February 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar
- Liberty Scott reminds us of the truth about how the former Government stuffed up Air NZ.
- The Tailor of Panama Street discusses Australia’s bid for the UN Security Council and NZ’s bid for the UN Human Rights Council. I sincerely hope NZ fails to get elected – that would be a lesser embarrassment than actually being onto the Human Rights Council, which is behaving just as badly as its discredited predecessor.
- The Dim-Post lashes both the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech, and also Labour’s response to the issue of contributions to the NZ Super Fund.
- Whale Oil examines Kordia’s new radio service, and labels it the equivalent of CDMA in a GSM world.
- No Right Turn blogs his submission on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. A pretty useful submission.
- Bryce Edwards has an in depth look at likely new Greens co-leader Metira Turei.
- Bill Ralston blogs that Labour may be heading for an iceberg in Mt Albert.
- Bernard Hickey blogs a speech he wants John Key to deliver.
Tags:
Blog Bits
This entry was posted on Friday, February 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Bernard Hickey has a manner like a presbytarian minister on sunday morning. But lets get to the bottom of this:
We can and we have no choice if we want value for money. The other option, that Labour supports for the 2010 tax cuts, is that the government sucks in the cash and either stores it for a future Labour party to waste on conferences and staff (that’s why Labour support it now) or recklessly and foolishly spends it themselves. Government spending is an absolute shambles of low value and waste. The public must be allowed to invest their money as they see fit, spend it as they see fit, and not be robbed of their choice. Swelling the government coffers for redistribution helps nothing, stimulates nothing. Inefficient spending helps nothing, and hoping beyond hope that John Keys smiley face means that everyone else has changed overnight is naieve. The waste will continue. The only way to stop it is to cut off the supply to wastrels. There is no economic saviour coming, Key won’t tell anyone the truth and financially surviving the recession is up to the individual and their own good sense.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Liberty Scot takes quite a few liberties with the truth of AirNZ and Ansett. in fact, one could say, he lies.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Liberty Scot takes quite a few liberties with the truth of AirNZ and Ansett. in fact, one could say, he lies”
Really? How so Comrade Jack? I would bet money on LS handing you your arse in a debate on this subject….put up or shut up.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Air NZ invested in Ansett Australia because the Australian government reneged on a deal for an “open skies agreement” between Australia and NZ.
This is as poor a reason as any I have heard for “investing” in a business. its like opening a fishnchippery because there’s a vacant shop, not because there’s a demand.
So Air NZ bought 50% of Ansett in 1996, but was not permitted managerial control at that level of investment … AirNZ had the input its shareholding entitled it to. This is as fatuous as its later claim that it had no idea how bad Ansett was after it bought the other 50%. What were their directors doing if not overseeing the business?
However it paid too much, it outbid Singapore Airlines …
that was Air NZ’s decision, one they must live with and cannot blame any other party for.
Dr Cullen helped bankrupt Air NZ…
That’s right. The directors of AirNZ are blameless, eh Scott?
What happened when the Ansett receivers (Mentha and Corda) came in?
To summarise, they found no accurate records of assetts, no real accounting records, a complete and utter shambles. AirNZ attempted to swallow a much alrger fish, and choked on it. The AirNZ directors and amangement had no idea of the business they were trying to run and simply fucked it bigtime.
They took control of an airline that bounced between 52 and 48% of the market and improved the market share to around 20%, before finally letting Ansett go in to receivership.
But none of that’s the fault of the directors and management of AirNZ, is it LS?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Jack: It invested in Ansett because it wanted access to the Australian domestic market, a critical feeder to Trans Tasman routes and Trans Pacific routes. Given Qantas had this, given the Australian Federal Government reneged on its deal to open up the market to NZ airlines, it could either remain outside this market and see a competitor potentially take it, or go for second best and buy half of Ansett. It chose the latter, and this initially went well.
Typically 50% managerial control gets you more than Air NZ got. Yes it took what it was allowed to take, because again Australian government interference denied it the typical control you get with a 50% share. Meanwhile, NewsCorp was running the airline like a toy – buying multiple aircraft types and running it down. This led it to want to take over.
Yes it paid too much – I said that – I never said the directors and management were blameless at all. The thing is, it found a solution – a major capital injection from Singapore Airlines (an airline that typically doesn’t take on bad causes). The single reason it all went sour was Dr Cullen’s adament lack of enthusiasm for the deal. Instead of thinking like a business person, and making his mind up quickly, he wasted time and thought like a politician.
The papers released on this demonstrate how the Labour government rejected official advice, how it was warned by Air NZ that it was at serious risk because of the government’s toying with a Qantas deal (which officials said could not happen in time and would be negative for the country) and how it started playing with a half-arsed part Singapore Airlines part state injection of money deal, that Singapore was uninterested in (why be part beholden to a state owner that clearly doesn’t understand business).
What are the lies little man? If Air NZ had not made poor business decisions the entire debacle wouldn’t have occured, but had Dr Cullen acted on advice from those who knew best – the airline and his officials – it would have been saved.
Quite simply had both the Australian and New Zealand governments got the hell out of the way of the airline business between both countries like they nearly did in the early 1990s, none of this would have happened. Air NZ would have set up its own nimble Australian domestic carrier at the right time, and something different would have happened. Singapore Airlines would have invested one way or another. The taxpayer wouldn’t be sitting with an undercapitalised investment in one of the world’s riskiest sectors.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
kudos to No Right Turn. Good submission, why don’t you allow comments on your blog dude?
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I second what d4j has said. An excellent, concise, and well-reasoned submission from I/S.
Anyone concerned about property rights needs to look into this Bill and make a submission now, before Mr Plod turns up and orders you to go live at the Night Shelter because he “doesn’t like your attitude”.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
NewsCorp was running the airline like a toy – buying multiple aircraft types and running it down.
No, that was Peter Abeles of TNT who ran around the world, placing orders for aircraft on a whim.
It would help if you get your history straight.
Vote:February 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yes Peter Abeles did that, Newscorp ran it down, underinvested in product and lacked a coherent strategy to retain the business market. Qantas smartly used its international network to win the domestic market by offering corporate deals that covered both, Ansett was far less nimble and didn’t use its international connections to try to compete (or price or quality). It had a good product that was looking decidedly wornout by 2000.
Still doesn’t divert Cullen from his responsibility to give the nod to a willing investor that would have saved the airline and done much more to make it grow that the government appointed board and taxpayer.
Vote:February 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“Fitzsimons was keen on negotiating a deal with National and publicly stated that the party wanted to ‘leave the door open’ for a blue-green coalition. ”
As far as I’m concerned (and I hope at least some others) if blue and green mix, there will be no opposition in parliament.
The Beehive will be a house of collusion (obviously already is) conspiracy and basically a one party system.
Just trying to imagine what blue, green and red look like mixed together…… sickly sweet????
Vote: