itxtme:

 

MikeB4 the suggestion on the ground in Kapiti is that it did make money, but they are short of staff for those types of planes, and can use them on routes that are more lucrative like WLG to CHC.

 

@networkn - where your opinion differs from mine is that you hold no weight on the fact of who owns majority share and the fact they may have an opinion on these moves. Equally you hold no weight on the concept that a national carrier may have some responsibilities larger than just printing money for record profit after record profit.

 

I hold SOME weight on both of those things. The difference is how much, and also the fact that the Government as a major shareholder has prescribed ways it can approach these things, instead of letting Shane Jones carry on like a complete fool saying inflammatory things, with no way to back them up. 

Calling for the Chair's head is the height of stupidity, but it's the trademark of a NZF policitian. The chances are that Shane Jones has very little knowledge as to the real reasons behind these changes. 

If AirNZ came out and said it was going to cost 50M a year to support these regions and if the board accepted the Governments proposal, the dividend for ALL shareholders would cut by a specific amount ongoing, is it going to get shareholder approval?

I have no issue with the Government objecting to the changes and even asserting it's rights as a major share holder (or actually even as a minority), however I have a major issue with how it was done, how ineffective it was but how it caused people to get all emotional about it, when it's a logic problem. 

They need to raise their concerns through the correct channels, but then in my view if this was done every time, NZF wouldn't have a reason to exist.