Urgent: Skies grow dark for Air NZ, Ansett in Huge Trouble:CONFIRMED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Kiwis have made such a stuff up of the
whole deal as shown on the 7.30 report last
night, without going into the politics, if
the Aussie govt is thinking of getting involved, maybe they should move now while
it is dirt cheap, and get it back in Aussie
hands,away from the stupid Kiwis, so we can
resructure it and float it on the ASX.
Wirraway
whole deal as shown on the 7.30 report last
night, without going into the politics, if
the Aussie govt is thinking of getting involved, maybe they should move now while
it is dirt cheap, and get it back in Aussie
hands,away from the stupid Kiwis, so we can
resructure it and float it on the ASX.
Wirraway
Grandpa Aerotart
How much of this is manoeuvring and disinformation by the major players to achieve their own ends?
1/. ANZ 'Management' farked up big time when the let Murdoch etc sell them a stripped out shell of what was once a great company. Now they want out BIG TIME and SQ is the quickest option so how to force the NZ Govt to change foriegn ownership laws?
2/. SQ want a way of protecting themselves against the time that ultra long haul aircraft bi pass Singapore, thus relegating Singapore to the status of 'a little island off the tip of Malaysia'. They want the lot and have RB helping them with the disinformation campaign. Just as panic starts to rise they suggest that the share price they offered last week is no longer viable and 'walk away', hoping no doubt that the other players will be forced by panic into an ill informed descision that favours SQ.
3/. AN 'management' have been unable to counteract the damage inflicted on AN by the previous owners.They have a good product that is overburdened by cost structures and unable to refleet due the aformentioned assett stripping etc. SQ can see this and figure "Hey we'll get it and fire sale price and sack 5000 employees, give the other 10000 a pay/conditions cut, put some new aircraft in there and we're away laughing".
AN is important to Australia on many levels so perhaps the Govt should help here, if only for it's own political ends(both sides of the house) to begin with.
The GST has given the Australian Govt a HUGE windfall(and they told us it would make F--k All difference
).
They have just sold a chunk of telecom off to Singapore inc, shades of the assett stripping that went on in Ansett mi thinks, I personnally don't want to see any more of Australia sold off to big business. All this crap about the Global Economy is as much about big business needing to make more profits to appease shareholders and the worlds borders getting in the way than anything else. Double digit growth figures are just not sustainable forever and it's time the worlds 'shareholders' realised this.(nieve I know
)
So the Australian Govt should buy AN from the Kiwis at fire sale price. They should provide the Capital, gaurantee loans or whatever, to restructure it. They should get in a team who know what they are doing to achieve this and if 5000 jobs go in the process then so be it. If anyone thinks thats not going to happen under SQ then they're playing with their willies!!!
Result of all this?
1/. ANZ 'management' can tell us all how clever they are at this outstanding result that benifits all, except SQ(like who cares)
2/. AN is saved and put back on its feet thus preseving competition in Australian skies. No more jobs are lost in AN than would happen in any other scenario and quite possibly less jobs would be lost. The damage to the lives of possibly millions of Australians if it goes tits up is avoided.
3/. The Australian Govt/people are presented with a profitable entity whose profits go to the Australian Govt/people as opposed to a foriegn (Govt owned) entity.
1 billion for all that, and would be paid back anyway via profits over the years, is CHEAP
If the performance of the private sector over the last 15 years has shown nothing else it has shown that profit and the shareholder is above ALL ELSE. It has no controls either ethical or moral and outwits Govt at every step. Its time to take some of that back!
Chuck.
1/. ANZ 'Management' farked up big time when the let Murdoch etc sell them a stripped out shell of what was once a great company. Now they want out BIG TIME and SQ is the quickest option so how to force the NZ Govt to change foriegn ownership laws?
2/. SQ want a way of protecting themselves against the time that ultra long haul aircraft bi pass Singapore, thus relegating Singapore to the status of 'a little island off the tip of Malaysia'. They want the lot and have RB helping them with the disinformation campaign. Just as panic starts to rise they suggest that the share price they offered last week is no longer viable and 'walk away', hoping no doubt that the other players will be forced by panic into an ill informed descision that favours SQ.
3/. AN 'management' have been unable to counteract the damage inflicted on AN by the previous owners.They have a good product that is overburdened by cost structures and unable to refleet due the aformentioned assett stripping etc. SQ can see this and figure "Hey we'll get it and fire sale price and sack 5000 employees, give the other 10000 a pay/conditions cut, put some new aircraft in there and we're away laughing".
AN is important to Australia on many levels so perhaps the Govt should help here, if only for it's own political ends(both sides of the house) to begin with.
The GST has given the Australian Govt a HUGE windfall(and they told us it would make F--k All difference
). They have just sold a chunk of telecom off to Singapore inc, shades of the assett stripping that went on in Ansett mi thinks, I personnally don't want to see any more of Australia sold off to big business. All this crap about the Global Economy is as much about big business needing to make more profits to appease shareholders and the worlds borders getting in the way than anything else. Double digit growth figures are just not sustainable forever and it's time the worlds 'shareholders' realised this.(nieve I know
)So the Australian Govt should buy AN from the Kiwis at fire sale price. They should provide the Capital, gaurantee loans or whatever, to restructure it. They should get in a team who know what they are doing to achieve this and if 5000 jobs go in the process then so be it. If anyone thinks thats not going to happen under SQ then they're playing with their willies!!!
Result of all this?
1/. ANZ 'management' can tell us all how clever they are at this outstanding result that benifits all, except SQ(like who cares)
2/. AN is saved and put back on its feet thus preseving competition in Australian skies. No more jobs are lost in AN than would happen in any other scenario and quite possibly less jobs would be lost. The damage to the lives of possibly millions of Australians if it goes tits up is avoided.
3/. The Australian Govt/people are presented with a profitable entity whose profits go to the Australian Govt/people as opposed to a foriegn (Govt owned) entity.
1 billion for all that, and would be paid back anyway via profits over the years, is CHEAP
If the performance of the private sector over the last 15 years has shown nothing else it has shown that profit and the shareholder is above ALL ELSE. It has no controls either ethical or moral and outwits Govt at every step. Its time to take some of that back!
Chuck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea as well, buy Ansett back
lock stock and barrel, and straight away
launch flights back across the tasman and
put pressure on Air NZ while they are weak,
they deserve it for their incompetence,and
making Aussie taxpayers having to pay, they
should stick to chasing sheep, instead of
trying to run airlines.
Wirraway
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Wirraway ]
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Wirraway ]
lock stock and barrel, and straight away
launch flights back across the tasman and
put pressure on Air NZ while they are weak,
they deserve it for their incompetence,and
making Aussie taxpayers having to pay, they
should stick to chasing sheep, instead of
trying to run airlines.
Wirraway
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Wirraway ]
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Wirraway ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't like the use of taxpayers funds to be used to bail out any company but I think in this case the economic consequences are too great for the government to ignore. Probably put 40,000 people out of work (reliant industries) affecting wellover 100,000 if you include families. Business's go bust, banks left being owed big dollars etc. I don't think the government had a choice although you can blame them for letting the Foreign Investment Review Board give the go ahead when everyone knew it was beyond ANZ's capabilities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC News Net:
Aust and NZ to discuss Ansett bail out
The Australian and New Zealand Governments are expected to enter into talks later today on a possible bail out of struggling Ansett Airlines.
Meanwhile, the Opposition has called for a quick resolution to save 15,000 jobs.
Treasurer Peter Costello and his New Zealand counterpart Michael Cullen are expected to discuss options for Ansett including a taxpayer funded rescue package.
Both are attending the APEC Finance Ministers Conference in China.
The Shadow Transport and Regional Development Minister, Martin Ferguson, says Australia is staring at an aviation crisis.
Mr Ferguson has cautioned against a capital bail out calling for both governments to explore the true state of Air New Zealand and Ansett first.
"It is not the responsibility of Government to start putting on the table a tax payer funded bail out," he said.
Meanwhile, the board of Air New Zealand has adjourned its meeting until Monday and will not make any formal requests to either Government until after the meeting.
Stott Despoja
Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja says the Government needs to spell out its plans for Ansett.
"I think that there are broader issues that need to be addressed," she said.
"First of all, not only how much money would be involved, we have heard reports of up to a billion dollars.
"How that money will be used, is it for capital, is it for infrastructure?
"What does it mean for a fleet that is one of the most aged in the world."
Flight attendants
The Flight Attendants Association has described the debate over Ansett's future as inhumane with little or no regard to the impact on workers in the industry.
The association wants the Federal Government to ensure that the jobs of Ansett workers are protected in any deal reached.
Aust and NZ to discuss Ansett bail out
The Australian and New Zealand Governments are expected to enter into talks later today on a possible bail out of struggling Ansett Airlines.
Meanwhile, the Opposition has called for a quick resolution to save 15,000 jobs.
Treasurer Peter Costello and his New Zealand counterpart Michael Cullen are expected to discuss options for Ansett including a taxpayer funded rescue package.
Both are attending the APEC Finance Ministers Conference in China.
The Shadow Transport and Regional Development Minister, Martin Ferguson, says Australia is staring at an aviation crisis.
Mr Ferguson has cautioned against a capital bail out calling for both governments to explore the true state of Air New Zealand and Ansett first.
"It is not the responsibility of Government to start putting on the table a tax payer funded bail out," he said.
Meanwhile, the board of Air New Zealand has adjourned its meeting until Monday and will not make any formal requests to either Government until after the meeting.
Stott Despoja
Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja says the Government needs to spell out its plans for Ansett.
"I think that there are broader issues that need to be addressed," she said.
"First of all, not only how much money would be involved, we have heard reports of up to a billion dollars.
"How that money will be used, is it for capital, is it for infrastructure?
"What does it mean for a fleet that is one of the most aged in the world."
Flight attendants
The Flight Attendants Association has described the debate over Ansett's future as inhumane with little or no regard to the impact on workers in the industry.
The association wants the Federal Government to ensure that the jobs of Ansett workers are protected in any deal reached.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett is bleeding so badly it's time for some serious surgery!!!
GT should be taking the knife to the outfit before both companies go under..
Thats the problem when you get a bunch of Australians running a NZ company and they don't want to upset the Ansett employees.
It's getting close to the point where if they don't lay off 3000 jobs & cut costs then there will be 15,000 out of work!!!
Sitting on there hands and waiting for someone else to solve the problem is bloody stupid.
GT should be taking the knife to the outfit before both companies go under..
Thats the problem when you get a bunch of Australians running a NZ company and they don't want to upset the Ansett employees.
It's getting close to the point where if they don't lay off 3000 jobs & cut costs then there will be 15,000 out of work!!!
Sitting on there hands and waiting for someone else to solve the problem is bloody stupid.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MELBOURNE, Sept 7 AAP - The federal government was making noises
about helping out troubled airline Ansett to win votes in the
upcoming election, Australian Democrats leader Natasha Stott
Despoja said today.
Senator Stott Despoja said the role of the government in terms
of the industry and airline ownership should be examined and was
critical of previous governments selling out of the industry.
"Previous governments should be ashamed that they divested its
interest in the aviation industry," she said.
"If it is such a good idea, why does it not apply to a
government-owned airline," she told reporter," she added.
She said Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister John
Anderson was not specific in his plans to rescue Australia's second
airline.
"The government is only doing it because this is an election
year," she said.
Senator Stott Despoja said the government had not said what
measures should be taken to bail the airline out and Mr Anderson
did not indicate the cost of any rescue package.
Ansett is reportedly making a loss of $1 million a day and
17,000 jobs are at risk.
AAP
about helping out troubled airline Ansett to win votes in the
upcoming election, Australian Democrats leader Natasha Stott
Despoja said today.
Senator Stott Despoja said the role of the government in terms
of the industry and airline ownership should be examined and was
critical of previous governments selling out of the industry.
"Previous governments should be ashamed that they divested its
interest in the aviation industry," she said.
"If it is such a good idea, why does it not apply to a
government-owned airline," she told reporter," she added.
She said Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister John
Anderson was not specific in his plans to rescue Australia's second
airline.
"The government is only doing it because this is an election
year," she said.
Senator Stott Despoja said the government had not said what
measures should be taken to bail the airline out and Mr Anderson
did not indicate the cost of any rescue package.
Ansett is reportedly making a loss of $1 million a day and
17,000 jobs are at risk.
AAP
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: To your left
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Chuck - Great Idea!! Now it would be jumped at by the present ratbags in the Canberra if we could find a long lost brother of Little Johnnie who happens to work for Ansett and we are away.
How about you head up the new board as Chair Chuckie?
mi no lusim balus, me lusim tinktink! (or something like that - my pisin is rusty!)
How about you head up the new board as Chair Chuckie?
mi no lusim balus, me lusim tinktink! (or something like that - my pisin is rusty!)
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"AN is saved and put back on its feet thus preseving competition in Australian skies." - courtesy of Chimbu chuckles
However, it is NOT fair competition, when one of the players,
(a)is obviously UNcompetitive,
(b)has previously engaged in predatory pricing to dispose of earlier competitors
(c) has an obvious advantage by being able to basically indulge in whatever tactics they want, knowing that the government will again save their ass if they overspend.
The ONLY fair and equitable outcome, IF the Aussie government rescues Ansett, is for it (the government) to give Qantas, and Virgin Blue the SAME amount of money. I've also got a mate who runs a charter business that is on the edge as well, so how about a handout to save the jobs of Australians employed there??
Ansett WAS a good airline, ruined by incompetent managements, who touted themselves as the creme-de-creme. The results now show how proficient THEY were!
Ansett was an airline that actively participated in the destruction of its previous pilot workforce, and attempted to destroy their representative body, assisted THEN by hundreds of millions of government dollars, and still employs the pilots who came from all over the world - not to SAVE Ansett, but greedily attracted by the lure of the outrageous salaries offered to displace Australians, involved in a normal industrial dispute!!
If/when Ansett folds, the holes left will be filled very quickly.
Australia went for several months in 1989 without ANY domestic airlines at all. Losing Ansett now would cause scarcely a ripple.
On the other hand, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the N.Z. government will bail Air N.Z. out, simply because it is that country's National flagship carrier.
However, it is NOT fair competition, when one of the players,
(a)is obviously UNcompetitive,
(b)has previously engaged in predatory pricing to dispose of earlier competitors
(c) has an obvious advantage by being able to basically indulge in whatever tactics they want, knowing that the government will again save their ass if they overspend.
The ONLY fair and equitable outcome, IF the Aussie government rescues Ansett, is for it (the government) to give Qantas, and Virgin Blue the SAME amount of money. I've also got a mate who runs a charter business that is on the edge as well, so how about a handout to save the jobs of Australians employed there??
Ansett WAS a good airline, ruined by incompetent managements, who touted themselves as the creme-de-creme. The results now show how proficient THEY were!
Ansett was an airline that actively participated in the destruction of its previous pilot workforce, and attempted to destroy their representative body, assisted THEN by hundreds of millions of government dollars, and still employs the pilots who came from all over the world - not to SAVE Ansett, but greedily attracted by the lure of the outrageous salaries offered to displace Australians, involved in a normal industrial dispute!!
If/when Ansett folds, the holes left will be filled very quickly.
Australia went for several months in 1989 without ANY domestic airlines at all. Losing Ansett now would cause scarcely a ripple.
On the other hand, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the N.Z. government will bail Air N.Z. out, simply because it is that country's National flagship carrier.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government won't and can't move (asuming they want to) until almost the end.
They must be seen to be rescuing and babysitting, not buying into the mess for it to be politically viable.
It will require AirNZ and the NZ Govt. to be upfront, no games, no bulls hit and the timing will be critical.
I have a feeling it will happen when the Oz Govt gets their ducks in a row, it will be a real tight rope act but doable. I don't think they can afford any more political damage by letting SQ in after the they saw the reaction to the Singtel deal.
They must be seen to be rescuing and babysitting, not buying into the mess for it to be politically viable.
It will require AirNZ and the NZ Govt. to be upfront, no games, no bulls hit and the timing will be critical.
I have a feeling it will happen when the Oz Govt gets their ducks in a row, it will be a real tight rope act but doable. I don't think they can afford any more political damage by letting SQ in after the they saw the reaction to the Singtel deal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbers Pole
Sorry, your ANZ board is made up of Kiwis
who in their brilliance against all advise
not to, decided to pay NZ$1.2 bllion for
the privilege of fully owning Australia's
2nd airline, after this, your lot sets up
a 2nd board who after all these months still
cannot make a decision, remember they left
Ansett without a CEO for over 6 months before
appointing Toomey, and you wonder why you
find yourselves in the current mess, which
now looks like Australia has got to fix,what
is Ansett worth now after NZ ownership, I
would guess somewhere between NZ$300-400 mill. Your board should publish a book "How
not to run an airline".
Wirraway
Sorry, your ANZ board is made up of Kiwis
who in their brilliance against all advise
not to, decided to pay NZ$1.2 bllion for
the privilege of fully owning Australia's
2nd airline, after this, your lot sets up
a 2nd board who after all these months still
cannot make a decision, remember they left
Ansett without a CEO for over 6 months before
appointing Toomey, and you wonder why you
find yourselves in the current mess, which
now looks like Australia has got to fix,what
is Ansett worth now after NZ ownership, I
would guess somewhere between NZ$300-400 mill. Your board should publish a book "How
not to run an airline".
Wirraway
Guest
Posts: n/a
I dunno if I'm right here but isn't it just another company (put the knives away and let me finish). People have worked for Insurance, finance and steel companies on both sides of the Tasman, they have gone broke or faced serious restructuring due poor management/market conditions, jobs are lost and the government hasn't automatically stepped in? Hasn't it always been that the fastest way to make a small fortune in this industry is to start with a large one? Why should the size of the company make any difference? The NZ political party Act is pushing for management to raise capital through the shareholders same as any company in any other industry would. I am not saying that is going to be easy but why should an airline be treated any differently? I thought it was just a business, admittedly with a great deal of history (as did Pam-Am). Aren't we looking at this a bit much through rose tinted spectacles? (...but my dad worked for them and his dad and his dad's dad's dad. And when I was a kid I used to walk 50 miles every morning to stand at the threshold and watch Ansett planes take off) Ok out with the knives...............
Guest
Posts: n/a
FINALLY SOME HONESTY IN REPORTING???????
AIR NZ HAVE NO PLAN............
CANTERBURY
FRIDAY, 07 SEPTEMBER 2001
C A N T E R B U R Y S T O R Y
Air NZ flying blind as business crisis soars
07 September 2001
By COLIN ESPINER
New Zealand's troubled national carrier has admitted it does not have a business plan to solve a mounting financial crisis.
The Government yesterday threw the heat back on Air New Zealand on its foreign investment plans, as the troubled airline sought to halt growing concern in financial markets.
Air NZ's board conceded it did not yet have a business strategy to deal with its need for an urgent recapitalisation to fund a fleet upgrade of Ansett Australia. Air NZ is believed to have told the Government it needs more than $1 billion to recapitalise the airline group.
The delays are costing shareholders dearly, as Air NZ's share price continues falling. International B shares fell another 9 per cent to a record low, and the residents-only A shares fell 11 per cent. More than $800m has been wiped off the airline's worth since the crisis began three months ago.
Associate Finance Minister Trevor Mallard said yesterday that delays in announcing a rescue package for Air NZ were nothing to do with the Government. "I'd like to make it clear that the problems Air NZ currently faces are a direct result of the ill-advised purchase of Ansett Australia ... not Government dithering."
Responding to Opposition claims of Government inaction over Air NZ's plea to allow Singapore Airlines (SIA) to raise its stake in the carrier to 49 per cent, Mr Mallard said: "The timetable for these decisions has not been in the hands of this Government."
Air NZ's chairman, Jim Farmer, said that the situation "remains fluid pending a decision by the board on its strategy and then by shareholders as to the capital requirements of (that) strategy".
The board, which has met twice in consecutive days, was dealing with changing circumstances relating to the airline's recapitalisation, he said. He denied that frequent board meetings on short notice outside its usual schedule indicated that the airline was in crisis.
Ansett's financial performance in Australia had been hit hard by competition, fuel prices, and the low dollar, he said. While passenger volumes were rising, the central issue remained the need to reinvest in new aircraft.
He denied reports that Singapore Airlines is having second thoughts about investing in Air NZ, or has bid a lower price for shares. SIA had not indicated that its position had changed, he said.
AIR NZ HAVE NO PLAN............
CANTERBURY
FRIDAY, 07 SEPTEMBER 2001
C A N T E R B U R Y S T O R Y
Air NZ flying blind as business crisis soars
07 September 2001
By COLIN ESPINER
New Zealand's troubled national carrier has admitted it does not have a business plan to solve a mounting financial crisis.
The Government yesterday threw the heat back on Air New Zealand on its foreign investment plans, as the troubled airline sought to halt growing concern in financial markets.
Air NZ's board conceded it did not yet have a business strategy to deal with its need for an urgent recapitalisation to fund a fleet upgrade of Ansett Australia. Air NZ is believed to have told the Government it needs more than $1 billion to recapitalise the airline group.
The delays are costing shareholders dearly, as Air NZ's share price continues falling. International B shares fell another 9 per cent to a record low, and the residents-only A shares fell 11 per cent. More than $800m has been wiped off the airline's worth since the crisis began three months ago.
Associate Finance Minister Trevor Mallard said yesterday that delays in announcing a rescue package for Air NZ were nothing to do with the Government. "I'd like to make it clear that the problems Air NZ currently faces are a direct result of the ill-advised purchase of Ansett Australia ... not Government dithering."
Responding to Opposition claims of Government inaction over Air NZ's plea to allow Singapore Airlines (SIA) to raise its stake in the carrier to 49 per cent, Mr Mallard said: "The timetable for these decisions has not been in the hands of this Government."
Air NZ's chairman, Jim Farmer, said that the situation "remains fluid pending a decision by the board on its strategy and then by shareholders as to the capital requirements of (that) strategy".
The board, which has met twice in consecutive days, was dealing with changing circumstances relating to the airline's recapitalisation, he said. He denied that frequent board meetings on short notice outside its usual schedule indicated that the airline was in crisis.
Ansett's financial performance in Australia had been hit hard by competition, fuel prices, and the low dollar, he said. While passenger volumes were rising, the central issue remained the need to reinvest in new aircraft.
He denied reports that Singapore Airlines is having second thoughts about investing in Air NZ, or has bid a lower price for shares. SIA had not indicated that its position had changed, he said.
Grandpa Aerotart
Now M....may I call you M? I detect a little cynacism in your first paragraph.
1/. Will watching AN go down the sh!t shute make you feel better? For more than a week?
2/. Will seeing all the heroes out of work make you feel better for more than the remainder of your natural life?
3/.Will the knowledge that to 'get' the heroes another 14000+ people lost their livelyhood in the process not tend to negate some of the pleasure to be had from 2/.And lets not forget the collateral damage.
I'm not advocating a Govt sponsored 'bail out' which will alow the current crop of people who are responsible for a lot of what has happened to have another bite of the cherry! This cherry anyway!
I am suggesting the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT make the same sort of strategic investment that the SINGAPORE GOVT, via it's wholly owned entity SQ, is attempting. A Government investing in it's own country for the benifit of its own citizens!
There can be, and certainly must be, a difference between Govt OWNED and Govt CONTROLLED/RUN.
Look at the upside.... if Pilot numbers have to be reduced I know which group could be whittled down first, and later when growth allows, where we can hire new pilots from. Wouldn't that make you feel better for a lot longer!!!
I too left PX feeling very bitter about how my career had seemingly been rested from my control, but now am better off and happier than I ever could have been if I had stayed at PX. Don't let the desire for 'righteous payback' lead you down the path of 'mutually assured self distruction' my friend.
What has happened over that last 15 years, while never forgotten, should be placed in a glass box where it can be viewed by all as a salutory lesson. Then the People of Australia via it's elected representatives should make this investment in our futures, and those of our children, with those lessons in mind.
The only other outcomes possible are that AN disappear completely or become SQ Southern. Either way it will be to the detriment of Australia and to the ultimate gain of the Beancounters/Management types and sharholders of another country.
I find that unacceptable
Chuck.
1/. Will watching AN go down the sh!t shute make you feel better? For more than a week?
2/. Will seeing all the heroes out of work make you feel better for more than the remainder of your natural life?
3/.Will the knowledge that to 'get' the heroes another 14000+ people lost their livelyhood in the process not tend to negate some of the pleasure to be had from 2/.And lets not forget the collateral damage.
I'm not advocating a Govt sponsored 'bail out' which will alow the current crop of people who are responsible for a lot of what has happened to have another bite of the cherry! This cherry anyway!
I am suggesting the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT make the same sort of strategic investment that the SINGAPORE GOVT, via it's wholly owned entity SQ, is attempting. A Government investing in it's own country for the benifit of its own citizens!
There can be, and certainly must be, a difference between Govt OWNED and Govt CONTROLLED/RUN.
Look at the upside.... if Pilot numbers have to be reduced I know which group could be whittled down first, and later when growth allows, where we can hire new pilots from. Wouldn't that make you feel better for a lot longer!!!
I too left PX feeling very bitter about how my career had seemingly been rested from my control, but now am better off and happier than I ever could have been if I had stayed at PX. Don't let the desire for 'righteous payback' lead you down the path of 'mutually assured self distruction' my friend.
What has happened over that last 15 years, while never forgotten, should be placed in a glass box where it can be viewed by all as a salutory lesson. Then the People of Australia via it's elected representatives should make this investment in our futures, and those of our children, with those lessons in mind.
The only other outcomes possible are that AN disappear completely or become SQ Southern. Either way it will be to the detriment of Australia and to the ultimate gain of the Beancounters/Management types and sharholders of another country.
I find that unacceptable
Chuck.