Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1633 times:
I am back.
Politics is surely playing here. Anyone in OZ and NZ care to inform us about the political state there? Is there an election? Anyway, this Shipley woman's my cup of tea...and I thought she was against the idea being the "National Party". Oh well...
NZ opposition backs SIA proposal
By Rebecca Lee
Jenny Shipley, New Zealand Prime Minister
SINGAPORE Airlines' (SIA's) bid for a higher stake in Air New Zealand (Air NZ) has won backing from Kiwi opposition party leader Jenny Shipley.
She called for the government to lift the 25 per cent cap on foreign airline investment in Air NZ 'so the airline can decide on its future ownership'.
Her National Party 'strongly supports the Air NZ board's right to decide what is in the best interests of the company', she said in a statement this week.
She said her party believes that an increase in SIA's stake, rather than Qantas', is more likely to retain strong competition in the domestic market and provide more opportunity for international tourist to access New Zealand.
SIA's proposal to raise its stake in Air NZ from 25 per cent to as much as 49 per cent has the backing of Air NZ's board, but needs the government's approval.
Yesterday, Air NZ's board reaffirmed its support for SIA's bid by passing a resolution 'to put to rest any suggestion that there are divisions of opinion over the proposal among the directors and management of the company', Reuters quoted acting chairman Jim Farmer to have said.
But rival Qantas wants to buy SIA's stake in Air NZ and has offered to sell Ansett, Air NZ's wholly-owned Australian domestic carrier, to SIA in return.
Its proposal has the backing of the Australian government, which has asked the Kiwi government to 'fully develop' it.
The two countries have formed a joint officials' working party and appointed lead negotiator Rob Cameron from investment bank Cameron and Co to explore the options.
Yesterday, New Zealand government spokesman Patricia Herbert told The Straits Times the working party is still being set up and members of the party have not been finalised.
But she said that Mr Cameron will deliver his report to a committee of six New Zealand government ministers 'towards the end of this month'.
Meanwhile, the Kiwi opposition party's transport spokesman, Ms Belinda Vernon, criticised Finance Minister Michael Cullen for releasing 'confidential information about Air NZ'.
She said Dr Cullen's comments that the carrier wanted to remove its 'A' and 'B' share structure were 'inappropriate and out of order' as the information was not public.
But Dr Cullen's spokesman yesterday dismissed her comments as 'opposition politics'.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
The 2nd article is ver very interesting. Do comment on it please. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Air NZ board affirms Singapore support
09 August 2001
MELBOURNE (Reuters): The board of New Zealand flag carrier Air New Zealand Ltd yesterday reaffirmed its support for a plan for its 25 percent shareholder Singapore Airlines Ltd to lift its stake to 49 percent.
"The resolution was passed to put to rest any suggestion that there are divisions of opinion over the proposal among the directors and management of the company," acting chairman Jim Farmer said in a statement issued by its Melbourne office.
Air NZ has put a proposal to the New Zealand Government to allow SIA to lift its holding from the current regulated limit of 25 percent to 49 percent. This would allow the Singaporean airline to give Air NZ an injection of capital to help fund a fleet renewal worth billions of dollars.
Air NZ owns Ansett Australia, the second largest carrier in Australia after Qantas Airways Ltd, which has proposed its own recapitalisation and ownership plan for Air NZ.
Qantas has proposed buying a 25 percent stake in Air New Zealand and selling struggling Ansett to SIA.
The New Zealand Government, which has said it would be reluctant to raise the ownership cap, has assured Air NZ it would make a decision on the issue by the end of August.
Air New Zealand's resident-only A shares closed steady at $1.10, while its unrestricted B shares added 3c to $1.36 in a just firmer overall market.
Don't Cry for Air New Zealand
Keith Rankin, 8 August 2001
To understand what is the preferred future for Air New Zealand, we need to think about the nature of the international airline industry and the nature of the home region from which it operates and within which it flies "domestic" services. To understand what is the probable future for Air New Zealand, we must consider the interaction of unenlightened self-interest and myopia that characterises much of what really happens in the real world.
Air New Zealand (ie Air New Zealand - Ansett) is an Australasian airline, and is a member of a global alliance. It is a good airline with the potential to be much better, and to contribute much to the economic wellbeing of both New Zealand and Australia. Air New Zealand has found its most appropriate niche in global aviation. Its position creates balance and healthy rivalry within Australasia and for travel to and from Australasia. The New Zealand and Australian governments should be doing what they can, short of becoming shareholders, to maintain the present balance.
Unfortunately, both governments have other agendas.
The real problem is that most of us - including the Lab-Al government in New Zealand - do not understand the nature of the Australasian region. The even bigger problem is that Australians see New Zealand as a missing appendage of theirs, much as the Argentines see Las Malvinas (the Falkland Islands). [Indeed ex Aussie PM Paul Keating, at last week's Catching the Knowledge Wage conference, certainly seemed to understand closer relations between New Zealand and Australia as meaning New Zealand attaching itself to Australia.]
For some reason that is not clear to me, Australia seems to be able to exert quite a lot of leverage over our government. (We only have to think about the way in which new New Zealand expatriates now have the status of guest workers in Australia. We failed to negotiate any royalties for the costs of the education of those New Zealanders whose efforts create much revenue for the Australian Treasury.)
New Zealand is not a province of Australia, regardless of what John Howard or Paul Keating or Kim Beazley thinks; or how Helen Clark behaves. New Zealand and Australia are separate (but neighbouring) provinces of something bigger; provinces of some inchoate commonwealth which may be the whole world, or may be something less than the whole world.
We can use Southland as a metaphor for New Zealand and Otago as a metaphor for Australia. (We will ignore the fact that "Australia" is Latin for "Southland"!)
Southland and Otago are both rivals and collaborators. Together they form the Highlanders, much as Australia and New Zealand once formed the Anzacs. Southland, though, is always conscious of its larger neighbour. Southlanders are aware that Aucklanders don't really distinguish between Southland and Otago.
The government of Southland did on one occasion become insolvent, forcing Southland to become, for a few years, a part of Otago. (Provincial governments were abolished in 1876.) New Zealand may yet be forced, under comparable circumstances, to become a bit of Australia, another Tasmania. In the meantime New Zealand, like Australia, is an independent province.
Because of their physical closeness and cultural similarities, it would be natural for a Southland transport company to operate in Otago, and vice versa. Maybe, on account of parochial jealousy, the people of Dunedin would prefer not to be reminded that one of the main companies they buy services from has a head office in Invercargill. So the Southland company might trade under a different name in Otago. Even then the Dunedin establishment might place barriers in the way of the Southland company - eg by creating a phony safety scare during the busiest week of the year - in order to protect the true blue Dunedin company from the competition of its upstart Invercargill- based rival.
On account of situations arising from the non-level playing field, the Southland based (and proud of it) company needs to capitalise by raising equity from outside the region; from the "north". What should the city fathers of Invercargill do?
We would expect that the leading interests of Dunedin would try to persuade their counterparts in Invercargill that outside finance would mean outside control, and that the southern region as a whole would have its economic sovereignty compromised. The Dunedin-based company might even offer to buy into the Southland company, to help save its rival from the dastardly northerners.
We, the bemused consumers of the media, would of course understand that these Dunedin interests were not really speaking on behalf of the people of Southland. We would hope that the Southland powers-that-be would be able to see that the Otago interests were speaking with forked tongues; that they were really most interested in eliminating their successful though undercapitalised rival.
But no. The Southland big-wigs prove too susceptible to Dunedin flattery, and to a bit of whining and wining-and-dining. So the Southland company gets kneecapped, and is forced to reject its preferred northern partner and to accept the overtures of its Dunedin rival, and to therefore become nothing more than the Southland appendage of the well-connected Dunedin firm.
The corollary is that the Southland firm's Otago operations are sold in full to the northern interest that might have been able to recapitalise the Southland firm. After a few years this northern company (and now the only serious rival in Otago of the long-established Dunedin firm) agrees to extend its operations to Southland.
Petty parochial politics will have destroyed an excellent southern company and created a much greater northern interest in the southern transport industry than would have been the case if the Southland company had just been allowed to run a good business that was good for the south.
In other words, if the New Zealand government does what I think it's going to do - in five years time there will be two airlines flying the trunk routes within New Zealand. One will be the Australian controlled Qantas New Zealand (ie the remnants of Air New Zealand) and the other will be a new Ansett New Zealand, this time an airline 100% owned by the people of Singapore.
Jet_guy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 231 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1422 times:
What a weird article Singapore_Air!
He seems to be all over the show!
Anyway I think he means a Qantas NZ, the remains of the former Qantas NZ if that makes any sense
Ansett New Zealand 100% owned by the people of Singapore(?) thats just confusing, i might email him, and see what he is on (about)
He lost me when he started talking about Otago, and Southland..........
The election is not until next year, but the government is trying to make everyone happy, which cannot be done. They delay all their decisions. It like a school kid making excuses for not doing the homework "the dog ate it miss" Also they want to protect Air New Zealand.
Big businesses do not support the current government so maybe they want to make a good decision to win them back, but i dont think that will happen!
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
I don't know who Keith Rankin is- I assume he is a kiwi political commentator,however what he says is crystal clear to me. He believes the NZ and Aust. Gov'ts will support the QF scenario,so we will end up with QF/NZ v SQ/AN. He sees QF and SQ dominating these unions.
There will be a federal election in Australia before year's end-most likely Nov/Dec, so it is very political on our side of the Tasman. A robust and successful QF and AN is the best outcome for the Australian Gov't and they believe(in their debatable wisdom) that this is best achieved by supporting the QF plan.
One thing is for sure- if the QF plan succeeeds,SQ will have to be offered some "privileges" to be persuaded to sell their AirNZ stake to QF and take on full control of a debt-ridden AN.
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
Yes, poor Australia AND New Zealand, seems to me, if the QF plan wins the day. Seems to me it'll be mighty anti-competitive, anti-consumer. Interesting that SQ's in the role of defender of the Australasian air-travel consumer's rights a bit, least that's what it looks like anyway.
Too bad it didn't pan out like in Canada, where okay the flag carrier ended up devouring the rival --which had earlier devoured still smaller rivals-- but now which is really being given a run for its money in the domestic market by a couple of popular and apparently really well-run discount carriers.
Ansett needs to turn into a something like a C3 or at least a WestJet, and seems to me it ain't gonna do it if QF gets AN.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
I think Keith Rankin must be dreaming if he thinks SQ will ever operate Ansett NZ or any other domestic airline in NZ in competition to Air NZ. If the NZ Gov't go with QF, they will probably have to accept a virtual monopoly in NZ domestic and trans-Tasman aviation.
Dale, I think you're probably right in that the NZ Gov't probably prefer the QF proposal but I think they're probably recognising that short of nationalising Air NZ (not a particularly good option if you ever want to get foreign investment in the country again) they cannot force SQ to divest their NZ shares.
Now depending on how desperate QF is, you could see SQ get an offer too good to refuse but since they hold the whip hand, SQ would probably want some huge concessions such as "NZD4 per NZ share and we'll take AN off your hands for nothing." This would be a great deal for SQ but QF would be looking at having to stump up over $1.5bn to recapitalise NZ so it's hard to see how it could possibly pass any investment hurdle rate that QF would have for its investments.
This leads us to a pragmatic solution which all politicians look for. Desperate for an out but also having been seen as having "a win" I would suspect that the NZ Gov't will recognise that they have to deal with SQ and will say to them they can't have 49% of NZ but 35-40% may be able to be accommodated. Realistically this isn't a great solution for anyone in that NZ probably don't get all the cash they need, SQ don't get the control they desire and QF get nothing but for the government it means they can be seen as "keeping a NZ company in NZ hands" even though this is already a fiction and they've put off the really hard decision to another day and as we know that is what every politician desires to do.
As Sir Humphrey said, "There are many many things which must be done but nothing must be done for the first time."
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
I hope something like that happens, seems to me it'd be a pretty dreary scene if QF gobbled basically most of the competition up, and in both countries. No matter how good an airline they may be from a service standpoint.
But if that's what does happen SQ of course is gonna have to get enough of a chunk to make saving Ansett worth its while, so major league consulting needed with them before the Beehive guys would decide on a percentage number.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Thanks for your comments. It is now clear. Otago and Southland! I live in the UK, no wonder I couldn't understsand what he was on about.
Anyway the article, although the last sentence is wrong, is very interesting and good.
I'll admit it is unlikely that SIA will get 49%. I'm going to be a bit more optimistic and put a limit on 45%, considering the NZ Govt's comments so far. However, I doubt that SIA are going to exit ANZ. Cheong said something and Oh yes!. Hold on while I hopefully try and find the quote...
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1376 times:
Qantas steps up bid for rival
Sunday Business; Aug 5, 2001
BY BARBARA DRURY IN SYDNEY
blah blah blah...
"Under the Qantas plan, Singapore Airlines would then buy Ansett, Australia's second-largest airline, from Air NZ. Anderson said he welcomed direct investment by Singapore in Ansett.
For its part, Singapore is still refusing to sell its Air NZ stake. Its chief executive, Dr Cheong Choong Kong said last week: "Why would we, after selling our stake in Air New Zealand, pour hundreds of millions of dollars into an emasculated Ansett that would be severely weakened by its separation from Air New Zealand?" Singapore Airlines, with the support of the Air NZ board, has been lobbying the New Zealand government to allow it to raise its stake in Air NZ to 49%. This would allow the loss-making Air NZ to fund a A$4bn (GBP1.5bn) upgrade of the ageing Ansett fleet."
There you go. By his tone I gather he was irritated. Oh dear An irritated Cheong! Anyway, I think that quite dispels any thoughts of SIA selling 25% of ANZ...
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
Which is what I have been saying for nearly three months!!
Word has it that the NZ/Aust Govt working party has asked the airlines for a split share proposal - ie a max of 33%-35% of ANZ and a similar amount for AN.
Seems this goes some way to placating a perception of control over ANZ who control AN under the SQ proposal.
I think the ANZ board are not impressed with this scenario - it makes it necessary to raise a rights issue for both airlines to gain the capital (something which ANZ does not have to tip into AN anyway.)
All I can say is that the lawyers and financial consultants are doing very nocely out of this thanks very much!!
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
Advantage Qantas in this long soap opear.
i think the threats by QANTAS to get BA to increase its stake to 49% as sent the Austrialian Government into action.Nothing more polictically worse then having QANTAS merging with the poms as we are known and having the singapore government own ansett and air new zealand.
The New Zealand governemtn seems to have figured that sia increasing its stake wont be enough to finance fleet renewal unless SIA increased influence and that selling ansett to SIA without securing longterm finance for Air New Zealand will leave it an second rate carrier.
Qantas are less likely to influence ANZ in the way that sia would seek because they are desperate to conclude this deal.they can back the renewal program and have backing from BA who will love to see air new zealand in one world.
Offering anz directors places on qantas board is a swerd idea, in fact the more this goes on you see QANTAS having a plan and SIA being a bit flustered.
i dont think SIA really appericated what they were lettting themselves in for, i dont think they thought helen clark could be so slow.
competition is worse with a sia/anz/ansett as sia also have an interest in virgin blue and talk of a tie up would really grate QANTAS, left to sell a bigger stake to BA.
Politics will win the day and expect a SIA/Ansett and and Qantas/ANZ, which is the best for ansett, the best for air new zealand, the best for competition and the best for the australian and new zealand passegeners would should be placed first.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Jetkid From New Zealand, joined Jun 2001, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Go Canada! how on earth can you say a combined QF/NZ is good for New Zealand consumers, you must be joking, I think if you asked people who live in New Zealand if they thought that was a good idea 8/10 would say no way!
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
A bit off topic,
I read some comments by Gary Toomey at a business seminar in BNE yesterday. He hopes to have AN International flying to LHR within 2 years via BKK. I imagine this is to appease SQ and seems to me that it could be a signal that TG will leave STAR in the near future. How could TG tolerate this situation as a member of STAR?
He also stated that AN International aims to be flying to the US West Coast by late 2002(was going to be this year). If this is to be the case and NZ/AN/SQ remains intact,I see big problems for QF on their Pacific routes. Basically, there will be 4 STAR airlines(NZ,AN,UA,AC) flying Trans-Pacific against QF. This seems remarkably unbalanced to me and a situation that QF would not envy,as I think it is their highest yielding market and they wouldn't want to lose market share.
Just some observations.... all comments welcome.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
Then why don't American fly transpacific? and whatever other airline that lives in the Americas and is in the oneworld group. Not unbalanced, just slightly tipped until oneworld realises something.
Thai? Oh dear. What about HKG?! I thought they were going through HKG! Hmm. Interesting. I'd rather a HKG route.
Anyway, Australia has upsetted Gary Toomey, and he has come back bigger, badder and is about to punch them.
WRAP: Air NZ Threatens To Cut Ops If SIA Bid Blocked
By Iain McDonald
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Air New Zealand Ltd. (A.AIZ) Friday threatened to cut regional services in Australia if New Zealand and Australian governments blocked Singapore Airlines (Singapore: SIAL.SI - news) Ltd.'s (P.SAL) bid to lift its stake in New Zealand's national carrier.
Air New Zealand badly needs a capital injection, particularly for its Ansett Australia unit, but is having difficulty convincing governments on either side of the Tasman to approve Singapore Airline's lifeline.
"The first area we would start looking at is scaling back our regional operations in Australia as a direct consequence of what the Australian government has said," Toomey told reporters.
The threat is a direct challenge to Australian Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, who earlier this month backed Qantas Airways Ltd.'s (A.QAN) rival proposal to gain a stake in Air New Zealand while Air New Zealand would sell Ansett to Singapore Airlines.
Anderson leads junior government coalition partner the National Party, which already faces a backlash at a general election later this year from its mostly rural and regional support base over declining services.
Air New Zealand's board this week unanimously supported Singapore Airlines as its preferred partner.
In the first instance, the New Zealand government has to approve Singapore Airline's bid to lift its stake above 25% as such a move is against New Zealand's foreign investment rules.
But the Australian government will also have to approve the deal as Air New Zealand owns Ansett, Australia's second-largest domestic airline.
"The best competitive arrangements, the best balance, would be a partnership between Qantas and Air New Zealand on the one hand and Singapore (Airlines) and Ansett on the other," Anderson said last week.
Air New Zealand Frustrated With Govt Block
In a sign of Air New Zealand's frustration, Toomey said that while the Qantas proposal is one that could be looked at, "it isn't available to us at the moment."
Singapore Airlines reiterated at Air New Zealand's board meeting that it isn't prepared to sell its stake in Air New Zealand to Qantas or to buy Ansett, he said. (I thought the board meeting is late August. Oh well)
"So at this stage, it isn't on the table for us to look at, despite what the Australian government may or may not have said," Toomey added.
Asked how Air New Zealand would respond if the New Zealand government blocks Singapore Airlines' bid, Toomey said the New Zealand carrier can't afford to maintain the status quo.
"We can't find ourselves in a position where Air New Zealand can't follow a course of action in that we have a pressing need to invest heavily into Ansett," he said.
Anderson's comments last week "haven't been helpful," Toomey said.
But a spokesman for John Anderson told Dow Jones Newswires that Air New Zealand's quarrel isn't with Australia but with the New Zealand government which is considering the issue. (Um...)
"The government is pursuing Australia's national interest, which means a strong Ansett and a strong Qantas at the end of this process," he added.
would face a bill of about NZ$470 million ($200 million) to increase its stake in Air New Zealand to 49 percent, an airline analyst said on Friday.
However, with a government decision on the proposal due at the end of the month, industry analysts believe the New Zealand government is unlikely to allow Singapore Air (SIA) to move to its desired level.
The SIA/Air NZ proposal includes plans for SIA to increase its current 25 percent holding to 49 percent through a placement of shares at NZ$1.31, a breakdown of the current A and B share structure and a removal of the 49 percent cap on foreign shareholder ownership.
Credit Suisse First Boston analyst Murray Brown estimated SIA would have to be issued about 360 million shares worth about NZ$470 million to increase its stake to 49 percent.
However, the New Zealand government, which holds a golden share in Air NZ to protect international landing rights, has expressed its reluctance to lift shareholding restrictions.
"NZ ministers have repeatedly indicated that it will be difficult for the government to decide in favour of SIA increasing its stake above its current 25 percent level, particularly to 49 percent," Brown said in a research note.
The proposal, which is also subject to shareholder approval, is preferred by the Air NZ board over a rival proposal from Qantas Airways Ltd to take a stake in the NZ carrier.
STATUS QUO THREATENS VIABILITY
Brown warned Air NZ would struggle if SIA was unable to increase its stake, and could face selling Ansett Australia or a range of other assets including its engineering operations, aircraft and terminals.
"The status quo... is arguably the worst outcome for (Air NZ) shareholders and potentially threatens the viability of the company," he said.
Timothy Ross, aviation analyst at UBS Warburg in Auckland, said SIA could easily fund its Air NZ proposal.
"They've got S$450 million (US$255 million) in net cash on their balance sheet, so it's really just a matter of writing a cheque out," he said.
But Ross did not expect SIA would be allowed to take 49 percent, although it could be allowed to get another 10 percent.
NZ government policy limits single airline ownership in Air NZ to 25 percent and total airline interests to 35 percent.
Either way, analysts said SIA would have to underwrite a rights issue -- vital to fund a fleet renewal and help absorb losses from Air NZ's troubled Ansett Australia subsidiary -- likely to be at a significant discount to current prices.
Air NZ's unrestricted B shares closed on Friday down three cents at NZ$1.32 while the airline's New Zealand resident-only A shares closed flat at NZ$1.13.
Brierley Investments , now Singapore-based, owns 30 percent of Air NZ in A shares through a NZ-resident structure established when it moved from NZ last year.
Air NZ would not comment on the planned capital raising.
"We wouldn't even be starting to talk numbers until we get to the stage where we know what the outcome of the government's decision over the proposal is. Until that happens, everything is very hypothetical," Air NZ spokesman David Beatson said.
But Air NZ chief executive Gary Toomey, during a visit to Australia, hinted to reporters that SIA's total bill to help recapitalise Air NZ might top A$1 billion.
And he warned Air NZ would look at cutting Ansett's regional services if SIA was unable to increase its stake.
'Longreach' From Australia, joined Jul 2001, 505 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Just a comment about Gary Toomey threatening the Government of Australia by scaling back Ansett's network:
New Zealand and Australia have so many close ties its not funny, such as the kiwis used to be able to claim our dole, which has been scrapped, and also their reliance on our air force.
I strongly doubt the NZ government would approve of his threats to their closest neighbour, as Air New Zealand is a national carrier (or claims to be), and doing such actions would stuff up the relationship.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1316 times:
An anz/ansett/SIA would lead to a giant in the region.
Qantas/ANZ and ansett/SIA will lead to healthy competiton for all in austrialia and new zealand.
Dalecary's comments are very interesting and are likely to occur.4 carriers, all linked flying on Qantas's main routes is a situation which QANTAS would not tolerate.
The austrialian government isnt going to accept this and the nz government has now realised that qantas owing 25% of anz is better than SIA owing 49%.
Both governments are moving to a closer postition as time wears on.
If the anz/ansett/sia deal went then it is a threat to competition and would lead to qantas selling a bigger stake to british airways, something which BA would love to do but doesnt dare at the moment.
because the nz government has de facto final say on anz it isnt going to accept it being swallowed by no-one.
because the austrialian government has vested interests it wont let the deal pass unless qantas gets something.
Also the figures stated about how much a stake would cost sia wont be enough to carry out wholesale fleet renewal unless sia gets a bigger say in anz, something which the nz government would never let happen.
Jetkid-whats better for nz consumers, to be part of an anti-competitive global giant with little else choice and to have an national airline de facto controlled by the country of singapore or an air new zealand backed by qantas but remaining more independent than it would under sia?
anz dont want to do a new share issue because there shares arent exactly at the top of investors lists.
the talk of ansett cut back is likely to occur any way because the figures given by sia increased stake wont be enough for fleet renewal and sia would only give further funds if it had further control, something which wont happen.
anz board can try as it might but it wont convince two governments, both near elections that an giant SIA would be good for new zealand and austrailia.
ps its nice to see everyone accepting that anz/ansett cant survive on their own, something which i was falmed for saying 4 months back.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
BruneiAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Geeez. Toomey must be getting desperate now.
Ansett should be trying to regain it's market share not give it away. This will also give QF the opportunity to come in and be the knight in shining armour and save the bush while ansett "deserts" them. I can't see reigional Australia liking the idea of Ansett using them as leverage over the Govt. for a New Zealand Airline (Yes i know QF an AN arree involved as well but do you really think that the press are going to report that bit, just look at the Easter holidays,)
And i dont think Helen Clarke and her counter parts across the tasman will like being held to ransom one bit. This could just turn around and slap them in the face.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
He is not bluffing BruneiAir, and maybe he is desperate. Maybe he does want to go to the ATM and "withdraw a billion bucks and go".
I think it is very sad though that Politics is being played here instead of harcore big business. There is more talk of Singapore Government controlled airlines and national symbolisym and political bureaucracy than the facts about the SIA deal and the advantages it brings to the ANZAN Group.
Cheong Choong Kong is not impressed. I would know. He delivered a speech in NY once talking about how Governments around the world are not open for foreign carriers to buy into them. He is not a happy bunny. Neither am I. If this drags on after August, I will not be happy and will be writing a letter to the NZ Govt, even though it will probably only reach the secretary of Helen Clark,.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
Singapore air its a shame that your favorite airline isnt going to get past the governments of new zealand and austrialia.
overall the advantages for the consumers of south pacific is having qantas/anz and sia/ansett.
Qantas have done very well, coming back from the dead over this deal, sIA double-crossed them, seeming to support the joint plan then back tracking so Qantas have threaterned the aus government and no matter what toomey says the threat to competition in the area and the chance of a ba-owned qantas and a smaller anz with sia dominance has done it in.
the people of austrialia arent exactly queing to fly with ansett after the easter chaos and with qantas/impluse and virgin blue i think the austrialian government knows tomey is bluffing because cutting back ansett will make it worse, it needs revenue, cutting off austrialia will simply play into qantas hands.
Toomney and sia must realise that they wont beat the force that has appeared.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Go Canada! (what's that name have to do with anything ) I'd be more inclined to believe your clarion-calls to action here, if they didn't come off as so strident. It's like maybe you got jailed for throwing gum on Singapore sidewalk sometime, and never got over it or something.
"QuantasAirways" at least is more even-keeled, his tone is just cheerleading pure 'n simple, even though there's apparently nothing more to it than that.
Anyway your maybe "fear of things Singaporean" aside, it does seem to me like the Australian and New Zealand air traveling public --and everybody indirectly affected by all the business spinoffs-- would be adversely affected if it were to become a Quantas uber alles for the whole continent. Might not even be too good for Quantas themselves either, heck look at what's happening to Air Canada these days, case in point.
So maybe a lot of folks, in both Australia and New Zealand, won't agree with your stumping, on this.
25 Singapore_Air: hehe Mark_D. Watch out for some hard core backlashes from your post! Naughty boy! Anyway, Go Air Canada, you may think that the region prefers a QF|NZ
26 Jet_guy: So true Singapore_Air, All the people who support QF/NZ have failed to mention how QF plan to buy the 25% off SQ who are not willing to sell it!!!!!,
27 'Longreach': If this is the case about SIA not selling, well then things will just return to how they are now. SIA having 25% of Anz which owns Ansett. The NZ Gov
28 BruneiAir: Have you guys noticed that we haven't heard dicky branson whinging over a combined SQ/AN/ANZ ? & Before someone says that it wont affect Virgin Blue,
29 Oz777: O)nce again we need to clear up a few "untruths", and regrettably there are several people in this forum, "strident" in their vernacular, but hardly r