Air NZ: have we learned nothing?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ: have we learned nothing?
NZ "Weekend Herald."
03.08.2002 -
The proposed sale of a major stake in Air New Zealand to Qantas is bizarre and irrational.
The carriers have been fierce competitors for decades, and their relationship has been even frostier than that between John O'Neill and the New Zealand Rugby Football Union.
A sale to Qantas would be a further step in our compulsion to sell strategic stakes in our largest companies to foreign interests.
We continue to adopt this flawed policy despite clear evidence that these sales have resulted in a huge transfer in wealth to overseas interests.
Why are we looking to sell a strategic stake in Air New Zealand to Qantas? Why have we been selling our largest companies to foreign investors?
New Zealand has a number of serious economic problems, including the low level of savings and the lack of investment in the productive sector. These problems have been covered many times in the Weekend Herald, but no emphasis was placed on them during the election campaign.
The New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZSE), which should be the primary source of equity for the productive sector, has gone nowhere in the past 15 years. When the market closed on July 31, its total value was just $42.4 billion, the same as it was at the end of 1986. In the same period, the value of the Australian Stock Exchange grew from A$137 billion to A$670 billion.
The NZSE's value is equal to just 35 per cent of GDP, whereas the ASX represents 95 per cent of Australia's GDP. Because of the small size of the New Zealand sharemarket - the market's value-to-GDP ratio should be at least 60 per cent - there is a limited pool of local equity to fund the productive sector.
As the sharemarket is now only 53 per cent domestically owned, compared with almost 100 per cent 16 years ago, New Zealanders have reduced their investment in the NZSE by almost $20 billion since December 1986.
In the same period, they have increased their residential mortgage borrowings from less than $10 billion to $68 billion.
This is a major problem, because we don't have a large pool of equity available to purchase assets from the public sector or rescue companies when they get into trouble.
As a result, we rely heavily on overseas capital. We have become weak sellers of our strategic assets and overseas investors have taken more than their fair share of the spoils.
Our asset sales policies of the late 80s and early 90s were hopelessly flawed. The main emphasis should have been to restore confidence in the sharemarket and privatise state-owned assets through public floats once that confidence had been restored.
Instead, politicians sold Crown assets at low prices to offshore interests and implemented none of the sharemarket reforms recommended by the Securities Commission, Russell Report and Roach Report.
The poor performance of our sharemarket has had a big impact on Air New Zealand in the past 14 years.
When the Government offered 25 per cent of Air New Zealand for sale in 1988, Qantas and British Airways bid $165 million each.
The Treasury recommended British Airways because it believed that Qantas wanted only to stop British Airways acquiring a cornerstone in its transtasman rival.
Air New Zealand's management was also opposed to Qantas and saw far greater benefits from British Airways' involvement.
But the budget deficit was spiralling out of control after the October 1987 sharemarket crash, and Finance Minister Roger Douglas wanted to accelerate the privatisation programme.
After acrimonious debate among senior Cabinet ministers it was decided to sell 100 per cent of the national carrier, but the NZSE was far too small to accommodate a capital raising of this magnitude. The Crown proceeded with a trade sale and a Qantas consortium (Qantas 20 per cent, Brierley Investments 65 per cent, American Airlines and Japan Air Lines 7.5 per cent each) made the highest bid at $660 million or $2.36 a share.
In October 1989, BIL sold a 25 per cent shareholding to the public at $2.40 a share and 5 per cent to staff at $2.16.
American Airlines and Japan Air Lines didn't stay long. Qantas sold its 20 per cent stake in March 1997 and took a profit in excess of $120 million. Australia's national carrier achieved its aim of keeping British Airways out of Air New Zealand and the London-based company subsequently became Qantas' highly successful cornerstone shareholder.
The poor state of the New Zealand sharemarket also contributed to Air New Zealand's heavy reliance on debt when it bought into Ansett.
The initial 50 per cent of Ansett, which cost $540 million in October 1996, was 44 per cent financed by new equity from shareholders and the remaining 50 per cent, acquired for $744 million in June 2000, was 38 per cent funded by new capital.
This was a low level of equity funding, particularly as Ansett itself was hopelessly undercapitalised.
When Air New Zealand ran into trouble last year, the New Zealand sharemarket was far too small to fund its recapitalisation and the Government had to inject $885 million of new capital, $225 million more than it received for the 1989 sale.
The national carrier still needs more capital and the Government is reluctant to make a further contribution. Consequently it wants to sell a proportion of its 82 per cent shareholding to Qantas or have the company offer new shares to the Australian carrier.
But Qantas' interests are purely defensive: it wants to dampen Air New Zealand's competitiveness in Australasia and doesn't want a strong international carrier to take a cornerstone shareholding in Air NZ.
Qantas, along with all overseas companies that invest in New Zealand, has its self-interest clearly to the fore. These are just a few examples of the massive transfer in wealth that has occurred through the sale of strategic shareholdings to overseas investors:
* The Bank of New Zealand was sold for $850 million in 1992. Based on its current profitability and the market value of Australian banks, it is now worth in excess of $5 billion.
* Telecom was sold to a consortium of foreign-dominated interests for $4.25 billion in 1990. When Ameritech sold its 25 per cent shareholding at $8.85 a share in 1999 it made a profit of $6.1 billion and left our largest listed company with a relatively weak balance sheet.
* The consortium that acquired New Zealand Rail had an effective purchase price of just 20c a share after a capital restructuring and repayment. Shortly afterwards, new shares were sold to the New Zealand public at $6.19 each and the consortium members sold all their holdings at $3.60 a share or above. They have left Tranz Rail in a weak operating and financial position.
Finance Minister Dr Michael Cullen would be extremely foolish to allow Qantas to take a strategic stake in the national carrier. His first priority should be to find ways to encourage New Zealanders to invest in Air New Zealand and the sharemarket.
This requires innovative thinking. Air New Zealand could raise new capital through a convertible note issue aimed at institutional investors and a new type of security - called "shareholder partnership shares" by a Weekend Herald reader - for the public.
These partnership shares, which would convert into ordinary shares after three years, could have $3000 worth of travel coupons attached to every $10,000 worth of shares.
No interest or dividends would be paid on these shares and the coupons, which would be transferable, could be used to pay for travel on Air New Zealand's domestic and international routes.
The New Zealand investment community has to start developing new and exciting securities to attract investors back to the sharemarket. Unless this occurs we will have little option but to continue to sell strategic stakes to offshore interests and suffer major transfers in wealth out of New Zealand as a result.
03.08.2002 -
The proposed sale of a major stake in Air New Zealand to Qantas is bizarre and irrational.
The carriers have been fierce competitors for decades, and their relationship has been even frostier than that between John O'Neill and the New Zealand Rugby Football Union.
A sale to Qantas would be a further step in our compulsion to sell strategic stakes in our largest companies to foreign interests.
We continue to adopt this flawed policy despite clear evidence that these sales have resulted in a huge transfer in wealth to overseas interests.
Why are we looking to sell a strategic stake in Air New Zealand to Qantas? Why have we been selling our largest companies to foreign investors?
New Zealand has a number of serious economic problems, including the low level of savings and the lack of investment in the productive sector. These problems have been covered many times in the Weekend Herald, but no emphasis was placed on them during the election campaign.
The New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZSE), which should be the primary source of equity for the productive sector, has gone nowhere in the past 15 years. When the market closed on July 31, its total value was just $42.4 billion, the same as it was at the end of 1986. In the same period, the value of the Australian Stock Exchange grew from A$137 billion to A$670 billion.
The NZSE's value is equal to just 35 per cent of GDP, whereas the ASX represents 95 per cent of Australia's GDP. Because of the small size of the New Zealand sharemarket - the market's value-to-GDP ratio should be at least 60 per cent - there is a limited pool of local equity to fund the productive sector.
As the sharemarket is now only 53 per cent domestically owned, compared with almost 100 per cent 16 years ago, New Zealanders have reduced their investment in the NZSE by almost $20 billion since December 1986.
In the same period, they have increased their residential mortgage borrowings from less than $10 billion to $68 billion.
This is a major problem, because we don't have a large pool of equity available to purchase assets from the public sector or rescue companies when they get into trouble.
As a result, we rely heavily on overseas capital. We have become weak sellers of our strategic assets and overseas investors have taken more than their fair share of the spoils.
Our asset sales policies of the late 80s and early 90s were hopelessly flawed. The main emphasis should have been to restore confidence in the sharemarket and privatise state-owned assets through public floats once that confidence had been restored.
Instead, politicians sold Crown assets at low prices to offshore interests and implemented none of the sharemarket reforms recommended by the Securities Commission, Russell Report and Roach Report.
The poor performance of our sharemarket has had a big impact on Air New Zealand in the past 14 years.
When the Government offered 25 per cent of Air New Zealand for sale in 1988, Qantas and British Airways bid $165 million each.
The Treasury recommended British Airways because it believed that Qantas wanted only to stop British Airways acquiring a cornerstone in its transtasman rival.
Air New Zealand's management was also opposed to Qantas and saw far greater benefits from British Airways' involvement.
But the budget deficit was spiralling out of control after the October 1987 sharemarket crash, and Finance Minister Roger Douglas wanted to accelerate the privatisation programme.
After acrimonious debate among senior Cabinet ministers it was decided to sell 100 per cent of the national carrier, but the NZSE was far too small to accommodate a capital raising of this magnitude. The Crown proceeded with a trade sale and a Qantas consortium (Qantas 20 per cent, Brierley Investments 65 per cent, American Airlines and Japan Air Lines 7.5 per cent each) made the highest bid at $660 million or $2.36 a share.
In October 1989, BIL sold a 25 per cent shareholding to the public at $2.40 a share and 5 per cent to staff at $2.16.
American Airlines and Japan Air Lines didn't stay long. Qantas sold its 20 per cent stake in March 1997 and took a profit in excess of $120 million. Australia's national carrier achieved its aim of keeping British Airways out of Air New Zealand and the London-based company subsequently became Qantas' highly successful cornerstone shareholder.
The poor state of the New Zealand sharemarket also contributed to Air New Zealand's heavy reliance on debt when it bought into Ansett.
The initial 50 per cent of Ansett, which cost $540 million in October 1996, was 44 per cent financed by new equity from shareholders and the remaining 50 per cent, acquired for $744 million in June 2000, was 38 per cent funded by new capital.
This was a low level of equity funding, particularly as Ansett itself was hopelessly undercapitalised.
When Air New Zealand ran into trouble last year, the New Zealand sharemarket was far too small to fund its recapitalisation and the Government had to inject $885 million of new capital, $225 million more than it received for the 1989 sale.
The national carrier still needs more capital and the Government is reluctant to make a further contribution. Consequently it wants to sell a proportion of its 82 per cent shareholding to Qantas or have the company offer new shares to the Australian carrier.
But Qantas' interests are purely defensive: it wants to dampen Air New Zealand's competitiveness in Australasia and doesn't want a strong international carrier to take a cornerstone shareholding in Air NZ.
Qantas, along with all overseas companies that invest in New Zealand, has its self-interest clearly to the fore. These are just a few examples of the massive transfer in wealth that has occurred through the sale of strategic shareholdings to overseas investors:
* The Bank of New Zealand was sold for $850 million in 1992. Based on its current profitability and the market value of Australian banks, it is now worth in excess of $5 billion.
* Telecom was sold to a consortium of foreign-dominated interests for $4.25 billion in 1990. When Ameritech sold its 25 per cent shareholding at $8.85 a share in 1999 it made a profit of $6.1 billion and left our largest listed company with a relatively weak balance sheet.
* The consortium that acquired New Zealand Rail had an effective purchase price of just 20c a share after a capital restructuring and repayment. Shortly afterwards, new shares were sold to the New Zealand public at $6.19 each and the consortium members sold all their holdings at $3.60 a share or above. They have left Tranz Rail in a weak operating and financial position.
Finance Minister Dr Michael Cullen would be extremely foolish to allow Qantas to take a strategic stake in the national carrier. His first priority should be to find ways to encourage New Zealanders to invest in Air New Zealand and the sharemarket.
This requires innovative thinking. Air New Zealand could raise new capital through a convertible note issue aimed at institutional investors and a new type of security - called "shareholder partnership shares" by a Weekend Herald reader - for the public.
These partnership shares, which would convert into ordinary shares after three years, could have $3000 worth of travel coupons attached to every $10,000 worth of shares.
No interest or dividends would be paid on these shares and the coupons, which would be transferable, could be used to pay for travel on Air New Zealand's domestic and international routes.
The New Zealand investment community has to start developing new and exciting securities to attract investors back to the sharemarket. Unless this occurs we will have little option but to continue to sell strategic stakes to offshore interests and suffer major transfers in wealth out of New Zealand as a result.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't learned a thing and probably won't while Kiwi's are pre-occupied with being so negative towards Australia whether it be sport or business.
Chin-up guys, it's only a 3 hour flight to look at the Bledisloe Cup!
Chin-up guys, it's only a 3 hour flight to look at the Bledisloe Cup!
Good old kiwi logic at work here; it was okay for the kiwis to buy 100% of AN, but absolutely unthinkable to allow QF to buy 20 or 25% of NZ.
When will someone fast forward that country to the 19th century?
When will someone fast forward that country to the 19th century?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear me! QF doesn't want to buy into AirNZ to get a foot into the NZ market (like it was the case with AirNZ buying into AN in order to get access to the Aussie market), but to eventually get rid of yet another competitor and to cement their dominating position in the pacific region!
What do you think will happen to the Trans Tasman fares? Isn't QF making a loss on these routes and even more so in NZ?
And BTW I'm not a Kiwi.
What do you think will happen to the Trans Tasman fares? Isn't QF making a loss on these routes and even more so in NZ?
And BTW I'm not a Kiwi.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Amongst other factors to consider when discussing N.Z. are these couple of points:
There is a Labor government in power at present that - akin to Hawke and Keating's rule in Oz - are having to sell the farm to support their arty, (literally, in Helen's case) socialist ideals;
The sell-offs of the companies cited as examples - BNZ, Tranz Rail, and Telecom - resulted in those companies achieving vastly increased net worth (BNZ $850 million > $5 billion; Tranz Rail 20 cents/share > $6/share).
Money and expertise was put into them that could NOT be found in little New Zealand.
With a population of only 3.25 million, N.Z's domestic financial resources are EXTREMELY limited. If this tiny country of 2 small islands wants to compete on a large scale with the "Big boys", it will need the capital, and quite simply has to accept the fact that that capital of those proportions is only available offshore.
For those who haven't yet visited the Shaky Isles (named as such because of the regular tremors experienced there, due to the location of the islands on a major fault line), give it a try. It's cheap, and the trip back in time is a refreshing experience.
There is a Labor government in power at present that - akin to Hawke and Keating's rule in Oz - are having to sell the farm to support their arty, (literally, in Helen's case) socialist ideals;
The sell-offs of the companies cited as examples - BNZ, Tranz Rail, and Telecom - resulted in those companies achieving vastly increased net worth (BNZ $850 million > $5 billion; Tranz Rail 20 cents/share > $6/share).
Money and expertise was put into them that could NOT be found in little New Zealand.
With a population of only 3.25 million, N.Z's domestic financial resources are EXTREMELY limited. If this tiny country of 2 small islands wants to compete on a large scale with the "Big boys", it will need the capital, and quite simply has to accept the fact that that capital of those proportions is only available offshore.
For those who haven't yet visited the Shaky Isles (named as such because of the regular tremors experienced there, due to the location of the islands on a major fault line), give it a try. It's cheap, and the trip back in time is a refreshing experience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Koru, I don't think the Skippy pilots would want a bunch of kiwis in their seniority list. Correct me if wrong but not when the Aussies have managed to stay together on one contract that is considerably better than the pay that kiwis crawl over each other for. And they don't have a bunch of contract workers splitting the union and dragging down the renumeration. Then again it may be handy for management...........................
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Albatross, I was kinda joking about the QF/NZ seniority list merger, after all who wants to walk around with a big "Q" on their hat. Then again a well paid Q hat is probably better than a poorly paid hat with that squiggly thing on the front. However, you make some valid points about "you know whats" dragging down the Air NZ conditions, bless their little treacherous hearts..
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Duff
Anyone can set up an airline in Australia - Dickie did it, SQ & EK have talked about it... AirNZ just decided it was easier to buy one.
It was OK for SQ to wander in to AirNZ (in their quest to prevent Qantas from becoming a dominant carrier in the region - isn't that self-interest??) and it's stretching a very long bow to suggest their interests lie with the Gwa-Loh white filth to their south. It's not, however, such a long bow to suggest that the self-interests of Qantas might be a little closer to home ('home' being both sides of the Tasman) and that it's more likely to take heed of what's happening in NZ. Politically, if they screw up they'd have far more heat to handle than SQ (or anyone else) would. Also, wouldn't it be better to have as an investor, someone whose main shareholder is not a virtually dictatorial government (which crushes dissent), but rather one whichunderstands the industry and which is seeing a good dividend stream and therefore likely to not upset the cart and just let Qantas just get on with it.
Let's not forget which airline stock has been one of the best-performing IN THE WORLD this year and which has made a profit whilst others have damn-near collapsed - and has free cash.
Let's not forget just what level of commitment someone from out of town showed when things got tough - they couldn't wait to slink back up to Changi. Qantas, on the other hand, would have little choice but to stick it out when things got rough (where's it going to go??!!)
In summary, it appears that Kiwis are happy to sell off the family jewels to anyone BUT an Australian; it might be a good time to take a good long look at who your friends are & start working WITH people who know what it's like in your part of the world. You might be able to make transitory friendships with others, and poke Australia in the eye from time to time, but when the going gets tough, history shows that it's the outsiders who get going, scuttling back to whence they came.
Anyone can set up an airline in Australia - Dickie did it, SQ & EK have talked about it... AirNZ just decided it was easier to buy one.
It was OK for SQ to wander in to AirNZ (in their quest to prevent Qantas from becoming a dominant carrier in the region - isn't that self-interest??) and it's stretching a very long bow to suggest their interests lie with the Gwa-Loh white filth to their south. It's not, however, such a long bow to suggest that the self-interests of Qantas might be a little closer to home ('home' being both sides of the Tasman) and that it's more likely to take heed of what's happening in NZ. Politically, if they screw up they'd have far more heat to handle than SQ (or anyone else) would. Also, wouldn't it be better to have as an investor, someone whose main shareholder is not a virtually dictatorial government (which crushes dissent), but rather one whichunderstands the industry and which is seeing a good dividend stream and therefore likely to not upset the cart and just let Qantas just get on with it.
Let's not forget which airline stock has been one of the best-performing IN THE WORLD this year and which has made a profit whilst others have damn-near collapsed - and has free cash.
Let's not forget just what level of commitment someone from out of town showed when things got tough - they couldn't wait to slink back up to Changi. Qantas, on the other hand, would have little choice but to stick it out when things got rough (where's it going to go??!!)
In summary, it appears that Kiwis are happy to sell off the family jewels to anyone BUT an Australian; it might be a good time to take a good long look at who your friends are & start working WITH people who know what it's like in your part of the world. You might be able to make transitory friendships with others, and poke Australia in the eye from time to time, but when the going gets tough, history shows that it's the outsiders who get going, scuttling back to whence they came.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry Duff, but that is a perfect examppl of the problems between Australia and NZ.
We had an election back in 1996 and Paul Keating is no longer Prime Minister of Australia.
Australia now allows anyone - regardless of nationality - to own a domestic airline.
Your complaint is no longer valid, but it's a grudge you clearly still hold.
It's been suggested that the reason QF bailed previously is because the AirNZ board was unco-operative & felt QF to be unwelcome interlopers, rather than seize the opportunity to work together & make something bigger and better - a real regional power-house. When QF went for oneworld, it was the world's easiest bet that NZ would go to Star (simply because it was OPPOSITE to QF).
Well, if you want to play catch-upfor ever, and make transitory partnerships with people whose priorities WILL remain outside the region, then go for it. Those of us who see the bigger picture, however, would prefer to work together & maybe beat the outsiders at their own game.
You think SIA came to Auckland because they love Kiwis? Sorry, this may come as a shock, but maybe they saw it as a way to block Qantas (ie. an employer of New Zealanders) becoming the region's dominant player (and therefore maybe an even bigger employer of New Zealanders!!)
We had an election back in 1996 and Paul Keating is no longer Prime Minister of Australia.
Australia now allows anyone - regardless of nationality - to own a domestic airline.
Your complaint is no longer valid, but it's a grudge you clearly still hold.
It's been suggested that the reason QF bailed previously is because the AirNZ board was unco-operative & felt QF to be unwelcome interlopers, rather than seize the opportunity to work together & make something bigger and better - a real regional power-house. When QF went for oneworld, it was the world's easiest bet that NZ would go to Star (simply because it was OPPOSITE to QF).
Well, if you want to play catch-upfor ever, and make transitory partnerships with people whose priorities WILL remain outside the region, then go for it. Those of us who see the bigger picture, however, would prefer to work together & maybe beat the outsiders at their own game.
You think SIA came to Auckland because they love Kiwis? Sorry, this may come as a shock, but maybe they saw it as a way to block Qantas (ie. an employer of New Zealanders) becoming the region's dominant player (and therefore maybe an even bigger employer of New Zealanders!!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wednesday August 7, 5:05 AM
NZ PRESS: Businesses Lobby Against Qantas Stake In Air NZ
WELLINGTON (Dow Jones)--Some of the country's most powerful businessmen are supporting a campaign to keep Air New Zealand out of the hands of Australia's Qantas Airways , the New Zealand Herald newspaper reports. The campaign, launched by Wellington investment banker Lloyd Morrison in July, has gathered steam as the negotiations over a Qantas bid for up to a 25% stake in Air New Zealand near conclusion. Among those backing the campaign are Fonterra Chief Executive Craig Norgate, Sky Television founder Craig Heatley, Warehouse founder Stephen Tindall, JB Were managing director Clark Perkins and Auckland commercial lawyer Andrew Harmos, the newspaper said. Peter Dunne, leader of the United Future party, which has emerged as parliamentary power broker after the July 27 election, has also been asked for support.
Newspaper Web site: http://www.nzherald.co.nz
NZ PRESS: Businesses Lobby Against Qantas Stake In Air NZ
WELLINGTON (Dow Jones)--Some of the country's most powerful businessmen are supporting a campaign to keep Air New Zealand out of the hands of Australia's Qantas Airways , the New Zealand Herald newspaper reports. The campaign, launched by Wellington investment banker Lloyd Morrison in July, has gathered steam as the negotiations over a Qantas bid for up to a 25% stake in Air New Zealand near conclusion. Among those backing the campaign are Fonterra Chief Executive Craig Norgate, Sky Television founder Craig Heatley, Warehouse founder Stephen Tindall, JB Were managing director Clark Perkins and Auckland commercial lawyer Andrew Harmos, the newspaper said. Peter Dunne, leader of the United Future party, which has emerged as parliamentary power broker after the July 27 election, has also been asked for support.
Newspaper Web site: http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Of interest is the newsletter I received yesterday from my real estate agent in a small town in New Zealand. Quote"
PROPERTY MARKET
Sales have been fantastic in all price ranges for the last few months. We have sold 46 properties since 1st April this year. Buyers from overseas are becoming common, and many are buying sight unseen over the internet. The upper price range of $200,000 to $260,000 is proving very popular, particularly for four bedroom homes. etc.
As the writing on the T-shirt on sale at Christchurch International airport declared:
I support New Zealand...and anyone else that plays against Australia.
It's unfortunate, but clearly evident, that the majority of Kiwis - the men in particular - suffer from a severe case of "small man syndrome ", whenever the subject of Australia/Australians is raised with them.
Or is it a case of EnZeder's thinking that if they stop making a noise, the rest of the world will forget they exist.
It makes a strange contrast to the Singapore-Malaysia situation, where the tiny Singapore greatly outperforms its much bigger neighbour, and where public figures (such as Malaysia's Mahatir) constantly proclaim that their new shipyard/airport/science & technology centre, etc, etc, etc, are GOING to be superior to that of their southern neighbour.
As with the Kiwi's feelings of inadequacy towards Australia, statements from Malaysia (about Singapore) only serve to further promote amusement from the onlookers.
PROPERTY MARKET
Sales have been fantastic in all price ranges for the last few months. We have sold 46 properties since 1st April this year. Buyers from overseas are becoming common, and many are buying sight unseen over the internet. The upper price range of $200,000 to $260,000 is proving very popular, particularly for four bedroom homes. etc.
As the writing on the T-shirt on sale at Christchurch International airport declared:
I support New Zealand...and anyone else that plays against Australia.
It's unfortunate, but clearly evident, that the majority of Kiwis - the men in particular - suffer from a severe case of "small man syndrome ", whenever the subject of Australia/Australians is raised with them.
Or is it a case of EnZeder's thinking that if they stop making a noise, the rest of the world will forget they exist.
It makes a strange contrast to the Singapore-Malaysia situation, where the tiny Singapore greatly outperforms its much bigger neighbour, and where public figures (such as Malaysia's Mahatir) constantly proclaim that their new shipyard/airport/science & technology centre, etc, etc, etc, are GOING to be superior to that of their southern neighbour.
As with the Kiwi's feelings of inadequacy towards Australia, statements from Malaysia (about Singapore) only serve to further promote amusement from the onlookers.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger
I am quite aware that the agreement is now in place. It was merely a rebuttle to Chimbu's moan. I can assure you there is no grudge.
BTW. Nowhere have I stated that I am against QF taking a stake in Air NZ. I totally agree that NZ and OZ need to work together to beat off the big players (yes believe it or not and despite what you ockers might think, Australia is not a big player).
Kaptin M
Isn't it funny that if a similar T-shirt was seen at YSSY (only the other way around of course) you guys would come back and say it's just a joke and just part of that unique Aussie humour. However, when it comes from this side of the Tasman it's suddenly a diagnosis of "little man syndrome" and far from a bit of fun. Most Kiwis have accepted that Australia are bigger, more important and better at sport. Maybe you guys need to accept that on the whole we really don't care.
Can someone please explain the IQ test that BB is on about.
I am quite aware that the agreement is now in place. It was merely a rebuttle to Chimbu's moan. I can assure you there is no grudge.
BTW. Nowhere have I stated that I am against QF taking a stake in Air NZ. I totally agree that NZ and OZ need to work together to beat off the big players (yes believe it or not and despite what you ockers might think, Australia is not a big player).
Kaptin M
Isn't it funny that if a similar T-shirt was seen at YSSY (only the other way around of course) you guys would come back and say it's just a joke and just part of that unique Aussie humour. However, when it comes from this side of the Tasman it's suddenly a diagnosis of "little man syndrome" and far from a bit of fun. Most Kiwis have accepted that Australia are bigger, more important and better at sport. Maybe you guys need to accept that on the whole we really don't care.
Can someone please explain the IQ test that BB is on about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duff
This may help explain the national IQ show last night, unfortunatly
the kiwi group in the ch9 studio were to score the lowest IQ
of the groups in the studio.
AAP
More than three million check on IQ
More than three million Australians tuned in to see how they smart they were in the first attempt at a national IQ test.
Channel Nine said the National IQ Test 2002 telecast last night was the most watched program on television this year with a peak audience of 3,138,032 viewers tuning in to participate.
The program averaged 2.79 million viewers between 7.30pm and 11.15pm, eclipsing the World Cup soccer final and the Big Brother final eviction as the most watched show of the year.
More than 43,000 people registered to do the test online, while another 20,000 sent SMS answers on their mobile phones.
There were many controversial results from the program, with the average male IQ of 113 comparing to 108 for women.
Canberra was the smartest city, with an average IQ of 114, ahead of Perth (112), Brisbane (112), Sydney, Adelaide and Hobart (110), Darwin (108) and Melbourne (107).
But academic Karen Brooks questioned the program's legitimacy and was critical of the show's use of groups such as blondes, builders, teachers, students and Kiwis as a stereotype of intelligence.
Dr Brooks, a lecturer in popular culture at the University of the Sunshine Coast, was also concerned that those who recorded high IQ scores were treated like winners.
"It was interesting to see knowledge presented as sport and here we had an IQ test presented almost like a game show," she said.
"On the one hand that could be perceived as really healthy, but there was more in that that concerned me and makes me still believe it was quite unhealthy."
Channel Nine said the IQ test, devised by Professor Con Stough of Swinburne University in Melbourne, was intended for entertainment purposes only "and did not purport to definitively analyse an individual's IQ".
Dr Brooks, who has an IQ of 147, said the groupings used in the show were appalling.
"The blondes were all women and the builders were all men," she said.
"That to me wasn't about being blonde - it was about being a blonde woman and a bimbo.
"Himbos and bimbos they might as well have called them."
Dr Brooks said the IQ test was flawed because of the time constraints with each question and because it included general knowledge questions.
"It didn't allow for imagination or creativity," she said.
Dr Brooks said a more relevant test of intelligence was the EQ (emotional quotient) test which measures intellect and social development.
This may help explain the national IQ show last night, unfortunatly
the kiwi group in the ch9 studio were to score the lowest IQ
of the groups in the studio.
AAP
More than three million check on IQ
More than three million Australians tuned in to see how they smart they were in the first attempt at a national IQ test.
Channel Nine said the National IQ Test 2002 telecast last night was the most watched program on television this year with a peak audience of 3,138,032 viewers tuning in to participate.
The program averaged 2.79 million viewers between 7.30pm and 11.15pm, eclipsing the World Cup soccer final and the Big Brother final eviction as the most watched show of the year.
More than 43,000 people registered to do the test online, while another 20,000 sent SMS answers on their mobile phones.
There were many controversial results from the program, with the average male IQ of 113 comparing to 108 for women.
Canberra was the smartest city, with an average IQ of 114, ahead of Perth (112), Brisbane (112), Sydney, Adelaide and Hobart (110), Darwin (108) and Melbourne (107).
But academic Karen Brooks questioned the program's legitimacy and was critical of the show's use of groups such as blondes, builders, teachers, students and Kiwis as a stereotype of intelligence.
Dr Brooks, a lecturer in popular culture at the University of the Sunshine Coast, was also concerned that those who recorded high IQ scores were treated like winners.
"It was interesting to see knowledge presented as sport and here we had an IQ test presented almost like a game show," she said.
"On the one hand that could be perceived as really healthy, but there was more in that that concerned me and makes me still believe it was quite unhealthy."
Channel Nine said the IQ test, devised by Professor Con Stough of Swinburne University in Melbourne, was intended for entertainment purposes only "and did not purport to definitively analyse an individual's IQ".
Dr Brooks, who has an IQ of 147, said the groupings used in the show were appalling.
"The blondes were all women and the builders were all men," she said.
"That to me wasn't about being blonde - it was about being a blonde woman and a bimbo.
"Himbos and bimbos they might as well have called them."
Dr Brooks said the IQ test was flawed because of the time constraints with each question and because it included general knowledge questions.
"It didn't allow for imagination or creativity," she said.
Dr Brooks said a more relevant test of intelligence was the EQ (emotional quotient) test which measures intellect and social development.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Duff
Your point about Australia not being a big player is valid, but needs some expansion.
Running an airline is a costly operation. You can either be a little player, with a very small fleet, or you can start international operations & by necessity, take on a larger cost structure.
Recent history would tend to show that to survive, a certain critical mass of underlying market is needed, unless you can attract through-traffic. This is what is driving consolidation in Europe: those airlines with a reasonably-sized domestic market (eg. BA, AF, LH) are survivng (and even make money now & then); those without a domestic market big enough to cover their cost base are falling apart (SN, SR, TP) are going/have gone bust (or are being bailed out by the taxpayer).
SQ survives on through-traffic (guess where from??!!), as does EK (hence their large network into te subcontinent); CX relies on traffic from China and Japan.
But in terms of 'national' carriers:
Since AC took over CP (both of which had marginal profitability prior), several attempts have been made at setting up another carrier in Canada - the only one to succeed has been a low-cost.
My point? Together, Australia & NZ's population is ALMOST the size of Canada - but Canada has ONE main carrier; a bit bigger than Scandinavia (3 countries combined) - ONE main carrier; France (ONE main carrier) is over 2.5 times bigger; Germany (ONE main carrier) is over 3.5 times bigger. So - both countries are fooling themselves if they think they can support zillions of 'major' airlines, without charging very high fares. I frankly don't give a rat's whether the corporate HQ is in SYD or AKL (or BNE, CHC or MEL) but at the moment, Aust/NZ airline customers are effectively paying too much through having to support two sets of infrastructures. Moreover, unless there is an explicit government guarantee, one's cost of funds would be lots higher than the other.
Again, I cannot see the benefit from tying up with people who, when the going gets tough, you won't see for dust - over people who have to stick around & sort it out because it's their own patch. Sure, replace SQ with LH or UA or such & let's revisit this topic in the next downturn and see if they're still holding hands.
Time for both countries to realise that apart, neither is worth a pinch globally but together, they've suddenly got a G7-size economy.
It's an interesting contrast with Europe, where the smaller countries couldn't wait to get into the Euro so they could get swept up in the larger economies' wake; even today, there are about 10 or 12 more knocking at the door, because they realise that economically, there's strength in size. Nationalism doesn't pay the bills.
Your point about Australia not being a big player is valid, but needs some expansion.
Running an airline is a costly operation. You can either be a little player, with a very small fleet, or you can start international operations & by necessity, take on a larger cost structure.
Recent history would tend to show that to survive, a certain critical mass of underlying market is needed, unless you can attract through-traffic. This is what is driving consolidation in Europe: those airlines with a reasonably-sized domestic market (eg. BA, AF, LH) are survivng (and even make money now & then); those without a domestic market big enough to cover their cost base are falling apart (SN, SR, TP) are going/have gone bust (or are being bailed out by the taxpayer).
SQ survives on through-traffic (guess where from??!!), as does EK (hence their large network into te subcontinent); CX relies on traffic from China and Japan.
But in terms of 'national' carriers:
Since AC took over CP (both of which had marginal profitability prior), several attempts have been made at setting up another carrier in Canada - the only one to succeed has been a low-cost.
My point? Together, Australia & NZ's population is ALMOST the size of Canada - but Canada has ONE main carrier; a bit bigger than Scandinavia (3 countries combined) - ONE main carrier; France (ONE main carrier) is over 2.5 times bigger; Germany (ONE main carrier) is over 3.5 times bigger. So - both countries are fooling themselves if they think they can support zillions of 'major' airlines, without charging very high fares. I frankly don't give a rat's whether the corporate HQ is in SYD or AKL (or BNE, CHC or MEL) but at the moment, Aust/NZ airline customers are effectively paying too much through having to support two sets of infrastructures. Moreover, unless there is an explicit government guarantee, one's cost of funds would be lots higher than the other.
Again, I cannot see the benefit from tying up with people who, when the going gets tough, you won't see for dust - over people who have to stick around & sort it out because it's their own patch. Sure, replace SQ with LH or UA or such & let's revisit this topic in the next downturn and see if they're still holding hands.
Time for both countries to realise that apart, neither is worth a pinch globally but together, they've suddenly got a G7-size economy.
It's an interesting contrast with Europe, where the smaller countries couldn't wait to get into the Euro so they could get swept up in the larger economies' wake; even today, there are about 10 or 12 more knocking at the door, because they realise that economically, there's strength in size. Nationalism doesn't pay the bills.
