Air N.Z. staff gagged over selling airline

Press, 7 October 1988, Page 2

Air N.Z. staff gagged over selling airline

By

LES BLOXHAM,

travel editor

Air New Zealand staff are feeling frustrated because they have been forbidden to enter the public debate over the proposed sale of shares in the airline.

Comment, restricted to the airline’s chief executive, Mr Jim Scott, has been sparse and done little to counter the extensive public relations campaigns run by Qantas and British Airways. Both airlines have held press conferences addressed by their chief executives and, in Qantas’s case, its chairman, Mr J. B. Leslie. Air New Zealand, on the other hand, has been forced to remain silent.

Since the Government’s announcement two weeks ago that Qantas was the preferred bidder, Air New Zealand staff have found it difficult to hide their anger and frustration over the apparent rejection of the airline’s argument for an alliance with British

Airways. It was a different story when the Government moved to allow the Australian airline, Ansett, a stake in New Zealand’s domestic aviation scene. Staff then were actively encouraged to speak out and some became involved in a vigorous

letter-writing campaign to newspapers. According to informed sources, staff have been asked to refrain from taking similar action over the Qantas bid. This is not to say there has been no lobbying in the Beehive. It is known that Mr Scott has been a regular visitor to Wellington over the last fortnight in a last-ditch attempt to change Government thinking. It is no secret that the airline is unhappy at the thought of being one-quar-ter owned by an Australian interest. If the deal goes through, the bulk of New Zealand’s aviation industry — 25 per cent of Air New Zealand (and indirectly, Mount Cook Airlines) plus 100 per cent of Ansett New Zealand — would be owned by Australian companies. Although their lips are supposedly sealed, Air New Zealand’s staff would love to tell the Government that in their view the airline would be better off tied to British Airways than to Qantas. They would say that

British Airways was booming after privatisation and was now a force in international aviation. They would wave clippings from Sydney newspapers last May in which Mr Leslie said that unless Qantas received a sAust6oo million injection of cash from the Australian Government, its future would be at risk. They would publicise reports which would show that although Qantas made a record profit of sAustls3 million last year, Mr Leslie was concerned about the company’s 80:20 debt-equity ratio. (British Airways has 33:67 debt to equity ratio.) They would say that Qantas’s 50 flights a week to New Zealand compared with British Airways three highlighted an anti-com-petitive danger that would need to be looked at by the Commerce Commission. Air New Zealand staff, also think that tourism would benefit more through a tie-in with British Airways’ route structure than with Qantas’s.