AIR - Air NZ.

[Beagle]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111...+12+March+2019

Interesting case. Does an implied contract to continuously supply confer with it the obligation from a commercial viewpoint to consider and implement all reasonable steps to ensure said supply continues continuously ? I will follow this one with interest.
Disc: I have shares in both AIR and ZEL

[BlackPeter]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111...+12+March+2019

Interesting case. Does an implied contract to continuously supply confer with it the obligation from a commercial viewpoint to consider and implement all reasonable steps to ensure said supply continues continuously ? I will follow this one with interest.
Disc: I have shares in both AIR and ZEL

I find it pretty unbelievable that neither the airline nor the supplier had set up any contingency plans or risk management for such an event. I guess surely - if you list the top 10 risks to impact on the service reliability of an airline, than interruptions to the fuel supply must be somewhere on this list?

Having no contracts detailing whose responsiblity it is to ensure the continuous supply is just an outcome of above. Guessing after the event whose responsiblity it could have been is pathetic.

Not sure, how long ZEL was a partner to this contract (did they inherit that from Shell)? and how NZR (I think it is their pipeline, isn't it) would fit into the story ... but this whole thing clearly makes us to the loughing stock of the world.

One company providing a crucial fuel supply without defining the provided service standard (they never seemed to have thought about this);

The countries biggest airline relying on a crucial fuel supply without defining and agreeing on the required service standard (they never seemed to have cared about this);

The refining monopolist running a pipeline without defining the reliability of the fuel supply.

All (?) care but no responsibility and no risk mitigation. Which banana republic are we talking about?

[steveb]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111...+12+March+2019

Interesting case. Does an implied contract to continuously supply confer with it the obligation from a commercial viewpoint to consider and implement all reasonable steps to ensure said supply continues continuously ? I will follow this one with interest.
Disc: I have shares in both AIR and ZEL

Looks a bit iffy to me AIR going down the the american model of litigation. Chuck some sort of allegation out there,then try to get a settlement.The fuel companies forming the cartel supplying AIR will just put rhere prices up and joe public will end up on the recieving end again!

[dreamcatcher]

Interesting BP's position and will Z SP take a hit ?

"The airline had already settled a damages claim with BP, Geye said"

[Beagle]

I find it pretty unbelievable that neither the airline nor the supplier had set up any contingency plans or risk management for such an event. I guess surely - if you list the top 10 risks to impact on the service reliability of an airline, than interruptions to the fuel supply must be somewhere on this list?

Having no contracts detailing whose responsiblity it is to ensure the continuous supply is just an outcome of above. Guessing after the event whose responsiblity it could have been is pathetic.

Not sure, how long ZEL was a partner to this contract (did they inherit that from Shell)? and how NZR (I think it is their pipeline, isn't it) would fit into the story ... but this whole thing clearly makes us to the loughing stock of the world.

One company providing a crucial fuel supply without defining the provided service standard (they never seemed to have thought about this);

The countries biggest airline relying on a crucial fuel supply without defining and agreeing on the required service standard (they never seemed to have cared about this);

The refining monopolist running a pipeline without defining the reliability of the fuel supply.

All (?) care but no responsibility and no risk mitigation. Which banana republic are we talking about?

I'm not normally an advocate for any form of Govt intervention but airline travel is an essential service so if AIR and the fuel companies can't get agreement around a robust supply chain I would think the Government needs to stipulate some minimum standard that's above the current one. I believe that's what the enquiry around the fuel pipeline leak is essentially looking at.

[777]

Aircraft can always tanker fuel into an airport to be able to depart, even if it has to refuel again enroute to its planned destination. Sure it costs the operator a lot more to do so.

[Beagle]

BYB (Back yourself Beagle)

Thanks mate, backed myself for more today at $2.47.

[Leftfield]

Thanks mate, backed myself for more today at $2.47.

Good luck with that...... TA not exactly supportive of your decision IMHO. (Disc don't hold)

[Baa_Baa]

Good luck with that...... TA not exactly supportive of your decision IMHO. (Disc don't hold)

TA is discretionary, one can use it rigidly or ignore it when it suits. IMHO the former is a more reliable approach. I suppose FA is the same, but different. The hard part of TA is figuring out what is working for each individual share, because there is no rule that fits them all. Once that is found out however, TA is a most satisfying tool, until it doesn’t work then it’s back to figuring out what is working.

[Leftfield]

TA is discretionary, one can use it rigidly or ignore it when it suits. IMHO the former is a more reliable approach. I suppose FA is the same, but different. The hard part of TA is figuring out what is working for each individual share, because there is no rule that fits them all. Once that is found out however, TA is a most satisfying tool, until it doesn’t work then it’s back to figuring out what is working.

Of course. I have also now read Beagles previous posts giving his FA reasons for his decision and can understand them.

I repeat..... good luck with this decision. (But plse also remember I'm entitled to make my own decisions which would be not to fight the downward trend.)

JMHO