Qantas says no
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty shakes head in bemusement.
I guess that's a pretty good example of the chinese definition of "crisis" as "a dangerous opportunity"
I also hear that Choongs "mates" want his head on a plate too.
I really feel for Toomey, he was like all the rest handed a poisoned chalice and dudded by the "Ansett books" and AirNz incompetence. Someone has to go down for this and it shouldn't be Toomey
I guess that's a pretty good example of the chinese definition of "crisis" as "a dangerous opportunity"
I also hear that Choongs "mates" want his head on a plate too.
I really feel for Toomey, he was like all the rest handed a poisoned chalice and dudded by the "Ansett books" and AirNz incompetence. Someone has to go down for this and it shouldn't be Toomey
Nunc est bibendum
It doesn't matter what way you cut it, this is the end of a decent company with a long history- some of it good, some of it not so good.
The only known thing in all of this is that wages and conditions for ALL employees of airlines are now under the pump!
Hold tough for decent pay and conditions boys and girls.
The only known thing in all of this is that wages and conditions for ALL employees of airlines are now under the pump!
Hold tough for decent pay and conditions boys and girls.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
null 
Further Proposal Made to Australian Government (issued at 1700)
Wed 12 September 2001
The Acting Chairman of Air New Zealand, Dr Jim Farmer, has just issued the following statement:
"Earlier this afternoon, Qantas Airways advised that it would not proceed with the purchase of Ansett.
"Air New Zealand immediately submitted a new proposal to the Australian Government to continue Ansett airline operations in a restructured form,
"The proposal was made in a letter delivered to the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Anderson, this afternoon.
"It asked the Australian Government to provide underwriting to enable Air New Zealand to maintain Ansett operations for an agreed period while an attempt is made to restructure the airline.
"The proposal involved restructuring the existing Ansett airline companies into a value-based airline with a similar cost base to Virgin Blue but with much broader network coverage, nationally and regionally, across Australia.
"We've just been advised that the Australian Government does not favour this proposal - and we are now discussing with them a further option which has become available during the day.
"During the day we have received expressions of interest in Ansett from other potential purchasers. We are now seeking Australian Government underwriting to pursue those prospects with urgency.
"The situation is obviously changing very rapidly - and we will be making further announcements as soon as we have any developments to report."
[ 12 September 2001: Message edited by: Complex Toggle Switch ]
Further Proposal Made to Australian Government (issued at 1700)
Wed 12 September 2001
The Acting Chairman of Air New Zealand, Dr Jim Farmer, has just issued the following statement:
"Earlier this afternoon, Qantas Airways advised that it would not proceed with the purchase of Ansett.
"Air New Zealand immediately submitted a new proposal to the Australian Government to continue Ansett airline operations in a restructured form,
"The proposal was made in a letter delivered to the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Anderson, this afternoon.
"It asked the Australian Government to provide underwriting to enable Air New Zealand to maintain Ansett operations for an agreed period while an attempt is made to restructure the airline.
"The proposal involved restructuring the existing Ansett airline companies into a value-based airline with a similar cost base to Virgin Blue but with much broader network coverage, nationally and regionally, across Australia.
"We've just been advised that the Australian Government does not favour this proposal - and we are now discussing with them a further option which has become available during the day.
"During the day we have received expressions of interest in Ansett from other potential purchasers. We are now seeking Australian Government underwriting to pursue those prospects with urgency.
"The situation is obviously changing very rapidly - and we will be making further announcements as soon as we have any developments to report."
[ 12 September 2001: Message edited by: Complex Toggle Switch ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Oz
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad indeed.
I wonder though if AN dropped A$1.3m per day of people off the payroll, beginning from the least essential positions, would there be enough folk left for the show to function??
Unpleasant thinking, but maybe a fair few of the 16,000 jobs could be retained. Probably too late.
I wonder though if AN dropped A$1.3m per day of people off the payroll, beginning from the least essential positions, would there be enough folk left for the show to function??
Unpleasant thinking, but maybe a fair few of the 16,000 jobs could be retained. Probably too late.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: N.S.W.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a worry that such a time in the Australian Aviation industry is being presided over by not the Transport minister, but (effectively) his advisor McKinley.
Absolute idiot, the model for Sir Humphries everywhere according to sources in the National Party staff.
Absolute idiot, the model for Sir Humphries everywhere according to sources in the National Party staff.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Price Waterhouse appointed as Administrators. Understand that it is business as normal [well thats what there saying].
Would have to be some big cuts and the Administrator has the power - makes the airline more efficient with less restrictive union work practises and next minute they find a buyer.
I understand that EK could be interested in some expansion??
Would have to be some big cuts and the Administrator has the power - makes the airline more efficient with less restrictive union work practises and next minute they find a buyer.
I understand that EK could be interested in some expansion??
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Briz Vegas
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN will save $1.3 million a day straight a way, as of today, because that is probably what NZ were charging them in management fees. Syphoning the place dry. l bet that their recovery package is nothing more more than a a red line through the books, that says that - that revenue from AN is gone, now lets look our next target.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when will the role of CASA, as the straw that broke the Camel's back, and finally eliminated whatever chance the good Gary had , from the time of his appointment, fighting Ansett back to health, be properly examined by other than the fools in the Ministers office.C'mon the Royal Commission,if HIH deserves an inquiry surely the Ansett debacle deserves independent examination.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree T.
Without wishing to rehash all of last Easter's problems, the fact remains that CASA has a duty to regulate the airlines and prevent flights departing if they feel the aircraft are unsafe. In Ansett's case, somebody in CASA made that tough call.
CASA have copped a lot of flak about their obligations after other aircraft crashs. What would have happened if an AN aircraft had come down with huge loss of life? The Easter situation may have been more of an indicator of cost-cutting in Engineering which eventually unravelled.
Without wishing to rehash all of last Easter's problems, the fact remains that CASA has a duty to regulate the airlines and prevent flights departing if they feel the aircraft are unsafe. In Ansett's case, somebody in CASA made that tough call.
CASA have copped a lot of flak about their obligations after other aircraft crashs. What would have happened if an AN aircraft had come down with huge loss of life? The Easter situation may have been more of an indicator of cost-cutting in Engineering which eventually unravelled.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three Bars, You will get no disagreement from me on the role of CASA as a whole, yes it should be a Safety Regulator, the Act says so.
But it should not allow individuals inside CASA to act capriciously and with malice.
I am saying we need an inquiry to examine their role in this and them we can sit in judgement, at the moment there are too many conflicting stories.
But it should not allow individuals inside CASA to act capriciously and with malice.
I am saying we need an inquiry to examine their role in this and them we can sit in judgement, at the moment there are too many conflicting stories.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T
C'mon, really, you can do better than that? Straw that broke the camels back? My answer to that is to refer you to the famous Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch.
So it was the usual "someone" in CASA acting with "malice" when they, quite correctly, jerked Ansetts chain.
You wouldn't like to let us in on the secret as to whom would you, then we can ALL sit in judgement. NOT.
If they had been allowed to do their job properly there is now an incontrovertible case that says perhaps they were remiss in not standing their ground with the "show cause", instead of being forced to go along with a politically manipulated "negotiation".
Ansett was then already in extremis if not already dead .
Their being allowed to continue to fly, with the staff and crew under the pressure and conditions extant were IMO a bigger risk than the aircraft falling apart and I'm not suggesting for a moment that neither was that a strong possibility.
The depth and desperation of their financial condition was hardly anecdotal.
If it had been Dodgy Bros Airline in the same position it would have been over right then and there.
The $250 odd million dollars they could have "saved" instead of "lost" would have been much better spent looking after the staff and creditors.
Lets concentrate on the issues of management and corporate governance shall we.
C'mon, really, you can do better than that? Straw that broke the camels back? My answer to that is to refer you to the famous Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch.
So it was the usual "someone" in CASA acting with "malice" when they, quite correctly, jerked Ansetts chain.
You wouldn't like to let us in on the secret as to whom would you, then we can ALL sit in judgement. NOT.
If they had been allowed to do their job properly there is now an incontrovertible case that says perhaps they were remiss in not standing their ground with the "show cause", instead of being forced to go along with a politically manipulated "negotiation".
Ansett was then already in extremis if not already dead .
Their being allowed to continue to fly, with the staff and crew under the pressure and conditions extant were IMO a bigger risk than the aircraft falling apart and I'm not suggesting for a moment that neither was that a strong possibility.
The depth and desperation of their financial condition was hardly anecdotal.
If it had been Dodgy Bros Airline in the same position it would have been over right then and there.
The $250 odd million dollars they could have "saved" instead of "lost" would have been much better spent looking after the staff and creditors.
Lets concentrate on the issues of management and corporate governance shall we.
