Why not use AN aircraft????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not use AN aircraft????
Why is it that QF have cross-hired overseas aircraft and crews when AN aircraft and crews are littering airports all over the Australian coastline. Surely it'd have to be cheaper to use AN. And Virginblue could probably use the extra capacity as well yet they seem to be too busy bitching about Qantas than getting more pax in the air. Stuffed if I know...hopefully some of you guys can pose a simple explanation for these actions.
(Edited for Spelling)
GoodOnya
[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: onya ]
(Edited for Spelling)
GoodOnya
[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: onya ]
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onya
Check on the prices that the administrator wanted to charge.A$7000 per block hour (ACMI)for a 10 year old A320!
Way over the top.
Further most of the aircraft are encumbered and owned or controlled through third parties not AN.
Try negotiating through the administrator to talk to the actual owner. Its very frustrating trying to bring it all together.(Actually it is virtually impossible with all of the barriers)
Check on the prices that the administrator wanted to charge.A$7000 per block hour (ACMI)for a 10 year old A320!
Way over the top.
Further most of the aircraft are encumbered and owned or controlled through third parties not AN.
Try negotiating through the administrator to talk to the actual owner. Its very frustrating trying to bring it all together.(Actually it is virtually impossible with all of the barriers)
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to be fair to the administrator, the ACMI charge may be the minimum he was able to charge given the Ansett staffing structure, maintenance reserve, insurance, leasing and other costs.
Remember he is the one between the rock and hard place.
He has an obligation to preserve assets not diminish them by selling hours for less than his cost, notwithstanding, that that cost may be unrealistic, which is why they got themselves into this position in the first place.
I'm sure he seriously wanted the work, but the market prevails and as Mr Dixon say's his job is not to "save" Ansett, neither would the rules of corporate governance allow him to pay more for anything he can get cheaper elsewhere.
Unless perhaps the Government underwrote the difference.
Methinks that would have been a better place for their $25,000,000 in any event.
But the press wouldn't want to spoil a good story with the facts would they.
And remember, who owns most of the press in OZ? If the books are in as bad a shape as is reported, I would not be keen to be scrutinised too carefully.
Remember he is the one between the rock and hard place.
He has an obligation to preserve assets not diminish them by selling hours for less than his cost, notwithstanding, that that cost may be unrealistic, which is why they got themselves into this position in the first place.
I'm sure he seriously wanted the work, but the market prevails and as Mr Dixon say's his job is not to "save" Ansett, neither would the rules of corporate governance allow him to pay more for anything he can get cheaper elsewhere.
Unless perhaps the Government underwrote the difference.
Methinks that would have been a better place for their $25,000,000 in any event.
But the press wouldn't want to spoil a good story with the facts would they.
And remember, who owns most of the press in OZ? If the books are in as bad a shape as is reported, I would not be keen to be scrutinised too carefully.
