News: Toomey steps down
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the post BaldingEagle but phuqmeded would get more respect from me if he used a less profane adjective to describe Godzone's government, just "New Zealand" would have sufficed.
Aren't we forgetting here that, like it or not, governments are inextricably involved in international air transport through that teenzy weenzy little detail called BILATERAL RIGHTS. They are not airline rights they are national rights owned by the country itself, but exercised by its designated carrier or carriers.
What exercised the NZ Gov's mind, ever since BIL effectively became a Singapore company instead of a kiwi one, wasn't what it thought was overseas ownership but what the countries with whom we had bilaterals thought was overseas ownership.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone like Japan or USA or whoever cottoned on that Air NZ wasn't actually a NZ owned air carrier, as required by the bilaterals, not only could they have screwed Air NZ but also NZ's international air links as well. Not a pleasant prospect for a small country who's nearest neighbour is 1,000 miles away.
Allowing SIA increased ownership, no matter how attractive, was a classic Catch 22 - the kiwi government has been damned because it didn't allow it and could equally well have been damned if it did.
What the answer is I don't know, but the question has to be asked and is well worth discussion. It certainly highlights the danger of 'Designated Carrier' privatisation, QF be warned, and allowing them the freedom of the market also, as has been pointed on this side of the Tas, includes 'Freedom to Fail.'
Perhaps the answer lies in canning bilats and allowing 'Open Skies' all round. It would certainly allow increased freedom of ownership and the carriers of small nations like NZ access to sufficient capital in order to carry on their business, the REAL Achilles Heel, as we can now see, of a privately owned Air NZ. But do we actually want that and how do we regulate, or police, the operators?
Comments please.
Aren't we forgetting here that, like it or not, governments are inextricably involved in international air transport through that teenzy weenzy little detail called BILATERAL RIGHTS. They are not airline rights they are national rights owned by the country itself, but exercised by its designated carrier or carriers.
What exercised the NZ Gov's mind, ever since BIL effectively became a Singapore company instead of a kiwi one, wasn't what it thought was overseas ownership but what the countries with whom we had bilaterals thought was overseas ownership.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone like Japan or USA or whoever cottoned on that Air NZ wasn't actually a NZ owned air carrier, as required by the bilaterals, not only could they have screwed Air NZ but also NZ's international air links as well. Not a pleasant prospect for a small country who's nearest neighbour is 1,000 miles away.
Allowing SIA increased ownership, no matter how attractive, was a classic Catch 22 - the kiwi government has been damned because it didn't allow it and could equally well have been damned if it did.
What the answer is I don't know, but the question has to be asked and is well worth discussion. It certainly highlights the danger of 'Designated Carrier' privatisation, QF be warned, and allowing them the freedom of the market also, as has been pointed on this side of the Tas, includes 'Freedom to Fail.'
Perhaps the answer lies in canning bilats and allowing 'Open Skies' all round. It would certainly allow increased freedom of ownership and the carriers of small nations like NZ access to sufficient capital in order to carry on their business, the REAL Achilles Heel, as we can now see, of a privately owned Air NZ. But do we actually want that and how do we regulate, or police, the operators?
Comments please.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little reality please. I am not naturally a Howard supporter but I seriously doubt that he lies awake at night looking for ways to kill Ansett (1 or 2 or 3 or 4....)That job was done exceptionally well by previous management and governments. He could add little.
Someone just mentioned the 16,000 staff. That's a heckuva lot of people to support. Have a look at the ratios if you have a calculator. Employees per passenger, revenue per employee, employees per aircraft seat etc etc. Compare the privileged Ansett to new airlines. Ansett, anaesthetized by of scores of years of friendly governments (even had their own government at one stage I recall) had become a sheltered workshop. You can't protect jobs by protecting mistakes. Under Howard Virgin finally did get goinfg. That knocked billions off Qantas' market capitalization. Even with Ansett gone their shares are only around $3.50 ish. They too are not out of the woods.
US experience showed one thing for sure. That the industry can be invigorated and properly restructured only if new airlines get a fair start (whether they survive or not) and when big, fat, old airlines are forced feel the real blowtorch of competition. There's no other way.
Remember Ansett was the only airline in the world to have Flight Engineers on the 767. Really! You can't expect the punters who travel to pay for galactic management efforts like that.
Safe flying
Sherm
Someone just mentioned the 16,000 staff. That's a heckuva lot of people to support. Have a look at the ratios if you have a calculator. Employees per passenger, revenue per employee, employees per aircraft seat etc etc. Compare the privileged Ansett to new airlines. Ansett, anaesthetized by of scores of years of friendly governments (even had their own government at one stage I recall) had become a sheltered workshop. You can't protect jobs by protecting mistakes. Under Howard Virgin finally did get goinfg. That knocked billions off Qantas' market capitalization. Even with Ansett gone their shares are only around $3.50 ish. They too are not out of the woods.
US experience showed one thing for sure. That the industry can be invigorated and properly restructured only if new airlines get a fair start (whether they survive or not) and when big, fat, old airlines are forced feel the real blowtorch of competition. There's no other way.
Remember Ansett was the only airline in the world to have Flight Engineers on the 767. Really! You can't expect the punters who travel to pay for galactic management efforts like that.
Safe flying
Sherm
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SKOL & RUTB:- This is the last post I intend making on the subject, Baldingeagle and Pole Vaulter said all that needed to be said, and with calmer heads than mine has been for the last four weeks. I thank you for your apologies, however grudging and, RUTB, your incorrect assumption could easily have been checked by use of the "WHO" icon on any of my posts. I suspect there was a willingness to infer slight, where none was intended to ordinary Kiwis, only to the NZ government, and for that I do not apologise. While I'm in grovel mode, I'd like to withdraw my crack about not visiting NZ, from what I'm told it is a beautiful country. One of these days I'll make it and, possibly, buy you both a beer!
I have always been aware of the problems from which AN has suffered for the past umpteen years, and who are collectively responsible, my fury is directed at AirNZ for their part in our downfall on the basis of their performance since owning 100% of us. I can accept that there was perhaps not a great deal AirNZ could have done whilst only a 50% partner, but the refusal to acquiesce to Rod Eddington's plans for fleet upgrade, and then almost beggar its own future for reasons best known to itself to get the second 50% defies logic. I cannot believe that AirNZ went into the second purchase as ignorant of the true state of AN as they claim but, if this is indeed true, then what happened to their duty of "Due Diligence" as prospective owners? Why were they so keen to keep SQ from ownership? Could it have been that they wanted to ensure that any of SQ's investment money went to AirNZ first, with some then doled out to AN?
I could go on and on with lots of suspicions, with no hope of satisfactory answers, but there doesn't seem to be much point now. The petty settlement of the other day, ratified in the Aus court yesterday, has put paid to any chance of that, but I'm glad that there isn't yet an end to the investigation of AirNZ's conduct. If that sounds vindictive, then its 'cos that's exactly how I feel, rightly or wrongly. All I want to see now is my airline back on its feet, however slowly, getting as many of our people back in their rightful places flying our customers where they want to be. Is that really too much?
That's enough from me, I will not be responding again to any more sarcasm or vituperation.
KInd regards,
TheNightOwl.
I have always been aware of the problems from which AN has suffered for the past umpteen years, and who are collectively responsible, my fury is directed at AirNZ for their part in our downfall on the basis of their performance since owning 100% of us. I can accept that there was perhaps not a great deal AirNZ could have done whilst only a 50% partner, but the refusal to acquiesce to Rod Eddington's plans for fleet upgrade, and then almost beggar its own future for reasons best known to itself to get the second 50% defies logic. I cannot believe that AirNZ went into the second purchase as ignorant of the true state of AN as they claim but, if this is indeed true, then what happened to their duty of "Due Diligence" as prospective owners? Why were they so keen to keep SQ from ownership? Could it have been that they wanted to ensure that any of SQ's investment money went to AirNZ first, with some then doled out to AN?
I could go on and on with lots of suspicions, with no hope of satisfactory answers, but there doesn't seem to be much point now. The petty settlement of the other day, ratified in the Aus court yesterday, has put paid to any chance of that, but I'm glad that there isn't yet an end to the investigation of AirNZ's conduct. If that sounds vindictive, then its 'cos that's exactly how I feel, rightly or wrongly. All I want to see now is my airline back on its feet, however slowly, getting as many of our people back in their rightful places flying our customers where they want to be. Is that really too much?
That's enough from me, I will not be responding again to any more sarcasm or vituperation.
KInd regards,
TheNightOwl.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BUSINESS
SATURDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2001
B U S I N E S S S T O R Y
Toomey team likely to go in restructuring
13 October 2001
The handpicked management team of former Air New Zealand chief executive Gary Toomey are expected to be obvious redundancy candidates, as the national carrier enters a restructuring phase.
The airline has announced as many as 800 positions are going, about half of them in management, as it grapples with the severing of Ansett Australia and a slump in the world aviation market.
Executive director Roger France, who is piloting the national carrier until a replacement for Mr Toomey is found, has cautioned the final number of cuts could be more.
Mr France will finish his caretaker role as soon as a chief executive is appointed - which he hopes will take no more than six months.
One aviation industry analyst said there would be no shortage of experienced candidates given the layoffs in international aviation at the moment.
Andrew Miller, vice-president in charge of sales and distribution, looms as the leading internal candidate.
Several of the airline's top tier of executives are likely to go as their positions are made redundant, or they decide to pass on the challenges at an airline less than half the size it was when they joined.
Under Mr Toomey's leadership, the company had 11 divisions run by 11 senior vice-presidents, reporting directly to him.
The new structure will have seven divisions and seven direct reports . The only new divisions to match up directly to the old are finance and ventures, which covers cargo, regional airlines and Freedom Air. Those divisions are headed by two former Qantas staffers who came over with Mr Toomey: chief financial officer Adam Moroney and Andrew Pondekas.
The game of musical chairs is made slightly easier by the recent retirement of Laurie Doolan, senior vice-president for corporate, government and international affairs, who was not replaced.
The biggest clash looms in operations and technical, where senior vice-presidents Bill Jacobson (head of engineering) and Trevor Jensen (head of operations) will fight for one job.
Mr France has just begun his review of the candidates and hopes to have the complete restructuring finished by Christmas.
Airline spokesman David Beatson said this week no senior executives had left following Mr Toomey's resignation on Tuesday.
The casualties are likely to include managers brought to the airline by Mr Toomey, an Australian, some of whom Mr France said might not want to stay in New Zealand.
Those who joined with Mr Toomey will almost certainly have negotiated generous redundancy provisions in their contracts. The total redundancy bill is likely to come to millions.
Air New Zealand's last annual report, dated August last year, showed 168 managers earning more than $100,000 a year.
Sean O'Sullivan, an employment law specialist with law firm Phillips Fox, says senior executives on fixed-term contracts who are forced to leave, typically have clauses in their contracts entitling them to payments for the balance of their contract term, in situations where they are unlikely to get employment for a while.
Where a contract is not fixed-term, executives made redundant generally can expect to receive about a year's salary.
Specialists suggest Mr Toomey's golden handshake could be anything from around $2 million (believed to be close to his annual salary) to $4 million.
SATURDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2001
B U S I N E S S S T O R Y
Toomey team likely to go in restructuring
13 October 2001
The handpicked management team of former Air New Zealand chief executive Gary Toomey are expected to be obvious redundancy candidates, as the national carrier enters a restructuring phase.
The airline has announced as many as 800 positions are going, about half of them in management, as it grapples with the severing of Ansett Australia and a slump in the world aviation market.
Executive director Roger France, who is piloting the national carrier until a replacement for Mr Toomey is found, has cautioned the final number of cuts could be more.
Mr France will finish his caretaker role as soon as a chief executive is appointed - which he hopes will take no more than six months.
One aviation industry analyst said there would be no shortage of experienced candidates given the layoffs in international aviation at the moment.
Andrew Miller, vice-president in charge of sales and distribution, looms as the leading internal candidate.
Several of the airline's top tier of executives are likely to go as their positions are made redundant, or they decide to pass on the challenges at an airline less than half the size it was when they joined.
Under Mr Toomey's leadership, the company had 11 divisions run by 11 senior vice-presidents, reporting directly to him.
The new structure will have seven divisions and seven direct reports . The only new divisions to match up directly to the old are finance and ventures, which covers cargo, regional airlines and Freedom Air. Those divisions are headed by two former Qantas staffers who came over with Mr Toomey: chief financial officer Adam Moroney and Andrew Pondekas.
The game of musical chairs is made slightly easier by the recent retirement of Laurie Doolan, senior vice-president for corporate, government and international affairs, who was not replaced.
The biggest clash looms in operations and technical, where senior vice-presidents Bill Jacobson (head of engineering) and Trevor Jensen (head of operations) will fight for one job.
Mr France has just begun his review of the candidates and hopes to have the complete restructuring finished by Christmas.
Airline spokesman David Beatson said this week no senior executives had left following Mr Toomey's resignation on Tuesday.
The casualties are likely to include managers brought to the airline by Mr Toomey, an Australian, some of whom Mr France said might not want to stay in New Zealand.
Those who joined with Mr Toomey will almost certainly have negotiated generous redundancy provisions in their contracts. The total redundancy bill is likely to come to millions.
Air New Zealand's last annual report, dated August last year, showed 168 managers earning more than $100,000 a year.
Sean O'Sullivan, an employment law specialist with law firm Phillips Fox, says senior executives on fixed-term contracts who are forced to leave, typically have clauses in their contracts entitling them to payments for the balance of their contract term, in situations where they are unlikely to get employment for a while.
Where a contract is not fixed-term, executives made redundant generally can expect to receive about a year's salary.
Specialists suggest Mr Toomey's golden handshake could be anything from around $2 million (believed to be close to his annual salary) to $4 million.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Night Owl,
Have a look at www.nzherald.co.nz and read article by Brian Gaynor entitled 'Icon Businesses Stripped By Greed'. It says what a lot of kiwis think about NZ management practises.
RUTB.
Check it out if you don't get the Herald where you are.
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Skol ]
Have a look at www.nzherald.co.nz and read article by Brian Gaynor entitled 'Icon Businesses Stripped By Greed'. It says what a lot of kiwis think about NZ management practises.
RUTB.
Check it out if you don't get the Herald where you are.
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Skol ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skol read it in bed this am, you're right!
N O I think that's a hand-shake & I'm up for that. When all we kiwis had was 'incoming' from Oz I, amongst others, responded in kind, I'm sorry you ended up as co-lateral.
You might care to read Albatross's opening post on "A Dingo Stole My Airline," I know it contains some stuff you might like to skip over but it also is critical of some of the actions of the ANZ board at the time. You may also like to follow the link in my post "Will the Real Culprit Step Forward" which is fast disappearing below the horizon thru lack of response, if the link is still good (if it isn't let me know I'll try & reactivate it or something), as that lays out the indecision of the NZ Gov, particularly Cullen, when the problem was first highlighted to them. The cause of that indecision could have been bi-lateral complications. In short; the demise of your employer is far more complex than is immediately apparent to anyone. Some of my previous invective, not against you but responding to people having a go at us, was an attempt at a wake up call to Australians to have a look closer to home for some of the reasons Ansett failed so that ALL the blame can be apportioned.
Good Luck!
N O I think that's a hand-shake & I'm up for that. When all we kiwis had was 'incoming' from Oz I, amongst others, responded in kind, I'm sorry you ended up as co-lateral.
You might care to read Albatross's opening post on "A Dingo Stole My Airline," I know it contains some stuff you might like to skip over but it also is critical of some of the actions of the ANZ board at the time. You may also like to follow the link in my post "Will the Real Culprit Step Forward" which is fast disappearing below the horizon thru lack of response, if the link is still good (if it isn't let me know I'll try & reactivate it or something), as that lays out the indecision of the NZ Gov, particularly Cullen, when the problem was first highlighted to them. The cause of that indecision could have been bi-lateral complications. In short; the demise of your employer is far more complex than is immediately apparent to anyone. Some of my previous invective, not against you but responding to people having a go at us, was an attempt at a wake up call to Australians to have a look closer to home for some of the reasons Ansett failed so that ALL the blame can be apportioned.
Good Luck!
Guest
Posts: n/a
RUTB,
Cheers. No need to apologise. I was particularly incensed by some of the posts blaming all kiwis, bringing up the Erebus accident, etc., etc, sure you know what I mean. Like you I was responding to the incoming that was blaming all and sundry. I enjoyed Brian Gaynor's feature. Should be required reading for all NZ managers. Hopefully Air NZ has a better future ahead.
Regards
Skol
Edit P.S. Did read the Dingo Article. I'm impressed with the research.
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Skol ]
Cheers. No need to apologise. I was particularly incensed by some of the posts blaming all kiwis, bringing up the Erebus accident, etc., etc, sure you know what I mean. Like you I was responding to the incoming that was blaming all and sundry. I enjoyed Brian Gaynor's feature. Should be required reading for all NZ managers. Hopefully Air NZ has a better future ahead.
Regards
Skol
Edit P.S. Did read the Dingo Article. I'm impressed with the research.
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Skol ]
