Forum Archive Index - May 2001

["Andrew Dengel" <adengel@clear.net.nz>]

Thanks for your comments Snoopy, very interesting discussion from everyone.

One thing I feel I have picked up from all these analysis and opinions on
Airlines (and the relative politics involved)  is.............
 I dont think I want to invest in one!! ;-)

Andrew
disc: hold no airline shares and dont think will be for some time

----- Original Message -----
From: <tennyson@caverock.net.nz>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] Airline shares


> Thanks Brian, Greg, Andrew and Peter for your useful comments on this
> topic.
>
> Greg, perusing 800 articles and coming up with the reasoned
> conclusions you did would put many pro analysts to shame, so you
> need not apologize for not being one.  I was interested in your
> bracketed comment
>
> "(the SAAB is a reliable work horse on existing
> routes but they could do with 2 more, also more ATRs
> and focus on the shorter main trunk routes, and focus
> the Beech 1900s on the short provincial routes)."
>
> Now it seems to me that you are suggesting larger planes are needed.
> Yet back in the early Air New Zealand domestic days, did they not run
> Fokker Friendships (around SAAB capacity) on these routes, a plane it
> would seem in hindsight was too big to be economic?   So I am curious
> at your reasoning behind this statement.
>
> Further, I am also curious about the situation with code sharing and
> international landing rights.  Now I understand the usefulness of Air
> New Zealand using a star alliance partner to fly into London, rather
> than a half full plane of their own.  But this doesn't mean they have
> given up their landing rights into Heathrow, London does it?   Or did
> they never have landing rights there, was it only to Gatwick the
> other London Airport?  But if Air New Zealand aren't actually flying
> any of their own planes to London, and have no future intention of
> doing so, just what rights is Helen Clark talking about negotiating
> with the British government.  I guess I'm a little confused as to how
> this landing rights system works.
>
> Andrew, I see the point about Virgin Blue being an Australian
> Airline.  I suppose you mean it is registered as a company in
> Australia.  But it is still British *owned* by the Virgin Group in
> the UK, so in that sense it is British.   And it would seem that it
> is the ultimate ownership, rather than where the airline company is
> incorporated, that is the key issue as regards trading off
> international landing rights.
>
> I know that Virgin Blue has nothing to do with the
> European operations of Virgin Atlantic.   While technically correct,
> both airlines still both enjoy the support of the same shareholder.
> It is hard to imagine that Richard Branson regards them as
> completely separate, even though legally, they are.
>
> I don't see Singapore Airlines getting too concerned about the short
> term performance of Air New Zealand.  In fact I would suggest it
> rather suits them that Air New Zealand has a couple of bad financial
> years.  If Air NZ/Ansett don't meet certain profit targets, then no
> top up payments to Brierley Investments are required, thus saving SIA
> millions of dollars!  In fact it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of
> possibility that two years out SIA might use their influence on
> Branson to engineer a merger between Ansett and Virgin Blue.  Air
> NZ/Ansett CEO Toomey is jumping up and down about the Impulse/Qantas
> merger at the moment.  I don't think that is going to be called off.
> But by getting the Australian commerce commission to officially
> sanction that, how could the Commerce Commission not sanction a
> merger between Ansett and Virgin Blue down the track?   How is that
> for a grand conspiracy theory?
>
> And now to Peter's latest 'rave' on the subject ;-)
>
> "I cannot agree with you with Air New Zealand is
> currently demonstrating any reasons why they should be
> treated as a 'best in breed'."
>
> Well, I didn't exactly say that.   I said that if you were to invest
> in airlines you should invest in the best ones.  Unfortunately for
> Air NZ both Qantas and Singapore airlines (the direct
> competition) fall into that category!
>
> Personally I think Air New Zealand are well managed.  They have to be
> to 'hang in there' with the competition!  It seems to be a series of
> factors (intense competition in Australia, downturn because of the
> olympics, digesting the different culture of Ansett, a spike in fuel
> prices and the weak New Zealand dollar) any one of which they could
> have coped with, but when all 5 hit together, well, it hurts!  I
> regard myself as slightly 'underweight' in Air New Zealand but won't
> be buying any more of them until I have a clearer picture as to how
> they will fund the 5 billion dollar fleet upgrade for Ansett. SNOOPY
>
> (disc: Hold AIR)
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Message sent by Snoopy
> e-mail  tennyson@caverock.net.nz
> on Pegasus Mail version 2.55
> ----------------------------------
> "You can tell me I'm wrong twice,
> but that still only makes me wrong once."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
investors
> http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join
now.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.