Go air canada From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
in relation to two other threads (cheek of air new zealand and Ansett/ANZ comback) its seem to me that something has to be done about ansett.
The marriage with air new zealand as been as productive as sticking wheels onto a tomato and has been a factor in air new zealands difficulties.
With SQ seeming to be interested in ansett, would it not be better for air new zealand to sell up to Sq, that way one greedy airline can marry another and air new zealand no longer has to worry about the millstone around its neck which is dragging it down. Some people are saying that its down to air new zealands mismanagement of ansett, although since anz itself seems in good shape, I would suggest that it isnt anz's fault.
So what I'm saying is that Ansett should be put out of its misery like the rotting flea-ridden dog that it is by being sold to SQ which can turn it aroind while Air New Zealand can get on with its life.
im sure this will be debated, i find my comments always are!(lol)
Timdapup22 From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
My Two Cents:
Ansett are a great airline in the way of Service, cleanliness, on-time arrival - and it is a pity to see them in such a dire situation and would like to see them survive, whether by sale partial sale to SQ or another scheme.
Air New Zealand is one of the worlds great airlines and I do believe that the management ability to be able to bring Ansett back into alignment and profitability.
To my knowledge - Singapore currently only has the rights for a 49% purchase of Ansett, and this would be a great thing for Ansett.
I would object to Ansett being wholly owned by SQ under an issue of National pride - Australia and New Zealand hold very close ties and work together to ensure the security of the jobs of their employees.
Aussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1766 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
No wonder your comments are hotly debated:
"The marriage with air new zealand as been as productive as sticking wheels onto a tomato"
"Ansett should be put out of its misery"
"the rotting flea-ridden dog that it is"
I rarely take offence at anything, but although I have no connection to AN whatsoever (except appreciation for their superb product and dogged determination in the face of bad luck and in some cases unwarrented persecution), I find your comments way out of line.
Have you flown Ansett? if yes, you will know how stupid and immature your comments are, if not, I'm telling you such.
Get a life.
And by the way, the point of this forum is not to stir people up, it is to be informative. That can be easily achieved without such unnecessary comments.
Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
Go Air Canada.
I love the way you say in your profile that Ansett are an "upstart", when you are showing those very same qualities in your post. Why is it that you hate someone who seems to be so much like yourself?
To the topic at hand.
When NZ bought their first 50% of Ansett, they had pre-emptive rights on the other 50%. When SQ offered over $500 million for that other 50%, NZ jumped into the fray, and used those rights to grab the full 100%.
They did this, even though they did NOT have any solid financials to do so, and hence were forced to get up to the eye ball in debt to get that 50% which they obviously wanted to stop SQ from getting.
Everything else NZ have fucked up with AN just flows on from that initial "walking the walk, but not talking the talk" move by NZ.
I sincerely hope that AN will be gotten by SQ in the very near future. And you know what? Because of NZ's total screwup in the whole debacle, SQ will be able to offer NZ but a pittance of what they paid for it; at least SQ has the ACTUAL money to be able to spend on a fleet renewal program
BTW, NZ is not in as great as shape as you may think.
They are in dire need of a fleet upgrade, and have been for the last 10 years. Yet, nothing has been done on this.
Seeing as they had to get into debt to buy the 2nd 50% of AN, can you imagine how much more debt they would have had to go into to upgrade their fleet?
Anyway, I'll leave it to the other "upstarts" in the forum to refute what I have said.
Ryanair From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 654 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
I think it's fair to say AN wasn't in the greatest of shape before ANZ took control, but equally ANZ has badly mismanaged AN.
AN had been the largest Domestic Airline for as long as anybody cares remember, ANZ run the show for a couple of years and their market share is down in the 30's, from 50+ for decades (20-30 years??), while their major competitors share actually goes up in the face of new competition.
AN is cashed up, with a $1billion in hand, it's ANZ that's broke.
So AN has loads of cash, ANZ is flat broke and drowning in debt, so by deduction AN is the lame dog. AN successfully was the major domestic airline with over 50% of the market to before jets, until ANZ got involved, so quite clearly ANZ has a better idea on how to be successful. I think people with that kinda logic are just the type of investor I want for my new business, shadey-southamerican-con-artest.com
ANZ might be making an operating profit for all i know, but it won't be for much longer if it carries on like it has, very damn ignorantly. If I worked for Ansett (or ANZ) I wouldn't be very comfortable with that knowledge (personally).
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
Why do any of us bother responding to this "go air canada" dope? He seems to have little idea about anything to do with Australian aviation and even less about punctuation and grammar. If we ignore him, maybe he'll go away.
Al From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 593 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1010 times:
There are many reasons why the marriage is not working or taking far too long to work, but there are a myriad of articles around by highly qualified analysts and other professional industry bods that have gone through all this.
Suffice to say - it's happened, it's not working in it's current format/direction and something needs to be done. There are a lot of ego's involved which is probably *the* major stumbling block at the moment. Maybe financial sense will prevail after all. As for the capability of NZ's management, well I think they have a track record that is pretty damn fine when you look at the old, small Air NZ. It does appear to becoming patently obvious they were not prepared or ill-equipped to transfer this over to their new company which suddenly tripled in size, despite having many many months to prepare for it.
If our friend "Go Air Canada" had a clue, he'd also realise that his beloved AC relies very heavily on AN to sustain AC's daily flights into/out of Sydney. Take away AN and AC would struggle down here. Why is AN "greedy" anyway?? That lost me a bit.
QantasAirways From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1273 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 976 times:
I agree with somebody else in this forum.
Ansett was in quite bad shape before ANZ took over, and still is. But I also think that the media is taking advantage of Ansett right now.
I agree that Ansett should be (partially) sold to Singapore Airlines. It would be a better step for Ansett... definately.
Singapore Airlines is an airline I can only compliment, and obviously if Ansett is sold to them, they would manage it accordingly.
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 977 times:
It has all been said in the other threads - perhaps we will have a further dissertation from our "Go Air Canada" friend that we can all sit and laugh at.
Air New Zealand is profitable as a stand alone carrier
AN is vital to ANZ's long term strategy. Control by another carrier threatens that "feed".
AN capital needs in fact stem from poor decisions made more than 5 years ago.
ANZ has a lower fleet age than does QF.
For anyone to think that somehow SQ will be a white night, and that all AN problems will be resolved just by the addition of a few new aircraft, have a very narrow perspective. The current fleet is getting old, but the major issue is capacity. I have said it before, if you think that the AN culture would be untouched (or understood) by SQ, think again.
The structural (and systemic) blunders by ANZ are history (Oh our friend Go Air Canada is a history student, so perhaps he is fond of living in the past). Most of the management has been replaced, and I think Gary Toomey needs 12-18 months to settle it in. Do not expect "immmediate results" within six months.
There will be more management changes soon at Board level and these will strengthen the expertise for AN /ANZ.
And last but not least, perhaps we should limit comments on a particular airline to those who have at least FLOWN on them.
Go air canada From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 969 times:
Ansett woes may drag Air NZ $176m into red
Weighed down...Ansett's tribulations are making waves for its parent company across the Tasman. Photo: Virginia Star
By Mark Todd
Ansett's operational problems may have cut deeper into earnings than first thought, with analysts adding another $NZ100 million ($80 million) to the already substantial losses forecast for the airline's owner, Air New Zealand, in 2000-2001.
On average, analysts were expecting Air New Zealand to lose $NZ120 million in the year to June 30, 2001, but circumstances have worsened since a profit warning in late March.
Falling market share, a highly competitive domestic market and a severe hike in costs due to a fall in the Australian dollar could lead Air NZ to produce a loss as high as $NZ220 million ($176 million) in 2000-2001, analysts say.
Air New Zealand may also use the poor result as an opportunity to make potentially massive revisions to the value of certain assets, dragging the bottom line still lower through one-off charges.
advertisement (About our new ads)
A series of mishaps at Ansett, including the grounding of its fleet of 10 Boeing 767s during the Easter holidays, has severely damaged goodwill for the airline, leading to a sharp dip in loads.
Apart from harming Ansett's reputation, the problems have boosted demand for rival carriers, in particular Qantas.
Some analysts suggest that Ansett's share of the domestic aviation market has slipped below 40 per cent again, a descent that it first experienced earlier this year.
"The fallout from Ansett's Easter groundings and the damage that did to goodwill is worse than expected," one fund manager said.
"But the real danger is not to near-term earnings, but the continued degradation of the Ansett brand."
Last week Mr Gary Toomey, chief executive of Air New Zealand, indicated it was likely that the company's losses would extend into 2001-2002.
Air New Zealand is studying options for a $5 billion fleet renewal program for Ansett. Next month merchant bank Salomon Smith Barney will present a report on Air New Zealand's alternatives, with management to then put a strategy to the company's board in August.
It is believed that one option for funding could include Air New Zealand's 25 per cent shareholder, Singapore Airlines, taking a direct stake in Ansett.
Air New Zealand is also mulling an issue of shares in the near term to help fund the acquisition of new planes and to strengthen its balance sheet.
On Friday Qantas issued monthly traffic figures which underline the competitiveness of the domestic market.
Loads, or the proportion of seats filled, fell 4.2 percentage points in March to a still-strong 77.3 per cent. In the first nine months of the financial year to June 30, loads eased 0.7 percentage points to 79.6 per cent.
Across all its operations, Qantas's loads are up 0.8 per cent to 76.8 per cent in the 2000-01 year to date while the number of passengers carried was up 8 per cent to 16.6 million.
it seems that dear old ansett is still in problems, i hope they do recover one day......would u say two years than 12-18 mths Oz777?
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 929 times:
I do not agree with all that Aviatsiya has to say. ANZ's fleet is very fluid, and apart from the B767-200's, is quite young. Look at the ATR's, B737's and not a 742 in sight. There has been no need of fleet replacement "for ten years" because when you look at ANZr fleet acquisition plans over the past few years, it has been very measured against growth, with an active spare capacity lease arrangement.
Historically ANZ have done well with their leasing - even when DC-10's were NOT flavour of the month, ANZ was very successful in placing their -10 fleet around the world.
The AN issue is quite a different story.
Those of you who propose SQ should come in to AN, perhaps should explain why. Examine what the real issues are. True, the fleet is in need of upgrade, but the critical issue is capacity, ie additional aircraft, not just NEW aircraft. The current fleet is mixed (legacy of Sir Peter), but you are faced with the chicken/egg question.
What comes first - try and gain market share, and domestic profitability, or add capacity in a softening market in a hope of anticipated results from clawing back market share. There is little use in flying around empty jets if no body wants to fly with you.
I get the impression that those of you who propose the SQ involvement are only looking at the fleet. Would SQ add value to the strategy, management, product and overall culture of AN.
Lets look at the strategy. The largest "group" of overseas visitors to OZ are from NZ, so the need for an adequate "feed" from that departure point still exists. The second highest is ex Japan, for which SQ does not have any direct service. So from a synergy perspective (and I look at potential here) ANZ is probably the best option that AN has. If ANZ were to lose control of Ansett, what guarantee exists then for either AN or ANZ to get that share of passengers.
Management: No one can deny that the integration of AN into ANZ has been less than spectacular. But in fact, there has hardly been a smooth "amalgamation" of two airlines anywhere in the world. Even the QF/TN amalgamation came with a lot of "us and them" baggage for a long time, and of the top 50 executives in the "old Qantas", how many were left 5 years later. 3...
SQ has a very different management structure, and they would impose their own systems. I think you would find that there would be a level of management above which few OZ people would gravitate. I have seen this with other Asian carriers in Australia - line responsibility rests with local management, but the chiefs were always "imports". The consequences of that were (and still are) often frustrating, with decisions often referred back to the HQ with little or no respect shown for local input. SQ is not much different, with a very autocratic style (an that is really cultural). If SQ takes a substantial position in AN, they will want to control the input and outcomes, and I think that will be inconsistent with how AN wants to operate itself.
Product:SQ has an excellent product reputation - but not in a domestic environment. The perception comes from use of the "Singapore girl" profile, additional cabin crew (as a result of low wages, this is possible), but the reality is still (on their International service) cramped Y class cabins, as a result of decreasing seat pitch, increasing capacity (and revenue). But how will those elements work in Australia. First of all, EEO will very quickly put to bed the discriminatory employment practice (for those gay members who work for AN, there would be a very tacit barrier in place under SQ management), with a 93% female, age, height, and other conformitant requirements. Sorry, but SQ knows no other way.
Wages would be depressed for the Australian workforce, and productivity would be benchmarked against SQ's own operations. Why?.. Because SQ operates that way, and they have little experience of either domestic operations, or adding value to other operating cultures. And to those who argue that SQ would somehow "leave AN alone" ..... if you have a poorly performing asset (investment), without applying rigorous changes to each of the elements, product, management, operations, then what is the use of investing in the first place?
Later this year, VS will undergo an "audit" of the SQ involvement. Already we are seeing VS going from a "leisure" airline to chasing business on some of BA's prime routes. I sincerely doubt that VS is doing this just because they want to. That is an example of the SQ "investment" - there is no free ride for the hell of it!!
Last but not least, there has been some comment about the Sydney Morning Herald article. Hardly the Australian Financial revue. A word of caution. Analysts vary greatly in their interpretation of the available data. Salomons are not in the business to work with a client in capital options and at the same time be negative about that client to a daily newspaper. Anecdotal evidence indicates that AN's loads have not softened, and claims that the ANZ/AN position is much worse than reported, flys against the mandatory reporting requirements of both the NZ and Australian stiock exchanges.
One thing through the SMH article - notice the word "may" all through it. That is a "guess" word.
Toomey and ANZ are playing it very close to the chest. ANZ/AN will bleed for another 18 months, but you cannot cure 5-7 years of neglect in six months. ANZ are frightened of "co-ownership" of AN - they had their hands burnt with News Corp and were unable to put in place their own strategy (remember one of the most respected Airline managers in Eddington wa actually on New's payroll) - so they will look closely at other options also.
I think the true position is somewhere between the last SE report, and the "doomsday" article. Give Toomey time to settle in his management and come to grips to resolve each of the structural problems (like what is the use of having a new fleet if your engineering process is faulty). The last thing AN needs right now is another "new owner".
Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2538 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 922 times:
I must say, you have hit the hammer on the nail, and alot of people are loosing respect for you.
Now i must say, Somebody said AirNZ has a crap fleet, Sorry but AirNZ donot need a New fleet. Even AN donot need a new fleet. It is fine as it is. Even though there are problems, they are exaggerated by the Media alot. They do it just to get a story!! These things happen all the time. Some airlines do fly without there slides armed. That is worse!!
Atleast AN has the balls to say that they did!!
Well Said Guys... But i do think that If AirNZ allow sq TO BUY some of AN it would relieve pressure of AirNZ immensly!!
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 919 times:
maybe you would like to read the recent thread where QF has formally approached the NZ board to buy SQ's and Brierley's shares and SQ has stated an interest in 100% of AN. I think this changes the equation dramatically. I, for one want to see AN prosper and SQ is the best vehicle for that and I hope Toomey moves back to MEL to CEO AN.
Can't see why you are so negative about SQ getting control of AN. NZ can't handle it and seem to be looking for a way out. It is common knowledge SQ never wanted NZ-they want AN and access to the lucrative Aussie domestic sector. And,yes it is still very lucrative.
If this all goes thru, I wonder where it will leave DJ? I would imagine they would(1) die (2) link with AN-SQ or (3) grow and develop their network to include trans-Tasman and NZ domestic.
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 914 times:
Have a look at my response on the other thread. If QF purchase SQ's share, there is no material benefit to ANZ (SQ end up with the profit if any) and ANZ take a massive loss on the sale of AN, effectively devaluing ANZ shares further. That will be a major call for the Board of ANZ.
Heavens, in the last 6 months QF have "talked" to Thai, Malaysian, PIA, Air India and several others. All reported to the various stock exchanges and very little has come of it.
Apply some rationale to this. This is a very neat feint, targeted just at the right time. Make things even more difficult for the opposition when they are at their weakness. Nothing like spreading the odd rumour or two.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 904 times:
this is much more than a rumor and it gives AirNZ the easy way out. SQ want AN and not NZ,so it suits them perfectly. QF want less competition on the Trans-Tasman market and don't really want to be a player in the NZ domestic market. They could form 2 highly profitable sectors in one hit.
Obviously,and wisely, QF would be wary of a domestic rival controlled by their biggest foreign competitor SQ. But if this scenario eventuates, and I agree, there are many ifs, it would probably spell the end for DJ and QF/AN would basically be back to the gool old days of having the Australian domestic scene to themselves.
Ax to the other airlines QF have spoken to, I believe a deal with MH was nearly done but the others were not all that close. I still wouldn't completely write-off the chances of QF having a stake in MH or TG in the future, but I regard this proposition as the most likely to succeed. It is more than a tactical ploy.
Would be hard to see Toomey staying at NZ if this all panned out. Maybe a future as CEO of AN based in MEL would be more to his liking with the backing of the richest airline in the world.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 898 times:
I regard Geoff Thomas as the best Australian Aviation journalist and from what I have read in the AFR,I would have no problems comparing the SMH to it.
I think you have analysed a proposed SQ buyout of AN in a very negative way and I am sure the management at SQ would do a terrific job at AN and your gay worker claims are way off beam in my opinion. Sure SQ ain't perfect but the current AN-NZ situation is almost unworkable in the long-term,let alone the short-term and I am sure NZ shareholders would look very closely at a buyout deal by QF. In fact it could be their salvation. Their performance in the past year could only be described as atrocious.
Give me a better international Y-class product than SQ's?
Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 890 times:
As a poster on PPrune wrote:
Why all the concern about an SQ takeover of Ansett.
Is'nt that why we have the
Federal Government and Industrial Relations Commissions etc, to protect and nuture the welfare and working conditions of Australian workers which are ensconced in their EBAs and employment contracts.
Just how could SQ bypass all that 'protection'!!!!!!!!!!!
Docpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1955 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 885 times:
Singapore is Australia's 5th largest source of tourists, which is huge for a tiny country.
Europe accounts for nearly a quarter of Aussie tourist arrivals. This is what would benefit AN most (and SQ of course) if they tie up with SQ.
As it is, most of SQ's flights to Europe are code-shared with AN which means AN is feeding SQ with its passengers, and SQ is feeding AN domestic with their passengers as well.
On a Thursday morning flight I took to MEL a month ago, (you basically leave SIN at 9.30am and reach MEL at 7pm in time to check in the hotel and waste one night of accomodation), it wasn't school hols in EUrope, SIN or Australia and the timing of the flight sucked, the 747-400 was FULL. ANd according to their staff, all their morning flights to MEL are full. Of course, most passengers were not from Singapore ( I think Singaporeans rarely make up more than 15% of any randomly chosen SQ flight) but from Europe.
QantasAirways From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1273 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 877 times:
Well said Airnewzealand,
I think that ANZ and AN's fleets are fine!
Also now that your predictions (Go air canada) are coming true (read the other post saying that SQ is in talks to sell its stake of ANZ to QF, and that SQ will buy AN off AnZ) what do you think will happen?
I will be glad to see ANZ partially owned by QF and I hope Ansett shapes up soon