Ansett flyers to be rewarded for loyalty
Evertonian
Okay, so what is the value of a free ticket? Would the points holders be happy with the face value of the ticket? If you bought a car & the dealer threw in headlamp protectors for free and then you reneged on the deal, got your money back...would you ask for extra because of the headlamp protectors?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The fact is Buster, the Frequent Flyer points are NOT FREE, and that is the reason the Westpac, for example, are chasing compensation.. .The points were bought, with money from Ansett, by Westpac. In turn, these points were re-sold to Westpac customers in the disguised form of (increased) credit charges, interest on purchases, and so forth.
There is NO such thing as a free meal, free frequent flyer points, or free headlight protectors! It is all costed in to OTHER charges on products purchased - so in the case of customers who had accrued "x" number of FF points, each customer has ALREADY paid for each and every one of those points, and has had to make a conscious decision to either/and/or use a specific credit card, and/or retail outlet, airline, supplier of services, RATHER than a differnt one that may have been offering CHEAPER prices.. .I, for one, made a conscious decision to use a particular credit card, rather than cash, to make a purchase BECAUSE of the offer of bonus points recently!
The analogy of purchasing a car, then reneging on the deal but paying NOTHING, and wanting something, is not the same.
There is NO such thing as a free meal, free frequent flyer points, or free headlight protectors! It is all costed in to OTHER charges on products purchased - so in the case of customers who had accrued "x" number of FF points, each customer has ALREADY paid for each and every one of those points, and has had to make a conscious decision to either/and/or use a specific credit card, and/or retail outlet, airline, supplier of services, RATHER than a differnt one that may have been offering CHEAPER prices.. .I, for one, made a conscious decision to use a particular credit card, rather than cash, to make a purchase BECAUSE of the offer of bonus points recently!
The analogy of purchasing a car, then reneging on the deal but paying NOTHING, and wanting something, is not the same.
Evertonian
[quote] I, for one, made a conscious decision to use a particular credit card, rather than cash, to make a purchase BECAUSE of the offer of bonus points recently! <hr></blockquote>
Sorry Kaptin, but are you saying you'd pay more to get something for free that you know you are paying for anyway??? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> If QF never matched DJ's fares, you'd pay top dollar for tickets, just so you'd get one free?
Did you also know that the word gullable is not in the dictionary? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Sorry Kaptin, but are you saying you'd pay more to get something for free that you know you are paying for anyway??? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> If QF never matched DJ's fares, you'd pay top dollar for tickets, just so you'd get one free?
Did you also know that the word gullable is not in the dictionary? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
[quote]If QF never matched DJ's fares, you'd pay top dollar for tickets, just so you'd get one free?<hr></blockquote>
.....if that were the case, there would not be any Frequent Flyer systems. Some pax WILL spend a little extra BECAUSE they have joined a particular Airline's points system - if that were not the case (then) airlines worldwide have spent massive amounts of money promoting these programmes in vain.
Yes, some people WILL spend a little more if there's a "reward" for them. . ."Buy one - get one free", a common advertising gimmick regularly used. The majority of people are intelligent enough to realise that they are, in fact, paying EXTRA to get that "FREE" bonus, however the old cliche still works doesn't it!
.....if that were the case, there would not be any Frequent Flyer systems. Some pax WILL spend a little extra BECAUSE they have joined a particular Airline's points system - if that were not the case (then) airlines worldwide have spent massive amounts of money promoting these programmes in vain.
Yes, some people WILL spend a little more if there's a "reward" for them. . ."Buy one - get one free", a common advertising gimmick regularly used. The majority of people are intelligent enough to realise that they are, in fact, paying EXTRA to get that "FREE" bonus, however the old cliche still works doesn't it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sat "Herald Sun"
<a href="http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.heraldsun.com.au" target="_blank">http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.heraldsun.com.au</a>
FEDERAL Court Justice Alan Goldberg, who has been dealing with Ansett issues for weeks, yesterday disqualified himself from ruling on the Lew-Fox bid because he knows them personally.
Ansett administrator Mark Mentha, of Andersen, last night said Tesna had indicated it would not announce its new loyalty program until after the sale was approved.
The Fox-Lew syndicate has been accused of unfairly withholding details of the scheme.
Angry frequent flyers, including Westpac and Diners Club card holders who were members of the frozen Global Rewards program, want to know whether they will be paid a dividend or have their points reinstated with the new airline before they vote.
Up to three million frequent flyers are owed $140 million for their old points, which have been valued at $2.34 per 1000 points.
About 70 billion points have been in limbo since Ansett went into administration on September 13.
The new loyalty scheme is likely to involve travellers gaining a substantial number of old points in exchange for every new air kilometre travelled with the new Ansett.
Approval of the Fox-Lew deal still hinges on settlement of a deal to protect $220 million of workers' entitlements.
The ACTU hopes to finalise the agreement on Monday.
- with MARK PHILLIPS and KAREN COLLIER
<a href="http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.heraldsun.com.au" target="_blank">http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.heraldsun.com.au</a>
FEDERAL Court Justice Alan Goldberg, who has been dealing with Ansett issues for weeks, yesterday disqualified himself from ruling on the Lew-Fox bid because he knows them personally.
Ansett administrator Mark Mentha, of Andersen, last night said Tesna had indicated it would not announce its new loyalty program until after the sale was approved.
The Fox-Lew syndicate has been accused of unfairly withholding details of the scheme.
Angry frequent flyers, including Westpac and Diners Club card holders who were members of the frozen Global Rewards program, want to know whether they will be paid a dividend or have their points reinstated with the new airline before they vote.
Up to three million frequent flyers are owed $140 million for their old points, which have been valued at $2.34 per 1000 points.
About 70 billion points have been in limbo since Ansett went into administration on September 13.
The new loyalty scheme is likely to involve travellers gaining a substantial number of old points in exchange for every new air kilometre travelled with the new Ansett.
Approval of the Fox-Lew deal still hinges on settlement of a deal to protect $220 million of workers' entitlements.
The ACTU hopes to finalise the agreement on Monday.
- with MARK PHILLIPS and KAREN COLLIER
1A-Please and Buster H: While your arguments about the nature of the rights and obligations arising from FF schemes is interesting, neither the Federal Court nor the ‘Ansett’ administrators agree with you. If the holders of FF points were not creditors in law, none of this protracted, complex and expensive rigmorole with advertising, proxies etc would have occurred. You don’t think it’s being done for fun, do you?
1A-Please: You observe that: [quote]Tesna may decide to throw some inducements at previous points holders which may or may not appease previous GR members but they are under no compulsion to do so and whatever they decide is a MARKETING/FINANCIAL decision not a legal one.<hr></blockquote>
Indeed. That’s why the court has been at pains to ensure that “previous points holders” get a say in whether all of the ‘Ansett’ assets, from the proceeds of which assets the “previous points holders” are currently entitled to be reimbursed in accordance with the usual priorities, are instead going to sold to an entirely new corporate entity that has no existing obligation to pay the “previous points holders” anything.
They might decide that it would be better not to sell, and instead press for the company to try to trade out of its problems and honor its FF obligations in full. They might decide not to support the sale, unless the arrangement includes a binding obligation on Tesna to honor FF points issued by 'Ansett'.
They're creditors, and get a say.
1A-Please: You observe that: [quote]Tesna may decide to throw some inducements at previous points holders which may or may not appease previous GR members but they are under no compulsion to do so and whatever they decide is a MARKETING/FINANCIAL decision not a legal one.<hr></blockquote>
Indeed. That’s why the court has been at pains to ensure that “previous points holders” get a say in whether all of the ‘Ansett’ assets, from the proceeds of which assets the “previous points holders” are currently entitled to be reimbursed in accordance with the usual priorities, are instead going to sold to an entirely new corporate entity that has no existing obligation to pay the “previous points holders” anything.
They might decide that it would be better not to sell, and instead press for the company to try to trade out of its problems and honor its FF obligations in full. They might decide not to support the sale, unless the arrangement includes a binding obligation on Tesna to honor FF points issued by 'Ansett'.
They're creditors, and get a say.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
FEDERAL Court Justice Alan Goldberg, who has been dealing with Ansett issues for weeks, yesterday disqualified himself from ruling on the Lew-Fox bid because he knows them personally.
This raises an interesting issue, as presumably Goldberg J. was aware of this relationship during the period over which he presided, allowed and disallowed the foundations upon which the FLEW deal is buily.. .Will all of this now be invalidated have to be reviewed by an IMPARTIAL party?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaptin M ]</p>
This raises an interesting issue, as presumably Goldberg J. was aware of this relationship during the period over which he presided, allowed and disallowed the foundations upon which the FLEW deal is buily.. .Will all of this now be invalidated have to be reviewed by an IMPARTIAL party?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaptin M ]</p>
Evertonian
Kaptin. It might be a shorter list if you try to find out who doesn't know Fox & Lew!
Okay, the crux of my point re FF is that once you chose to fly QF or AN because of price or because you preferred one to the other. With the introduction of these, yes legitimate business arrangements, your motivation became greed, for want of a more accurate term. Questions were raised recently by CASA about AN's safety, which lead to the groundings. Did the GW's & FF's walk away because of this? No. Did they stay because they wanted to show their support for good ol' Ansett? No. They had too many points & didn't want to lose them. I bet if QF said they'd honour ALL AN points (hypothetically) they'd be off like a shot! There's nothing wrong with that, if people left for safety concerns, but my point is that they stayed out of, greed.
It's the same with the stock market. Who buys shares for any reason, other than profit or benefit? (Employee schemes excluded) If a company hits the skids, you sell right? If you could sell the FF points you would have long ago right?
Hmmm. Reading back now, I think my point is probably too ethical for Pprune. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Okay, the crux of my point re FF is that once you chose to fly QF or AN because of price or because you preferred one to the other. With the introduction of these, yes legitimate business arrangements, your motivation became greed, for want of a more accurate term. Questions were raised recently by CASA about AN's safety, which lead to the groundings. Did the GW's & FF's walk away because of this? No. Did they stay because they wanted to show their support for good ol' Ansett? No. They had too many points & didn't want to lose them. I bet if QF said they'd honour ALL AN points (hypothetically) they'd be off like a shot! There's nothing wrong with that, if people left for safety concerns, but my point is that they stayed out of, greed.
It's the same with the stock market. Who buys shares for any reason, other than profit or benefit? (Employee schemes excluded) If a company hits the skids, you sell right? If you could sell the FF points you would have long ago right?
Hmmm. Reading back now, I think my point is probably too ethical for Pprune. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please excuse me if I come across as an ignoramus but as far as I'm concerned FF points are about loyalty.
There's different kinds of loyalty though, at least in the airline world. There's the loyalty you get from the once a year traveller that does a Syd-Ool-Syd with the wife, the kids, all the aunties and takes them all to Sea World on cheap tickets. Then there's the loyalty obtained from frequent business travellers that travel five times a week and always sit in row 1 with an AFR rested gently on their knees whilst sipping a Cab Sav after a hard day at the office. The third kind of loyalty is everyone who falls in between those two categories.
Which kind of loyalty do you think the airlines most want to preserve?
Frankly, the airlines don't really give a hoot about the once a year traveller, or even the in-betweeners. They want the lucrative business traveller, and they are the ones who will eventually be the winners out of the Tesna deal. Corporate clients are the financial backbone of airlines' income. The airlines NEED their loyalty, because they are contracted to put X number of bums on seats every year. To entice them to remain loyal they need to have some kind of loyalty program.
True, Tesna owes nothing to any of the FFlyers that were duped by the previous Ansett - however if it wants to regain some of that loyalty it realises that it needs to implement some kind of loyalty/reward strategy. It also needs to somehow honour a proportion of previous points accrued, to appease those with squillions of points in the bank, as well as the little people that are just as loyal but not quite as financial.
I sincerely hope that the previous AN FF's realise that Tesna wants to make this rewarding for both sides, and I hope they choose to fly with AN again because they like them as an airline, not just because they get points.
At least, that's what I like to think!. .SG. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
There's different kinds of loyalty though, at least in the airline world. There's the loyalty you get from the once a year traveller that does a Syd-Ool-Syd with the wife, the kids, all the aunties and takes them all to Sea World on cheap tickets. Then there's the loyalty obtained from frequent business travellers that travel five times a week and always sit in row 1 with an AFR rested gently on their knees whilst sipping a Cab Sav after a hard day at the office. The third kind of loyalty is everyone who falls in between those two categories.
Which kind of loyalty do you think the airlines most want to preserve?
Frankly, the airlines don't really give a hoot about the once a year traveller, or even the in-betweeners. They want the lucrative business traveller, and they are the ones who will eventually be the winners out of the Tesna deal. Corporate clients are the financial backbone of airlines' income. The airlines NEED their loyalty, because they are contracted to put X number of bums on seats every year. To entice them to remain loyal they need to have some kind of loyalty program.
True, Tesna owes nothing to any of the FFlyers that were duped by the previous Ansett - however if it wants to regain some of that loyalty it realises that it needs to implement some kind of loyalty/reward strategy. It also needs to somehow honour a proportion of previous points accrued, to appease those with squillions of points in the bank, as well as the little people that are just as loyal but not quite as financial.
I sincerely hope that the previous AN FF's realise that Tesna wants to make this rewarding for both sides, and I hope they choose to fly with AN again because they like them as an airline, not just because they get points.
At least, that's what I like to think!. .SG. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oztralia, near MEL
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydgal
Your close with [quote]Frankly, the airlines don't really give a hoot about the once a year traveller, or even the in-betweeners.<hr></blockquote> but not quite right. Whilst as individuals they travel once a year, they also tell their friends, and they fill otherwise empty seats.
On the other hand [quote]Corporate clients are the financial backbone of airlines' income<hr></blockquote> is exactly right. Without corporates to provide that 80% of the income from their 20% seat occupancy, it's very hard to be in business.
Your close with [quote]Frankly, the airlines don't really give a hoot about the once a year traveller, or even the in-betweeners.<hr></blockquote> but not quite right. Whilst as individuals they travel once a year, they also tell their friends, and they fill otherwise empty seats.
On the other hand [quote]Corporate clients are the financial backbone of airlines' income<hr></blockquote> is exactly right. Without corporates to provide that 80% of the income from their 20% seat occupancy, it's very hard to be in business.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I am an Ansett/Tesna employee - and my husband is a GR member who has (had?) over 250,000 points. (Thanks for your best wishes too btw!)
I mean no disrespect to FF's who have travelled with Ansett - however I just can't compare apples with oranges when it comes to comparing employment conditions with FF reward points.
What I was trying to get across was that FF schemes are loyalty programmes. They 'reward' you with points for flying with XYZ airline. You can then redeem those points with XYZ airline for flights or upgrades and the like.
If XYZ goes belly-up then yes FF's are entitled to receive some kind of financial compensation for their loss of reward points. Ansett Australia went belly up so FF points are technically deemed worthless for the purpose of future travel on AN Aust (since it no longer exists)
So then comes along Tesna, an entirely seperate company to AN Aust who buys the airline. It has no obligation to previous creditors (of which the FF's are many, in unsecured form) - and it also has no obligation to employees either! However, it has agreed to take on employee entitlements for those who remain, whilst those who don't will get paid out. Other unsecured creditors will also get paid out, as a proportion of a dollar value owed to them, because there isn't enough mula to give everyone their money on a 1:1 basis.
So, the FF's will get maybe 5c to the dollar of what they are owed. They are also going to get some form of recognition in the NewAnsett for their loyalty to a previous company that now no longer exists!
It is not an ideal situation that's for sure. Ideally Fox/Lew would simply transfer over the points to the NewAnsett and you would be able to redeem your travel on a 1 for 1 point basis. FoxLew are businessmen and taking on that sort of liability is just not good business sense, in fact it would probably be financially crippling.
They obviously do realise the value of the loyalty that FF's have given in the past, otherwise they wouldn't even make an attempt to regain back the business of FF's and GW members. They could have just as easily cut the cord and offered a no-frills point to point airline carrier.
SG. . <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I mean no disrespect to FF's who have travelled with Ansett - however I just can't compare apples with oranges when it comes to comparing employment conditions with FF reward points.
What I was trying to get across was that FF schemes are loyalty programmes. They 'reward' you with points for flying with XYZ airline. You can then redeem those points with XYZ airline for flights or upgrades and the like.
If XYZ goes belly-up then yes FF's are entitled to receive some kind of financial compensation for their loss of reward points. Ansett Australia went belly up so FF points are technically deemed worthless for the purpose of future travel on AN Aust (since it no longer exists)
So then comes along Tesna, an entirely seperate company to AN Aust who buys the airline. It has no obligation to previous creditors (of which the FF's are many, in unsecured form) - and it also has no obligation to employees either! However, it has agreed to take on employee entitlements for those who remain, whilst those who don't will get paid out. Other unsecured creditors will also get paid out, as a proportion of a dollar value owed to them, because there isn't enough mula to give everyone their money on a 1:1 basis.
So, the FF's will get maybe 5c to the dollar of what they are owed. They are also going to get some form of recognition in the NewAnsett for their loyalty to a previous company that now no longer exists!
It is not an ideal situation that's for sure. Ideally Fox/Lew would simply transfer over the points to the NewAnsett and you would be able to redeem your travel on a 1 for 1 point basis. FoxLew are businessmen and taking on that sort of liability is just not good business sense, in fact it would probably be financially crippling.
They obviously do realise the value of the loyalty that FF's have given in the past, otherwise they wouldn't even make an attempt to regain back the business of FF's and GW members. They could have just as easily cut the cord and offered a no-frills point to point airline carrier.
SG. . <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Is there any evidence that honoring the points would engender any loyalty to Tesna?
What would most likely happen is that a large number of GR members would flood the phones and book tickets on partner airlines (if they are able). Once they have got their tickets whether they'd ever fly with AN again is anybody's guess but in the meantime AN2 would be broke and Star carriers would choose to dishonor 090 tickets.
The business case for honoring the points with no future loyalty strings is hopeless and Fox/Lew are too shrewd to go for it.
As for QF honoring 100% of AN1 GR points....dream on. As a QF shareholder I'd be selling out fast. As a previous GR member I'd be rapped but whether I'd be completely loyal to QF going forward, I don't know!
What would most likely happen is that a large number of GR members would flood the phones and book tickets on partner airlines (if they are able). Once they have got their tickets whether they'd ever fly with AN again is anybody's guess but in the meantime AN2 would be broke and Star carriers would choose to dishonor 090 tickets.
The business case for honoring the points with no future loyalty strings is hopeless and Fox/Lew are too shrewd to go for it.
As for QF honoring 100% of AN1 GR points....dream on. As a QF shareholder I'd be selling out fast. As a previous GR member I'd be rapped but whether I'd be completely loyal to QF going forward, I don't know!
Evertonian
Here's the difference between FF & employees for the benefit of reportfurther.
Employees lost their livelihood, income, future.. .FF's lost points for free tickets.
I think that about covers it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Employees lost their livelihood, income, future.. .FF's lost points for free tickets.
I think that about covers it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Tesna want the AN "name" so badly 'twere it not for the "brand". The "brand" brings with it some obligations, fail to honour those in toto and the "brand" becomes debased. So why bother to pay good money for the "brand" unless there is another agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with carrying passengers.?
I do despair when these discussions drift down the “if the sun rose in the South and the earth rotated from East to West” path. (Perhaps that’s why we’re so baffled Gaunty. Maybe there’s a parallel universe in which the usual laws of physics and mathematics don’t apply.)
FF point holders are creditors.
The merits of their claim relative to the merits of other claims are already settled. There is a fixed order of priorities and allocation of voting rights. Creditors such as employees are ahead of creditors such as FF point holders in the queue, but FF point holders are still in the queue and still have their voting rights.
To say FF point holders are, for instance, greedy for trying to get something for nothing, is no more useful an argument than saying, for instance, that ‘Ansett’ employees were silly for continuing to work for a company that was evidently a basket case years ago. (With neither of which arguments I agree.) These are merely value judgments that make no difference to the process of administration. (Give this a go: “Point of order Mr Chairman - we demand that you ignore those votes because we don’t like what we believe to be the voters’ ethics and motivation.” <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
FF point holders may exercise their voting rights in any way they like, for any reason they like or no reason at all. Same with the employees. FF point holders might, for instance, decide not to vote for the sale to Tesna unless the sale includes a legal obligation upon Tesna to honor the points in whole or agreed part.
It may be that the FF point holders have insufficient voting rights to make any difference to the outcome of the creditors’ meeting. In that case, the other creditors need not engage in any futile arguments about the merits or otherwise of the FF point holders’ claim. However, if FF point holders do have a bloc of votes sufficient to affect the outcome, I suggest the other creditors need to come up with a much better strategy than casting aspersions on the FF point holders’ ethics and motivation. Don’t forget: most of the votes held by FF point holders will be exercised by large institutions via proxies. I’m pretty sure that institutions such as Diners Club and Westpac are used to and unmoved by accusations of greed. They are running businesses, not airlines, so understand that revenue must meet or exceed expenditure.
FF point holders are creditors.
The merits of their claim relative to the merits of other claims are already settled. There is a fixed order of priorities and allocation of voting rights. Creditors such as employees are ahead of creditors such as FF point holders in the queue, but FF point holders are still in the queue and still have their voting rights.
To say FF point holders are, for instance, greedy for trying to get something for nothing, is no more useful an argument than saying, for instance, that ‘Ansett’ employees were silly for continuing to work for a company that was evidently a basket case years ago. (With neither of which arguments I agree.) These are merely value judgments that make no difference to the process of administration. (Give this a go: “Point of order Mr Chairman - we demand that you ignore those votes because we don’t like what we believe to be the voters’ ethics and motivation.” <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
FF point holders may exercise their voting rights in any way they like, for any reason they like or no reason at all. Same with the employees. FF point holders might, for instance, decide not to vote for the sale to Tesna unless the sale includes a legal obligation upon Tesna to honor the points in whole or agreed part.
It may be that the FF point holders have insufficient voting rights to make any difference to the outcome of the creditors’ meeting. In that case, the other creditors need not engage in any futile arguments about the merits or otherwise of the FF point holders’ claim. However, if FF point holders do have a bloc of votes sufficient to affect the outcome, I suggest the other creditors need to come up with a much better strategy than casting aspersions on the FF point holders’ ethics and motivation. Don’t forget: most of the votes held by FF point holders will be exercised by large institutions via proxies. I’m pretty sure that institutions such as Diners Club and Westpac are used to and unmoved by accusations of greed. They are running businesses, not airlines, so understand that revenue must meet or exceed expenditure.
Evertonian
Well, this is where I do agree reportfurther. Sure something must be done for them. You don't want to alienate that many potential customers and, whilst FLEW are proposing some secret deal dependant on the success of their bid, keeping it under wraps only jeapordises your chances of winning the vote.
As I said earlier, I think my point was too ethical for here. Basically the something for nothing generation & how it applies to this situation, if it applies to this situation. I guess we'll see on Tuesday afternoon!
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
As I said earlier, I think my point was too ethical for here. Basically the something for nothing generation & how it applies to this situation, if it applies to this situation. I guess we'll see on Tuesday afternoon!
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Evertonian
The sad thing is reportfurther, that some staff have felt such despair that they have taken their lives over this matter. I think that's where I'm coming from, this collapse has a human face to it & I guess I just see too much of the stress & despair that some AN staff have felt for the last 4 months or so.
From a business point of view, you & others are correct in saying that a contract was broken. I just see that argument from the perspective of losing ones home etc etc.
We'll get through this. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
From a business point of view, you & others are correct in saying that a contract was broken. I just see that argument from the perspective of losing ones home etc etc.
We'll get through this. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
