Air Australia could be in trouble?

[Sarah C]

Originally Posted by Stuart Trevena

Why couldn't they just allow the flights to return to Australia, and ground the airline here?

I think the fact they don't have enough money to pay for fuel might have something to do with it. The authorities in Thailand won't let them leave and rightly so.

[Andrew P]

Originally Posted by Stuart Trevena

Hi All,

Why couldn't they just allow the flights to return to Australia, and ground the airline here?
That way all the aircraft are in Australia, and NOT stuck at Foreign Ports, which is costing the Airline $$$ in Parking Fees, and then having then Ferry Empty back here at a later stage.

Stuart

but isn't the plane leased, from a Turkish company, atlasjet

likely the actual plane has already been reposed by the lessor and flown out to a safe port, (the lessor picking up any o/s bills in Phuket)

[Brad M]

Originally Posted by David F

They were unable to pay for fuel in Phuket for a flight back to Melbourne. A load of fuel can't be worth too much.

there would be more to it than one flight, pilots don't "pay at the pump".
they more than likely didn't pay an overdue fuel account, and the oil company put a halt on service..

and with no money to pay it , this is the result.

[D Chan]

it seems that they have gone downhill ever since the strategic days when the ADF charters ceased

http://www.theage.com.au/business/st...313-1bsy1.html

[Rowan McKeever]

Originally Posted by Stuart Trevena

Hi All,

Why couldn't they just allow the flights to return to Australia, and ground the airline here?

I think a better question is why did they dispatch the flight to HKT in the first place? They must have known there were accounts overdue and that a refusal to provide further credit was a real option. So why send a plane-load (or part thereof) out of the country just to displace THOSE people as well as those who had already left.

As someone mentioned the fact they owe banks several millions of dollars and don't own any major assets, as well as the obvious cash situation, AND the treatment of their pax throughout this situation ("find your own way home, we're not helping") suggests they are insolvent and a comeback is highly unlikely.

[Radi K]

Like StevenW mentioned - Is there a case for suggesting the company was trading whilst insolvent? If so, Michael James as sole owner could be in big trouble.

[Malcolm Parker]

Originally Posted by Arthur Boy

Just in case the staff dont see their entitlements I suggest you look at GEERS

If it comes to it, this does help....takes a while but you will see some of whats owed if your Director has screwed you as well as his customers.....

http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRel...s/default.aspx

Good luck to the hard working VC staff!!

Unfortunately they cannot claim through GEERS until the company is placed into Liquidation. Whilst the company is in administration all the employeres can do until that time is place a complaint to the Fair work Ombudsman.

I only know myself as I am in the middle of this situation my self. With A Federal Court case being heard soon so they can forcefully place the wound up company into liquidation so i can apply through GEERS. It has been 7 months since the conpany wound up OPS.

[Mario Facchini]

Originally Posted by Andrew P

but isn't the plane leased, from a Turkish company, atlasjet

likely the actual plane has already been reposed by the lessor and flown out to a safe port, (the lessor picking up any o/s bills in Phuket)

Atlasjet have already reposessed their Aircraft, with other companies reposessing their leased aircraft over the next week or so.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by David F

They must be insolvent, surely.

Originally Posted by Radi K

Like StevenW mentioned - Is there a case for suggesting the company was trading whilst insolvent? If so, Michael James as sole owner could be in big trouble.

That's what I was getting at... were they trading/operating whilst insolvent or were the administrators brought in to try to prevent that from happening?

Originally Posted by Robert S

The travel insurance product I normally buy DOES cover insolvency (although not all the products from that provider do cover it) but I notice with interest that they specifically excluded Strategic/Air Australia from policies issued on or after 21 Dec, the date on which they wrote the exclusion into an addendum to their PDS. For what it's worth, insolvency is defined by them to include the appointment of administrators.

I think we use the same product.

The provider I use also attempts to redefine "insolvency" to include the appointment of administrators. I don't know if it's kosher for a word to be redefined to mean things that in the English language it doesn't, but I guess their legal gurus must think it is OK.

[David F]

Originally Posted by StevenW

The provider I use also attempts to redefine "insolvency" to include the appointment of administrators. I don't know if it's kosher for a word to be redefined to mean things that in the English language it doesn't, but I guess their legal gurus must think it is OK.

What is the harm in extending the definition of a word? It only benefits the customer in this case.