|
Printable version |
From: | "Andrew Dengel" <adengel@clear.net.nz> |
Date: | Thu, 3 May 2001 15:47:44 +0930 |
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.
References
|