Forum Archive Index - September 2001

["Phil Eriksen" <phil@acepay.co.nz>]

Hi Snoopy,

>
> Gary may be referring to
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/news/nbr/article.php/a83ab6f7
> which makes mention of this.
>
>

"No significant reduction in the workforce;"

"No significant reduction in the regional network, and no loss of
regional destinations;"

"Ansett retaining substantial Australian headquarters and operational
centres"

Hmmm, that is quite a restrictive list.  So where were those $350m
worth of cost savings that ex CEO Jim McRae identified going to come
from again?

--

I have absolutely no idea.  Most people hope that an acquisition means 1 + 1
= 3.  If that list of restrictions is accurate, a cynic may assume that they
had 1, paid 2 for a 1 they weren't allowed to turn into a 2 then hoped to
hell it would equal 3.

All this still doesn't answer the question below though.
>
> What do you think the Australian Government should have done?
>

--

If the above list of restrictions is accurate, removing them would have been
a good start.

Cheers,
Phil



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.