Forum Archive Index - November 2003

["David & Jill Stevenson" <djstevo@quicksilver.net.nz>]

Conceded  -Hugh makes valid points .We can`t escape the fact that AIR walked into a dog  but then proceeded to take out the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation 50%

to wittingly add insult to earlier injury. Imagine how superior was Murdoch compared to a naive,perhaps incompetent AIR Board  at the bargaining table. The former, wheels and deals transactions bigger than that every day of the week ,even before breakfast.He would have recognised AIR`s frustration at just how to proceed following dismal support from the NZ Government. Philip beat me to the gun in defence  questioning where due diligence featured. There was an obvious mind set by the AIR Board to proceed regardless of any element of concern. We all knew about the entrenched  and unique privileges of the Ansett Unions compared to other airlines. Perhaps not the fact of deferred maintenance needs of aircraft. But what happened to asset appraisals the Board should have confronted at every Board meeting. Admittedly the NZ Government had a lot to answer for in their intransigence re possible options involving  Singapore Airlines.

      We were in Australia at the time of the collapse fortunately we were housed by fellow NZèrs  but were still obliged to quickly drop our NZ accents when outdoors. Joking and questions of contributory negligence apart  .I mean it when I say they were embarrassing days when we were not as proud to be NZèrs as we would have liked .

      Don`t ignore the context of my post. It was in response rather to philosophical issues ,that I supported ,prompted by Macdunk`s post. It was rather an issue of lack of balance. The fact of CEO`s  ,or Board`s , inconsistency of position - on the one hand high  sometimes obscenely high reward. for presiding over success even mediocre performance . But insufficient scrutiny or loss where shareholder loss or decimation results . Let alone the collateral damage to the lives of staff and their families where job loss is concerned as Macdunk highlighted. These people wittingly for all sorts of reasons "get into the kitchen' of positions of power and influence thereby controlling resources including lives. "Where angels  might fear to tread"." I  further personalised the post by highlighting  the position of Selwyn Cushing . He brought to his involvement with AIR what I consider to be too many other Directorships and involvements to be able to give absolute focus to that company at an extremely vulnerable time . Thousands of lives were at stake and  affected  - let alone potential destruction of shareholder`s hard earned resources in a difficult industry.. Jim Farmer probably would have advised him to not apologise  for legal or other reasons to all those people whose lives he as well as others changed for all time. I remain disappointed in that man for his conduct and demeanour  following that  absolute debacle. Hence my expression of hope that he might hide from public view acts of philanthropy particularly regarding Ansett staffs livelihood. Obviously I was tongue in cheek but somehow my disappointment had to be expressed.I only hope he made expressions of sorrow if not regret that I am unaware about . If so I might review my judgment.Perhaps I still remember Selwyn Cushing presiding over the final NZ Annual Meeting before moving offshore. Max Gunn,  even five minutes into the meeting, would have had similar views to mine when the question of grant of options to Selwyn Cushing was discussed.All in the context of NZ based loyal  shareholders sorriest of experiences. The issue of rewards despite commensurate performance all over again.

 

                                   David Stevenson