VH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 796 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
There is a lot of talk here in Australia, that Air New Zealand have NO money & that they have defaulted on their first installment to News Limited for the sale of AN! A BIG rumour I know but, none the less it may have some truth behind it! Needless to say everyone at Ansett seems to be praying for SQ to get involved heavily, increase their shareholding in NZ/AN and start making AN more competitive and modern (fleet). I guess its only a matter of time before Air NZ (Gary Twoomey & the board) go to the NZ government begging for them to lift the ceiling on the amount of foreign share holding in Air NZ! For their survival - Let's hope its done soon!
cheers - BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
Wpr8e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
Let's be careful not to predict the downfall of ANZ just yet. They have a long history of making money and they are by all accounts a very sucessful airline. Ansett albeit a very good airline, has had less success and they have lost market share to Qantas over the last few years. I am not sure why so many of the SQ lovers out there are so unhappy with the ownership stake in ANZ. All mergers are difficult, ALL. The only one that was not was Delta and Western in the 80's. It is very difficult for two cultures to merge togther after operating seperatly for so many years coupled with the fact that they are across two different countries. In the end the synergies will pay off and common fleet, infrastructure, and management will solve these problems. Some airlines never get over it (Northwest still operates as two seperate airlines, domestic (Republic) and international (Northwest Orient)).
And the agreement covering the merger requires that a good portion (I can't remember the exact number) are required to remain in Australia. I would predict that at some point in the future, the two airlines will become one, in name and operation. And that the majority of the company will be based in Australia. And Singapore Airlines will still continues to reap the benefits of pulling traffic out of OZ via SIN to the world.
I think it is the NZ economy that is having the most impact on the fate of ANZ. The NZ "baht" is not helping ANZ pay off the overseas bills like fuel (although the OZ "peso" is not much better). I think Helen Clark needs to look deeper into the fate of the NZ economy and howshe and the government might help the country as a whole as well as NZ.
Anyways always love to travel on NZ and flying that Maori arrow to the South Pac.
VH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 796 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
Hey I am not trying to write off NZ! I am literally stating some pertinent facts. Ansett has much more competition in Australia than NZ does in it's back yard, domestically. Ansett has also been poorly managed in the past and slapped with a varied & ageing fleet. The price of fuel and other costs, with a low aussie dollar & even lower kiwi dollar are not helping either! Not to mention big competition from a cashed up, well managed Qantas, with a streamlined fleet. Qantas earn much of their revenues in overseas markets such as the US, UK, Asia (japan) & Europe, which allows them to spread costs over a greater distance & also bank strong currencies. They also hedge their fuel prices aggressively & keep costs in check. NZ/AN need to do the same, that is all.
The new engineering company for AN/NZ has been set up & is already paying dividends. Gary Twoomey is a ruthless numbers man & if anyone can turn around NZ/AN he probably can. (Remember Rod Eddington came to Ansett for one thing only - to get the best price for News Ltd as possible & he did it! He sold all non-core assets at Ansett to do it & introduced the CRJ - a small disaster - News realised a huge profit in their sale of 50% to Air NZ & Rod trotted off to BA, the rest is history.
Lets hope An can keep it's strong customer focus in the process of the restructure. It looks as though quite a few more jobs will be lost. Lets hope at the end, AN/NZ will be a strong competitor fot QF?
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
AN/NZ are already strong competitors for Qantas. Read their 2000 profits list and you will see that they didnot beat AirNZ in the profit they made.
Qantas is a great airline donot get me wrong BUT AN/NZ are coming up very fast to their level. Qantas have started to install their PTV's and Ansett and AirNZ are expecting to start in June/July 01.
Considering how many routes Qantas serves they should be out doing AirNZ much more than what they are.
So what i am trying to say is that NZ/AN are already major compition for Qantas and expect more costomers to flock to AirNZ in the near future. AN will start to increase it's passenger services as soon as the whole deal is finished.
Remember the airline AirNZ is not in trouble but Ansett is. Even though they own Ansett they still have different management in Aussie.
I think that AirNZ is just waiting for the right moment for them to increase AN routes (Internationally). The Asian market is still a bit wobbly for any airline to start up.
Comments please, but donot bite my head off.
PS i think AirNZ will keep it's name and so will Ansett. Ansett will operate out of Australia to major places in Asia and Europe and AirNZ will operate out of NZ to the South Pacific America, Aussie, Asia and Europe.
OZ777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1042 times:
There are several wrong assumptions in this thread.
The first is about the "profit" figures quoted. These are from the 1999-2000 trading year (which for NZ ends 31 March 2000, coming up to 10 months ago.
The situation has changed markedly since then, with ANZ really "borrowing" the funds to purchase the balance of AN. This affects the gearing and means that more funds are required to meet interest and debt. Add to that the softening of the currency against the $US and the fuel price hike and you have the recipe for the declining profit forecast and RECENTLY announced by ANZ.
Consistently ANZ has been profitable, helped by the reduction in manpower costs brought about by the previous Socialist Govt. To expect the same process to be derived from the AN integration is a little optimistic within the Australian labour market. So we now see the flow of jobs back to Auckland where the manpower is cheaper and the Australian counterparts lose their employment.
AN loss of market share goes back further than the ANZ purchase - and has very litle to do with the fleet - apart from the A320's their fleet was very similar to that of it's competitor. The ANZ buy-in has not helped, but, Gary Twoomey will drive costs even lower to make the Group more profitable. A change of attitude is required and the AN people need to get their chip off their shoulder and accept that they are now part of a well renowned international affiliation. Also build on the success of the AN international reputation.
As far as the SQ involvement -it is a strategic shareholding to secure the on-market rights in the Oceania region. This is to counter the BA/QF uplift in the Asia and Oceania area. The benefit to ANZ/AN will be in strategic purchasing and route optimisation. As I said before, watch for South America to open up and the 777 to become a feature if ANZ can meet the funds. If not the weak Euro will see ANZ/AN go the same way as did Qantas (and Twoomey had a part in that decision) and buy cheap Airbus eqt.
No so unusual for them - they have had Lockheed, Fokker, ATR, HS, Douglas and Boeing eqt in their fleet.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1236 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
If AN is in trouble so is NZ. AN domestic contributes nearly 50% of group revenues and domestic revenues are always more stable than international so the fate of the group is closely tied with the fate of AN domestic.
AN offers great service and a quality product but has been starved of capital for a long time. It is important to remember that the last substantial capital investment was the new Sydney terminal ($160M), the previous one to that was the purchase of the first group of A320s in the late 80s. All subsequent fleet additions have been leased second hand aircraft.
In the same time QF has added 763s to the domestic fleet, built new terminals in Sydney and Melbourne, modified other terminals (eg CBR, ADL) as well as continuing to add to their international fleet not to mention the latest 31 plane order.
The capital starving of AN by TNT and News is coming home to roost in that a large part of the domestic fleet needs upgrading within 5 years. The only planes that have greater than 5 years left in the trunk domestic fleet are the A320s. This means 9 762s and 20+ 733s all have to be replaced. This is a mammoth ask but very important to the future of AN/NZ.
I have no doubt that Gary Toomey's background in Australian domestic aviation means he is all too aware of how necessary these steps are and I assume they were near the top of the pile on his desk when he commenced in Auckland the other week.
Aussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1766 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
I agree with everything you've said Tullamarine.
I just hope Ansett can keep its head up, keep the excellent service which Qantas has allowed to degrade in favour of the bottom line, and remain a powerful force in Australian aviation. The market share slip is a worry but I think Ansett with the SQ involvement will come through in the long term
WHY DIDN'T AIR NZ LET SQ TAKE THE OTHER 50% OF ANSETT?? I STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND..
VH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 796 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
Here! Here! I agree with your post - Both News & TNT ripped stacks of profits out of Ansett in the 1980's (How do you think Murdoch's News ltd. bought 20th Century Fox?) and now Ansett is straddled with a resonable fleet, but an old one, average age of around 10years - because of the A320's -
VH-RMD is the highest cycle aeroplane of its type in the world (at 39,0000 cycles) and RME - RMG are not far behind. It is a testament to AN's engineering dept. that these aircraft have been so well maintained for so many years! The next closest operator (in cycles) is ANA with one of their B767-200's at 18,000! Ansett's original B767-200's are 17 years old! The B737-300's arrived in 1986-7.
Ansett management have always complained to staff they have no money (to expand or purchase a new fleet)& I guess when Ansett was bought whole & sole by ANZ, who also lack funds now, it was/is very frustrating for their staff who were hoping for a company who was flush with cash to expand & develop the airline! That is all! I really don't think that AN staff have a chip on their shoulder or anything like that - they just want (job) security & a successfull company! End of story!
Cheers - BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
OZ777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
What staff would not want security - it is what we all aspire to, An is no different to QF. (Makes you wonder about the US though with their poor service attitudes in somme of the majors)
The question was asked as to why did SQ not take up the 50% share in AN. Believe me if SQ had, then staff at An may have felt even more aggreived about a different owner.
No, ANZ I think saw (apart from the "glory" of owning an Australian airline" that SQ would promote SQ/AN in the region to the detriment of ANZ and ANZ would have been without an integrated partner apart from the Star Alliance. Lets make no bones about it. An airline promotes its own brand, and if it can fill all it's own seats profitably it does not need an alliance. SQ is a very strong brand (2nd only to the BA/QF branding?) and ANZ would have lost out big time.
I think with SQ, they will sit back and let ANZ do the hard work integrating AN and ANZ, and then increase their equity in the better performing group.
Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1032 times:
This was the June 2000 report as i have said. Go to their website and you will see it.
Not 10 months old.
Remember Qantas has been around for along time and look at there route structure compared to AirNZ's. Of course they will make money and they can affoard to get New Fleet. They fly to about 20 more destinations than AirNZ. and Ansett.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
OZ777: "SQ is a very strong brand (2nd only to the BA/QF branding?) " Definately not. SQ is much stronger than the BA.QF branding as it is an alliance only and doesn't signify much. Well good try anyway
Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
AirNZ fly them to WEL, ROT and a few other places but they are getting taken over fast by the 733. If you want to fly on one then your best chances of flyin on one are at Wellington international where most of them are based.
OZ777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
When I referred in my post to the information being 10 months old, look at the mathematics.
FACT: The New Zealand Financial year ends 31 March.
Air New Zealand takes about three months to finalise the accounts and report in accordance with the Corporate Governance requirements in New Zealand.
FACT: The "report" details the year UP TO 31 march 2000.
Simple arithmetic. From March 2000 until January 2001 is ten months.
Also searrch the New Zealand Herald some two months ago. There you will see ANZ revise their profit warning immediatley after issuing an updated prospectus. That is why they have a "please explain" from the Stock Exchange and regulatory Authorities.
Do not get me wrong. ANZ have been my airline of choice ex Australia for a number of years. Good product (particularly in J/F) good staff attitude (heaven knows how, when you look at how they have been treated by some of the management decisions) but they survive.
And that is the lesson AN will have to learn. The Glory days finished when News / TNT started to rip the heart out. Do not blame ANZ. Live with it and go forward instead of running around with a chip on your shoulder.