Ansett’s future

Press, 13 April 1989, Page 12

Ansett’s future

Sir, —In 1986, Newmans Air is launched. Heavy losses ensue; it seeks a receiver. Australia’s Ansett sees an opportunity. The Government allows it in With

three conditions: it must be an essentially New Zealand company; maximum 50 per cent foreign ownership; full engineering base to be built here within two years. Ansett N.Z. makes heavy losses; New Zealand shareholders forced out, Brierley’s losing more than SI6M. Richard Prebble announces that 100 per cent Australian ownership is now allowed. No engineering base is built; engines sent to Australia. Losses continue and Ansett seeks trans-Tasman flights. Air New Zealand is sold off, 19.9 per cent to Qantas, 7.5 per cent to Japan, 7.5 per cent to America; only 65 per cent remains for New Zealand. Ansett N.Z. (100 per cent Australianowned), still unprofitable in competition with Air New Zealand, threatens to pull out unless it gets further Government concessions. Will the Government stand firm or will it submit to blackmail and give away even more of our tourist business? —Yours, etc., BRUCE TULLOCH. April 7, 1989.

Sir, —The Minister of Aviation (Mr Jeffries), on the one hand, says that the Government created the “free” climate, which enabled Ansett to commence operations. Yet now that Qantas is to become a part-owner of, and will be feeding its passengers on to, Air New Zealand domestic flights, he says it is not the Government’s fault that Ansett has got itself into trouble. How can there be a free competitive climate when Qantas now has a rested interest in Air New Zealand’s profitability? Ansett’s management and staff have every reason to be irate about yet another example of mismanagement by the present Government.—Yours, etc., A. C. GRANT. April 10,1989.

Sir, —We are disturbed by the recent statements from Ansett N.Z. that. the Government has unilaterally changed the rules on access to the New Zealand market for Ansett. The introduction of a second airline to New Zealand has improved the service offered by Air New Zealand beyond recognition. The improved service has benefited customers of both airlines. In our opinion the withdrawal of Ansett from the New Zealand market would be a retrograde step that would result in a drop in service and increased costs to the travelling public. When Mr Prebble, the former Minister, states that the ground rules have been changed unilaterally then we feel that Ansett does have a case for legitimate complaint and that there is a need for the Government to re-evaluate its stance. We urge the Government to do so and to give Ansett a fair go, and urge people to fly Ansett to show their support.—Yours, etc., R. A. ROBSON, E. J. BEGG, K. G. HICKLING. April 11, 1989.

Sir,—Glossy terminals, hot meals, cheap fares. Great, but why does Sir Peter Abeles demand the Government give Ansett special -privileges to help cover the cost? Competition was supposed to bring bring benefits, not more Government aid for companies in trouble. If I recall correctly, Ansett was supposed to build a big maintenance plant here to overhaul engines and planes, to keep jobs in New Zealand. If it cannot afford this and cannot make a profit it should not be propped up any more. Many of us have lost ,our jobs through Government restructuring and through good New Zealand firms going under. The Aussies should play by the same rules. Ransom demands are unworthy; if Labour buckles to threats how, God help it!— Yours, etc., A. J. STONE. April 11,1989.