Air New Zealand to follow Ansett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUTB
This is not, repeat not a personal attack on kiwis, but you must be aware that over 16000 people were terribly let down yesterday by Air NZ management over which the Air NZ board must assume the mantle of corporate responsibility.
The market place right now is full of stories about just how close Air NZ itself is running to the wire and how long it is able to trade before crossing the line into insolvency. Reduced pacific and trans tasman revenues and on going industrial action will dramatically affect the situation.
Time is up for the Air NZ board.
Any critical analysis of the events over the last 4 years as revealed in other posts here and elsewhere will show just how corporate irresponsibility has led to the position we are at now.
Given the state of the NZ economy and the huge percentage of reserves that a collapse of Air NZ would drain from the government coffers, it may well come to the same situation as Ansett with creditors wearing huge losses.
This is a story about two great airlines that have been stripped and thrown to the wolves through greed and mismanagement over long periods of time.
This is not, repeat not a personal attack on kiwis, but you must be aware that over 16000 people were terribly let down yesterday by Air NZ management over which the Air NZ board must assume the mantle of corporate responsibility.
The market place right now is full of stories about just how close Air NZ itself is running to the wire and how long it is able to trade before crossing the line into insolvency. Reduced pacific and trans tasman revenues and on going industrial action will dramatically affect the situation.
Time is up for the Air NZ board.
Any critical analysis of the events over the last 4 years as revealed in other posts here and elsewhere will show just how corporate irresponsibility has led to the position we are at now.
Given the state of the NZ economy and the huge percentage of reserves that a collapse of Air NZ would drain from the government coffers, it may well come to the same situation as Ansett with creditors wearing huge losses.
This is a story about two great airlines that have been stripped and thrown to the wolves through greed and mismanagement over long periods of time.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
I would just like to express my commiserations to all the Ansett employees. It has been a terrible week.
As a New Zealander I feel I did nothing other than go about my daily business. I did not go to work every day hoping to make a whole bunch of Australians unemployed. Labelling every Kiwi as being responsible for Ansetts downfall is extremely unfair.
Some of the posts here don't really help the situation. I don't see how bringing Air NZ down by disrupting trans-tasman operations of Air NZ is going to achieve the aims of the Australian unions. Perhaps I am missing something.
I also agree that some hard questions need to be asked of the Air NZ directors.
What I don't get is why the Air NZ decided they had to have the other half of Ansett. Surely they owned it for long enough to realise what they were getting into.
There have got to be jobs again, the same number of people have got to get around Australia next week as they did two weeks ago.
I would just like to express my commiserations to all the Ansett employees. It has been a terrible week.
As a New Zealander I feel I did nothing other than go about my daily business. I did not go to work every day hoping to make a whole bunch of Australians unemployed. Labelling every Kiwi as being responsible for Ansetts downfall is extremely unfair.
Some of the posts here don't really help the situation. I don't see how bringing Air NZ down by disrupting trans-tasman operations of Air NZ is going to achieve the aims of the Australian unions. Perhaps I am missing something.
I also agree that some hard questions need to be asked of the Air NZ directors.
What I don't get is why the Air NZ decided they had to have the other half of Ansett. Surely they owned it for long enough to realise what they were getting into.
There have got to be jobs again, the same number of people have got to get around Australia next week as they did two weeks ago.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s_o
That's a relief but posting rumours about AN picking up the admin tab for the whole group and 7 donks being plucked from MEL (I doubt if there are 7 spares in the whole region) certainly don't help assuage the impact on Ansett staff or help them handle the trauma of the last few days.
I have no brief for the ANZ board or the senior managers but blaming Jim Farmer, who stepped in as chairman too recently and certainly too late, and Sockit really doesn't help and only detracts from an intelligent debate.
I'm fed up of the criticism levelled at Air NZ and the NZ Government by unthinking and self-serving Australians who have axes to grind and back-sides to protect. How much of the Oz media does News Corp control? If Howard was told of Ansett's problems months ago, if News Corp knew of Ansett's problems or mismanaged it (which is more likely) whilst it was in charge and control up until about 12-15 months ago, why is no-one pointing the bone there? If Ansett was in such great shape when ANZ took over, why didn't its managers speak out? It would have to be a wilful and highly visible act of corporate vandalism for the outfit to go from good health into receivership in such a short time frame.
For all we know Howard & Co wanted Ansett to collapse; he saw us Kiwis as suckers & scapegoats long ago when we bought the second 50%, in order to clear the way for their pets QF and the entry of low-cost outfits to the acclaim of the unsuspecting Ozzie public.
Howard's talk of forcing ANZ to pay the Ansett benefits etc because of 'insolvent trading' is hot air in advance of the election to placate Ansett staff and the working class, amongst whom I am proud to include myself. The offence is trading KNOWINGLY whilst insolvent, which is hard to prove under the best of circumstances, let alone the 'almost non-existent financial systems' (GT in today's NZ Herald) that existed at Ansett and may well be able to be levelled equally at the News Corp management and its predecessor.
I hope then when the emotions are over logic will prevail on both sides of the ditch and ALL those responsible, including those dead and long retired (BH for one) are called to account because these seeds were sown a long time ago. Read 'Tool Times' post on another D&G forum for a summary or Barbers Pole's in this forum.
That's a relief but posting rumours about AN picking up the admin tab for the whole group and 7 donks being plucked from MEL (I doubt if there are 7 spares in the whole region) certainly don't help assuage the impact on Ansett staff or help them handle the trauma of the last few days.
I have no brief for the ANZ board or the senior managers but blaming Jim Farmer, who stepped in as chairman too recently and certainly too late, and Sockit really doesn't help and only detracts from an intelligent debate.
I'm fed up of the criticism levelled at Air NZ and the NZ Government by unthinking and self-serving Australians who have axes to grind and back-sides to protect. How much of the Oz media does News Corp control? If Howard was told of Ansett's problems months ago, if News Corp knew of Ansett's problems or mismanaged it (which is more likely) whilst it was in charge and control up until about 12-15 months ago, why is no-one pointing the bone there? If Ansett was in such great shape when ANZ took over, why didn't its managers speak out? It would have to be a wilful and highly visible act of corporate vandalism for the outfit to go from good health into receivership in such a short time frame.
For all we know Howard & Co wanted Ansett to collapse; he saw us Kiwis as suckers & scapegoats long ago when we bought the second 50%, in order to clear the way for their pets QF and the entry of low-cost outfits to the acclaim of the unsuspecting Ozzie public.
Howard's talk of forcing ANZ to pay the Ansett benefits etc because of 'insolvent trading' is hot air in advance of the election to placate Ansett staff and the working class, amongst whom I am proud to include myself. The offence is trading KNOWINGLY whilst insolvent, which is hard to prove under the best of circumstances, let alone the 'almost non-existent financial systems' (GT in today's NZ Herald) that existed at Ansett and may well be able to be levelled equally at the News Corp management and its predecessor.
I hope then when the emotions are over logic will prevail on both sides of the ditch and ALL those responsible, including those dead and long retired (BH for one) are called to account because these seeds were sown a long time ago. Read 'Tool Times' post on another D&G forum for a summary or Barbers Pole's in this forum.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the kiwi's wonder why we want to see them go down with us!
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ansett: absolutely gone
By MARK WESTFIELD
15sep01
WITHIN days of Air New Zealand cementing management control of Ansett Airlines in October last year, the New Zealand national carrier ran its entire group fuel bill through the Ansett account.
Because Air NZ had not hedged its fuel costs, Ansett's cash provided the buffer and the necessary resources to get the New Zealanders through the sharp fuel price rises of 2000 and shield the parent company from this volatile cost factor. Ansett did not fare so well.
An Air NZ spokesman, Stephen Jones, denied last night that the airline had stripped cash out of Ansett and said that in the intra-group dealings over fuel, Air NZ had paid a net $184 million to Ansett in the year to June 30.
Who can believe this? Air NZ's management and board has lost all credibility and trust over recent months as it has chopped and changed its story as to its financial position. In June, chief executive Gary Toomey assured markets that Air NZ did not need a bailout and had more than adequate cash.
On Thursday, after announcing an operating loss of $NZ280.2 million ($230 million) and a writedown of its Ansett investment of $NZ1.3 billion, Air NZ announced a bailout worth $NZ850 million, or more than double its market capitalisation.
This was the blind leading the blind. One financial basket case dragging down the other.
Which was in the more parlous position? Certainly Ansett had been starved of investment funds for nearly a decade as its previous owners, TNT Ltd and News Limited (publisher of The Weekend Australian) sought to sell their stakes. Air NZ was the buyer, but was in desperate financial trouble itself.
The brief history of Air NZ's stewardship is one of starving Ansett to feed the parent.
In the sorry aftermath of Ansett's collapse this week, mainly
Continued -- Page 36
because it has been so comprehensively stripped of cash, the Air NZ board has blamed the Australian Government and Ansett management. Air NZ directors resorted to the tried solution across the Tasman of "blaming the Aussies".
The fact is, last October most of Ansett's experienced managers were sacked and replaced by New Zealanders. Ansett management was almost entirely made up of Air NZ people.
Sure, Air NZ had paid over $1 billion for Ansett including $580 million to mop up the 50 per cent it did not own from News in June last year after having paid $460 million for its first half share of the airline from TNT Ltd in 1996. It had three directors on the Ansett board from then on, and had considerable influence over the way the airline was run.
For instance, it stopped an attempt by former chief executive Rod Eddington in 1998 to sell some ageing Boeing 767s to buy later models because, as former Air NZ chief executive Jim McCrea claimed, the group funds should be applied to buying aircraft for Air NZ. McCrea was sacked in the October 2000 bloodbath which claimed so many Ansett people. He was replaced two months later by Toomey.
When Eddington suggested putting Ansett on the Australia to Los Angeles run, he was blocked by Air NZ on the grounds it might have taken some business from Air NZ.
Eddington argued that both airlines would take business from Qantas, but the New Zealanders remained stubborn.
When Air NZ moved to 100 per cent last year, Ansett's increasingly desperate need for capital to finance a fleet-renewal program worth roughly $4 billion was not a secret to the Air NZ board.
It went into full ownership with its eyes open.
Ironically, Air NZ had elbowed aside another potential buyer of the News Ltd stake. When News announced in March 1999 that it was selling its half share to Singapore Airlines for $500 million, Air NZ responded by exercising its pre-emptive rights as a 50 per cent owner. For the next 11 months Air NZ dithered and jerked News and Ansett around before finally declaring in February 2000 it would buy the remaining half share.
In the meantime, Ansett was left hanging. Its ownership had been a matter of speculation since the early 1990s when TNT ran into financial trouble. Its long-term partners News and TNT had spent only the bare minimum on Ansett in the meantime while the partners awaited buyers.
Had News been able to complete the sale of its half share to Singapore in 1999, the Singaporeans had the resources to immediately invest sufficient money to finance a fleet re-equipment program.
Air NZ was wading in way out of its depth. Ansett was twice the size of Air NZ. The New Zealanders simply could not afford Ansett.
Air NZ as the 100 per cent owner of Ansett was entitled to put its fuel bill on the Ansett account. This week, however, Air NZ walked away from Ansett by appointing a voluntary administrator.
That it cut Ansett lose and placed the airline into voluntary administration, forcing the airline out of the air at the cost of 16,000 jobs reveals a darker motive.
The decision to put the Air NZ fuel account through Ansett last October added another $30 million a month to Ansett's costs, and over the 11 months that Air NZ controlled 100 per cent of Ansett, the New Zealand airline is estimated to have stripped roughly $300 million out of the Australian carrier on top of Ansett's own fuel costs.
Air NZ's mishandling of Ansett for short-term survival considerations across the Tasman will cause long-term damage to New Zealand's reputation.
The dramatic decline of its corporations during the 1990s has reached the point where the whole New Zealand stock market is capitalised at less than half the value of just one Australian company, a depreciated Telstra.
The tens of thousands of Australian and overseas travellers left stranded yesterday by Air New Zealand's cynical decision to place Ansett into voluntary administration this week inevitably means that business in New Zealand is set to continue its decline.
The country is redlined now as an investment destination from abroad. The contemptuous way in which one of New Zealand's premier boards has dealt with Ansett has damaged the country's reputation and that of its managers permanently in the eyes of Australian investors.
New Zealand has a reputation as a cowboy market on the outer fringes of global market acceptance. Australians wonder why their dollar has been sold down so heavily in the last 18 months. The New Zealand unit is 25 per cent lower again.
This debacle has been exacerbated by the conflicting and ambiguous statements from Air NZ management and the Government across the Tasman which have stripped away any last shreds of credibility Air NZ may have retained after its disastrous decision to push aside Singapore two years ago.
Three months after Toomey's reassurances, Air NZ announced a $NZ1.4 billion ($1.14 billion) bottom-line loss and a bailout worth more than twice its capitalisation. Key shareholders, Singapore Airlines and Brierley Investments, would invest $NZ150 million each, and the New Zealand Government would lend the stricken carrier up to $NZ550 million.
The company's management and board has been economical with the truth.
The New Zealand Government has dithered over the question of whether it should allow Singapore to raise its stake beyond 25 per cent. In the recapitalisation, it will go to 34 per cent. This will probably not be enough.
But the Air NZ board's move to stave off the collapse of the New Zealand parent by jettisoning Ansett has serious ramifications for Australia. Ansett's two main competitors, Qantas and Virgin Blue, simply don't have the capacity to cater for the demand that Ansett's demise has left. Qantas is quoting up to a fortnight to take passengers left stranded by Ansett's grounding to their desired destinations.
Cargo clients are complaining that Qantas wants to charge two to three times the rates Ansett had charged.
Added to the thousands of angry travellers stuck in transit or unable to go where they want is the critical issue of the sudden collapse of Australia's largest cargo carrier.
Ansett carried cargo for all the major freight forwarders, TNT, Mayne, Toll, Star Track and ADX, plus much of the time-sensitive freight such as seafood out of Tasmania, South and Western Australia bound for the east coast capitals and export.
Although Air NZ chairman Jim Farmer attempted this week to blame everyone from the Australian Government to Ansett management for the airline's collapse, the inescapable fact is that Farmer and his board and the New Zealand Government created this crisis through their indecision and incompetence. Only one potential buyer stands between a possible return to the skies and liquidation for Ansett, and that is the proposed management buyout by pilots, flight attendants and ground staff. The pilots tried to buy the half share of Ansett being sold by News Limited in January last year, but appeared to have trouble gathering the resources to complete the deal.
Ansett's ownership had been in limbo for nearly a year up to that point, after Air NZ exercised its pre-emptive right to the News half share and scuttled a proposed purchase of the News stake by Singapore Airlines.
The New Zealanders then dithered and jerked News and Ansett around for the next 10 months while they worked out whether they could, in fact, afford to buy the News half-share.
Clearly, Air NZ couldn't. Air NZ's own finances were crumbling at the time when it decided finally to go ahead and buy the half share it didn't own. It was getting way, way out of its depth.
The managers it sent to Australia had never worked in a competitive environment like Australia's and quickly showed how little their grasp was of the complexities of the market.
Air NZ bungled its management of Ansett and sucked it dry of cash. Then it blamed the Australian Government.
This disaster has been a long time coming. It was a matter of when, not if.
Air NZ's stewardship of Ansett has been characterised by bungling mismanagement and the siphoning of hundreds of millions of dollars of cash out of the Australian carrier. It refused to re-invest in new aircraft and equipment and forced it to take Air NZ freight free within Australia. Until last October, Ansett had earned about $70 million a year freighting cargo on behalf of Air NZ within Australia but this cash flow stopped immediately Air NZ went to 100 per cent.
Ansett is gone now and Air NZ shareholders can ask their board how they blew $NZ1.3 billion of the company's money. The B shares are trading at a new record low of NZ51c.
The airline will be broken up now and its assets shared between rivals Qantas, Virgin Blue and perhaps the ex-Ansett pilots.
Although some will yearn for the certainty of the old two-airlines regime, competition policy has changed the civil aviation industry forever.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ansett: absolutely gone
By MARK WESTFIELD
15sep01
WITHIN days of Air New Zealand cementing management control of Ansett Airlines in October last year, the New Zealand national carrier ran its entire group fuel bill through the Ansett account.
Because Air NZ had not hedged its fuel costs, Ansett's cash provided the buffer and the necessary resources to get the New Zealanders through the sharp fuel price rises of 2000 and shield the parent company from this volatile cost factor. Ansett did not fare so well.
An Air NZ spokesman, Stephen Jones, denied last night that the airline had stripped cash out of Ansett and said that in the intra-group dealings over fuel, Air NZ had paid a net $184 million to Ansett in the year to June 30.
Who can believe this? Air NZ's management and board has lost all credibility and trust over recent months as it has chopped and changed its story as to its financial position. In June, chief executive Gary Toomey assured markets that Air NZ did not need a bailout and had more than adequate cash.
On Thursday, after announcing an operating loss of $NZ280.2 million ($230 million) and a writedown of its Ansett investment of $NZ1.3 billion, Air NZ announced a bailout worth $NZ850 million, or more than double its market capitalisation.
This was the blind leading the blind. One financial basket case dragging down the other.
Which was in the more parlous position? Certainly Ansett had been starved of investment funds for nearly a decade as its previous owners, TNT Ltd and News Limited (publisher of The Weekend Australian) sought to sell their stakes. Air NZ was the buyer, but was in desperate financial trouble itself.
The brief history of Air NZ's stewardship is one of starving Ansett to feed the parent.
In the sorry aftermath of Ansett's collapse this week, mainly
Continued -- Page 36
because it has been so comprehensively stripped of cash, the Air NZ board has blamed the Australian Government and Ansett management. Air NZ directors resorted to the tried solution across the Tasman of "blaming the Aussies".
The fact is, last October most of Ansett's experienced managers were sacked and replaced by New Zealanders. Ansett management was almost entirely made up of Air NZ people.
Sure, Air NZ had paid over $1 billion for Ansett including $580 million to mop up the 50 per cent it did not own from News in June last year after having paid $460 million for its first half share of the airline from TNT Ltd in 1996. It had three directors on the Ansett board from then on, and had considerable influence over the way the airline was run.
For instance, it stopped an attempt by former chief executive Rod Eddington in 1998 to sell some ageing Boeing 767s to buy later models because, as former Air NZ chief executive Jim McCrea claimed, the group funds should be applied to buying aircraft for Air NZ. McCrea was sacked in the October 2000 bloodbath which claimed so many Ansett people. He was replaced two months later by Toomey.
When Eddington suggested putting Ansett on the Australia to Los Angeles run, he was blocked by Air NZ on the grounds it might have taken some business from Air NZ.
Eddington argued that both airlines would take business from Qantas, but the New Zealanders remained stubborn.
When Air NZ moved to 100 per cent last year, Ansett's increasingly desperate need for capital to finance a fleet-renewal program worth roughly $4 billion was not a secret to the Air NZ board.
It went into full ownership with its eyes open.
Ironically, Air NZ had elbowed aside another potential buyer of the News Ltd stake. When News announced in March 1999 that it was selling its half share to Singapore Airlines for $500 million, Air NZ responded by exercising its pre-emptive rights as a 50 per cent owner. For the next 11 months Air NZ dithered and jerked News and Ansett around before finally declaring in February 2000 it would buy the remaining half share.
In the meantime, Ansett was left hanging. Its ownership had been a matter of speculation since the early 1990s when TNT ran into financial trouble. Its long-term partners News and TNT had spent only the bare minimum on Ansett in the meantime while the partners awaited buyers.
Had News been able to complete the sale of its half share to Singapore in 1999, the Singaporeans had the resources to immediately invest sufficient money to finance a fleet re-equipment program.
Air NZ was wading in way out of its depth. Ansett was twice the size of Air NZ. The New Zealanders simply could not afford Ansett.
Air NZ as the 100 per cent owner of Ansett was entitled to put its fuel bill on the Ansett account. This week, however, Air NZ walked away from Ansett by appointing a voluntary administrator.
That it cut Ansett lose and placed the airline into voluntary administration, forcing the airline out of the air at the cost of 16,000 jobs reveals a darker motive.
The decision to put the Air NZ fuel account through Ansett last October added another $30 million a month to Ansett's costs, and over the 11 months that Air NZ controlled 100 per cent of Ansett, the New Zealand airline is estimated to have stripped roughly $300 million out of the Australian carrier on top of Ansett's own fuel costs.
Air NZ's mishandling of Ansett for short-term survival considerations across the Tasman will cause long-term damage to New Zealand's reputation.
The dramatic decline of its corporations during the 1990s has reached the point where the whole New Zealand stock market is capitalised at less than half the value of just one Australian company, a depreciated Telstra.
The tens of thousands of Australian and overseas travellers left stranded yesterday by Air New Zealand's cynical decision to place Ansett into voluntary administration this week inevitably means that business in New Zealand is set to continue its decline.
The country is redlined now as an investment destination from abroad. The contemptuous way in which one of New Zealand's premier boards has dealt with Ansett has damaged the country's reputation and that of its managers permanently in the eyes of Australian investors.
New Zealand has a reputation as a cowboy market on the outer fringes of global market acceptance. Australians wonder why their dollar has been sold down so heavily in the last 18 months. The New Zealand unit is 25 per cent lower again.
This debacle has been exacerbated by the conflicting and ambiguous statements from Air NZ management and the Government across the Tasman which have stripped away any last shreds of credibility Air NZ may have retained after its disastrous decision to push aside Singapore two years ago.
Three months after Toomey's reassurances, Air NZ announced a $NZ1.4 billion ($1.14 billion) bottom-line loss and a bailout worth more than twice its capitalisation. Key shareholders, Singapore Airlines and Brierley Investments, would invest $NZ150 million each, and the New Zealand Government would lend the stricken carrier up to $NZ550 million.
The company's management and board has been economical with the truth.
The New Zealand Government has dithered over the question of whether it should allow Singapore to raise its stake beyond 25 per cent. In the recapitalisation, it will go to 34 per cent. This will probably not be enough.
But the Air NZ board's move to stave off the collapse of the New Zealand parent by jettisoning Ansett has serious ramifications for Australia. Ansett's two main competitors, Qantas and Virgin Blue, simply don't have the capacity to cater for the demand that Ansett's demise has left. Qantas is quoting up to a fortnight to take passengers left stranded by Ansett's grounding to their desired destinations.
Cargo clients are complaining that Qantas wants to charge two to three times the rates Ansett had charged.
Added to the thousands of angry travellers stuck in transit or unable to go where they want is the critical issue of the sudden collapse of Australia's largest cargo carrier.
Ansett carried cargo for all the major freight forwarders, TNT, Mayne, Toll, Star Track and ADX, plus much of the time-sensitive freight such as seafood out of Tasmania, South and Western Australia bound for the east coast capitals and export.
Although Air NZ chairman Jim Farmer attempted this week to blame everyone from the Australian Government to Ansett management for the airline's collapse, the inescapable fact is that Farmer and his board and the New Zealand Government created this crisis through their indecision and incompetence. Only one potential buyer stands between a possible return to the skies and liquidation for Ansett, and that is the proposed management buyout by pilots, flight attendants and ground staff. The pilots tried to buy the half share of Ansett being sold by News Limited in January last year, but appeared to have trouble gathering the resources to complete the deal.
Ansett's ownership had been in limbo for nearly a year up to that point, after Air NZ exercised its pre-emptive right to the News half share and scuttled a proposed purchase of the News stake by Singapore Airlines.
The New Zealanders then dithered and jerked News and Ansett around for the next 10 months while they worked out whether they could, in fact, afford to buy the News half-share.
Clearly, Air NZ couldn't. Air NZ's own finances were crumbling at the time when it decided finally to go ahead and buy the half share it didn't own. It was getting way, way out of its depth.
The managers it sent to Australia had never worked in a competitive environment like Australia's and quickly showed how little their grasp was of the complexities of the market.
Air NZ bungled its management of Ansett and sucked it dry of cash. Then it blamed the Australian Government.
This disaster has been a long time coming. It was a matter of when, not if.
Air NZ's stewardship of Ansett has been characterised by bungling mismanagement and the siphoning of hundreds of millions of dollars of cash out of the Australian carrier. It refused to re-invest in new aircraft and equipment and forced it to take Air NZ freight free within Australia. Until last October, Ansett had earned about $70 million a year freighting cargo on behalf of Air NZ within Australia but this cash flow stopped immediately Air NZ went to 100 per cent.
Ansett is gone now and Air NZ shareholders can ask their board how they blew $NZ1.3 billion of the company's money. The B shares are trading at a new record low of NZ51c.
The airline will be broken up now and its assets shared between rivals Qantas, Virgin Blue and perhaps the ex-Ansett pilots.
Although some will yearn for the certainty of the old two-airlines regime, competition policy has changed the civil aviation industry forever.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Yeh?
Who's paying Mark Westfield's wages then? The transfer of the SYD-LAX-SYD route to AN was all on until the Yanks pointed out that they were NZ rights not Australian ones. Kiwi jobs were actually saved by the Americans in that case.
Who's paying Mark Westfield's wages then? The transfer of the SYD-LAX-SYD route to AN was all on until the Yanks pointed out that they were NZ rights not Australian ones. Kiwi jobs were actually saved by the Americans in that case.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NZ
Age: 60
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heartfelt condolences to those (non-scabs) who have lost their jobs with AN's demise.
This is the second Australasian recent ex-Murdoch airline to go down this year with the loss of jobs and an apparent inability to repay entitlements.
I may be mistaken but I think the QF NZ staff are looking at something considerably less than 10 cents in the dollar.
It seems that NewsCorp has given Brierleys a lesson in asset stripping.
My question is why would AN staff wish to see a company which is still generating revenue (AirNZ) and therefore providing some hope (possibly thru court action) of repayment brought down out of sheer spite?
I'm no defender of the AirNZ Board and I think I understand the anger but lets not shoot at the wrong targets here. Blockading and blacking ANZ aeroplanes is helping no-one.
I did a quick check on the author of mut's quoted article and found what I expected. Mark Westfield is a News Corp apologist.
Good luck. I hope not to be extending the job queue.
This is the second Australasian recent ex-Murdoch airline to go down this year with the loss of jobs and an apparent inability to repay entitlements.
I may be mistaken but I think the QF NZ staff are looking at something considerably less than 10 cents in the dollar.
It seems that NewsCorp has given Brierleys a lesson in asset stripping.
My question is why would AN staff wish to see a company which is still generating revenue (AirNZ) and therefore providing some hope (possibly thru court action) of repayment brought down out of sheer spite?
I'm no defender of the AirNZ Board and I think I understand the anger but lets not shoot at the wrong targets here. Blockading and blacking ANZ aeroplanes is helping no-one.
I did a quick check on the author of mut's quoted article and found what I expected. Mark Westfield is a News Corp apologist.
Good luck. I hope not to be extending the job queue.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't blaming every kiwi for the demise of ansett kind of like blaming every arab for the demise of the WTC and the Pentagon? There are but a few posts on this thread that have managed purely objective opinions. Is wanting to take Air NZ down with Ansett really a sensible, responsible or reasoned opinion? I think not. We're all in this together in more ways than you seem to realise. The demise of Ansett while affecting those Australian employees worst of all, indirectly affects everyone in this part of the world. Lets have some constructive posts rather than Kiwi bashing garbage.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not profess to know a much about corporate affairs but something is puzzling me.
There are a lot of people on this forum calling for union and other types of industrial action against ANZ with the obvious intention of dragging it down with Ansett. So let me float the following scenerio.
Australian industrial action forces ANZ into receivership/bankruptcy. ANZ's current debt to equity ratio is currently much higher than is healthy. Big understatement. Their share price is at an all time low. There will be scarcely enough money to satisfy the secured creditors.
The unfortunate redundant Ansett employees who are owed their various credits, wages, benefits, etc will get nothing because they are unsecured. Whereas if ANZ were to remain a viable business they would at least have a chance of pursuing ANZ through the courts to recover the monies owing to them.
So, the very people whose action will force ANZ into bankruptcy are the ones who will cause the ex Ansett employees to be denied the legal recourse they might otherwise have had.
Now, please don't all speak at once, and tell me where I am wrong.
There are a lot of people on this forum calling for union and other types of industrial action against ANZ with the obvious intention of dragging it down with Ansett. So let me float the following scenerio.
Australian industrial action forces ANZ into receivership/bankruptcy. ANZ's current debt to equity ratio is currently much higher than is healthy. Big understatement. Their share price is at an all time low. There will be scarcely enough money to satisfy the secured creditors.
The unfortunate redundant Ansett employees who are owed their various credits, wages, benefits, etc will get nothing because they are unsecured. Whereas if ANZ were to remain a viable business they would at least have a chance of pursuing ANZ through the courts to recover the monies owing to them.
So, the very people whose action will force ANZ into bankruptcy are the ones who will cause the ex Ansett employees to be denied the legal recourse they might otherwise have had.
Now, please don't all speak at once, and tell me where I am wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbers Pole (the connotations of your user name are many and varied - hideous is one thought), Strobes On, and Red Under The Bed.
Bingo, hole in one, nail on the head.
Positive, clear and concise facts written by characters rather than the braver (hero) individuals that have found the cut and paste function.
It also appears that not all of them are Kiwi's either. Let's face it the ineptitude of the ANZ board is boggling. Where is the accountability apart from how they managed to calculate a bonus for themselves.
To the Ansett employee's, have a go at the ANZ boards personal wealth. After all a % of it probably belongs to you.
Bingo, hole in one, nail on the head.
Positive, clear and concise facts written by characters rather than the braver (hero) individuals that have found the cut and paste function.
It also appears that not all of them are Kiwi's either. Let's face it the ineptitude of the ANZ board is boggling. Where is the accountability apart from how they managed to calculate a bonus for themselves.
To the Ansett employee's, have a go at the ANZ boards personal wealth. After all a % of it probably belongs to you.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Azzie, Henry Crun & Timber
Thanks for injecting sanity into this thread.
Timber - I new you had it in you from your previous post. Welcome to Az & Henry.
I have an awful feeling that when the Oz Securities Commission delivers its findings there may be a deafening silence from the their side of the ditch.
Nobody disputes the ego driven stupidity of the Air NZ board paying what it did for Ansett. I still think strategically it was the right move. Air NZ has to be in the biggest market in the region.
Out of interest; both Eddington (1 day) & McRae (2 weeks) went very soon after the deal was done. What did they know and when did they know it? McRae's body language when Selwyn & Lachlan were declaring the 'Win/Win' on TV was fascinating!!
Thanks for injecting sanity into this thread.
Timber - I new you had it in you from your previous post. Welcome to Az & Henry.
I have an awful feeling that when the Oz Securities Commission delivers its findings there may be a deafening silence from the their side of the ditch.
Nobody disputes the ego driven stupidity of the Air NZ board paying what it did for Ansett. I still think strategically it was the right move. Air NZ has to be in the biggest market in the region.
Out of interest; both Eddington (1 day) & McRae (2 weeks) went very soon after the deal was done. What did they know and when did they know it? McRae's body language when Selwyn & Lachlan were declaring the 'Win/Win' on TV was fascinating!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: B.I.G
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that sia and brierly have just agreed to inject $nz 300 million into air new zealand with the nz government writing a blank check for another $nz 550 million.
Talk about trouble in paradise?
Talk about trouble in paradise?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ttesna
From what I hear, this "funding" from SQ and Bri. plus the line of credit may well be conditional on a due diligence check by the government of NZ.
This may well lead to other issues that prevent the proposal proceding in it's current form.
This would be a very serious problem for the board for all the reasons described in other posts.
This would be very close to insolvency. If there are any other liabilites arising, for example legal action by the Aus government or private actions by very well funded unions, I can not see how the Air NZ board could move forward from that point.
From what I hear, this "funding" from SQ and Bri. plus the line of credit may well be conditional on a due diligence check by the government of NZ.
This may well lead to other issues that prevent the proposal proceding in it's current form.
This would be a very serious problem for the board for all the reasons described in other posts.
This would be very close to insolvency. If there are any other liabilites arising, for example legal action by the Aus government or private actions by very well funded unions, I can not see how the Air NZ board could move forward from that point.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ttesna
Sorry - I meant also to add that the total employee payout, if it were paid in full, is a lot higher than the $ 400 million floated in the press. Some private estimates put it at between $ 700 to $ 800 million AUD.
The courts of course will determine the outcome in the end.
Sorry - I meant also to add that the total employee payout, if it were paid in full, is a lot higher than the $ 400 million floated in the press. Some private estimates put it at between $ 700 to $ 800 million AUD.
The courts of course will determine the outcome in the end.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Briz Vegas
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As only a five year veteran of major airlines, l'm not sure if l qualify as a 'hero' or not, but even so l do know corporate fraud when l see it.
I don't care that the perpertrators of this mess are in New Zealand, but it just so happens that they are, and what they have done, is what they are allowed to get away with over there.
When NZ took over 100% of AN they intergrated the company, they got rid of AN management and had one line of management, one board of directors, one CEO and onetreasury.
Yet they bleat to the governments that Ansett is loosing $20 million AU a week.
Why did they isolate one part of the company when it was supposedly integrated wqhen the going got tough?
Why did they only tell the governments and not the share holders, or indeed the market? And how long was the company trading in insolvency?
Why did they spin off a part of the integrated business, liquidate it and wash their hands of it, and said it is not our problem?
Why did Helen Clarke only give Air New Zealand a tax payer bail out when they got rid of their foreign arm?
This culpable board could be in Oodnadatta for all l care, but they have to be brought to justice whether New Zealanders or not.
You can't just walk in to business, run it to the ground, walk away with a promised and granted bail out, and wash your hands of it nad not bear any responsibility. It's that simple!
I don't care that the perpertrators of this mess are in New Zealand, but it just so happens that they are, and what they have done, is what they are allowed to get away with over there.
When NZ took over 100% of AN they intergrated the company, they got rid of AN management and had one line of management, one board of directors, one CEO and onetreasury.
Yet they bleat to the governments that Ansett is loosing $20 million AU a week.
Why did they isolate one part of the company when it was supposedly integrated wqhen the going got tough?
Why did they only tell the governments and not the share holders, or indeed the market? And how long was the company trading in insolvency?
Why did they spin off a part of the integrated business, liquidate it and wash their hands of it, and said it is not our problem?
Why did Helen Clarke only give Air New Zealand a tax payer bail out when they got rid of their foreign arm?
This culpable board could be in Oodnadatta for all l care, but they have to be brought to justice whether New Zealanders or not.
You can't just walk in to business, run it to the ground, walk away with a promised and granted bail out, and wash your hands of it nad not bear any responsibility. It's that simple!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also investigations by the liquidator as to the combined Air NZ / Ansett treasury system and the legal ramifications of removing funds and/or assets from Ansett to Air NZ.
This once again raises solvency issues for Ansett prior to it's liquidation.
I wonder if the Air NZ board would care to comment?
This once again raises solvency issues for Ansett prior to it's liquidation.
I wonder if the Air NZ board would care to comment?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is time for a bit of CLARITY in this thread.
Airnz say they have cut off Ansett. Well let me tell you a small not so well kept secret from over here in Australia regarding how 99% of the country feel towards NZ.
NZ need Aust more than we need you lot.
Once the Australian public realise what has happened (&this is rapidly occurring) regarding the inept and arrogant way that the board has treated 16,000 Australian workers (up to 60,000 incl supply & contracting workers in total), NZ will be cut off from this country and the only people you will be able to blame are those arrogant tossers on the Airnz board.
This of course would not be the case if the board owned up to their responsility to the workers who were employed by their company and agreed to pay them their legal entitlements.
Airnz say they have cut off Ansett. Well let me tell you a small not so well kept secret from over here in Australia regarding how 99% of the country feel towards NZ.
NZ need Aust more than we need you lot.
Once the Australian public realise what has happened (&this is rapidly occurring) regarding the inept and arrogant way that the board has treated 16,000 Australian workers (up to 60,000 incl supply & contracting workers in total), NZ will be cut off from this country and the only people you will be able to blame are those arrogant tossers on the Airnz board.
This of course would not be the case if the board owned up to their responsility to the workers who were employed by their company and agreed to pay them their legal entitlements.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity Sir Shiraz says he wants clarity yet continues with the undiluted venom. Get a grip, some high profile Oz businessmen of the '80s have only recently emerged from gaol or escaped going there by getting buried. I think a bit of temperate thought is called for instead of the threats of visiting national disaster on a near neighbour which are best left to extremist terrorist organisations, which you lot are beginning to echo.
Everyone seems to think its a Kiwi problem. It isn't. The courts will decide if it's an Air NZ problem so let them decide. If crimes were committed then retribution will be had but no-one ever went to gaol for making a mistake and getting involved with Ansett in the first place appears to have been a big one.
Of course Helen Clark isn't going to use KIWI TAXPAYERS' money to save Australian jobs. Would you lot lift a finger to save Kiwi jobs? Get a grip on reality for God's sake!
From our side of the ditch it looked like a reverse takeover with the disproportionate number of skips at the top, including the manager of flt ops, and talk of moving the whole shooting match to Melbourne. IF money was moved out of the combined treasury just before the collapse, and I don't know if that's true or another wild rumour or not, it's either larceny on the grandest scale OR it's Air NZ getting back some of the money THIS part of the airline has pumped into YOUR part of the airline (remember, Air NZ domestic made a killing in the last 6 months and has kept the lot going, BOTH sides of the Tas, longer than was wise or prudent it turns out) before the receivers got their hands on it, or doesn't a nett loss of $1.5b satisfy you. It's an airline not a charity.
Read one of my earlier postings re self serving pols, businessmen etc and for once reflect on the fact that although Australia is the 'lucky' country it may not be the perfect country some correspondents to this thread seem to think. People in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones.
It is obvious from the tone of some of the postings in this thread emanating from Australia that their families have lived in Australia for generations, right back to the first white settlers in fact! I'm coming to the view that, as 70% of the Ansett pilots are scabs anyway - who cares? Judging by other forums you're unemployable as pilots elsewhere so go down to the local casino for a job, they need spinners there.
Everyone seems to think its a Kiwi problem. It isn't. The courts will decide if it's an Air NZ problem so let them decide. If crimes were committed then retribution will be had but no-one ever went to gaol for making a mistake and getting involved with Ansett in the first place appears to have been a big one.
Of course Helen Clark isn't going to use KIWI TAXPAYERS' money to save Australian jobs. Would you lot lift a finger to save Kiwi jobs? Get a grip on reality for God's sake!
From our side of the ditch it looked like a reverse takeover with the disproportionate number of skips at the top, including the manager of flt ops, and talk of moving the whole shooting match to Melbourne. IF money was moved out of the combined treasury just before the collapse, and I don't know if that's true or another wild rumour or not, it's either larceny on the grandest scale OR it's Air NZ getting back some of the money THIS part of the airline has pumped into YOUR part of the airline (remember, Air NZ domestic made a killing in the last 6 months and has kept the lot going, BOTH sides of the Tas, longer than was wise or prudent it turns out) before the receivers got their hands on it, or doesn't a nett loss of $1.5b satisfy you. It's an airline not a charity.
Read one of my earlier postings re self serving pols, businessmen etc and for once reflect on the fact that although Australia is the 'lucky' country it may not be the perfect country some correspondents to this thread seem to think. People in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones.
It is obvious from the tone of some of the postings in this thread emanating from Australia that their families have lived in Australia for generations, right back to the first white settlers in fact! I'm coming to the view that, as 70% of the Ansett pilots are scabs anyway - who cares? Judging by other forums you're unemployable as pilots elsewhere so go down to the local casino for a job, they need spinners there.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Now RUTB, I believe you said in a previous post let's not get emotional.....
By your venomous posts, I am beginning to think that you realise we are right but just do not want to accept it....
edited for grammar
[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: Sir Shiraz ]
By your venomous posts, I am beginning to think that you realise we are right but just do not want to accept it....
edited for grammar
[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: Sir Shiraz ]