View Full Version : Should Auckland Airport be sold?
I believe it should not be sold as enough New Zealand land and assets are already being sold to overseas investors soon we will have nothing left!
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:16
if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!
terbang
24th July 2007, 19:18
Soon to be only tennants in out own country...
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:19
Soon to be only tennants in out own country...
was that intentional? :dodge:
kiwifruit
24th July 2007, 19:21
no. in my humble opinion
if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!
there are many other ways of bringing more mony into the country and spending less as a country than selling off all out assets all this is doing is creating a short term tempoary solution for a long term problem
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:33
there are many other ways of bringing more mony into the country and spending less as a country than selling off all out assets all this is doing is creating a short term solution for a long term problem
ok, i shall put it a slighty different way, world trade.
Colapop
24th July 2007, 19:34
Import heaps of stuff the dollar is high!
Import heaps of stuff the dollar is high!
but that just puts money out of NZ unless your importing things to make money for nz such as capital goods from overseas then its ok
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:38
but that just puts money out of NZ unless your importing things to make money for nz such as capital goods from overseas then its ok
ooh you are getting close...
ooh you are getting close...
are you talking about free trade agrrememts?
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:40
are you talking about free trade agrrememts?
i wasnt but now you mention it....
i wasnt but now you mention it....
that would be a much better solution for our countrys debt
canarlee
24th July 2007, 19:43
that would be a much better solution for our countrys debt
is that a question or a statement?
is that a question or a statement?
it would be a statement
canarlee
24th July 2007, 20:17
it would be a statement
well before we went off the original tangent, i was thinking more along the lines of capital goods, ie; people...
McJim
24th July 2007, 20:17
Will planes still fly in and out?
Will it abolish the stupid departure tax that prevents me from leaving the country on principal?
Does it actually make a difference?
Scotland got sold to the arabs in the 70's - didn't stop us bombing their arses in 2 gulf wars though :rofl:
Ghost_Bullet
24th July 2007, 20:36
I do not know of the pro's if it is sold, but instant feeling is that this is a valuable earning asset, that should be retained. A massive bank of land in it's surrounds.
Keep the thing I say.
scracha
24th July 2007, 20:39
Will planes still fly in and out?
Will it abolish the stupid departure tax that prevents me from leaving the country on principal?
It's a joke eh! Not enough to actually bring in useful income. Just enough to fuck people off and possibly put off some tourists from returning.
Does it actually make a difference?
For once Tom's talking sense.
The rest of the country seems to be owned and run by foreigners so it makes sense the airport being owned by non-kiwi's. What they should really do is flog the airport, then use the money to start building another airport with radical (for New Zealand) features like public transport links. Then make the aviation or environmental rules really difficult for the original airport so that it can be purchased back for a fraction of the original cost. Be a bit like Vladimir Putin forcing BP to get the hell out of Russian oilfields after investing a $hitload of money.
Actually, fuckit. Just blow-up the beehive and the country will run much more efficiently.
Dave Lobster
24th July 2007, 20:46
If Queen Helen thinks it's a good idea, it can't be.
oldrider
24th July 2007, 20:54
It's floated on the stock market, it's just a normal business deal, got nothing to do with the government or you and me, unless you are a shareholder!
Ownership means nothing, it is the service provided that counts, then you have the option of using it or not, just business!
How many businesses etc overseas are owned by New Zealanders?
As long as the taxpayer doesnt have to prop it up, like Air New Zealand, the railways and Kiwibank and all the other taxpayer burdened business units that we should be getting tax "from" not having to pay to subsidise them.
Just let it go, the government will still be getting the tax rake off that it gets now, plus all the other benefits the Dubai connection brings with it. SELL :yes: John.
Jimbob46
25th July 2007, 08:00
Yeh I don't think it should be sold. Auckland Airport is owned by NZ shareholders isn't it? It is making a good profit at the moment and has been for a number of years. Therefore the amount of money in dividends being paid out is largely staying in NZ, this wouldn't be the case if it was taken over by a foreign investor. It makes no sense at all especially with how the economy is going at the moment where NZ should be aiming to curb spending. 3 billion dollars will just place added pressure on inflation and the result will most likely be rising interest rates again.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Toaster
25th July 2007, 11:40
Profits go off shore as dividends to foreign owners. I'd rather see ownership of a strategic asset stay in NZ and reinvestment of profits in NZ. The airport is a very profitable entity.
But hey, its on the sharemarket so is already exposed to offshore investment anyway.
Hitcher
25th July 2007, 12:04
If it's sold it can't be taken away. And the decision to sell or not to sell is one that the airport's owners/shareholders have to make (as it is a listed company), not the general public of New Zealand.
MisterD
25th July 2007, 13:48
If it's sold it can't be taken away. And the decision to sell or not to sell is one that the airport's owners/shareholders have to make (as it is a listed company), not the general public of New Zealand.
About 20-25% of shares are owned by the Auckland and Manukau councils...which makes a fair proportion of the population effective shareholders.
Skyryder
25th July 2007, 17:36
I'm generaly against anything that promotes foreign control over NZ assets. It's not about whether a company can or can not take away the land. To me it's in whose interests does the company serve. This is my fundamental difficulty with offshore corperates controlling NZ assets. We saw this happen with NZ Rail to the extent that the track was in such bad shape that the Govt had to buy it back. Now I'm not saying that Dubai is going to run down the Auckland airport, far from it, but as owners of the airport they will be able to regulate air companies for landing rights at the expense of Air NZ and I believe that the Govt has a controlling interest of 51% in Air New Zealand. I have yet to see where market forces have benifited New Zealand and I doubt very much if this proposal is going to be any different.
Skyryder
sinned
25th July 2007, 20:28
It's floated on the stock market, it's just a normal business deal, got nothing to do with the government or you and me, unless you are a shareholder!
Ownership means nothing, it is the service provided that counts, then you have the option of using it or not, just business!
How many businesses etc overseas are owned by New Zealanders?
As long as the taxpayer doesnt have to prop it up, like Air New Zealand, the railways and Kiwibank and all the other taxpayer burdened business units that we should be getting tax "from" not having to pay to subsidise them.
Just let it go, the government will still be getting the tax rake off that it gets now, plus all the other benefits the Dubai connection brings with it. SELL :yes: John.
Full marks for this one
If it's sold it can't be taken away. And the decision to sell or not to sell is one that the airport's owners/shareholders have to make (as it is a listed company), not the general public of New Zealand.
Nice explanation Hitcher.
We leave in a sort of free country, sort of democracy although less now since liarbor have been in control. Free people own the bit of dirt and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. If the general public don't like that the government could buy it for them.
Grahameeboy
25th July 2007, 21:53
It's floated on the stock market, it's just a normal business deal, got nothing to do with the government or you and me, unless you are a shareholder!
Ownership means nothing, it is the service provided that counts, then you have the option of using it or not, just business!
How many businesses etc overseas are owned by New Zealanders?
As long as the taxpayer doesnt have to prop it up, like Air New Zealand, the railways and Kiwibank and all the other taxpayer burdened business units that we should be getting tax "from" not having to pay to subsidise them.
Just let it go, the government will still be getting the tax rake off that it gets now, plus all the other benefits the Dubai connection brings with it. SELL :yes: John.
Said it in one, okay for Kiwi's to own overseas business so what is wrong with the Airport being owned by an overseas investor......I thought NZ needed overseas investors? Seems a good start to get interest in NZ.
The Councils were never going to be in it for ever...it was an investment.
They can still remain investors. What is the issue.
The overseas buyer is surely interested in keeping the airport profitable so they also have a vestive interest.
The other month there were complaints that business were looking overseas for production.....now we have someone interested in investing in NZ, yes investing in NZ and that is bad??
NZ.....get over yourselves..........we have to get wid de times dudes
swbarnett
25th July 2007, 23:30
Auckland Airport is a cash cow for the country. A fair bit is owned by local councils. Let's keep it for the long term revenue, not sell it for a few quick bucks. I also don't like the fact that Emerates would get preferential treatment.
canarlee
25th July 2007, 23:37
you will probably find that it is not up for sale per se, more likely that it is up for lease without right of re-newal! and the lease will run out after say 49 or 99 years. for example
hong kong is a damn good example, although on a rather different scale!
oldrider
25th July 2007, 23:44
I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.
This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!
The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. :yes: John.
canarlee
25th July 2007, 23:50
I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.
This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!
The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. :yes: John.
*would award bling, thats a good post, albeit slightly abrupt :Punk:*
mark247
26th July 2007, 09:04
I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.
This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!
The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. :yes: John.
The airport is worth a couple of billion, and it turns over about 100million a year. That seems like a good investment for NZ. In 15 - 20 years time if we kept it the shareholders would of made just as much money out of it compared to if it was sold today.
And what oldrider said!
Grahameeboy
26th July 2007, 09:07
The airport is worth a couple of billion, and it turns over about 100million a year. That seems like a good investment for NZ. In 15 - 20 years time if we kept it the shareholders would of made just as much money out of it compared to if it was sold today.
And what oldrider said!
Is it moving somewhere else then?
What is wrong with an overseas buyer investing in NZ?
Grahameeboy
26th July 2007, 09:09
if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!
Sssscccchhhhh.........America's Cup okay but not investment......mine mine mine.....shan't....shan't....shan't
Mr Merde
26th July 2007, 09:20
It's a joke eh! Not enough to actually bring in useful income. Just enough to fuck people off and possibly put off some tourists from returning.
......
Actually, fuckit. Just blow-up the beehive and the country will run much more efficiently.
As to the first part of your statement. Check out the airports financial returns.
If you take the number of passengers through the airport and then multiply it by 25 you will find that this is fairly close to the ammount of profit they make.
As to the later part.
As I said in another post, here in New Zealand we get rid of our vermin by 1080 drop. If its good enough for the possum population it is good enough for the beehive.
Karma
26th July 2007, 17:35
if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!
Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?
canarlee
26th July 2007, 17:39
Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?
dont ask me, i wernt here then:p:dodge:
sinned
26th July 2007, 18:42
Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?
You are probably right and the sale did result in a massive improvement in telephone services. 6 weeks minimum to have a phone connected, horrendous toll calling rates, no capacity, couldn't call across Auckland during the day and, think customer service is bad now!!!
Hitcher
26th July 2007, 20:50
If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?
sinned
26th July 2007, 21:14
If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?
Two lines in the Junior Chamber (Jaycee) creed provide all the guidance I need:
- That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
- That government should be of laws rather than of men;
Replace 'men' with a gender neutral and 'p correct' word and this means gummint don't own assets, they vote in the laws we collectively need to live by, they stay out of our lives and, take the bare minimum of tax necessary to make those laws and protect us and let us get on with it.
swbarnett
27th July 2007, 12:58
If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?
Thre are two types of businesses that should be state owned:
1. Something that should be considered a "public good" activity (roading, power distribution, land line phones).
2. Where the business would necessarily be a monopoly with no room for competition.
Auckland airport could be argued to fit into both 1 and 2 as far as the actual aircraft management goes (the land development side, shops etc., could be split off)
State ownership really has only two functions: to provide a service that a true commercial entity would not provide for reasons of economics (e.g. phones and roads to remote areas) and to provide that service at minimal cost to the individual. No state owned enterprise should ever turn a profit as this would mean that the service is not being provided at the minimal cost.
Hitcher
27th July 2007, 14:14
Thre are two types of businesses that should be state owned:
I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...
canarlee
27th July 2007, 15:15
I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...
ooooh can we do that pleeeeze!!!
then we got a dictatorship and communism, happy days.......:dodge:
swbarnett
28th July 2007, 12:39
I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...
I like healthy competition just like the next capitalist.
The trouble with the industries you've stated is that there is room for competition and so don't fit within my definition of a candidate for state ownership. The fact that prices may be set by a cartel is an entirely different matter (probably one for the commerce commission).
ALLY G
28th July 2007, 15:50
This is how I see it
Auckland international airport has 3 main share holders Auck D/C (district council) Manakau D/C and " THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND " RBS being the major share holder (dont believe me ? why are their logos all over the airport?)
Now if it were to be sold to emeraites or whoever the bidder may be the cost of travel would indeed increase untill it got to a piont where another airport in auckland would be feasable (Hobsonville) and the competition would drive down the cost for you & me.
Bring it on I say...
swbarnett
29th July 2007, 11:43
This is how I see it
Auckland international airport has 3 main share holders Auck D/C (district council) Manakau D/C and " THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND " RBS being the major share holder (dont believe me ? why are their logos all over the airport?)
Now if it were to be sold to emeraites or whoever the bidder may be the cost of travel would indeed increase untill it got to a piont where another airport in auckland would be feasable (Hobsonville) and the competition would drive down the cost for you & me.
Bring it on I say...
So you want to pay more for travel? Very generous.
We don't need another airport in Auckland. Try connecting to a domestic flight from an international one between airports at rush hour. What we need is another CBD to ease the traffic flow over the Weitamata.
I also don't want foreign airlines getting preferential treatment (something that's stated in the Dubai bid).
BTW: It's Whenuapai that's trying to be the next civilian airport in Auckland. I for one don't want planes flying over my house at all hours of the day and night.
Karma
29th July 2007, 13:39
Mate, if you live in greenhithe we've got enough Air traffic as it is without bloody 747s or whatever coming over.
Besides which, there was that report out the other day saying that most of the B Class airports have runways that are too short to land safely on, I'd say you'd want to work on making the existing airports better than worry about new ones.
ALLY G
29th July 2007, 19:22
So you want to pay more for travel? Very generous.
In the short term yes travel costs would rise but competition(another airport) would soon curb that.
We don't need another airport in Auckland.
So you are happy to be ripped off at this level no competition = a monopoly they charge what they want & what can you do about it ?
BTW: It's Whenuapai that's trying to be the next civilian airport in Auckland. I for one don't want planes flying over my house at all hours of the day and night.
(semantics :-Whenuapai ,Hobsonville)
I suggest you get used to the idea or move coz I,ll bet a penny to a pinch of shite its gona happen & inside the next 10 years.
ALLY G
29th July 2007, 19:26
most of the B Class airports have runways that are too short to land safely on, I'd say you'd want to work on making the existing airports better than worry about new ones.
How long duz it take to lay a concrete slab??
Any one ??
swbarnett
1st August 2007, 12:23
In the short term yes travel costs would rise but competition(another airport) would soon curb that.
I think I may have missed your logic. Are you saying that the second airport will be economic in the short term but not the long term?
So you are happy to be ripped off at this level no competition = a monopoly they charge what they want & what can you do about it ?
That's why I'm in favour of this sort of enterprise being government owned. If anything the government should be buying a majority share.
I suggest you get used to the idea or move coz I,ll bet a penny to a pinch of shite its gona happen & inside the next 10 years.
You may be right. This country is not known for it's well thought out decisions. Fortunately we're only renting so we would find it quite easy to move. Are those that own property in the proposed flight path going to be compensated for a drop in property values? And what about one of Auckland's largest aquatic playgrounds. A quiet day in the gulf will be ruined by accelerating jumbos.
peasea
1st August 2007, 12:45
I believe it should not be sold as enough New Zealand land and assets are already being sold to overseas investors soon we will have nothing left!
I certainly don't think it should be sold without having the rest of the city attached as a package deal and on the proviso that the package goes offshore.
Blackbird
1st August 2007, 14:05
Well, I bought my shares at $1.84 so that's a 79% increase as of today, not to mention some good dividends so I have a certain bias.:innocent:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.