AN-ANZ-VB thread rebooted
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, you have to be quick, the other thread was padlocked while I was typing!
The main reason that I believe the Australian Government should purchase AN is that Ansett is an extremely important part of the Australian daily lifestyle. (probably not the best word to describe what I mean but it's the best I can think of at the moment.)
To lose AN would be like cutting the Hume Highway between Melbourne and Sydney, or blocking the Nullabour between the East and West coasts. The country as a whole would suffer terrible dislocation as the remaining services available could not provide enough capacity to cover the loss.
However, for this to work ALL the unions involved must commit to accepting job losses and restructuring NOW.
It just will not work if they stand on their high horses and complain bitch and moan about workers rights, if they do, all AN employees will be lined up at Centrelink by next Friday.
Thats my view anyway.
Whatever happens I can only hope for the best oucome possible for Ansett and all its employees & families and all those who support the airline in various other ways.
BSB
The main reason that I believe the Australian Government should purchase AN is that Ansett is an extremely important part of the Australian daily lifestyle. (probably not the best word to describe what I mean but it's the best I can think of at the moment.)
To lose AN would be like cutting the Hume Highway between Melbourne and Sydney, or blocking the Nullabour between the East and West coasts. The country as a whole would suffer terrible dislocation as the remaining services available could not provide enough capacity to cover the loss.
However, for this to work ALL the unions involved must commit to accepting job losses and restructuring NOW.
It just will not work if they stand on their high horses and complain bitch and moan about workers rights, if they do, all AN employees will be lined up at Centrelink by next Friday.
Thats my view anyway.
Whatever happens I can only hope for the best oucome possible for Ansett and all its employees & families and all those who support the airline in various other ways.
BSB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Righto lets go then.
First I totally agree with Virgils comments.
It's time things at Ansett are put in order rather than hoping someone else will bail them out, it's noble that GT & his Australian management team don't want to cut jobs at Ansett but the facts are it's overstaffed & there overpaid.
You only need three core basics to run an airline, Aircraft, crews to flyem & engineers to fixem, the rest can be sub contracted. Jobs have to & will go to cut costs, it just should have been done 12months ago!!
I know it's not nice people losing there jobs but in this case it's for the greater good. We have been through project "SAVE" that saw job loses galore over here, including pilot redundancies.
As an example; Ansett 737 F/o's get paid "over double" what a NZ f/o gets so go figure! (we'd like to think we are a bit underpaid)
Secondly AIRNZ only ever bought into Ansett because even though both governments had agreed on an open skies policy when we wanted to start operating domestically on the east coast of Aussie(early 90's),Your government blocked us from expanding our ops there!! Why? to protect qantas! and thats when this saga started & why ANZ bought into Ansett as it was the only way we could expand into and through Australia.
I'll freely admit that we got sharked on the price and IMHO we should have let SIA buy the second half.
Better still our government should have sorted out our rights to fly there ourselves in the first place, we'd be looking pretty now but You can't cry over spilt milk, just clean it up.
First I totally agree with Virgils comments.
It's time things at Ansett are put in order rather than hoping someone else will bail them out, it's noble that GT & his Australian management team don't want to cut jobs at Ansett but the facts are it's overstaffed & there overpaid.
You only need three core basics to run an airline, Aircraft, crews to flyem & engineers to fixem, the rest can be sub contracted. Jobs have to & will go to cut costs, it just should have been done 12months ago!!
I know it's not nice people losing there jobs but in this case it's for the greater good. We have been through project "SAVE" that saw job loses galore over here, including pilot redundancies.
As an example; Ansett 737 F/o's get paid "over double" what a NZ f/o gets so go figure! (we'd like to think we are a bit underpaid)
Secondly AIRNZ only ever bought into Ansett because even though both governments had agreed on an open skies policy when we wanted to start operating domestically on the east coast of Aussie(early 90's),Your government blocked us from expanding our ops there!! Why? to protect qantas! and thats when this saga started & why ANZ bought into Ansett as it was the only way we could expand into and through Australia.
I'll freely admit that we got sharked on the price and IMHO we should have let SIA buy the second half.
Better still our government should have sorted out our rights to fly there ourselves in the first place, we'd be looking pretty now but You can't cry over spilt milk, just clean it up.
Grandpa Aerotart
Various post have suggested that Govts should never get involved in these situations and just sit back and let market forces rule. I wonder what the cost of that sort of approach might be.
Lets say 200,000(Australia wide) people are affected in such a way that they pay $2000 less tax this financial year. Thats $400,000,000.00
We're almost half way to a billion dollars and we havn't considered revenues lost from the impact on Hotels,Motels,Resorts,Travel Companies,Frieght Companies,lost GST from purchases not made, The Dole bill,Tourism dollars not spent in Aus. It goes on and on and while I'm no actuary I bet a slab of Ozzy's coldest that it would top a billion dollars.
While I agree with those who say "no bail out using tax payers money" that's a different thing from the Govt making a strategic investment that saves itself money in the short term and makes it money in the middle to long term. Whether by a public float or simply profits.
The same theory could be used to justify, quite reasonably in my opinion, why a Govt might choose to help a coal mine in a small rural town that supports by employment, directly and otherwise the entire population of that town. I am sure you could all come up with examples where Govt intervention of one kind or another is in its OWN best interest as well as the country's.
It doesn't extend to examples like Onetel or some little charter company that's about to go tits up, people who want to extend it that far do so to make an emotional argument against Govt intervention at all.
If AN is allowed to just collapse what will the result be on Australia's aviation market place? Well if you don't think QF and VB/SQ are sourcing aircraft they could have here in a week your still playing with your willy
Crewing will not be an issue, remember the AN guys could walk in at VB and climb in one of their 737s 30 minutes from now and you'd hardly notice. Given that most of VB's management pilots are ex AN even the sops would be similar.
So QF goes from 55% to 75% of market share in a week and VB go from 5% to 20% in a similar time frame. Please someone tell me that that's a good thing for competition and low airfares!
Chuck.
Lets say 200,000(Australia wide) people are affected in such a way that they pay $2000 less tax this financial year. Thats $400,000,000.00
We're almost half way to a billion dollars and we havn't considered revenues lost from the impact on Hotels,Motels,Resorts,Travel Companies,Frieght Companies,lost GST from purchases not made, The Dole bill,Tourism dollars not spent in Aus. It goes on and on and while I'm no actuary I bet a slab of Ozzy's coldest that it would top a billion dollars.
While I agree with those who say "no bail out using tax payers money" that's a different thing from the Govt making a strategic investment that saves itself money in the short term and makes it money in the middle to long term. Whether by a public float or simply profits.
The same theory could be used to justify, quite reasonably in my opinion, why a Govt might choose to help a coal mine in a small rural town that supports by employment, directly and otherwise the entire population of that town. I am sure you could all come up with examples where Govt intervention of one kind or another is in its OWN best interest as well as the country's.
It doesn't extend to examples like Onetel or some little charter company that's about to go tits up, people who want to extend it that far do so to make an emotional argument against Govt intervention at all.
If AN is allowed to just collapse what will the result be on Australia's aviation market place? Well if you don't think QF and VB/SQ are sourcing aircraft they could have here in a week your still playing with your willy
Crewing will not be an issue, remember the AN guys could walk in at VB and climb in one of their 737s 30 minutes from now and you'd hardly notice. Given that most of VB's management pilots are ex AN even the sops would be similar.
So QF goes from 55% to 75% of market share in a week and VB go from 5% to 20% in a similar time frame. Please someone tell me that that's a good thing for competition and low airfares!
Chuck.
short flights long nights
Comment from Mrs SOPS. Why should the Australian Government (read taxpayers) spend millions bailing out AN, when some people can not get a bed in hospital? She says that if her tax money buys AN, she will find ways to stop paying tax! Thats my girl!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Barbers Pole,
You mention the so called open skies policy of the early 1990s. I don't know how well known it is over there, but I assure you it IS true, it was much more devious than that by our then Australian Labor Government.
Air New Zealand were well advanced in talks with Compass, close to signing an agreement for co-operating with on carriage, exchange of passengers and freight, and joint flight numbers etc. The Australian Government told Air New Zealand that they need not do that as they were going to have this open skies policy.
Of course it is history now, once Air New Zealand backed away from the proposed arrangement, the Australian Government almost immediately closed down Compass, and then reneged on the policy they had promised Air New Zealand.
This MAY have been partly to protect Qantas as you say, but it was mainly to save Ansett, who were at the time within a few weeks of closing down. Now 10 years later they are in that situation again, but of course no Compass to blame, and no Labour mates in power.........
Best regards,
"lame"
You mention the so called open skies policy of the early 1990s. I don't know how well known it is over there, but I assure you it IS true, it was much more devious than that by our then Australian Labor Government.
Air New Zealand were well advanced in talks with Compass, close to signing an agreement for co-operating with on carriage, exchange of passengers and freight, and joint flight numbers etc. The Australian Government told Air New Zealand that they need not do that as they were going to have this open skies policy.
Of course it is history now, once Air New Zealand backed away from the proposed arrangement, the Australian Government almost immediately closed down Compass, and then reneged on the policy they had promised Air New Zealand.
This MAY have been partly to protect Qantas as you say, but it was mainly to save Ansett, who were at the time within a few weeks of closing down. Now 10 years later they are in that situation again, but of course no Compass to blame, and no Labour mates in power.........
Best regards,
"lame"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Barber Pole: Good post and bloody spot on. I hope all works out ok for you and you have a career path at the end of this debacle. Hang in there. Chimbu: Once again you make great sense keep up the good work. I hope Anderson reads your posts.
Lame, or is it just plane lame? Your Compass conspiracy theory is very tired and worn out. You know as well as the rest of us that it was run by a comon criminal! So stop blaming everyone else and put away your conspiracy books everyone knows what really happened to Compass. "THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ASSETS OR MONEY" thats where it begins and ends. Keep posting as it amuses the rest of us to a certain extent. Give my best to your mate, the good Kaptin M.
Lame, or is it just plane lame? Your Compass conspiracy theory is very tired and worn out. You know as well as the rest of us that it was run by a comon criminal! So stop blaming everyone else and put away your conspiracy books everyone knows what really happened to Compass. "THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ASSETS OR MONEY" thats where it begins and ends. Keep posting as it amuses the rest of us to a certain extent. Give my best to your mate, the good Kaptin M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mir3,
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your disrespect for the dead, Bryan Grey was NOT a criminal? You are probably thinking (if you do that?) of Southern Cross, popularly called Compass 2?
I had the dubious pleasure of helping the Liquidators of Southern Cross, and they said even back then, and even with the $10 million that was "stolen", it should have been Ansett that went then. They said if they did a due dilgence on Ansett at that time, they (Ansett) would cease operations immediately.
Obviously it has just got worse and worse since then at Ansett?
Best regards,
"lame"
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your disrespect for the dead, Bryan Grey was NOT a criminal? You are probably thinking (if you do that?) of Southern Cross, popularly called Compass 2?
I had the dubious pleasure of helping the Liquidators of Southern Cross, and they said even back then, and even with the $10 million that was "stolen", it should have been Ansett that went then. They said if they did a due dilgence on Ansett at that time, they (Ansett) would cease operations immediately.
Obviously it has just got worse and worse since then at Ansett?
Best regards,
"lame"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm rather intrigued with all this concern about Ansett going under with the loss of jobs, the effect on the economy, the effect on the tourist industry, the effect on big business, the effect on small business etc. etc. etc...ad nauseum...
Let's face it ...12 yrs ago when Australia faced the same situation all you bleeding hearts out there considered it a worthwhile sacrifice to ensure that "the greedy pilots" got there come-uppance! How pathetic you are!!!!
Let's face it ...12 yrs ago when Australia faced the same situation all you bleeding hearts out there considered it a worthwhile sacrifice to ensure that "the greedy pilots" got there come-uppance! How pathetic you are!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sydney,NSW, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question : If we as tax payers fund Ansett ( or should I say buy the company) does this mean that we should then entitled to maybe 90% ID seats? after 12 months. Just a thought !!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC Net 6.19pm:
Ansett bailout not the Government's problem: Costello
The Federal Government appears to have ruled out any direct help for the stricken Australian airline, Ansett.
Treasurer Peter Costello continued the Government's not-negotiable stance while in China for an APEC ministerial meeting.
In the provincial city of Suzhou for a regional finance ministers meeting, Mr Costello confirmed that he had already talked about the Ansett and Air New Zealand finance crisis with his New Zealand counterpart, Doctor Michael Cullen.
The two ministers are set to hold further talks over the weekend, but Mr Costello stressed to reporters that it was a problem the Air New Zealand board and not the Australian Government had to resolve.
"I must stress that these are commercial issues," he said.
"Australia does not own Air New Zealand, in fact we don't own any airlines nor do we seek to own any airlines.
Beazley
TheFederal Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, has accused the government of failing to heed warning signs about Ansett Airlines' financial position.
Mr Beazley says Australian taxpayers may need to help bail out the airline, and Singapore Airlines could still play a role.
The Opposition leader says the Government has been ignoring rumours in the press and pleas for help for the best part of nine months.
"Where I am critical of the Government is in the state of knowledge they've had about Ansett's difficulties for some time," he said.
"They have not dealt with it urgently.
"They have effectively allowed drift to come to a point where there are 16,000 jobs at risk, regional airlines services at risk, and competition in the Australian airlines system at risk".
Ansett bailout not the Government's problem: Costello
The Federal Government appears to have ruled out any direct help for the stricken Australian airline, Ansett.
Treasurer Peter Costello continued the Government's not-negotiable stance while in China for an APEC ministerial meeting.
In the provincial city of Suzhou for a regional finance ministers meeting, Mr Costello confirmed that he had already talked about the Ansett and Air New Zealand finance crisis with his New Zealand counterpart, Doctor Michael Cullen.
The two ministers are set to hold further talks over the weekend, but Mr Costello stressed to reporters that it was a problem the Air New Zealand board and not the Australian Government had to resolve.
"I must stress that these are commercial issues," he said.
"Australia does not own Air New Zealand, in fact we don't own any airlines nor do we seek to own any airlines.
Beazley
TheFederal Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, has accused the government of failing to heed warning signs about Ansett Airlines' financial position.
Mr Beazley says Australian taxpayers may need to help bail out the airline, and Singapore Airlines could still play a role.
The Opposition leader says the Government has been ignoring rumours in the press and pleas for help for the best part of nine months.
"Where I am critical of the Government is in the state of knowledge they've had about Ansett's difficulties for some time," he said.
"They have not dealt with it urgently.
"They have effectively allowed drift to come to a point where there are 16,000 jobs at risk, regional airlines services at risk, and competition in the Australian airlines system at risk".
Grandpa Aerotart
Amos,
Who thought it was a reasonable price to pay?
Besides Hawke,Keating,Abeles,Jimmy Bowtie,Kelty and their henchmen?.
Seems to me the people calling loudest for AN to be cut lose are disaffected chappies from 'that' year.
Whiskery suggests that the OZ Govt has never bailed out 'foriegn' companies before and won't start now. That may be true but I see a difference between Mazda and Ansett.
What about all the talk of Australia and NZ becoming 'one economy'. The way Helengrad is running that country it will be the new 'Eastern Suburbs' before you know it.
AN might be foriegn owned but just barely. And it's still the No2 AUSTRALIAN DOMESTIC AIRLINE.(yes that was the edit)
Chuck.
[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Who thought it was a reasonable price to pay?
Besides Hawke,Keating,Abeles,Jimmy Bowtie,Kelty and their henchmen?.
Seems to me the people calling loudest for AN to be cut lose are disaffected chappies from 'that' year.
Whiskery suggests that the OZ Govt has never bailed out 'foriegn' companies before and won't start now. That may be true but I see a difference between Mazda and Ansett.
What about all the talk of Australia and NZ becoming 'one economy'. The way Helengrad is running that country it will be the new 'Eastern Suburbs' before you know it.
AN might be foriegn owned but just barely. And it's still the No2 AUSTRALIAN DOMESTIC AIRLINE.(yes that was the edit)
Chuck.
[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
LAME! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Please stop boring us with your high school level of knowledge. We've heard it all before! Anyone is intitled to their oppinion but sadly yours is rather old and worn out. MY fondest to Prince Maurice de Grande Bai.
Please stop boring us with your high school level of knowledge. We've heard it all before! Anyone is intitled to their oppinion but sadly yours is rather old and worn out. MY fondest to Prince Maurice de Grande Bai.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN employee view Airliners.net:
Hi Everyone,
From the outset please let me say that I am an AN employee who loves Ansett and the wonderful people we have working here. Everything I say in this email is my own opinion and I really don't care who agrees or disagrees with me.
I agree with you that Air NZ bought the remaining shares in Ansett to make them our 100% owners to satisfy their ego and to exercise their rights against SQ. They may have been hoping to make a profit in reselling to SQ for a higher sum. Either way, it was not AN that was the "bloody lemon", it was ANZ for being so stupid to bite off more than they can chew at AN's expense.
You said:
"Air NZ should never had purchased the remaining 50 per cent of Ansett Australia as they never had the expertise to manage a large airline integration. This should had been left for Singapore Airlines."
Right on! Their ideas of "integration" are flawed at best. They have been stripping Ansett of it's best assets (including it's most experienced staff) ever since they took over. I don't know how many ANZ or NZ Airforce employees we have at AN these days, but I would love to see the figures!
You also wrote:
"After all SQ did manage to buy 25% of Air NZ through the backdoor but the question arises as to how much they did for the Air NZ/Ansett Group? ****** All! NOTHING. If SQ took their investment seriously, they would have assisted in making Ansett and Air NZ financially viable and this mess would not be where it is today. Part of the blame should be pointed to Singapore Airlines and Singapore Inc."
How could SQ do anything other than advise NZ of what little they knew of the day to day running of the "ANZ-AN group" (even that name is a misnomer)? ANZ still controlled 75%, which means that they call the shots.
At any rate, I hope the gimps at ANZ who f*cked Ansett are proud of themselves. I doubt that anyone could have done a better job. (And I didn't even mention a sheep once).
Best wishes,
Tony Briffa
Hi Everyone,
From the outset please let me say that I am an AN employee who loves Ansett and the wonderful people we have working here. Everything I say in this email is my own opinion and I really don't care who agrees or disagrees with me.
I agree with you that Air NZ bought the remaining shares in Ansett to make them our 100% owners to satisfy their ego and to exercise their rights against SQ. They may have been hoping to make a profit in reselling to SQ for a higher sum. Either way, it was not AN that was the "bloody lemon", it was ANZ for being so stupid to bite off more than they can chew at AN's expense.
You said:
"Air NZ should never had purchased the remaining 50 per cent of Ansett Australia as they never had the expertise to manage a large airline integration. This should had been left for Singapore Airlines."
Right on! Their ideas of "integration" are flawed at best. They have been stripping Ansett of it's best assets (including it's most experienced staff) ever since they took over. I don't know how many ANZ or NZ Airforce employees we have at AN these days, but I would love to see the figures!
You also wrote:
"After all SQ did manage to buy 25% of Air NZ through the backdoor but the question arises as to how much they did for the Air NZ/Ansett Group? ****** All! NOTHING. If SQ took their investment seriously, they would have assisted in making Ansett and Air NZ financially viable and this mess would not be where it is today. Part of the blame should be pointed to Singapore Airlines and Singapore Inc."
How could SQ do anything other than advise NZ of what little they knew of the day to day running of the "ANZ-AN group" (even that name is a misnomer)? ANZ still controlled 75%, which means that they call the shots.
At any rate, I hope the gimps at ANZ who f*cked Ansett are proud of themselves. I doubt that anyone could have done a better job. (And I didn't even mention a sheep once).
Best wishes,
Tony Briffa