paid a premium price without doing fiduciary due diligence. They would also have known the expensive nature of the ageing fleet. But the board claimed they were in the dark about the shoddy maintenance practices that occurred under News Corp, as well as being misled about the overall profitability of Ansett.
Dr Jim Farmer, Acting Chair of Air New Zealnd said: "There were not accurate records relating to route profitability, for example. So, you didn't have a very clear picture available to you of the economic state, the commercial state of the airline. It took us a long time to work out just what the economic and commercial state of the airline was."
Also bearing responsibility, according to many observers, is the New Zealand Government, who procrastinated for months over a re-capitalisation plan by Singapore Airlines to bail out Air New Zealand and Ansett. Even though the New Zealand Government denies it did anything wrong, the fact that they did nothing at all made the collapse inevitable.
High on the "blame list" is the Australian Government, who shamelessly went into bat for Qantas, preferring to believe that particular airline's more optimistic figures on Ansett's financial health — rather than Ansett's own more realistic figures. Canberra also continued to push an alternative deal to the Singapore Airlines' one. Supporting a Qantas buy-out of Singapore's holdings in Air New Zealand, John Anderson's lobbying severely muddied the waters, keeping much-needed capital from reaching Air New Zealand.
In New Zealand, business commentators feel the real blame hasn't yet been sheeted home. Fran O'Sullivan of the New Zealand Herald said: "The New Zealand Government has been quite culpable in all this whole affair. It has had a lack of commercial nous, it has tended not to want to engage with the airline board."
The New Zealand Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, told Sunday that the New Zealand Government negotiated to the end, trying to save Ansett, but that the task was beyond them: "We were getting extraordinarily frustrated about the inability to pin Air New Zealand down on exactly what it needed ... extraordinarily frustrated. And, of course, because we couldn't say that in the public arena ... because we could scarcely say our national flag carrier seemed to be drifting without knowing what it was doing ... we were a free kick for anybody."
But the fact remains that both governments failed to act in a way that was helpful to Air New Zealand. As Air New Zealnd management came to grips with the realities of keeping Ansett in the air, it became apparent the pay rates and conditions that the unions had negotiated with Ansett over the years were way ahead of Qantas. ACTU Secretary Greg Combet denied that the unions were in any way responsible for the downfall of the airline: "I'm not going to have the workers or the unions criticised for what has happened, because we are not at fault. We have made every effort to try and make sure this airline has been on a good commercial footing."
This Sunday investigation of the Ansett collapse concludes: While a lot of people and organisations don't want to share any of the blame for bringing down the airline, most are very good at ducking any suggestion they may have contributed to its demise.
October 28, 2001
Reporter : Helen Dalley
This week, Sunday reveals who's really behind the collapse of Ansett Airlines.
At first glance, the Air New Zealand board seems most at fault but, as Helen Dalley discovers, there's a long list of companies, governments and people who were all, in some way, responsible for the final sad result. Air New Zealand certainly played a large part in the Ansett demise. They already owned 50 percent of the company and when the remaining 50 percent came up for sale, Air New Zealand's board paid a premium price without doing fiduciary due diligence. They would also have known the expensive nature of the ageing fleet. But the board claimed they were in the dark about the shoddy maintenance practices that occurred under News Corp, as well as being misled about the overall profitability of Ansett.
Dr Jim Farmer, Acting Chair of Air New Zealnd said: "There were not accurate records relating to route profitability, for example. So, you didn't have a very clear picture available to you of the economic state, the commercial state of the airline. It took us a long time to work out just what the economic and commercial state of the airline was."
Also bearing responsibility, according to many observers, is the New Zealand Government, who procrastinated for months over a re-capitalisation plan by Singapore Airlines to bail out Air New Zealand and Ansett. Even though the New Zealand Government denies it did anything wrong, the fact that they did nothing at all made the collapse inevitable.
High on the "blame list" is the Australian Government, who shamelessly went into bat for Qantas, preferring to believe that particular airline's more optimistic figures on Ansett's financial health — rather than Ansett's own more realistic figures. Canberra also continued to push an alternative deal to the Singapore Airlines' one. Supporting a Qantas buy-out of Singapore's holdings in Air New Zealand, John Anderson's lobbying severely muddied the waters, keeping much-needed capital from reaching Air New Zealand.
In New Zealand, business commentators feel the real blame hasn't yet been sheeted home. Fran O'Sullivan of the New Zealand Herald said: "The New Zealand Government has been quite culpable in all this whole affair. It has had a lack of commercial nous, it has tended not to want to engage with the airline board."
The New Zealand Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, told Sunday that the New Zealand Government negotiated to the end, trying to save Ansett, but that the task was beyond them: "We were getting extraordinarily frustrated about the inability to pin Air New Zealand down on exactly what it needed ... extraordinarily frustrated. And, of course, because we couldn't say that in the public arena ... because we could scarcely say our national flag carrier seemed to be drifting without knowing what it was doing ... we were a free kick for anybody."
But the fact remains that both governments failed to act in a way that was helpful to Air New Zealand. As Air New Zealnd management came to grips with the realities of keeping Ansett in the air, it became apparent the pay rates and conditions that the unions had negotiated with Ansett over the years were way ahead of Qantas. ACTU Secretary Greg Combet denied that the unions were in any way responsible for the downfall of the airline: "I'm not going to have the workers or the unions criticised for what has happened, because we are not at fault. We have made every effort to try and make sure this airline has been on a good commercial footing."
This Sunday investigation of the Ansett collapse concludes: While a lot of people and organisations don't want to share any of the blame for bringing down the airline, most are very good at ducking any suggestion they may have contributed to its demise.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy Farmer would have to be in the running for the 2002 Darwin Award for businessman of the year with his quote:-
"There were not accurate records relating to route profitability, for example. So, you didn't have a very clear picture available to you of the economic state, the commercial state of the airline.
Who in their right mind would pay $530 million for a business with an unclear picture of its economic state?
The next doozee:-
High on the "blame list" is the Australian Government, who shamelessly went into bat for Qantas,
No Government would get my vote if they didn't back an Australian Company over a fully owned foreign Company.
Then, that long,overplayed out myth that SQ wanted to buy Ansett (Crown in the Jewell - which was never EVER quoted by anyone from Singapore Airlines!) when all SQ really wanted was Air NZ and Ansett International slots. Never in a million years would SQ ever have been interested in buying Ansett.
Finally, good old Greg Combert :-
Rest easy Mate. Ansett's commercial fate was sealed with the ludicrous,highly paid,individual contracts that Abeles offered in attempt to get his Airline up and running again when men and women of honour and substance,refused to submit to threats of legal writs and being at war with the then Prime Minister.
Then again.......who cares? Ansett is finished. Why do we all seek to apportion blame to this disaster ? It has happened - get on with life.
Ansett's demise was set in stone many,many years ago. Like the fatal aircraft accident, there were many causal factors and not just one single person/persons or events can be attributed to the downfall.
Let the two Marks try and resurrect what they can and if they can get a few more million out of the government before the election - good luck to them and the few employees who may get their jobs back.
I say,let the old girl die in peace.
"There were not accurate records relating to route profitability, for example. So, you didn't have a very clear picture available to you of the economic state, the commercial state of the airline.
Who in their right mind would pay $530 million for a business with an unclear picture of its economic state?
The next doozee:-
High on the "blame list" is the Australian Government, who shamelessly went into bat for Qantas,
No Government would get my vote if they didn't back an Australian Company over a fully owned foreign Company.
Then, that long,overplayed out myth that SQ wanted to buy Ansett (Crown in the Jewell - which was never EVER quoted by anyone from Singapore Airlines!) when all SQ really wanted was Air NZ and Ansett International slots. Never in a million years would SQ ever have been interested in buying Ansett.
Finally, good old Greg Combert :-
"I'm not going to have the workers or the unions criticised for what has happened, because we are not at fault. We have made every effort to try and make sure this airline has been on a good commercial footing."
Then again.......who cares? Ansett is finished. Why do we all seek to apportion blame to this disaster ? It has happened - get on with life.
Ansett's demise was set in stone many,many years ago. Like the fatal aircraft accident, there were many causal factors and not just one single person/persons or events can be attributed to the downfall.
Let the two Marks try and resurrect what they can and if they can get a few more million out of the government before the election - good luck to them and the few employees who may get their jobs back.
I say,let the old girl die in peace.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obadiah, I think this must be a wind up. Either that or Edster was on another planet. You could see Anderson sqirming in his chair when she confronted him with her questions. Just like when you've been found out lying. It was beautiful, and with all to see.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edster,
The interview I saw had the Minister for Qantas looking like a rabbit in the headlights of a car.
He was clearly unable to articulate a reasonable response to prodding about Howards push for the QF plan.
Whiskery,
QF still have pay levels similar and in many cases higher than the old Ansett.
The interview I saw had the Minister for Qantas looking like a rabbit in the headlights of a car.
He was clearly unable to articulate a reasonable response to prodding about Howards push for the QF plan.
Whiskery,
QF still have pay levels similar and in many cases higher than the old Ansett.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEAT!! Looks like the real culprits are beginning to be flushed out - good to see!
Whiskery I like the post but;
You're right about right minds and spending $530m (closer to $1b for all of it) but NewsCorp didn't allow proper due dil because of the existence of another buyer (they said, ha-ha), which is no excuse on its own but don't forget AN was a well established, reputable and highly respected outfit, the engineering mess alone (not to speak of the accounting fog, not picking that was unforgiveable during DD) would have caught Job out - let alone us Kiwis!
Whiskery I like the post but;
You're right about right minds and spending $530m (closer to $1b for all of it) but NewsCorp didn't allow proper due dil because of the existence of another buyer (they said, ha-ha), which is no excuse on its own but don't forget AN was a well established, reputable and highly respected outfit, the engineering mess alone (not to speak of the accounting fog, not picking that was unforgiveable during DD) would have caught Job out - let alone us Kiwis!
Nunc est bibendum
A couple of years back QF went to single man pushbacks for the 767. At the time we all thought 'here we go again, cutting more costs' but a couple of years down the track it isn't an issue.
An all those extra blokes around to actually get around to fixing the aircraft at night!
I'm not saying that QFs maintenance system is perfect but I'm bloody glad that the company made the efforts they did to enable us to not just compete but survive.
People seem to forget that their has been a fair degree of change and pain over the last six years or so to get QF to where it is now.
My point, as much as I disliked Jimmy Bow Tie et al, he geared QF to avoid exactly the situation that AN is in now.
An all those extra blokes around to actually get around to fixing the aircraft at night!
I'm not saying that QFs maintenance system is perfect but I'm bloody glad that the company made the efforts they did to enable us to not just compete but survive.
People seem to forget that their has been a fair degree of change and pain over the last six years or so to get QF to where it is now.
My point, as much as I disliked Jimmy Bow Tie et al, he geared QF to avoid exactly the situation that AN is in now.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its amazing that when a company, large or small, goes down, blame the government.
Lets face it, AN is stuffed and was so when ANZ bought it. It should be left to die.
No one forced the board of ANZ or the NZ Govt to delay the decision for the injection of funds into AN. But once they did delay, they nailed the coffin lid down.
If the unions are so squeaky clean and AN is such a good prospect, where is the offer from the unions for a union buyout with the ALP inspired, union controlled and employer paid super funds.
Instead of stuffing around and poking their nose in and delaying bringing on the end of AN, the ACTU should put in the funds and lets see if they can run an airline.
Or do they remember the disaster of the previous ACTU venture as a shopkeeper!
[ 28 October 2001: Message edited by: ozoilfield ]
Lets face it, AN is stuffed and was so when ANZ bought it. It should be left to die.
No one forced the board of ANZ or the NZ Govt to delay the decision for the injection of funds into AN. But once they did delay, they nailed the coffin lid down.
If the unions are so squeaky clean and AN is such a good prospect, where is the offer from the unions for a union buyout with the ALP inspired, union controlled and employer paid super funds.
Instead of stuffing around and poking their nose in and delaying bringing on the end of AN, the ACTU should put in the funds and lets see if they can run an airline.
Or do they remember the disaster of the previous ACTU venture as a shopkeeper!
[ 28 October 2001: Message edited by: ozoilfield ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anderson doesn't need Journalists to ask the obvious, He did screw Ansett.
He has also managed to marginalise the National Party under his care (Leadership ??)
The election should see the end of this enigma in Australian Politics and we will have only one Conservative Party left, no more Co-ilition required.
Maybe we might see an incoming Government follow an Aviation Policy that allows the reconstruction of Australian Aviation following the destruction of the last 5 years.
He has also managed to marginalise the National Party under his care (Leadership ??)
The election should see the end of this enigma in Australian Politics and we will have only one Conservative Party left, no more Co-ilition required.
Maybe we might see an incoming Government follow an Aviation Policy that allows the reconstruction of Australian Aviation following the destruction of the last 5 years.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without entering into the argument about who was at fault, I have to agree with the previous comments about Edster's wishfully desperate interpretation of the Anderson interview. Helen Dalley did a job on him, and he was shown up as being embarrassingly out of his depth. To put any other spin on it can only be attributed to blinkered political naivete.
Stick to flying, Edster! As a political analyst you are a bit wide of the mark. Good idea to leave the "blonde tart" type comments alone too if you want to be taken seriously.
Stick to flying, Edster! As a political analyst you are a bit wide of the mark. Good idea to leave the "blonde tart" type comments alone too if you want to be taken seriously.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a mostly un biased point of view, you must remember that you only get what the media want you to get. The article was played up as the govt was the reason for the colapse of AN, well they didnt get there in my opinion.
The revelation of ANDERSONS going into bat for the BIG Q is interesting, but I think we are grabbing at straws to believe that this is the reson for the colapse !!!!
I did find it interesting that SIA, through its three board positions in ANZ opposed the 250M Virgin deal. But where were they when the AN deal was bieng considered. Wiskey, I for one will not be throwing away my SIA conspiracy theory just yet.
The media only shows us what they want us to see. They are biased just like the rest of us and they have the power to control what we see and hear. So while making interesting watching, I do like to watch the pictures and listen to the answers for myself, rather than what the interviwer/comentator has to say.
Anybody have any doubt who CH9 support in this election, and do I need to mention ALP TV for thier complete bias.
He who wins is the one who has the backing of the media.
The revelation of ANDERSONS going into bat for the BIG Q is interesting, but I think we are grabbing at straws to believe that this is the reson for the colapse !!!!
I did find it interesting that SIA, through its three board positions in ANZ opposed the 250M Virgin deal. But where were they when the AN deal was bieng considered. Wiskey, I for one will not be throwing away my SIA conspiracy theory just yet.
The media only shows us what they want us to see. They are biased just like the rest of us and they have the power to control what we see and hear. So while making interesting watching, I do like to watch the pictures and listen to the answers for myself, rather than what the interviwer/comentator has to say.
Anybody have any doubt who CH9 support in this election, and do I need to mention ALP TV for thier complete bias.
He who wins is the one who has the backing of the media.
Air Ace,
Follow that up, the loss of market share from Christmas and Easter was close to 6%, I my view that closed the door and ANY chance Toomey had of trading ANZ/ANSETT out of the hole.
4Greens,
Remember when Qantas had really close relationships with Anstt, joint travel shops, preferred on-carriage, all QF domestic duty travel on AN etc.
Keating did not stand in the way of QF hooking into either Ansett or TAA.
The choice can down to who was going to have the fewest horrors in the attic.
The QF call turned out right, or so it would seem, but who knows what might have been achieved with Ansett as the domestic sub. of Qantas.
Tootle Pip.
Follow that up, the loss of market share from Christmas and Easter was close to 6%, I my view that closed the door and ANY chance Toomey had of trading ANZ/ANSETT out of the hole.
4Greens,
Remember when Qantas had really close relationships with Anstt, joint travel shops, preferred on-carriage, all QF domestic duty travel on AN etc.
Keating did not stand in the way of QF hooking into either Ansett or TAA.
The choice can down to who was going to have the fewest horrors in the attic.
The QF call turned out right, or so it would seem, but who knows what might have been achieved with Ansett as the domestic sub. of Qantas.
Tootle Pip.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grog Frog I think your "No body forces ANZ to buy the remaining 50% of Ansett" is a bit disingenious.
The price paid was the going rate and the same as previously offered by SQ.
They were not 'forced' but they may well have been conned.
The price paid was the going rate and the same as previously offered by SQ.
They were not 'forced' but they may well have been conned.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think the NZ Government is getting a lot of flack for its (in-)actions over the Air NZ/AN debacle and the SQ ownership issue.
I've written about it in other threads but, and I'm not dead sure of the facts or intricacies, didn't they have an overiding duty to protect NZ's (note: not Air NZ's) bilateral air service agreements with other countries, which are proscribed by ownership issues?
I've written about it in other threads but, and I'm not dead sure of the facts or intricacies, didn't they have an overiding duty to protect NZ's (note: not Air NZ's) bilateral air service agreements with other countries, which are proscribed by ownership issues?
