Urgent: Skies grow dark for Air NZ, Ansett in Huge Trouble:CONFIRMED
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was just thinking along similar lines.
Surely the Directors of Air NZ must be accountable to someone, or some Government Authority?
I believe there are laws in Australia, probably NZ too, where Directors can be held criminally liable if they continue to trade in these sorts of circumstances, surely they cannot go on losing $1 million a day?
Also is there any way that the Government could recover any of this money, that everyone says was "taken" from Ansett by past owners etc?
Surely the Directors of Air NZ must be accountable to someone, or some Government Authority?
I believe there are laws in Australia, probably NZ too, where Directors can be held criminally liable if they continue to trade in these sorts of circumstances, surely they cannot go on losing $1 million a day?
Also is there any way that the Government could recover any of this money, that everyone says was "taken" from Ansett by past owners etc?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SIN
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Singapore govt doesn't own all of SIA's shares. It owns 54%. And not directly, but through Temasek Holdings, an investment arm of the Ministry of Finance.
Anyway another investment arm of the SIN govt, Govt Investment Corporation, is said to be responsible for Impulse's demise. Why isn't there much analysis on that? Does anyone have any info regarding that?
Anyway another investment arm of the SIN govt, Govt Investment Corporation, is said to be responsible for Impulse's demise. Why isn't there much analysis on that? Does anyone have any info regarding that?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great post, Chimbu. One of the most sensible I've read om PPRUNE! I hope someone from the concirned parties reads it. Lets not forget that the then Fed Gov cleared Australian's debt prior to merging with the big"Q" then did the same with them prior to the float so the precedent's there to put the cash in for the slice of the pie. The then Fed Gov also had no problem taking all the juicy profit making Gov contracts off Ansett and giving them to "Q" prior to the float. "Defence etc" Everyone has had a piece of Ansett like bloody sharks at a whale carcass. It's a wonder it didn't fold years ago.
Kaptin M, how's Mauritius? Your post is disgusting at a time like this! It's good you live OS as you are truly un Australian and an embarrassment to your countrymen.
Kaptin M, how's Mauritius? Your post is disgusting at a time like this! It's good you live OS as you are truly un Australian and an embarrassment to your countrymen.
Grandpa Aerotart
Albatros,
While you make a valid point if we leave it to the private sector all the time the very fabric of society, that matrix that holds us together is at risk of being ransacked by the Murdochs and Abeles of this world for short term gain.
While what I've suggested here sounds somewhat Communistic I don't mean it that way. We have all seen how truly stupid that system turned out to be!
We've all seen the cries of 'unfare' when related to the collusion which went on under the 'Two Airline Policy' however,
1/. Between Ansett/TAA/QF/EWA/MMA etc etc when were there only two airlines?
2/. If strong Govt had enforced competition laws back when Abeles, Murdoch etc wanted to buy up everything and control everything to their ultimate advantage(and the disadvatage of the Australian public) perhaps we may have had a truly healthy competitive airline industry without the need of RB and his VB.
3/. Australia does not have the population density that allows the 'free for all' of the completed deregulated system to work indefinately. It leads to the RBs/Jimmy Bowties of this world, and before them the Murdochs and Abeles into the see saw of preditory pricing followed by high prices when the compitition has been run out of business.
Who really thinks RB won't put the airfares on his low cost airline up as high as he thinks he can get away with once AN was either consigned to the history books or brought under the control of his business partners SQ
If you ignore the largely false PR of the various airline executives like RB about how is he here to save the public from the terrible twosome, what long term good has all this BS brung to the Australian travelling public?
God I wish the Falcon wasn't in the hangar having scheduled maintenance....someone tie me down!!
Chuck
While you make a valid point if we leave it to the private sector all the time the very fabric of society, that matrix that holds us together is at risk of being ransacked by the Murdochs and Abeles of this world for short term gain.
While what I've suggested here sounds somewhat Communistic I don't mean it that way. We have all seen how truly stupid that system turned out to be!
We've all seen the cries of 'unfare' when related to the collusion which went on under the 'Two Airline Policy' however,
1/. Between Ansett/TAA/QF/EWA/MMA etc etc when were there only two airlines?
2/. If strong Govt had enforced competition laws back when Abeles, Murdoch etc wanted to buy up everything and control everything to their ultimate advantage(and the disadvatage of the Australian public) perhaps we may have had a truly healthy competitive airline industry without the need of RB and his VB.
3/. Australia does not have the population density that allows the 'free for all' of the completed deregulated system to work indefinately. It leads to the RBs/Jimmy Bowties of this world, and before them the Murdochs and Abeles into the see saw of preditory pricing followed by high prices when the compitition has been run out of business.
Who really thinks RB won't put the airfares on his low cost airline up as high as he thinks he can get away with once AN was either consigned to the history books or brought under the control of his business partners SQ
If you ignore the largely false PR of the various airline executives like RB about how is he here to save the public from the terrible twosome, what long term good has all this BS brung to the Australian travelling public?
God I wish the Falcon wasn't in the hangar having scheduled maintenance....someone tie me down!!
Chuck
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: S3743.7E14454.1
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not lose sight of the issues.
The media often create stories as they have done here.
A journalist asks a hypothetical question to create a stir. John Anderson replies that the government will not rule out bailing out AN and then front page news is an SOS and talk of AN going under.
Remember that listed ASX companies regularly lose in excess of the anticipated $200m that Air NZ will lose.
Air NZ has admitted that Ansett is losing money, perhaps $1M per day, but they have indicated that $1Billion in cash was available two months ago. So, the ability to operate indefinately is not in question.
Financing is the problem.
AN is not a dot com investment.
The media often create stories as they have done here.
A journalist asks a hypothetical question to create a stir. John Anderson replies that the government will not rule out bailing out AN and then front page news is an SOS and talk of AN going under.
Remember that listed ASX companies regularly lose in excess of the anticipated $200m that Air NZ will lose.
Air NZ has admitted that Ansett is losing money, perhaps $1M per day, but they have indicated that $1Billion in cash was available two months ago. So, the ability to operate indefinately is not in question.
Financing is the problem.
AN is not a dot com investment.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously,
That is a good point. 45ish% of market share cannot be sniffed at. The 'good' name of Ansett is definately tradeable.
The hole in the bottom of the bucket is what needs fixing!
I hate to say it but...
Ansett is over staffed by about 30%.
Any realistic business plan will come to this conclusion and action will have to be taken.
I merely point out facts as I see them!
I sympathise with all the Ansett staff suffering through this uncertainty.
That is a good point. 45ish% of market share cannot be sniffed at. The 'good' name of Ansett is definately tradeable.
The hole in the bottom of the bucket is what needs fixing!
I hate to say it but...
Ansett is over staffed by about 30%.
Any realistic business plan will come to this conclusion and action will have to be taken.
I merely point out facts as I see them!
I sympathise with all the Ansett staff suffering through this uncertainty.
Grandpa Aerotart
Saint Ex, well timed and to the point.
I am now going away for at least 1 hour to get some work done on our Ops manual that CASA has me rewriting!
PLAY NICE WHILE I"M GONE!!!
Chuck.
I am now going away for at least 1 hour to get some work done on our Ops manual that CASA has me rewriting!
PLAY NICE WHILE I"M GONE!!!
Chuck.
PPRuNette
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: de nile...
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Reegarding your post a couple of pages before this one...Good Stuff
Lame, it's taken a while, but I think I can finally see where you're coming from
(see, good things do come to those who persevere 
)
And, believe it or not, I agree that this government should not bail out a forgeign owned company
Regards
GoGirl
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: GoGirl ]
Lame, it's taken a while, but I think I can finally see where you're coming from
(see, good things do come to those who persevere )And, believe it or not, I agree that this government should not bail out a forgeign owned company
Regards
GoGirl
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: GoGirl ]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIZ - ASX Company Announcement
$trn2 THIS IS A PRIORITY ITEM
7 September 2001
Part 1/1
--------
AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
-----------------------
HOMEX - Melbourne
-------------------------
re: Commercial refinancing package
Following yesterday's meeting of the Air New Zealand Board,
representatives of the Company's major shareholders, The Board has
asked his advisers to submit a commercial refinancing package and
they will be having discussions with the major shareholders and the
New Zealand Government and reporting back at the beginning of next
week.
At yesterday's Board meeting, following the Company's announcement
earlier in the day, Singapore Airlines' representatives advised the
Company that in the present circumstances, Singapore Airlines could
not commit to a price of $1.31 per share. However, Singapore Airlines
is looking forward to a business plan and a commercial proposal for
the Company that would form a sound basis for Singapore Airlines to
provide support. The pricing of any equity issued as part of the
financial support under discussion remains to be resolved in that
context.
In the months since Air New Zealand began discussions with the
Government at the beginning of June, competition in the Australian
domestic market has continued to be intense not only from Qantas as
the dominant airline in that market, but also at the low cost end of
the market from Virgin Blue. The level of competition in recent
months resulted in the financial demise of Impulse Airlines prior to
its acquisition by Qantas and more recently the liquidation of
Queensland regional airline, Flight West. There has been considerable
public comment on the impact competition has had and continues to
have on Ansett's profitability. Losses in Ansett currently amount to
approximately A$1.3 million per day at an Earnings Before Interest
and Tax level.
As previously advised, Air New Zealand will on 13 September release
its preliminary results announcement. The carrying value of Ansett in
Air New Zealand's balance sheet remains under discussion with the
Company's auditors.
J Blair
GENERAL COUNSEL & COMPANY SECRETARY
ends - AAP
$trn2 THIS IS A PRIORITY ITEM
7 September 2001
Part 1/1
--------
AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
-----------------------
HOMEX - Melbourne
-------------------------
re: Commercial refinancing package
Following yesterday's meeting of the Air New Zealand Board,
representatives of the Company's major shareholders, The Board has
asked his advisers to submit a commercial refinancing package and
they will be having discussions with the major shareholders and the
New Zealand Government and reporting back at the beginning of next
week.
At yesterday's Board meeting, following the Company's announcement
earlier in the day, Singapore Airlines' representatives advised the
Company that in the present circumstances, Singapore Airlines could
not commit to a price of $1.31 per share. However, Singapore Airlines
is looking forward to a business plan and a commercial proposal for
the Company that would form a sound basis for Singapore Airlines to
provide support. The pricing of any equity issued as part of the
financial support under discussion remains to be resolved in that
context.
In the months since Air New Zealand began discussions with the
Government at the beginning of June, competition in the Australian
domestic market has continued to be intense not only from Qantas as
the dominant airline in that market, but also at the low cost end of
the market from Virgin Blue. The level of competition in recent
months resulted in the financial demise of Impulse Airlines prior to
its acquisition by Qantas and more recently the liquidation of
Queensland regional airline, Flight West. There has been considerable
public comment on the impact competition has had and continues to
have on Ansett's profitability. Losses in Ansett currently amount to
approximately A$1.3 million per day at an Earnings Before Interest
and Tax level.
As previously advised, Air New Zealand will on 13 September release
its preliminary results announcement. The carrying value of Ansett in
Air New Zealand's balance sheet remains under discussion with the
Company's auditors.
J Blair
GENERAL COUNSEL & COMPANY SECRETARY
ends - AAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This afternoons NZ "Evening Post":
FRIDAY, 07 SEPTEMBER 2001
B U S I N E S S S T O R Y
'Receivership' - dread word enters air saga
07 September 2001
Analysts claim ailing Ansett Australia may be forced into receivership, as the Air New Zealand saga took another twist this morning.
"The news coming out of Australia, with the confirmation of Canberra's involvement, is just getting worse and worse," said an analyst, whom The Evening Post agreed not to name.
"And therefore the obvious next move, if there is no government bail-out, is the prospect of Ansett being forced into receivership."
The analyst said that receivership was a "definite possibility" for Ansett because "with Singapore (Airlines) glaringly not interested in putting money in, and Canberra not likely to want a taxpayer-funded bail-out in election year, the obvious next option has to be receivership".
But Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Champion today dismissed such talk.
"Talk of receivership is just low-grade speculation and at this stage all I can confirm is commercial negotiations are ongoing," Mr Champion said.
Also entering the turmoil yesterday was ACT list MP Stephen Franks, who confirmed he was firing off a set of questions on the issue to Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
"I want to make sure good money isn't thrown after bad," Mr Franks said. "And therefore I want to know if Air New Zealand has guaranteed its support to Ansett or can they walk away.
"Secondly, I want to know if any money is put into Air New Zealand, will it simply be to prop up Ansett."
Meanwhile, Air New Zealand's board has been in urgent talks over the past two days as its share price continues to fall and amid worries about the poor financial state of Ansett Australia.
Early today, Air New Zealand's domestic-only A shares fell 3c to 75c, while the B shares dropped 2c to 88c.
The Australian Government confirmed yesterday that it might need to consider a capital injection for Ansett, which has nearly 15,000 employees.
Meanwhile, acting chairman of the Air New Zealand board Jim Farmer said the board had adjourned its crisis meeting till Monday.
Dr Farmer said Air NZ had not formally put any proposal to the Australian Government and the board needed to finalise its position before it made any approach.
He said the board, which met yesterday and on Wednesday by video-conference, was still expecting to have plans for the airline's much-needed capital restructure completed by September 13, when it reports its annual result.
He also acknowledged the timetable was tight for the Australian Government to come to a decision.
Earlier, Dr Cullen said that Air NZ's predicament was worse than when the airline first formally approached the Government on July 13.
"I think it's fair to say Air New Zealand's position is worse than anybody had anticipated when we first started looking at it," Dr Cullen said as he departed for an Apec meeting in Shanghai. Prime Minister Helen Clark said Dr Cullen and Australian Finance Minister Peter Costello would discuss the issue in Shanghai.
Dr Farmer rejected the suggestion Air NZ's restructuring plan had hinged on being able to buy Sir Richard Branson's Australian discount airline, Virgin Blue.
"It's not correct to say we did not have a Plan B but I am not going to give a blow-by-blow account of our plans," he said.
The board was united in its purpose and 30 per cent owner Brierley Investments, which has indicated it would not participate in any capital restructure, had fully participated.
He said the board meeting had been adjourned because there was further work to do before decisions were taken.
» Have your say on this article
»PRINTABLE VERSION
»SUBSCRIBE TO FREE HEADLINES
FRIDAY, 07 SEPTEMBER 2001
B U S I N E S S S T O R Y
'Receivership' - dread word enters air saga
07 September 2001
Analysts claim ailing Ansett Australia may be forced into receivership, as the Air New Zealand saga took another twist this morning.
"The news coming out of Australia, with the confirmation of Canberra's involvement, is just getting worse and worse," said an analyst, whom The Evening Post agreed not to name.
"And therefore the obvious next move, if there is no government bail-out, is the prospect of Ansett being forced into receivership."
The analyst said that receivership was a "definite possibility" for Ansett because "with Singapore (Airlines) glaringly not interested in putting money in, and Canberra not likely to want a taxpayer-funded bail-out in election year, the obvious next option has to be receivership".
But Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Champion today dismissed such talk.
"Talk of receivership is just low-grade speculation and at this stage all I can confirm is commercial negotiations are ongoing," Mr Champion said.
Also entering the turmoil yesterday was ACT list MP Stephen Franks, who confirmed he was firing off a set of questions on the issue to Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
"I want to make sure good money isn't thrown after bad," Mr Franks said. "And therefore I want to know if Air New Zealand has guaranteed its support to Ansett or can they walk away.
"Secondly, I want to know if any money is put into Air New Zealand, will it simply be to prop up Ansett."
Meanwhile, Air New Zealand's board has been in urgent talks over the past two days as its share price continues to fall and amid worries about the poor financial state of Ansett Australia.
Early today, Air New Zealand's domestic-only A shares fell 3c to 75c, while the B shares dropped 2c to 88c.
The Australian Government confirmed yesterday that it might need to consider a capital injection for Ansett, which has nearly 15,000 employees.
Meanwhile, acting chairman of the Air New Zealand board Jim Farmer said the board had adjourned its crisis meeting till Monday.
Dr Farmer said Air NZ had not formally put any proposal to the Australian Government and the board needed to finalise its position before it made any approach.
He said the board, which met yesterday and on Wednesday by video-conference, was still expecting to have plans for the airline's much-needed capital restructure completed by September 13, when it reports its annual result.
He also acknowledged the timetable was tight for the Australian Government to come to a decision.
Earlier, Dr Cullen said that Air NZ's predicament was worse than when the airline first formally approached the Government on July 13.
"I think it's fair to say Air New Zealand's position is worse than anybody had anticipated when we first started looking at it," Dr Cullen said as he departed for an Apec meeting in Shanghai. Prime Minister Helen Clark said Dr Cullen and Australian Finance Minister Peter Costello would discuss the issue in Shanghai.
Dr Farmer rejected the suggestion Air NZ's restructuring plan had hinged on being able to buy Sir Richard Branson's Australian discount airline, Virgin Blue.
"It's not correct to say we did not have a Plan B but I am not going to give a blow-by-blow account of our plans," he said.
The board was united in its purpose and 30 per cent owner Brierley Investments, which has indicated it would not participate in any capital restructure, had fully participated.
He said the board meeting had been adjourned because there was further work to do before decisions were taken.
» Have your say on this article
»PRINTABLE VERSION
»SUBSCRIBE TO FREE HEADLINES
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I am a full time employee of an international operator, I have a small business in Aus' which "touch wood" is doing very well on the black ink side of the line employing a small number of good people. Now if things go wrong, what are my options?
Government support? - I think not.
My options are quite straight forward, break up the business and sell for the best price I can get.
Other BIG Australian business names with large employee numbers have gone under without Government bail out so why a foreign owned Ansett. Now it is never nice to get the pink slip but I have great difficulty in accepting a sudden change of Government policy to use Australian tax payers money to prop up a 100% foreign Company when there are much more important Australian options like hospitals in which to use the funds. More specificantly, past precedence with other fully Australian owned airlines with significant employee numbers were allowed to fail, so why now.
If the Company is allowed to fail, all of the Company would not be lost. Parts of it would be taken over and therefore the job loss numbers would be reduced and I would think that the other two entities would probably absord more as they would expand to fill the void so the overall jobloss number could be quite small. (By the way, 15,000 employees for that number of aircraft when compared to other successful similar sized companies is drasticly over-staffed anyway e.g. The international operation I work for operates worldwide with about the same number of aircraft and has less than 10,000 staff).
Another benefit which has not been mentioned yet is the availability of all the Ansett terminal space for the likes of Virgin and others who might now make a move to fill the void. The result could be more positive because more efficient and therefore less costly operators could now appear.
There are so many benefits that could result that they may in time benefit us more that proping up a failing operation. Therefore I would be very much against and Australian Taxpayers money being used. If the Kiwi's want to use their money well that's up to them but my feeling is they wont because they still see Ansett as Australian and they will not use their money to protect Australian jobs. Let market forces run their course, if a solution can be found then good but I don't think they will as the hole Ansett is now in is very deep.
Have a nice day
Government support? - I think not.
My options are quite straight forward, break up the business and sell for the best price I can get.
Other BIG Australian business names with large employee numbers have gone under without Government bail out so why a foreign owned Ansett. Now it is never nice to get the pink slip but I have great difficulty in accepting a sudden change of Government policy to use Australian tax payers money to prop up a 100% foreign Company when there are much more important Australian options like hospitals in which to use the funds. More specificantly, past precedence with other fully Australian owned airlines with significant employee numbers were allowed to fail, so why now.
If the Company is allowed to fail, all of the Company would not be lost. Parts of it would be taken over and therefore the job loss numbers would be reduced and I would think that the other two entities would probably absord more as they would expand to fill the void so the overall jobloss number could be quite small. (By the way, 15,000 employees for that number of aircraft when compared to other successful similar sized companies is drasticly over-staffed anyway e.g. The international operation I work for operates worldwide with about the same number of aircraft and has less than 10,000 staff).
Another benefit which has not been mentioned yet is the availability of all the Ansett terminal space for the likes of Virgin and others who might now make a move to fill the void. The result could be more positive because more efficient and therefore less costly operators could now appear.
There are so many benefits that could result that they may in time benefit us more that proping up a failing operation. Therefore I would be very much against and Australian Taxpayers money being used. If the Kiwi's want to use their money well that's up to them but my feeling is they wont because they still see Ansett as Australian and they will not use their money to protect Australian jobs. Let market forces run their course, if a solution can be found then good but I don't think they will as the hole Ansett is now in is very deep.
Have a nice day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC Net:
PM rules out Ansett bail out
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has ruled out a financial bail out for Ansett.
Mr Howard says while the Government favours as much competition as possible in the aviation sector it has no plans to buy into any airline.
"What I'm saying is we don't favour equity investments, direct equity investments," he said.
There are grave doubts about the future of Ansett airlines following a slump in the shares of its owner, Air New Zealand. Finance correspondent Phillip Lasker reports.
Australia's Government may be about to get back into the airline industry. Peter Martin reports.
HELP
"We think that is a bad principle to have direct equity investments by the Government in any company whether it's Ansett or any other Government company.
"You know I want to make that very clear. I do not favour and the Government does not favour a direct equity investment."
Losses
Ansett has confirmed it is losing more than $1 million a day as intense competition in the Australian aviation market eats into its bottom line.
Ansett's parent, Air New Zealand, has revealed the extent of the airline's financial losses in a statement to the New Zealand Stock Exchange.
Air New Zealand has also announced Singapore Airlines has reduced the price it is willing to pay to take a bigger stake in the carrier, reducing the money available to upgrade Ansett's ageing domestic fleet.
Air New Zealand's share price has fallen to a record low across the Tasman as investors take flight from the carrier.
Opposition
Meanwhile, the Federal Opposition says Singapore Airlines and Qantas must compromise in order to save thousands of jobs in the local aviation industry.
Shadow Transport and Regional Development Minister Martin Ferguson says 15,000 jobs are at risk in Australia and the companies must give and take.
"I think it also requires a bit of flexibility by Singapore Airlines in association with Qantas, neither can have its own way all the time," he said.
"What is appropriate for the aviation industry in this region both [in] Australia and New Zealand? How do we save jobs in Australia?"
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."
Virgin
The chief executive of Virgin Blue, Brett Godfrey, says his company has put a proposal to the New Zealand Government to buy Singapore Airlines' stake in Air New Zealand.
"So, in other words, you'd end up with not two, but three very strong players in the market then,"
"Singapore-Ansett which is a profitable group in its own right, Qantas and Impulse since they've taken them on board with their low-cost base and you'd have an Air New Zealand-Virgin group," Mr Godfrey said.
PM rules out Ansett bail out
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has ruled out a financial bail out for Ansett.
Mr Howard says while the Government favours as much competition as possible in the aviation sector it has no plans to buy into any airline.
"What I'm saying is we don't favour equity investments, direct equity investments," he said.
There are grave doubts about the future of Ansett airlines following a slump in the shares of its owner, Air New Zealand. Finance correspondent Phillip Lasker reports.
Australia's Government may be about to get back into the airline industry. Peter Martin reports.
HELP
"We think that is a bad principle to have direct equity investments by the Government in any company whether it's Ansett or any other Government company.
"You know I want to make that very clear. I do not favour and the Government does not favour a direct equity investment."
Losses
Ansett has confirmed it is losing more than $1 million a day as intense competition in the Australian aviation market eats into its bottom line.
Ansett's parent, Air New Zealand, has revealed the extent of the airline's financial losses in a statement to the New Zealand Stock Exchange.
Air New Zealand has also announced Singapore Airlines has reduced the price it is willing to pay to take a bigger stake in the carrier, reducing the money available to upgrade Ansett's ageing domestic fleet.
Air New Zealand's share price has fallen to a record low across the Tasman as investors take flight from the carrier.
Opposition
Meanwhile, the Federal Opposition says Singapore Airlines and Qantas must compromise in order to save thousands of jobs in the local aviation industry.
Shadow Transport and Regional Development Minister Martin Ferguson says 15,000 jobs are at risk in Australia and the companies must give and take.
"I think it also requires a bit of flexibility by Singapore Airlines in association with Qantas, neither can have its own way all the time," he said.
"What is appropriate for the aviation industry in this region both [in] Australia and New Zealand? How do we save jobs in Australia?"
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."
Virgin
The chief executive of Virgin Blue, Brett Godfrey, says his company has put a proposal to the New Zealand Government to buy Singapore Airlines' stake in Air New Zealand.
"So, in other words, you'd end up with not two, but three very strong players in the market then,"
"Singapore-Ansett which is a profitable group in its own right, Qantas and Impulse since they've taken them on board with their low-cost base and you'd have an Air New Zealand-Virgin group," Mr Godfrey said.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For mine.....there can only be one of two outcomes.....AN goes T's up and we are back to the two airline configuration, VB & QF, or the Australian government pisses our money down the drain to prop up a Kiwi (read bloody Singaporean) company.....Neither really grabs my interest.....The indirect fallout will be bloody catastrophic to the Aus economy. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WELLINGTON (Dow Jones)--Air New Zealand Ltd. (Friday confirmed media and market speculation that 25% shareholder Singapore Airlines (Singapore: SIAL.SI - news) (P.SAL) Ltd. is no longer prepared to honor its non-binding NZ$1.31 a share offer for a greater stake in the airline.
The company said Singapore Airlines had advised it Thursday, during a board meeting, that under present circumstances it can't commit to its NZ$1.31 a share offer for up to 49% of Air New Zealand.
The company said Singapore Airlines had advised it Thursday, during a board meeting, that under present circumstances it can't commit to its NZ$1.31 a share offer for up to 49% of Air New Zealand.