Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ansett: Air NZ Stripped Assets  
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Tues "Herald Sun"

Ansett: Air NZ stripped assets
By Luke McIlveen
19mar02

ANSETT's administrators are considering legal action against former parent company Air New Zealand for allegedly stripping the Australian airline's assets, despite a $150 million payment that Air New Zealand believed would absolve it of any liability.

The second creditors report by administrators Andersen, released yesterday, said there was evidence Air New Zealand had engaged in "asset stripping" and the "inappropriate charging of fuel and other operating costs" prior to Ansett's collapse.
Air New Zealand has repeatedly denied the allegations and the New Zealand Government oversaw a one-off $150 million payment to Ansett to clear the parent company of future liability.

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has said the company had inherited a "lemon" that was bleeding funds before Air New Zealand became involved.

Administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda confirmed in their latest report that action might also be taken against the Ansett Group of Companies for granting handsome bonuses to some executives in August 2001, barely a month before the 66-year-old airline collapsed.

However, the report emphasised that any proposed legal action against Tesna, the consortium headed by businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, had virtually no chance of succeeding.

The administrators and trade unions had previously hinted at seeking compensation from Tesna for its 11th-hour withdrawal from the Ansett deal.

The administrators confirmed they would recommend that creditors enter into a Deed of Company Arrangement rather than place the failed airline into liquidation.

As such, they are hopeful of selling key Ansett assets -- including the domestic airport terminals at Sydney airports -- with a view to recovering maximum value.

As expected, unsecured creditors can expect nothing in the wake of the Tesna withdrawal. Mr Korda and Mr Mentha said they had hoped to return up to 5c in the dollar to holders of frequent flyer points, but the collapse of the Tesna deal made any return unlikely.

"If the sale did not complete, it was unlikely there would be enough funds to pay priority creditors in full and therefore no dividend would be available to other unsecured creditors," the report said.

The revamped Virgin Blue -- which last week received a $260 million injection from Patrick Corp -- has expressed interest in the terminals, along with the Government-owned Sydney Airports Corp.

The report revealed that Singapore Airlines had also entered the bidding for the terminals and other key Ansett assets.

The federal Government's decision to put Sydney Airport back on the market has put SACL in the frontrunning for the terminals because it would significantly increase the airport's value.

Tony Stuart, chief executive of SACL, last week confirmed he was interested in securing the terminals with a view to leasing them to a range of airlines.

An information memorandum will be issued to the interested parties this week, outlining the range of Ansett assets available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

"The report revealed that Singapore Airlines had also entered the bidding for the terminals and other key Ansett assets."

Hmm. Is Australia's most frequent visitor trying to cash in even more in the booming Aussie market? Hope so. What other "key assets" are there? IT solutions? Tug?

Anyway ANZ has denied that it has done such a thing and therefore all I can see is a war of words in court. Nothing more unless something else happens. Anyone agree?



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Guys,

I thought those allegations were investigated months ago and proven to be untrue?

Why are they dragging this up again?

Strange.

mb


User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Virgin Atlantic will start flying soon from London to Sydney and Brisbane.

Most likely via Hongkong.

SQ is holding 49% of the shares in Virgin Atlantic holding.

Virgin Blue stopped bidding for Ansett.

So it must be clear.

Richard goes down Under


User currently offlineDocpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Why on earth does SQ want to bid for Ansett's terminals an assets unless they want to start their own airline there, which is so unlikely!

User currently offlineF27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

These allegations were true especially when you have Air New Zealand managers standing right next door to you telling you all these things. 5 flights out of Melbourne were boooked fuel against the Ansett account as well as catering this was told to us on the night they said they cut the ties. Not to mention the raid on the ansett stores in LAX which was the disposal stores. then the sale three weeks before the dumping of three A320 aircraft to AWAS. I hope the adminastrators take Air New zealand to the wall and let them have a good tate of what 16,000 of us ansett Staff have had to go thru. still does not also stop us taking Air New Zealand to court as a class action also.

Long live Ansett Australia i also notice none of our Kiwi posters have placed any answers here e specially one.


The Ansett name will live in the form of Ansett aviation engineering services


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

well, whether these allegations are true or not, it is interesting to note that the administrators are anderson, is this the same anderson involved in enron?

its a shame ansett has died but i dont think bitterness will help.

its not fair on the staff or air new zealand to be dragged down because of managers mistakes, i fell the above post( from F27) is implying that they should suffer too. The fact remains that ansett wasnt that healthy before the anz takeover and i do not think putting more people out of work will solve anything.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Go Canada,

AN were making profits before NZ took over...

1998 - I believe it was something like $150 million profit.

1999 - similar figures as well.

Eddington was overruled on a 763 fleet upgrade (he wanted to get rid of the 762's).

The 763's might have helped them weather the storm of low airfares that VQ, DJ etc. started.



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to copy/paste my post of only a few weeks ago in a thread with the same sh*t, different name.

I've bolded some sections so the less perceptive among us can understand. As mx5_boy says, the allegations were investigated by the Administrator and found to be untrue!

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh god..

As I said in the PREVIOUS thread where you tried to ressurect this lie, Air NZ have denied this, and their denial has been confirmed by the Administrators (the first AND second lots)

Below is the official word on the matter. Let's hope this puts the vicious lie to rest once and for all.

25 September 2001

ANSETT ASSET STRIPPING DENIED BY AIR NZ: Air New Zealand Acting Chairman Dr Jim Farmer today refuted continuing Australian allegations that Air New Zealand had improperly removed cash and assets from Ansett Australia before calling in a Voluntary Administrator.

“We have investigated each and every allegation, and they are completely without foundation.

Why any thinking person would believe Air New Zealand would stoop to this sort of behaviour when at times during the past 12 months we have funded Ansett operating losses by as much as $A180 million is beyond my comprehension.

“Furthermore, the Administrator has confirmed to me that he has also been unable to find a shred of evidence of any of the alleged asset-stripping.

“For my part, I have told him that if any removal of Ansett’s assets or Ansett payment of Air New Zealand’s costs comes to light, Air New Zealand will naturally honour any legal obligation to make a compensating payment to Ansett”.


Dr Farmer said that allegations of cash and asset stripping at Ansett appear to be nothing more than a smear campaign.

Dr Farmer said he was reluctant to dignify false asset-striping claims with detailed denials, but would comment on the three most significant allegations by way of example.

ALLEGATION: Air New Zealand put $A200 million of its aviation fuel bills through Ansett’s accounts.

FACTS: The two airlines bought fuel on a competitive tender basis from oil companies at various airports, combining their purchasing power to get the best prices, but each airline had a separate account and oil companies billed the airlines separately based on aircraft registration numbers which identified the correct airline to be billed beyond doubt.


ALLEGATION: Air New Zealand grabbed Ansett jet engines and spares and flew them to New Zealand.

FACTS: Ansett leased a Canadian Boeing 767 which went to Air New Zealand’s Christchurch engineering depot to be prepared for Ansett, since Ansett’s engineering department was overloaded. The engines needed reconditioning. Air New Zealand replaced them with two fully reconditioned Air New Zealand engines to get the planes into the air, earning money for Ansett as quickly as possible. The original Canadian engines are being refurbished at Air Canada’s expense and will be swapped for the Air New Zealand replacement engines shortly. Two other Air New Zealand engines are currently at the Ansett facilities in Melbourne - one is used by Ansett engineering in the recalibration of their engine test cell, the other is held in reserve to provide support for Air New Zealand’s operations to Australia, or to assist any other operator needing support.

Arrangements to exchange engines and other rotable parts are usual - even among competing airlines - and were made in this instance to gain the best possible outcomes for both Air New Zealand and Ansett. Normal commercial terms applied to this exchange of services between the two legal entities.

ALLEGATION:
Air New Zealand improperly cleared out Ansett bank accounts in the last few weeks before a Voluntary Administrator was called in.

FACTS: Air New Zealand funded Ansett losses from the time it obtained a 100% shareholding in the company. The amounts advanced to Ansett by Air New Zealand fluctuated during the year as money was advanced to allow Ansett to make loan repayments and fund losses. Some repayments were made to Air New Zealand after Ansett refinanced unencumbered aircraft in its fleet. When Ansett went into voluntary administration on September 14 it still owed Air New Zealand more than $A80 million under the funding arrangements to cover its losses.

Dr Farmer said he understood there was considerable anger about the Ansett situation in Australia but urged an end to this smear campaign which had no factual basis.



-
User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Well, it looks like the Administrators have changed their mind...


M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

yes but i wouldnt trust anderson as far as i could trhwo them, as for ansett being profitable, well thats debatable as many had said that the rot started with previous owners.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Go Canada,

Yes, in a very real sense, that's true.

The OWNERS, not the management. Eddington tried desperately to correct the situation, he might well have succeeded had he got his desired 763's. He gave the 727's the chop pretty quickly and was doing the right things, but the NZ board didn't give him the opportunities to do what he saw fit.

A pity.



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Air NZ seeks to raise $200m
19 March 2002

Air New Zealand's small shareholders could be asked for another $36 million as part of a $200 million capital raising announced by the airline at the weekend, one industry analyst said yesterday.

The Government would have to foot the bill for the remaining $164 million in a significant negative development for the Air New Zealand, the analyst said.

Air New Zealand's chief executive Ralph Norris told an Australian television station that the state-owned carrier had enough money to operate for the next several months, but would raise new capital via a rights issue.

Air New Zealand was bailed out with $885 million of taxpayer money which bought an 82 per cent stake. The Government has pledged another $150 million which can be drawn on, preferably through a rights issue, before June 30, 2003.

"We're probably looking in the order of NZ$200 million," Mr Norris said.

"We've got a strategy that is going to be workable and one that is going to be attractive to the Government particularly to put up the extra $150 million, so I would like to see us within a period of four to five months being in a position to do that," Mr Norris said.

The analyst said the announcement indicated that Air New Zealand was still losing money and the situation was not sustainable.

Air New Zealand was being squeezed by increasing competition from Qantas, and Singapore Airlines pulling out of a lucrative revenue sharing agreement, he said.

Any rights issue will have a significant impact on small shareholders who bought into Air New Zealand in droves in September, after the share price collapsed, in the hope of making a big profits.

Air New Zealand could raise the money by issuing 1 billion new shares to existing shareholders at 20 cents each, at a ratio of one share for every four held.

Mum and dad shareholders would have the option of buying the shares, or have their investment diluted if they did not.

Former cornerstone shareholders Brierley Investments and Singapore Airlines were unlikely to take part, further diluting their holdings of 5.5 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively, the analyst said.

Another option would be for the Government to sell down part of its stake to another cornerstone shareholder to raise the money.

While that would solve a short term problem it would mean selling the airline at the lowest point of the industry cycle and minimise any upside on the Government's investment, the analyst said.

With at least two potential competing bids from Qantas and Virgin Blue for any stake in Air New Zealand, it would be strategically better for the Government to hold on to its shares and sell a non-controlling stake when the airline had recovered.




User currently offlineSixStarAnsett From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

I'm a bit tired of people saying "ansett was losing money before the NZ management" and the like- espically when our neighbour Helen throws stones at Ansett.

There are people to blame: NZ management for incompetence, and Richard Branson for his ridiculous fare war- how could a full service airline make money off $33 fares? Both elements shot AN out of the sky.

Ansett probably would've been around longer if NZ management and Richard Branson hadn't attacked it from the outside and inside.

SixStarAnsett


User currently offlineB727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2129 times:


The Coachman,

The B727's where on their way out well before Edington arrived. That is one reason for the choice of A320's, which were of almost identical capacity to the B722's (the other reason being, of course, that Sir Peter Ables decided one day that he liked them). You are correct though, he did want a quick rollover of the B762 fleet. The actual replacements were always a contentious issue, with options including:

- 9 B763's (one-for-one)
- 5 B763's and 8 A321's
- 14 A321's

There were many other variations of these themes as well.

The biggest killer for Rod was the NZ board knocking Ansett on the head from flying to West-coast USA (when NZ had only 50% shareholding in Ansett). This was at a time when QF and NZ were reportedly making in the region of $100M between them on the market, and corporate customers were screaming for Ansett to get on it. To add insult to injury, AN even had aircraft lined up from both SQ and possibly MH to help with the expansion, at very competitive prices.

This is one of the main reasons that Rod left Ansett. He is a highly intelligent man who understandably was 'bemused' by the lack of power that he was given to run an airline that he was both the CEO and a Chairperson of. To a degree, his feelings were shared sequentially over time throughout the organisation from the top down, slowly consuming all of the existing management.

Anyway I am getting a little off track now, you will have to wait until the book comes out for the rest of the story Big grin

B727-200.


User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

As I told before Virgin Atlantic will go Down Under.

The codeshare with Malaysian Airlines is nearly finished so the way is open for Virgin Atlantic to start flying into Sydney and Brisbane.

The will use there Virgin Blue network for flights within Australia.

Richard will learn Qantas a lesson.

Qantas is playing a dirty trick on the Australian Market and is putting his prices up.

There must be some new competition there.

RICHARD GO FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

AirNZ hasn't changed since 98, still loosing cash. Still using the same equipment (mostly anyway) and an extra $200m will go down again.

As far as I know they haven't come up with a huge restructuring plan (financial and operational)... Probably the $200m will just cover the financial restructuring fees... *joke*

I ain't buying any AirNZ shares until then !

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

anz is going to end up with qantas as a shareholder because it has more money than virgin blue.

Virgin is already down under woith virgin blue, the market couldnt cope with two full service and two low costs so why should it cope with two virgins and qantas?



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineB744 From New Zealand, joined Dec 1999, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Asset stripping again? Oh Jeeez here we go again....

Wirraway - I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by posting this here or what sort of response you are trying to illicit. But in the interests of balanced reporting, here's the response from AirNZ to the stock exchange.

Air New Zealand Limited (NS) Announcement
AIR
19/03/2002
GEN

REL: 1121 HRS Air New Zealand Limited (NS)

GEN: AIR: AIR NZ DENIES ASSET STRIPPING ANSETT

Air New Zealand will vigorously defend itself against any allegation that it stripped assets from Ansett Australia, says the Managing Director of Air New Zealand, Ralph Norris.

"We are disappointed to see the Ansett administrators reviving allegations of asset stripping and inappropriate charging after reaching agreement with us to settle all claims between Ansett and Air New Zealand," Mr Norris said.

"The allegations are nothing more than groundless rumours which were circulated when anger over the loss of Ansett was at its peak. We refuted them at the time, and continue to do so.

"Air New Zealand knows of no grounds for action against our company by the Ansett administrators, and will be asking them to provide us with their reasons for advising creditors that this matter justifies further
investigation.

"For the record, we repeat what we said about the allegations in September last year. It remains the position of Air New Zealand," Mr Norris said.

ALLEGATION: Air New Zealand put $A200 million of its aviation fuel bills through Ansett's accounts.

FACTS: The two airlines bought fuel on a competitive tender basis from oil companies at various airports, combining their purchasing power to get the best prices, but each airline had a separate account and oil companies billed the airlines separately based on aircraft registration numbers which identified the correct airline to be billed beyond doubt.

ALLEGATION: Air New Zealand grabbed Ansett jet engines and spares and flew them to New Zealand.

FACTS: Ansett leased a Canadian Boeing 767 which went to Air New Zealand's Christchurch engineering depot to be prepared for Ansett, since Ansett's engineering department was overloaded. The engines needed reconditioning. Air New Zealand replaced them with two fully reconditioned Air New Zealand engines to get the planes into the air, earning money for Ansett as quickly as possible. The original Canadian engines are being refurbished at Air Canada's expense and will be swapped for the Air New Zealand eplacement engines shortly. Two other Air New Zealand engines are currently at the Ansett facilities in Melbourne - one is used by Ansett engineering in the recalibration of their engine test cell, the other is held in reserve to provide support for Air New Zealand's operations to Australia, or to assist any other operator needing support.

Arrangements to exchange engines and other rotable parts are usual - even among competing airlines - and were made in this instance to gain the best possible outcomes for both Air New Zealand and Ansett. Normal commercial terms applied to this exchange of services between the two legal entities.

ALLEGATION: Air New Zealand improperly cleared out Ansett bank accounts in the last few weeks before a Voluntary Administrator was called in.

FACTS: Air New Zealand funded Ansett losses from the time it obtained a 100% shareholding in the company. The amounts advanced to Ansett by Air New Zealand fluctuated during the year as money was advanced to allow Ansett to make loan repayments and fund losses. Some repayments were made to Air New Zealand after Ansett refinanced unencumbered aircraft in its fleet. When Ansett went into voluntary administration on September 14 it still owed Air New Zealand more than $A80 million under the funding arrangements to cover its losses.

End CA:00076569 For:AIR Type:GEN Time:2002-03-19:11:21:43 Encrypt:Y





User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Shock horror! This topic graces this website again.

My understanding is that Air NZ directors had almost no direct operating influence over Ansett during the 50% ownership days. I got this from an interview with Dr Farmer a few months back (sorry, can't remember where).

Interestingly, an investigation will be opened by the NZ Stock Exchange into the ASIC for not obeying its own rules of fully disclosing information to shareholders. Plus, because Air NZ is a foreign listed company on the Australian sharemarket, it only has to comply with its home country's reporting and disclosure rules. The NZ Stock Exchange has investigated AND CLEARED Air NZ of any allegations relating to this matter. So any moves by the Australians are really just posturing and making alot of noise, probably for political reasons.

And why is no-one questioning the performance of the Administrators? They ran Ansett II for how many months, losing exactly how much money? $6 million a week in losses were what I heard (from Australian media) during the final weeks of operation in February. Were the administrators actually doing what they were employed to do? Hmmmm, questionable.

G'day F27! Good to see you back in action. And great to see you're as bitter and non-sensical as ever. Such a joy.



User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Hey Go Canada!
I reckon I could cope with two Virgins. Big grin

F27!
I've been suffering from insomnia lately, but now that you're back, I'm cured.
Thanks!!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

B727-200

Yes, I realise the B727's were going out before Rod came in, the last one left during his reign I think, sorry, I wasn't clear.

I can't wait for the book! I'm a historian, so maybe I'll be the one who writes it!



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineOz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2034 times:

A few comments folks just to clear the mud.
"AN was profitable before AirNZ purchased them."
Not quite correct. Apart from some very "cloudy" figures most of the profit was achieved through 'abnormals' - ie sale of assets etc. In fact Rod Eddington was a past master at doing this (look at the gearing ratio's he left behind at at Cathay). There is very little evidence that more than 8 city pairs were truely profitable. Rod wanted to sell the 762's and lease a new fleet (getting some cash back into the balance sheet), but most of the financiers were a bit wary of such a commitment because of the poor state of AN financials. It was almost impossible to establish just which part of AN was profitable, and aircraft leasing companies were looking for concrete evidence that the core airline operations were sound.

"AirNZ unprofitable". Again there was some padding of the balance sheets through asset sales, but for most of the 90's operating profits existed. Not great returns, but certainly profits.

"AirNZ 'raided' the Ansett store in LAX". Yes that was the real reason AN went down. They had a HUGE store in a city that they never flew to. I just wonder what was in it. Paper napkins. I do not think it was Airbus parts.

Those of us in the legal profession will still make some money out of Ansett. The two Ronnies (sorry Marks) have a little egg on their face. Even though they had creditor and Federal Court approval to incur the operating losses (and which were budgeted for), there is some school of legal thought that the failure of the Administrators to effectively allow all competitive bids until closure, rather than just accept one formal conditional bid to the exclusion of others, may raise an issue of liability on the part of Andersens. This is partly the reason why they have sought to reconvene the issue of AirNZ POSSIBLY using non-ethical behaviour to minimise AirNZ's potential liability.

The basis of that argument is that if AirNZ KNEW they had breached corporate law, and subsequently sought an agreement with Andersens by payment of the $150 million to stop any further action, then the original agreement is void. That way Andersens might be able to sue AirNZ, and minimise the potential for the two Marks to be sued by the creditors.

A couple of other comments about AirNZ. They have been very proactive in updating their own fleet, and there may be some capacity shift with the departure of the 744 and 763, with more suitably sized aircraft for their new route structure.

As to Virgin Atlantic flying to Sydney via HongKong. Excellent for Virgin domestic feed out of BNE ..... but most of the international feed is funnily enough out of NZ. Virgin needs the Star Alliance feed to combat QF, and for that needs SQ, UA and ANZ. Better not to piss AirNZ off just at the moment, because the Star Alliance wants a full service operator in Australia for the high yield traffic.

That is where SQ is still in the picture. They purchase a "Star Alliance" terminal in Sydney, operate some ground handling arrangements (most still use QF at the moment) and provide the 'Star' infrastructure for the inbound/outbound feed. Mention has been made of SQ operating their own airline domestically. Well the AN AOC is still for sale, and CNS, BNE, SYD, MEL and PER would be an OK domestic arrangement for a two class full service operation a bit down the track.

........Just wait and see.

OZ777


User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2019 times:

OZ777 wrote "Mention has been made of SQ operating their own airline domestically. Well the AN AOC is still for sale, and CNS, BNE, SYD, MEL and PER would be an OK domestic arrangement for a two class full service operation a bit down the track."

Do SQ run a boutique full-service domestic airline
by themselves or a tie up with DJ?

Wirraway



User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

"AirNZ unprofitable". Again there was some padding of the balance sheets through asset sales, but for most of the 90's operating profits existed. Not great returns, but certainly profits."

AirNZ profitable ? YES.
AirNZ had a positive cashflow ? NO (Ansett purchase made this worse).

If you're profitable but loosing cash, you're still in dire straits. Profits are just paper profits until you turn it into cash... something that AirNZ isn't able to do since 96.

So feel free to invest in AirNZ's new shares, but unless they do a complete restructuring, expect another share rights issue (where you'll have to put more money in to prevent dilution).

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
25 Jetkid : From this mornings New Zealand Herald. Asset-stripping claims vanish in hasty retreat 21.03.2002 By JIM EAGLES business editor The Australian assault
26 Post contains images Singapore_Air : HAHA LOL!
27 AJ : Just a view on some critisism aimed at Wirraway about posting this article by B744: "Wirraway - I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by posting thi
28 F27 : It is fine for the pair of you Aerokiwi and NZ767 to sling the mud but how would you feel if you had 29 years and nearly half a million dollars pulled
29 Skystar : I'd just like to correct something. The $33 fares, first introduced SYD-BNE were actually introduced by Impulse. The $66 fares were also first introdu
30 Post contains images VapourTrails : Wirraway, I've always appreciated your posting of news articles related to the aviation industry on various forums without prejudice....keep it up! Ye
31 NZ767 : Oh go to Hell F27. Anyone would think you're the only poor bugger that was affected by all this.......you go on and on and on....... You don't see the
32 BNE : Skystar, Virgin Blue did launch $48.00 for 48hours on the Brisbane to Sydney routes, but Impulse was the one who set the cheap fares at $33.00 one way
33 B744 : My reasons for the comments above are three-fold: 1. The topic has been discussed to death already over the past few months, with always the same resu
34 Post contains images NZ767 : Yep, Agree with you totally B744. "You can't go forward if you keep looking back". Can't stand people wallowing in self pity! Mike (WLG)
35 Wirraway : B744 & NZ767 FYI the administrators started this in their report to creditors, and was reported in most Australian papers of which I reposted the one
36 B727-200 : BNE, The best performing markets for AN were always: MEL-PER SYD-PER SYD-ADL ADL-PER ADL-DRW MEL-SYD BNE-ISA ADL-BNE And depending on season: SYD-CNS
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ansett/Air NZ Linking Up With Thai! Breaking News! posted Sun Apr 8 2001 11:36:22 by Aussie_
Latest On Ansett/Air NZ posted Fri Apr 6 2001 09:38:44 by Gardermoen
How Big Was Air NZ-Ansett Australia Airline Group? posted Wed Sep 4 2002 13:12:00 by United Airline
Air NZ To Sell Ansett Tickets posted Tue Nov 13 2001 03:58:08 by Aussie_
Why Doesn't Air NZ Keep Ansett In Their Group? posted Sun Nov 11 2001 03:28:43 by United Airline
Ansett Waits On Air NZ Rescue posted Wed Oct 3 2001 03:51:25 by United Airline
Air NZ Mismanaged Ansett Which Caused Its Demise posted Fri Sep 14 2001 19:50:51 by GuyBetsy1
Ansett Comes To A Close, Air NZ Saved By A Hair posted Fri Sep 14 2001 06:05:32 by MattNZ
SQ And Air NZ To Be Blamed For Ansett's Problems posted Thu Sep 13 2001 13:34:22 by Anzett
Air NZ Writes Ansett Off! posted Thu Sep 13 2001 04:56:12 by Airlanka