A dingo stole my airline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W apologies accepted, I've lost it too, sorry BP but what I said is probably best left unsaid as some of those involved could well be reading this thread, not so with Dasha's tripe I'm afraid, and the thrust of the post was left in don't go there 'cos we've got dirt on you too!!
BP from memory it wasn't 'our' management who said AN pilots earned truckloads more than us, it was their's, "Their contract - your pay" was TJ's dream, remember? Despite that, Air NZ pilots were still busier, the AN contract didn't so much allow greater productivity, pretty much controlled by tighter safety regs I think, but control of the individual pilot, firstly through no seniority list to speak of, "If you have them by the b@lls, their hearts and minds will follow." Richard Milhouse Nixon.
BP from memory it wasn't 'our' management who said AN pilots earned truckloads more than us, it was their's, "Their contract - your pay" was TJ's dream, remember? Despite that, Air NZ pilots were still busier, the AN contract didn't so much allow greater productivity, pretty much controlled by tighter safety regs I think, but control of the individual pilot, firstly through no seniority list to speak of, "If you have them by the b@lls, their hearts and minds will follow." Richard Milhouse Nixon.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to take the liberty of posting something I've floated on a companion thread which no-one has picked up on. It's a kite fly really but would like some informed input as it might help clarify government motives, on both sides of the ditch to get to the bottom of it. I'm no expert on it and some of my assertions in it may be blind wrong but I am puzzled and would like to see more input.
"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: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dassha WRT your edit of your very first post on PPrune; a brief lesson on your nation's history.
Pom is a truncation of POME which stands for "Prisoner of Mother England", Australia's first boat people.
So what in your original post would hurt whingeing Australians?
A brief lesson about my nation's history, our original boat people were all volunteers! We declined POMEs but we took Afghans, might be a message there somewhere!
Pom is a truncation of POME which stands for "Prisoner of Mother England", Australia's first boat people.
So what in your original post would hurt whingeing Australians?
A brief lesson about my nation's history, our original boat people were all volunteers! We declined POMEs but we took Afghans, might be a message there somewhere!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albatross
I'm damned if I do and damned if I dont
I hoped I was careful to point out that it was not my intention to to comment on the veracity of the contents any post or to take sides.
I reinstated the post exactly because I did not on reflection feel that it was my place to judge it.
As you correctly point out it was an "interpretation of facts" by one PPRuNer.
It is for you, if you choose, to discuss, debate or correct if necessary "the facts" or surrounding issues.
If there is a downward spiral it is because of the standard of debate, not, hopefully, anything that I may be able to contribute.
If I may reiterate the last paragraph of my post
It is your job to take Dassha to task not mine. NO kicking or gouging allowed
I'm damned if I do and damned if I dont
I hoped I was careful to point out that it was not my intention to to comment on the veracity of the contents any post or to take sides.
I reinstated the post exactly because I did not on reflection feel that it was my place to judge it.
As you correctly point out it was an "interpretation of facts" by one PPRuNer.
It is for you, if you choose, to discuss, debate or correct if necessary "the facts" or surrounding issues.
If there is a downward spiral it is because of the standard of debate, not, hopefully, anything that I may be able to contribute.
If I may reiterate the last paragraph of my post
However after a nights sleep a read of Clives post and a rereading and whilst I am still apprehensive, it cannot be denied that it is a view based on one PPRuNers collation of some facts and its return is not intended to reignite the Trans Tasman Wars or take sides.
I am not here to be the "shaper" that Clives 'Belbin' describes, unless that task is to try and keep it civil.
I should not have to but will do so.
The direction of the debate, the lessons learned and avoidance of becoming a "boys club" belongs to you guys.
I am not here to be the "shaper" that Clives 'Belbin' describes, unless that task is to try and keep it civil.
I should not have to but will do so.
The direction of the debate, the lessons learned and avoidance of becoming a "boys club" belongs to you guys.
NO kicking or gouging allowed
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Melbourne VIC AUS
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commie,
If you're going to espouse expertise in foreign history, better get it right, else your credibility in all subjects is lost!
1. Your POME explanation is by no means universally accepted, the pomegranate derivation being usually paraded in dictionaries.
2. The Brits were certainly not the first boat people, that title goes back 40,000 plus years to those who were arguably the first over-the-horizon sea-navigators ever.
Good luck with your studies
Gru
If you're going to espouse expertise in foreign history, better get it right, else your credibility in all subjects is lost!
1. Your POME explanation is by no means universally accepted, the pomegranate derivation being usually paraded in dictionaries.
2. The Brits were certainly not the first boat people, that title goes back 40,000 plus years to those who were arguably the first over-the-horizon sea-navigators ever.
Good luck with your studies
Gru
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooooh.. touchy aren't we Gru. Something we'd rather not be reminded of.
So? I was one out, not sure about the 40,000yrs either, press the 0 key once to often did we?
I always thought the first Australians walked it anyway?
So? I was one out, not sure about the 40,000yrs either, press the 0 key once to often did we?
I always thought the first Australians walked it anyway?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red, you are starting to wear a little thin, little man.
*Fact: 19.7 million Australians couldn't give a rats RRR's about who or what was a descendant of a convict, Got that?
*Fact: Your wonderful homeland (whilst I understand a wonderful place to live), may find-out how things pan-out very soon when there is a (possible) collapse of a (the) major player in your airline industry, with the associated follow-on effects in trade and tourism industries and other silly other things such as your nations ecconomy and employment are affected.
*Fact: People ARE NOT TOUCHY ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!!!! They just tend to react when someone (and there is more than ONE of you) who has had absolutely nothing constructive to say or add to a debate or conversation, pipes-up (or bleats in your case
) with the same crud that they think will inflame or get a reaction because you possibly get some enjoyment out of annoying others. Childish acts such as those only serve to reduce yours (and others who join you) credibility and standing.
There is a "thing" (ie; it gives us the Tom Titts) Australians have about something called "Little Man Syndrome". The little man always make the most noise, for they fear they wont get noticed otherwise. I trully feel that you and a few others need to......
GROW-UP LITTLE MAN.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
*Fact: 19.7 million Australians couldn't give a rats RRR's about who or what was a descendant of a convict, Got that?
*Fact: Your wonderful homeland (whilst I understand a wonderful place to live), may find-out how things pan-out very soon when there is a (possible) collapse of a (the) major player in your airline industry, with the associated follow-on effects in trade and tourism industries and other silly other things such as your nations ecconomy and employment are affected.
*Fact: People ARE NOT TOUCHY ABOUT THEIR ANCESTRY!!!!!! They just tend to react when someone (and there is more than ONE of you) who has had absolutely nothing constructive to say or add to a debate or conversation, pipes-up (or bleats in your case
) with the same crud that they think will inflame or get a reaction because you possibly get some enjoyment out of annoying others. Childish acts such as those only serve to reduce yours (and others who join you) credibility and standing.There is a "thing" (ie; it gives us the Tom Titts) Australians have about something called "Little Man Syndrome". The little man always make the most noise, for they fear they wont get noticed otherwise. I trully feel that you and a few others need to......
GROW-UP LITTLE MAN.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red, and to a lot of others who really have no idea what they are having a go at, please read this article that has been put together by our national broadcaster, and learn from it.
The Origins of the Australian Aboriginal People
Your own country's track record with the Maori is nothing special, either.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
The Origins of the Australian Aboriginal People
Your own country's track record with the Maori is nothing special, either.
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]
