ANSETT - 45 Days Liquidity Remaining.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANSETT - 45 Days Liquidity Remaining.
Dined last week in Oz during a visit with a friend fairly high up in the Financial Analyst area.
He was telling me of how some companies although adequately capitalised crash to a grinding halt if they have a cash-flow problem.
Think about it - all the funds gone to service loans/leases etc and not alot left to pay things such as fuel/wages etc.
Rumour is Ansett has about 45 days liquidity remaining and then if Air NZ can't pull one out of their hat then the airline may be in dire straits!
If AN were to grind to a halt then apparently Air NZ has something like 10 days working cash reserves if a share-price collapse doesn't drive home.
Rumour also has it from a mate of mine in AN that his last pay-packet derived from a banking institution in Asia.Anyone confirm??
Rumour also has it that Ansett has something like 4 aircraft sitting around idle (2 in Brisbane I am led to believe) which are due in for heavy maintenance but no engineers to do the work, mainly due in part to the 767 fiasco which took priority at the time.
To the director of Tech Services/Engineering - is this any way to run an airline and can these figures actually be confirmed by anyone in Ansett.
I would prefer non-management types that dont spin hype.
I just read the thread with the article by Geoffrey Thomas questioning the value of AN compared with VB.
AN sounds about right although my analyst friends reackon VB has no formal net worth at this stage - even then their capital holdings are minor if not insignificant.
[This message has been edited by Scooter (edited 04 July 2001).]
He was telling me of how some companies although adequately capitalised crash to a grinding halt if they have a cash-flow problem.
Think about it - all the funds gone to service loans/leases etc and not alot left to pay things such as fuel/wages etc.
Rumour is Ansett has about 45 days liquidity remaining and then if Air NZ can't pull one out of their hat then the airline may be in dire straits!
If AN were to grind to a halt then apparently Air NZ has something like 10 days working cash reserves if a share-price collapse doesn't drive home.
Rumour also has it from a mate of mine in AN that his last pay-packet derived from a banking institution in Asia.Anyone confirm??
Rumour also has it that Ansett has something like 4 aircraft sitting around idle (2 in Brisbane I am led to believe) which are due in for heavy maintenance but no engineers to do the work, mainly due in part to the 767 fiasco which took priority at the time.
To the director of Tech Services/Engineering - is this any way to run an airline and can these figures actually be confirmed by anyone in Ansett.
I would prefer non-management types that dont spin hype.
I just read the thread with the article by Geoffrey Thomas questioning the value of AN compared with VB.
AN sounds about right although my analyst friends reackon VB has no formal net worth at this stage - even then their capital holdings are minor if not insignificant.
[This message has been edited by Scooter (edited 04 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Makes you wonder why they are "rescuing" Flight West when they need the help themselves! I've also heard SQ are paying the wages at AN.
I think a lot of this is "spin doctoring" for the benefit of the Kiwi government, and the choices they need to make, but I don't doubt that there's an element of truth to it, though how much is not certain.
I doubt if AN will cease to exist, but perhaps it will shut down for a while. Enough time for the "new" owners to write a letter to everyone welcoming them back and, err, PS, here's your new conditions....don't like em, tuff!
I think a lot of this is "spin doctoring" for the benefit of the Kiwi government, and the choices they need to make, but I don't doubt that there's an element of truth to it, though how much is not certain.
I doubt if AN will cease to exist, but perhaps it will shut down for a while. Enough time for the "new" owners to write a letter to everyone welcoming them back and, err, PS, here's your new conditions....don't like em, tuff!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scooter .... "45 days of liquidity" is both an interesting statement, and a luxury to many Australian companies, large and small.
Are you suggesting they are currently solvent to the extend of meeting 45 days of liabilities - in which case they are in good shape - or are you suggesting their cash flow goes negative in 45 days?
AN have a strong cash flow. I think the Ansett brand name will be around for many years to come.
Are you suggesting they are currently solvent to the extend of meeting 45 days of liabilities - in which case they are in good shape - or are you suggesting their cash flow goes negative in 45 days?
AN have a strong cash flow. I think the Ansett brand name will be around for many years to come.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couldnt agree more with Torres.
45 day's liquidity is something I could only have wet dream about!
The old Veges biz runs along I guess like most other small businesses in Oz.
Thats roughly about 0.056934 of a nano-second of liquidity.
The Banks will stay open late for me in the forlorn hope Im going to deposit something.
45 day's liquidity is something I could only have wet dream about!
The old Veges biz runs along I guess like most other small businesses in Oz.
Thats roughly about 0.056934 of a nano-second of liquidity.
The Banks will stay open late for me in the forlorn hope Im going to deposit something.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Buster,
"I doubt if AN will cease to exist, but perhaps it will shut down for a while..."
You've been chewing on too much custard pie laddie! Any transition negotiated in the smoky back rooms would be made as invisible as possible to the customers... reliability and continuity is *everything* in this business.
"I doubt if AN will cease to exist, but perhaps it will shut down for a while..."
You've been chewing on too much custard pie laddie! Any transition negotiated in the smoky back rooms would be made as invisible as possible to the customers... reliability and continuity is *everything* in this business.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gaunty, I know we both agree all sectors of the Australian aviation industry are in dire financial straits. Reasonable profits and return on investment no longer exist - and won't under the present industry structure and punter's travel habits (i.e. Australian route statistics and fares).
However, I'm sure you will agree there is a significant difference between a Punter's Cash and Carry business and a financial institution using punter's brass to underwrite risk.
In general it seems the insurance industry isn't a glowing example of profitability either - ask a few Lloyd's "names" in recent years! Certainly Australian aviation premiums are far lower than in other overseas aviation markets, suggestion that aviation underwriting is not exactly a profitable business either.
The Australian major carriers will all survive, in one form or another. But I would suggest they will become meaner and leaner in order to further reduce costs. Some significant staff numbers are going to be burnt and the "frills" of air travel further diminished.
I wonder what unfunded liability could be attached to the Frequent Flyer Programs..... Or what CASA's media mania early this year really cost Ansett....
[This message has been edited by Torres (edited 04 July 2001).]
However, I'm sure you will agree there is a significant difference between a Punter's Cash and Carry business and a financial institution using punter's brass to underwrite risk.
In general it seems the insurance industry isn't a glowing example of profitability either - ask a few Lloyd's "names" in recent years! Certainly Australian aviation premiums are far lower than in other overseas aviation markets, suggestion that aviation underwriting is not exactly a profitable business either.
The Australian major carriers will all survive, in one form or another. But I would suggest they will become meaner and leaner in order to further reduce costs. Some significant staff numbers are going to be burnt and the "frills" of air travel further diminished.
I wonder what unfunded liability could be attached to the Frequent Flyer Programs..... Or what CASA's media mania early this year really cost Ansett....
[This message has been edited by Torres (edited 04 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are we talking Net present value or Discounted Cash flow for our thumb nail evaluation of solvency.
What sensitivity analysis has been applied to check the assumption validity.
Are the assumptions based on positive goal congruence or negative goal congruence an in each case what are the permissable variance values.
Accounting in an organisation as large as Ansett is a complex and very highly controlled business, to make assumptions based on "street talk" of variations in so called liquidity is to be so superficial as to be nothing more than over the back fence gossip.
if you really want to understand Ansett get Air N.Z. last annual report and conduct some proper ratio analysis on the results, it is a public document.
What sensitivity analysis has been applied to check the assumption validity.
Are the assumptions based on positive goal congruence or negative goal congruence an in each case what are the permissable variance values.
Accounting in an organisation as large as Ansett is a complex and very highly controlled business, to make assumptions based on "street talk" of variations in so called liquidity is to be so superficial as to be nothing more than over the back fence gossip.
if you really want to understand Ansett get Air N.Z. last annual report and conduct some proper ratio analysis on the results, it is a public document.
Guest
Posts: n/a
T
Solvent = having enough money to meet ones liabilities.
Insolvent = unable to pay ones debts as and when they become due.
All the rest in gobbledegook.
If they had listened to the "over the back fence" gossip = "we can't make it pay on that revenue, so we reckon the Emperor may not be wearing any clothes", then HIH and many of the ever growing parade of "household names" may not have fallen victim to the "modern" = "we've found another way to confuse everyone for long enough to maybe
trade out of this mess" accounting methodology. Some of the larger failures in times past, have just plain lied. The analysts in all cases had been barking for some time.
And the "gossip over the back fence" was wrong about Impulse too.
I've seen enough dog and pony shows and the results over the years to know that when someone starts on the "sensitivity analysis and goal congruence" routine, my BS Detector slips straight into overdrive.
And then when they invariably add "you won't understand the mathodology (correct spelling), trust me", I reach for my gun.
Don't start me on derivatives either.
Oh and BTW, NPV and DCF are the same measure in different disguises.
A dollars a dollars a dollar the only difference in value is at which point in time it is measured. And if you are going to rely on making your profit in trading against it then you had better be as good a currency trader as you are an airline.
The AirNz analysts really got it right when they bought Ansett hey
So much for their accounting mumbo jumbo.
I suspect Mr Toomey, coming from a highly disciplined Qantas environment, must have had that really sick sinking feeling you get when he peeked over the yawning abyss, that must have be Ansetts accounts after the share price doctors had been at them. As I recall he went very quiet for a long while after he got there.
If the financial press reports of their current "burn", to use one of the modern weasel words for "losing money" are correct then it doesn't matter whether your goal congruence was positive or negative you eventually run out of it = insolvent.
Unless you can find a "white knight" you go the way that every one else does in business when they get it wrong more often than not. Backwards out the door.
Now tell me that their shareholders deserve different treatment!
Annual Reports, audited? we are in dangerous waters here.
The tragedy is as always is that the loyal and hard working staff are the victims of the financial gobbledygookers.
[This message has been edited by gaunty (edited 05 July 2001).]
Solvent = having enough money to meet ones liabilities.
Insolvent = unable to pay ones debts as and when they become due.
All the rest in gobbledegook.
If they had listened to the "over the back fence" gossip = "we can't make it pay on that revenue, so we reckon the Emperor may not be wearing any clothes", then HIH and many of the ever growing parade of "household names" may not have fallen victim to the "modern" = "we've found another way to confuse everyone for long enough to maybe
trade out of this mess" accounting methodology. Some of the larger failures in times past, have just plain lied. The analysts in all cases had been barking for some time.And the "gossip over the back fence" was wrong about Impulse too.
I've seen enough dog and pony shows and the results over the years to know that when someone starts on the "sensitivity analysis and goal congruence" routine, my BS Detector slips straight into overdrive.
And then when they invariably add "you won't understand the mathodology (correct spelling), trust me", I reach for my gun.
Don't start me on derivatives either.
Oh and BTW, NPV and DCF are the same measure in different disguises.
A dollars a dollars a dollar the only difference in value is at which point in time it is measured. And if you are going to rely on making your profit in trading against it then you had better be as good a currency trader as you are an airline.
The AirNz analysts really got it right when they bought Ansett hey
So much for their accounting mumbo jumbo.
I suspect Mr Toomey, coming from a highly disciplined Qantas environment, must have had that really sick sinking feeling you get when he peeked over the yawning abyss, that must have be Ansetts accounts after the share price doctors had been at them. As I recall he went very quiet for a long while after he got there.
If the financial press reports of their current "burn", to use one of the modern weasel words for "losing money" are correct then it doesn't matter whether your goal congruence was positive or negative you eventually run out of it = insolvent.
Unless you can find a "white knight" you go the way that every one else does in business when they get it wrong more often than not. Backwards out the door.
Now tell me that their shareholders deserve different treatment!
Annual Reports, audited? we are in dangerous waters here.
The tragedy is as always is that the loyal and hard working staff are the victims of the financial gobbledygookers.
[This message has been edited by gaunty (edited 05 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Epirb - what the notice failed to say was that the vacancies have arisen because of the number of AN crew to imminently jump ship. Know how many have had Sq & Cx interviews of late? Cheers
[This message has been edited by Karunch (edited 05 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Karunch (edited 05 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bits ol' boy.
If the new owners can bypass long and protracted negotions with unions in an effort to break the current EBA's, I think they would. It would be better knowing they'd be down for a week or so, rather than months of wildcat stoppages et al. A big, hyped up relaunch would then ensue. Just a thought.
P.S. The custard was delicious!
If the new owners can bypass long and protracted negotions with unions in an effort to break the current EBA's, I think they would. It would be better knowing they'd be down for a week or so, rather than months of wildcat stoppages et al. A big, hyped up relaunch would then ensue. Just a thought.
P.S. The custard was delicious!
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the words of Gaunty "Let's cut to the chase."
Ansett has epitomised Australian aviation from our earliest recollections. It was founded by a GREAT Australian - Sir Reginald ANSETT - from a foundling, to one of Australia's (two) national carriers.
Rupert Murdoch and Peter Abeles degraded the name, by plundering the assets and abusing the staff far beyond any boundaries ever imagined by honest, hard-working, loyal Ansett employees.
Unbelievably, Ansett, the symbol of EVERYTHING Australian - under the auspices of a corrupt Hawke-lead government - became the first employer of a majority NON-AUSTRALIAN workforce...endorsed by the country's union watchdog - the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).
So why SHOULD Aussies feel that they "owe" Ansett?
A company that relies on Americans, Canadians, British, New Zealanders, Hungarians, Czechs, and South Africans as its "frontline" - mercinaries who travel the world "saving companies"?
Reginald Miles Ansett - a name that evokes a feeling of pride - as opposed to one of $$$'s to our overseas blow-ins - deserves to be perpetuated for WHAT and WHOM the gentleman was, and for what he did in the formative years of Australian aviation, as opposed to the black shadow cast on the name by Murdoch, Abeles, and Hawke!
Ansett has epitomised Australian aviation from our earliest recollections. It was founded by a GREAT Australian - Sir Reginald ANSETT - from a foundling, to one of Australia's (two) national carriers.
Rupert Murdoch and Peter Abeles degraded the name, by plundering the assets and abusing the staff far beyond any boundaries ever imagined by honest, hard-working, loyal Ansett employees.
Unbelievably, Ansett, the symbol of EVERYTHING Australian - under the auspices of a corrupt Hawke-lead government - became the first employer of a majority NON-AUSTRALIAN workforce...endorsed by the country's union watchdog - the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).
So why SHOULD Aussies feel that they "owe" Ansett?
A company that relies on Americans, Canadians, British, New Zealanders, Hungarians, Czechs, and South Africans as its "frontline" - mercinaries who travel the world "saving companies"?
Reginald Miles Ansett - a name that evokes a feeling of pride - as opposed to one of $$$'s to our overseas blow-ins - deserves to be perpetuated for WHAT and WHOM the gentleman was, and for what he did in the formative years of Australian aviation, as opposed to the black shadow cast on the name by Murdoch, Abeles, and Hawke!
Guest
Posts: n/a
So when is Ansett commencing services to the USA?
I was told October - AN has apparently recruited second officers for this purpose but where are the additional Captains/F/O's and aircraft?
Or will Ansett just do their standard slap-up trick like when they commenced services on AN Int'l some years back and panic at the last minute and train a whole heap of guys?
I was told October - AN has apparently recruited second officers for this purpose but where are the additional Captains/F/O's and aircraft?
Or will Ansett just do their standard slap-up trick like when they commenced services on AN Int'l some years back and panic at the last minute and train a whole heap of guys?