BWIA, symbol of misplaced priorities

THE EDITOR: When NATUC claimed that majority shareholding control of British West Indian Airways (BWIA) was “in the best interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago”  (Newsday, August 3, 2004) the union was merely echoeing the historical rationale expounded by the Government for its 1961 acquisition of BWIA. The acquisition had less to do with ownership of a profit making enterprise and almost everything to do with the possession of a prestigious status symbol — a national airline. In 1961, when the British Government announced plans for the dissolution of the bankrupt BWIA, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago purchased the airline for TT$ 2.5 million. Today, after 42 years of service, this TT$2.5 million investment has cost the Trinidad and Tobago taxpayer more than TT$700 million.

Yet in the face of such massive losses, NATUC seeks to perpetuate the myth of a BWIA that is  “in the best interest”  of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. NATUC is not alone. Newsday suggests that the Government   “should be urged to study measures designed to protect BWIA, for example the imposition of special landing and other charges on aircraft operating special charters, as well as subsidising the aviation fuel BWIA purchases in Trinidad and Tobago.” This proposal ignores two basic facts. First, travellers are interested in lower fares; and second, a TT aviation fuel subsidy is a cost to the taxpayer. Rather than imposing  “special”  landing charges, the interest of the people of TT are better served by lower landing fees, which would translate to lower fares for travellers.  

While one could be persuaded that these suggestions might be presented in good faith, the reality is that they are in essence an attempt to perpetuate the myth of an airline which, with special tinkering, could produce profits for its investors. Tinkering to make BWIA profitable has been an ongoing exercise in futility. In 1961 the TT Government offered BWIA shares to other West Indian governments (investors) along with  seats on the BWIA board of directors. Additionally, the TT Government  “went so far as to offer a five-year protection against having to underwrite any losses the airline might incur.” West Indian governments declined the offer. Clearly, in 1961, the priority of the Trinidad and Tobago Government was misplaced. For the TT$700 million lost in propping up the insolvent BWIA, the people of TT could have been better served through the establishment of a national ground transportation system; a system that would have benefited all of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, as against the comparatively select few who have travelled with BWIA.

The monies saved in the shutting down of BWIA should be a first step towards the creation of an efficient, affordable, and comprehensive national ground and sea transport system; one that incorporates electric trains, propane gas-burning buses, and a fast, efficient ferry service for the Trinidad/Tobago commute. In a country where 300,000 people live below the poverty level; where the need for housing is in crisis; where 60,000 people go unemployed every day; and where a coherent national ground transportation system is yet to be implemented, the time has come when we must say to Government — enough is enough — BWIA must go. Over the past forty years the perpetuation of a myth, a bankrupt BWIA on the cusp of profitability, is at best a scandal, if not in fact criminal, and a testament to the misplaced priorities of both present and past governments.

EDMUND NARINE
Boston, Massachusetts, USA