ANstaff Bid
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANstaff Bid
Have a look at the bids for AN up on the table.
ANstaff
* Ansett Australia Name
* 42 Mainline 320/737/767 Jets (initially)
* 4 BAe146 Cargo Jets
* Golden Wing & Ansett Global Rewards
* Full Service
* No AN International for now
* 6500 staff (160 per aircraft)
* Star Alliance
* Maintenance to be based in MEL
* Possible move interstate of adminstration - costs to be investigated
ANstaff has reportedly spent about $1 million dollars on their bid.
Fox Consortium
* 20 A319/320/321s
* 2000 staff
* No frills
* Ticket sales via phone & internet
Interesting how Mr Anderson thinks AN, the "carcass" can be reborn now...
Here's the memo from ANstaff
"The business plan was finished this week and there was a significant amount of time spent going over the data and proposal and double-checking figures.
The concept…
Our plan is basically built around the concept and clientele that Ansett has traditionally focused on. It will be a full service, premium airline. It will utilise from the outset 737, A320 and 767 aircraft. It will be a 2-class carrier and be a STAR Alliance partner. We will have a ‘frequent flyer’ or loyalty program and also run Golden Wing lounges. The route network and frequency has been rationalised to those routes that are profitable and /or strategically necessary.
We currently employ close to 200 persons per aircraft that we operate (the figures of over 200 per a/c you may have seen includes Traveland, Showgroup, regionals, etc). Qantas operate about 169 per a/c. We are aiming for world’s best practice for a full service airline of 150 – 160 per a/c, so job cuts will be a fact of life. This will be compensated for by improved productivity. (You may have also see figures bandied about of 100-110 per a/c as world’s best practice – that is for a budget carrier).
We plan on operating about 40 aircraft plus spares and the regos of the aircraft that we want have been identified, taking into account, lease costs, outstanding and forecast maintenance.
The costs associated with operation of the Golden Wing lounges have been taken into account, along with a marketing strategy and target customer focus.
The liabilities of the past Global Rewards program have been assessed and a plan to honour the points is being formulated. There is also a plan on what the new loyalty program will entail and also whom it will target. This has also been costed.
It is believed that it is essential to re-launch the airline and regain significant market share. This does not mean that we are attempting to get back our 40 plus percent. What it does mean is that if we do not launch with a significant route structure we will not be able to retain our corporate, high value customers. That is the basis for the argument of re-starting with the 40 odd aircraft.
All of these elements are tied together. Corporate clients want a loyalty program and lounges, along with a significant route structure. All of this is also necessary to re-enter the STAR Alliance whom we have had numerous talks with, along with United Airlines and Singapore Airlines.
Some common questions…
Are Singapore Airlines coming to manage Ansett?
We believe that they are sending a team here to work with the administrator in some capacity but we have no more knowledge than any of you.
Will they affect our bid?
We don’t know what they intend on doing but we know that if they are interested in working with any group whose goals/ideals are aligned with theirs, we are the only party in town.
Will the 146 and 747 figure in our plan?
At this stage only the 146 freighters have been factored in and this is purely for cost reasons i.e. operating and ongoing maintenance liability. We are, however, looking at other types to replace it as part of an ongoing plan. The 747 and the International operation are important and profitable, as well as filling holes in the STAR Alliance worldwide network, but it cannot exist without the main domestic routes and, as such, is not in the initial proposal.
How many pilots will be employed and how do we choose them?
There will be approximately 500 positions. As far as who gets the Guernsey, I have no idea. The objective of the work being done is to get Ansett flying and save as many jobs as possible. Whoever stumps up the cash and the management team will decide how they go about it.
Will we share in the ownership of the company?
It has always been part of the proposal that employees will be able to take part in a share ownership plan that initial estimates suggest could be between 20-30 percent of the company. This is a benefit to both the employees (through returns on the investment) and the owners (through improved productivity and motivation). However if an investor comes along who wants total ownership, and it falls in line with our plans to minimise job losses, no problemo.
Lindsay Fox’s bid?
We were briefed about it last weekend. We were told that this model utilised up to 20 A319/320/321 aircraft and would employ around 2000 people. It would be a budget style of carrier with single class, no loyalty program, no lounges, etc.
The problem that we have with this concept is that we believe that you will be going head-to-head with Virgin and it would very difficult to get Ansett’s costs as low as theirs. Also you would be alienating all of the loyalty that is built in to the Ansett brand. i.e. why will the leisure customer choose new Ansett over Virgin when there is no relationship with the previous Ansett in terms of service level, etc? The tickets will be bought on price and that is all. Also why will the corporate/business traveller choose Ansett without any of the ‘frills’ that they are accustomed to?
What’s next?
On Monday we have an appointment with the administrator to show them our business plan. This is a significant step in the march toward our goal. We have also been in discussion with backers and, although there is plenty of interest, we have not had any firm commitments yet. This is not unusual as the plan has only just been finalised and verified last night, thus no one has seen the final product as yet.
I hope that this has answered a few questions. This week will be the one that will give us enough feedback to determine if we have a goer or are simply just spinning our wheels.
Luke Smith.
Vice President
Ansett Pilots Association"
Comments? It's certainly my favourite bid. I don't see the point in having another Virgin Blue type airline - described as going for the "sandals & sarongs" market. Nor do I buy the argument that Australia cannot handle two full service carriers - the size of the market wasn't the cause of Ansett's downfall, rather its inefficiencies and questionable management - 74% load factor isn't anything bad, most airlines make money on that!
Travel Agents better hope ANstaff gets Ansett, not the Fox consortium - they won't have a bite in a Fox Ansett, unlike ANstaff.
Cheers
ANstaff
* Ansett Australia Name
* 42 Mainline 320/737/767 Jets (initially)
* 4 BAe146 Cargo Jets
* Golden Wing & Ansett Global Rewards
* Full Service
* No AN International for now
* 6500 staff (160 per aircraft)
* Star Alliance
* Maintenance to be based in MEL
* Possible move interstate of adminstration - costs to be investigated
ANstaff has reportedly spent about $1 million dollars on their bid.
Fox Consortium
* 20 A319/320/321s
* 2000 staff
* No frills
* Ticket sales via phone & internet
Interesting how Mr Anderson thinks AN, the "carcass" can be reborn now...
Here's the memo from ANstaff
"The business plan was finished this week and there was a significant amount of time spent going over the data and proposal and double-checking figures.
The concept…
Our plan is basically built around the concept and clientele that Ansett has traditionally focused on. It will be a full service, premium airline. It will utilise from the outset 737, A320 and 767 aircraft. It will be a 2-class carrier and be a STAR Alliance partner. We will have a ‘frequent flyer’ or loyalty program and also run Golden Wing lounges. The route network and frequency has been rationalised to those routes that are profitable and /or strategically necessary.
We currently employ close to 200 persons per aircraft that we operate (the figures of over 200 per a/c you may have seen includes Traveland, Showgroup, regionals, etc). Qantas operate about 169 per a/c. We are aiming for world’s best practice for a full service airline of 150 – 160 per a/c, so job cuts will be a fact of life. This will be compensated for by improved productivity. (You may have also see figures bandied about of 100-110 per a/c as world’s best practice – that is for a budget carrier).
We plan on operating about 40 aircraft plus spares and the regos of the aircraft that we want have been identified, taking into account, lease costs, outstanding and forecast maintenance.
The costs associated with operation of the Golden Wing lounges have been taken into account, along with a marketing strategy and target customer focus.
The liabilities of the past Global Rewards program have been assessed and a plan to honour the points is being formulated. There is also a plan on what the new loyalty program will entail and also whom it will target. This has also been costed.
It is believed that it is essential to re-launch the airline and regain significant market share. This does not mean that we are attempting to get back our 40 plus percent. What it does mean is that if we do not launch with a significant route structure we will not be able to retain our corporate, high value customers. That is the basis for the argument of re-starting with the 40 odd aircraft.
All of these elements are tied together. Corporate clients want a loyalty program and lounges, along with a significant route structure. All of this is also necessary to re-enter the STAR Alliance whom we have had numerous talks with, along with United Airlines and Singapore Airlines.
Some common questions…
Are Singapore Airlines coming to manage Ansett?
We believe that they are sending a team here to work with the administrator in some capacity but we have no more knowledge than any of you.
Will they affect our bid?
We don’t know what they intend on doing but we know that if they are interested in working with any group whose goals/ideals are aligned with theirs, we are the only party in town.
Will the 146 and 747 figure in our plan?
At this stage only the 146 freighters have been factored in and this is purely for cost reasons i.e. operating and ongoing maintenance liability. We are, however, looking at other types to replace it as part of an ongoing plan. The 747 and the International operation are important and profitable, as well as filling holes in the STAR Alliance worldwide network, but it cannot exist without the main domestic routes and, as such, is not in the initial proposal.
How many pilots will be employed and how do we choose them?
There will be approximately 500 positions. As far as who gets the Guernsey, I have no idea. The objective of the work being done is to get Ansett flying and save as many jobs as possible. Whoever stumps up the cash and the management team will decide how they go about it.
Will we share in the ownership of the company?
It has always been part of the proposal that employees will be able to take part in a share ownership plan that initial estimates suggest could be between 20-30 percent of the company. This is a benefit to both the employees (through returns on the investment) and the owners (through improved productivity and motivation). However if an investor comes along who wants total ownership, and it falls in line with our plans to minimise job losses, no problemo.
Lindsay Fox’s bid?
We were briefed about it last weekend. We were told that this model utilised up to 20 A319/320/321 aircraft and would employ around 2000 people. It would be a budget style of carrier with single class, no loyalty program, no lounges, etc.
The problem that we have with this concept is that we believe that you will be going head-to-head with Virgin and it would very difficult to get Ansett’s costs as low as theirs. Also you would be alienating all of the loyalty that is built in to the Ansett brand. i.e. why will the leisure customer choose new Ansett over Virgin when there is no relationship with the previous Ansett in terms of service level, etc? The tickets will be bought on price and that is all. Also why will the corporate/business traveller choose Ansett without any of the ‘frills’ that they are accustomed to?
What’s next?
On Monday we have an appointment with the administrator to show them our business plan. This is a significant step in the march toward our goal. We have also been in discussion with backers and, although there is plenty of interest, we have not had any firm commitments yet. This is not unusual as the plan has only just been finalised and verified last night, thus no one has seen the final product as yet.
I hope that this has answered a few questions. This week will be the one that will give us enough feedback to determine if we have a goer or are simply just spinning our wheels.
Luke Smith.
Vice President
Ansett Pilots Association"
Comments? It's certainly my favourite bid. I don't see the point in having another Virgin Blue type airline - described as going for the "sandals & sarongs" market. Nor do I buy the argument that Australia cannot handle two full service carriers - the size of the market wasn't the cause of Ansett's downfall, rather its inefficiencies and questionable management - 74% load factor isn't anything bad, most airlines make money on that!
Travel Agents better hope ANstaff gets Ansett, not the Fox consortium - they won't have a bite in a Fox Ansett, unlike ANstaff.
Cheers
Evertonian
...I've said it before & I say it again; "An airline run by pilots? God help us!"
Methinks too much damage has been done & too much time has passed for AN to get back into the sky as a full service airline. It will never hurt QF in that guise & if it tries to compete with DJ, then you'll see a product reduction from QF as well. DJ has the budget end & QF the high end, for the moment, I think that's enough choice for the punters in the current world climate.
Good luck with the bid though, I'd be happy to eat humble pie if it gets up & is successful. But, for the moment, I'll take the money & run thanks!
Methinks too much damage has been done & too much time has passed for AN to get back into the sky as a full service airline. It will never hurt QF in that guise & if it tries to compete with DJ, then you'll see a product reduction from QF as well. DJ has the budget end & QF the high end, for the moment, I think that's enough choice for the punters in the current world climate.
Good luck with the bid though, I'd be happy to eat humble pie if it gets up & is successful. But, for the moment, I'll take the money & run thanks!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline won't be run by the pilots but the bid is being funded by them.I'm not sure who the managemnet team will be and I am not even sure if Graeme McMahon will be part of it if it is successful.I for one hope that it is successful ahead of the Fox/Lew consortium as they think running an Impulse style operation is feasible even though it has already been proved that it is not.As has been noted elsewhere the demise of Ansett wasn't because it was a full service airline it was because for too long it hadn't been run as an airline operating to its own strategic initiatives.The only question I would like answered is when are we going to know who the successful bidder is and when is Ansett MkII going to be operating other than its current limited capacity?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has ANstaff decided to keep both the A320 and B733 in the same fleet? I can understand it for the short term, but long term, it makes little sense. With the downturn in the global aviation market surely AN would be able to get more competitive purchase/lease rates on a set of A32x aircraft.
I hope it's an interim measure, because fleet commonality will be even more important in a smaller operations.
Why haven't they gone the Lindsay Fox route and though A319/320/321 for the narrowbodies? I can understand the need for the 767, as its the best widebody (probably the only suitable) widebody for domestic ops.
Cheers,
Justin
[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: The Flying Lad ]
I hope it's an interim measure, because fleet commonality will be even more important in a smaller operations.
Why haven't they gone the Lindsay Fox route and though A319/320/321 for the narrowbodies? I can understand the need for the 767, as its the best widebody (probably the only suitable) widebody for domestic ops.
Cheers,
Justin
[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: The Flying Lad ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United Airlines was successfully bought in the late 1980's, by it's pilots using their pension fund in the world's first successful (E)mployee (S)tock (O)ption (P)lan. United today is a very successful airline. Go Anstaff!!
The Oracle!!
The Oracle!!
THE ORACLE. Can I refer you to World Airline News dated Sep 28.
Capt. Vaughan Cordle a financial analyst and senior captain with United says United employees are in for a double whammy if their is a bankruptcy filing. There would be massive layoffs and the employee stock ownership program (ESOP) equity wiped out.
The United daily cash burn is US$11.7M (AUD20M) and the CEO said today they will collapse early next year unless things improve.
Lessons should be learnt from the past; it is dangerous when you lose your job and your savings at the same time.
Ps. British Airways have just announced they are loosing ST1.35M (AUD4M) per day.
How much longer can these carriers survive ?
Capt. Vaughan Cordle a financial analyst and senior captain with United says United employees are in for a double whammy if their is a bankruptcy filing. There would be massive layoffs and the employee stock ownership program (ESOP) equity wiped out.
The United daily cash burn is US$11.7M (AUD20M) and the CEO said today they will collapse early next year unless things improve.
Lessons should be learnt from the past; it is dangerous when you lose your job and your savings at the same time.
Ps. British Airways have just announced they are loosing ST1.35M (AUD4M) per day.
How much longer can these carriers survive ?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B722
I wondered when someone was going to twig to that.
And how do you stop or deal equitably with those staff who seeing the writing on the wall and who are able, bail out with all of their entitlements, leaving less in the fund if it hasn't already been plundered for their co workers who hang in there.
I wondered when someone was going to twig to that.
And how do you stop or deal equitably with those staff who seeing the writing on the wall and who are able, bail out with all of their entitlements, leaving less in the fund if it hasn't already been plundered for their co workers who hang in there.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melbourne Age:
Ansett administrator must be given every chance
By STEPHEN BARTHOLOMEUSZ
Tuesday 16 October 2001
The Ansett administration is moving into a critical phase. With the administrators about to start making staff redundant, tensions between the classes of Ansett employees and creditors are likely to surface.
The underlying and overwhelming reality of the administration is that there is not sufficient cash or value to cover all claims of all employees, let alone other creditors.
The administrators have the $150 million cash they prised out of Air New Zealand in the biggest recovery in an insolvency administration in this region. The agreement also involved Air NZ ceding its own claims against Ansett. The administrators also have the Federal Government's limited guarantee of employee entitlements, which means the government could contribute up to about $350 million, or about half the total entitlements.
Thus, from the outset, the administrator, Andersen, is about $200 million short of covering employee claims even without considering other creditors.
It is actually somewhat worse than that, as the government guarantee is predicated on the government filling in any shortfall after Ansett's assets have been realised, with the government then standing in the employees' shoes as an unsecured creditor.
That is why in recent weeks there has been an arm-wrestle between the government and the administrator over Air NZ's $150 million, with the government wanting that to be drawn on for redundancies before its guarantee is called on. That would cap its exposure at about $200 million.
Yesterday the government and the administrator agreed that about $35 million of the $150 million would be used partly to fund the initial round of redundancies, with Andersen's Mark Mentha and Mark Korda retaining the remaining $100 million, for the moment, as they try to create an Ansett Mark II. Normally, employees made redundant would have to wait for their money until the administrators had come to a clear view about the value of the assets and status of liabilities - it would be a long time before cash actually started flowing to ex-employees. But the interaction between the government guarantee and the $150 million the administrator coerced Air NZ to contribute ought to produce a less brutal process.
The administrator is desperate to create an ongoing airline because the alternatives are horrendous - long delays and heavy shortfalls on the employee entitlements and nothing for anyone else.
A viable Ansett Mark II would enable the administrator to shift large slabs of liabilities - leases and employee entitlements - to an ongoing business, probably reducing the shortfall from the administration by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The administrator has been helped by the common sense of Ansett employees and the ACTU, which has played a key role in keeping employees from doing anything that might damage the one opportunity available to maximise not just future employment, but their own recoveries.
It was instructive that the employees and unions wanted Air NZ's $150 million used to keep Ansett planes flying rather than distributed immediately to its employees. They understand the administration's awkward equations.
Andersen ought to be able to create a viable Ansett Mark II, albeit far smaller and more focused than its predecessor, if the employees remain supportive.
The employees and their unions have the capacity to create a cost structure for the new airline that helps make it viable - whatever cost structure, and employment terms and conditions that might dictate.
Ideally, the administrator would sell the components of a restructured Ansett to third parties with capital and expertise, transferring employees, their entitlements and other liabilities.
But the fallback position could be to establish Ansett Mark II as a new, separate, subsidiary of the insolvent company.
If it could be operated profitably, cash could be moved upstream to Ansett, which has huge tax losses, before being distributed to creditors. That is a not uncommon strategy - described as "hiving down" - in Britain.
If established and profitable, Ansett Mark II would be more valuable, and the administrator would have more leverage, than would be the case in today's environment.
Singapore Airlines could play a role in either scenario.
It could be a core investor/manager if Ansett Mark II were spun off completely from the existing structure. It could be simply a manager if it were retained. SIA is being offered a free option over future ownership of a new Ansett, so there is a considerable and valuable inducement for it to become involved.
The administrator has considerable flexibility in its approaches, given that the creditors understand the implications of simply winding Ansett up.
For that reason, the use of the Air NZ funds to provide working capital for Ansett Mark II is unlikely to be challenged by the creditors provided the losses in the near term are not unreasonable.
But the imminent start of redundancies will create new tensions and conflicts and test the discipline of the Ansett workforce.
Neither the government nor the administrator has outlined in detail how the early redundancies will be managed, but it would appear reasonable to assume that the maximum level of entitlements paid out will be the level to which they are covered by the government guarantee.
The employees would become creditors for the rest. It could be a long time, if ever, before those claims are paid out.
If there is an Ansett Mark II, the employees who go with it - probably less than half the present Ansett workforce - would presumably expect their full entitlements to be honored. Their position would be stronger than those employees who lose their jobs.
But any new investor in the new airline would want to see the government guarantee fully drawn upon to minimise the liabilities they take on. It would be an awkward moment if the continuing employees were told that they, too, would become unsecured creditors of Ansett for any claim above the guarantee.
Thus there is inherent, ongoing tension between the interests of the various classes of employees, the government, any prospective investors and other creditors, which will only be disciplined by the knowledge that there is not sufficient value in the current structure to go around.
It is in everyone's interests to give the administrator an opportunity to create new value, and a new airline, even if there are costs and concessions associated with the administrators' strategies.
Ansett administrator must be given every chance
By STEPHEN BARTHOLOMEUSZ
Tuesday 16 October 2001
The Ansett administration is moving into a critical phase. With the administrators about to start making staff redundant, tensions between the classes of Ansett employees and creditors are likely to surface.
The underlying and overwhelming reality of the administration is that there is not sufficient cash or value to cover all claims of all employees, let alone other creditors.
The administrators have the $150 million cash they prised out of Air New Zealand in the biggest recovery in an insolvency administration in this region. The agreement also involved Air NZ ceding its own claims against Ansett. The administrators also have the Federal Government's limited guarantee of employee entitlements, which means the government could contribute up to about $350 million, or about half the total entitlements.
Thus, from the outset, the administrator, Andersen, is about $200 million short of covering employee claims even without considering other creditors.
It is actually somewhat worse than that, as the government guarantee is predicated on the government filling in any shortfall after Ansett's assets have been realised, with the government then standing in the employees' shoes as an unsecured creditor.
That is why in recent weeks there has been an arm-wrestle between the government and the administrator over Air NZ's $150 million, with the government wanting that to be drawn on for redundancies before its guarantee is called on. That would cap its exposure at about $200 million.
Yesterday the government and the administrator agreed that about $35 million of the $150 million would be used partly to fund the initial round of redundancies, with Andersen's Mark Mentha and Mark Korda retaining the remaining $100 million, for the moment, as they try to create an Ansett Mark II. Normally, employees made redundant would have to wait for their money until the administrators had come to a clear view about the value of the assets and status of liabilities - it would be a long time before cash actually started flowing to ex-employees. But the interaction between the government guarantee and the $150 million the administrator coerced Air NZ to contribute ought to produce a less brutal process.
The administrator is desperate to create an ongoing airline because the alternatives are horrendous - long delays and heavy shortfalls on the employee entitlements and nothing for anyone else.
A viable Ansett Mark II would enable the administrator to shift large slabs of liabilities - leases and employee entitlements - to an ongoing business, probably reducing the shortfall from the administration by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The administrator has been helped by the common sense of Ansett employees and the ACTU, which has played a key role in keeping employees from doing anything that might damage the one opportunity available to maximise not just future employment, but their own recoveries.
It was instructive that the employees and unions wanted Air NZ's $150 million used to keep Ansett planes flying rather than distributed immediately to its employees. They understand the administration's awkward equations.
Andersen ought to be able to create a viable Ansett Mark II, albeit far smaller and more focused than its predecessor, if the employees remain supportive.
The employees and their unions have the capacity to create a cost structure for the new airline that helps make it viable - whatever cost structure, and employment terms and conditions that might dictate.
Ideally, the administrator would sell the components of a restructured Ansett to third parties with capital and expertise, transferring employees, their entitlements and other liabilities.
But the fallback position could be to establish Ansett Mark II as a new, separate, subsidiary of the insolvent company.
If it could be operated profitably, cash could be moved upstream to Ansett, which has huge tax losses, before being distributed to creditors. That is a not uncommon strategy - described as "hiving down" - in Britain.
If established and profitable, Ansett Mark II would be more valuable, and the administrator would have more leverage, than would be the case in today's environment.
Singapore Airlines could play a role in either scenario.
It could be a core investor/manager if Ansett Mark II were spun off completely from the existing structure. It could be simply a manager if it were retained. SIA is being offered a free option over future ownership of a new Ansett, so there is a considerable and valuable inducement for it to become involved.
The administrator has considerable flexibility in its approaches, given that the creditors understand the implications of simply winding Ansett up.
For that reason, the use of the Air NZ funds to provide working capital for Ansett Mark II is unlikely to be challenged by the creditors provided the losses in the near term are not unreasonable.
But the imminent start of redundancies will create new tensions and conflicts and test the discipline of the Ansett workforce.
Neither the government nor the administrator has outlined in detail how the early redundancies will be managed, but it would appear reasonable to assume that the maximum level of entitlements paid out will be the level to which they are covered by the government guarantee.
The employees would become creditors for the rest. It could be a long time, if ever, before those claims are paid out.
If there is an Ansett Mark II, the employees who go with it - probably less than half the present Ansett workforce - would presumably expect their full entitlements to be honored. Their position would be stronger than those employees who lose their jobs.
But any new investor in the new airline would want to see the government guarantee fully drawn upon to minimise the liabilities they take on. It would be an awkward moment if the continuing employees were told that they, too, would become unsecured creditors of Ansett for any claim above the guarantee.
Thus there is inherent, ongoing tension between the interests of the various classes of employees, the government, any prospective investors and other creditors, which will only be disciplined by the knowledge that there is not sufficient value in the current structure to go around.
It is in everyone's interests to give the administrator an opportunity to create new value, and a new airline, even if there are costs and concessions associated with the administrators' strategies.
Evertonian
So what are you trying to say LAME? IS this another of your hidden attacks on Kiwis, Virgins, 89-ers, Qantas, Impulse, Liberal party members, cleverly hidden in an innocuos press clipping? huh, Huh???
Interesting article though. Which way should AN staff go? Take the money(albeit limited) & run, or stick around & try to realise the potentially full amount for redundancy? Tough choices ahead people!
Interesting article though. Which way should AN staff go? Take the money(albeit limited) & run, or stick around & try to realise the potentially full amount for redundancy? Tough choices ahead people!
Evertonian
DOH! Sorry! It was Wirraways post! :o :o
You've copped a fair bit for posting news articles, so, I thought I'd keep it up for you!! No malicious intent intended ol' chum! Just had the wrong poster!!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Buster Hyman ]
You've copped a fair bit for posting news articles, so, I thought I'd keep it up for you!! No malicious intent intended ol' chum! Just had the wrong poster!!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Buster Hyman ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: From a suitcase
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the medical field when a patient's condition is terminal and the medical staff go to extreme measures to save that patient's life, the term they use for such measures is 'heroic'.
So, perhaps it's apt in more ways in one to call the ANstaff bid an "Heroic Rescue Package."
Good luck to the 95% of AN staff in continuing in Aviation. As for the heroes, look around for a newsagency or milk run that's for sale.
So, perhaps it's apt in more ways in one to call the ANstaff bid an "Heroic Rescue Package."
Good luck to the 95% of AN staff in continuing in Aviation. As for the heroes, look around for a newsagency or milk run that's for sale.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Likewise KGV.
You're not reading into it what Spad, the tragic one, intended.
From his previous posts, I know he's referring to those who returned post 89 as heroes, again, and again, and again. How boring he is!.
Better you understand before you post!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: captainschlonger ]
You're not reading into it what Spad, the tragic one, intended.
From his previous posts, I know he's referring to those who returned post 89 as heroes, again, and again, and again. How boring he is!.
Better you understand before you post!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: captainschlonger ]
The future of AN MK11 is now looking very shaky with the QF announcements over the past few days.
I also understand a further announcement to come after the election will deliver a "knock out" blow.
This will enable QF to pick up some 'assets' at fire sale prices.
The AN administrator and SQ are no doubt getting nervous. I also hear the AN load factor ML-SY-ML is in the low 30's. AN are being shunned by the business traveller.
I also understand a further announcement to come after the election will deliver a "knock out" blow.
This will enable QF to pick up some 'assets' at fire sale prices.
The AN administrator and SQ are no doubt getting nervous. I also hear the AN load factor ML-SY-ML is in the low 30's. AN are being shunned by the business traveller.
