|
Printable version |
From: | "G Stolwyk" <stolwyk@wave.co.nz> |
Date: | Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:47:53 +1200 |
I did recommend to people to get out of
AIR and made several negative comments, starting
with:
This company should have been the main
flag bearer but was subjected to - in my opinion - negligent
treatment. There was a rapid change of CEO's at one stage and this alone
cooled my interest.
There are some real problems at the NZ Board
level and I have spent two posts on this.
As I see it, a reluctance or
incompetence to estimate risk arising from actions to be taken.
Any decision is better than none, seems to be the policy. Poor Board governance
is another problem.
Other directors merely react; only those who are
able, can afford to be pro-active.
I realise that Australia has not
helped,nevertheless, the then Board who bought
the remaining 50% was responsible. Members who voted for that proposal, should
have resigned.
It is now known that the Board had no real idea of
benefits and costs on some routes in Australia.
I am not sure if the NZ Government
is aware of any guarantees given by AIR to
Ansett as reported to be in existence.
Meanwhile, expect not only bad publicity but
some permanent damage to the image of this country: The doubt about entitlements
to workers in Australia should have been immediately dealt with. Evading
this problem is not justified!
If there are problems eg. sabotage then one could
see people shunning the Air New Zealand carriers; this could damage the
country and AIR. It has some of our money and
may even have to go for a ' double
dip '.
I am angry as I find that AIA
is suffering from the fall-out. There is no need for any
reader to dissect this post and
discuss selected extracts at length. Please continue
performing the funeral rites on Ansett if you must.
I am a hard- headed investor with a reasonable
stake in the market and in AIA. Let us hope that the Boards of AIA and
SKC can keep out willing but incompetent Directors.
Gerry
|
|