THE EDITOR: The airline industry is the focus of a great deal of interest at the moment and one of the local issues is “free travel”. Plenty “ole talk”. I would like to try to discuss what appear to be widespread misconceptions about “free travel”, or rebated travel, in the airline industry.

What precisely, in direct economic effects, will curtailing “free travel” have on an airline’s bottom line? The answer is very little. In terms of extra cost, there is a small amount of extra fuel burned to carry the passenger, and anything they consume that would not otherwise have been consumed or thrown away. The recent addition of service charges means that in some cases it is a net gain for the airline, rather than a cost.

In terms of revenue loss because of the availability of the reduced rate tickets, most airline employees and eligible family cannot afford to travel at regular prices. Those who can afford the full fare usually do not want to travel on a rebated ticket because of the uncertainty, and the stress of having to stand around waiting to see if they are going to get a seat or not, or being off loaded in some foreign place, not knowing when they will be able to get out. To understand “free travel”, one needs to know how it came about and how it works.

An airline seat is a highly perishable product. Once the door closes, the value of that empty seat is zero, lost forever. Back in the early days of aviation, load factors were low, not much more than 55 percent most of the time, and all those empty seats bothered everybody. It was not long before deals were being made that traded pay and benefits for “free” or rebated travel. This made empty seats a little less wasteful, and reduced cash outflows in the form of pay. Win-win! Employees loved it because it meant that they could go to places they could otherwise only dream of. Airlines loved it because it recovered some of the value of the wasted empty seats, and it reduced their cash burn. Some airlines are more generous than others, but the basic travel privileges are just about universal.

The whole issue is based on the premise that once there is a fare-paying passenger, an employee has to stand aside. Complex rules and regulations cover who is eligible and a host of other implementation issues, but they tend to be quite similar from airline to airline. In almost all cases the employee has the dreaded “two-striper” ticket that brands them as “subject to load” and they often get put off halfway along their journey because the flight has filled up (if they actually got on in the first place). Employee travel with family at holiday times is all but impossible in these days of high load factors, and who can, or wants to, travel when their kids are in school? The exceptions to this are very senior employees, who enjoy benefits similar to many large companies with regard to annual leave and travel. They get a “one striper” that means a better deal than regular employees but still subject to many restrictions, and lower a priority than a regular passenger.

The only case where an employee can displace a fare-paying passenger is when that employee is travelling on duty. Many of the perceptions of airline staff travelling on a flight where regular passengers are left behind stem from employees travelling on duty. Of course, as with everything else, there are those who find ways to subvert the system, and airlines vary in their capability in preventing abuse, but by and large the system works well for most properly managed airlines. It has become accepted as one of the perks of the industry, much as bankers get special deals on loans, Government officers get deals on vehicles and computers, etc, etc. I would hope that this will explain some of the basics of airline “free travel” and perhaps reduce some of the uninformed “ole talk” that has been around on the subject.

SIMON KELSHALL
Diego Martin

THE EDITOR: I would like to bring to the attention of the public, via the medium of your newspaper the delay involved in the privatisation of the Government Electrical Inspectorate department.

It was understood that this department was supposed to be privatised, similar to the Motor Vehicle Inspection that is being done presently. Over the weekend, my electricity line was torn down, and this required an electrical inspection certificate, in order to be connected. Since there are only two Electrical Inspection offices in this country I had to endure a long wait. I appeal to the authorities to urgently have the privatisation process completed, so that this type of hardship can be eliminated. This would also relieve Government strain on the treasury, since the state would not have to pay travelling expenses and such large wage bills to inspectors.

S KHAN
Curepe

THE EDITOR: Both of you can bat! Why not go to the crease and prove it always? The selectors count on you as experienced young players. The other youngsters will be glad to follow. There are others, but both of you must take some responsibility for the loss of the vital 2nd Test match of the 2003 series against Australia at the Queen’s Park Oval in Trinidad. You were among others who made gifts of your prized wickets. Perhaps a quote from Captaincy in Cricket would help you and the other members of the team: “……Early in the term of his captaincy at test level (first time around) Lara became perhaps the only champion batsman since George Headley (WI) and the only captain in international cricket who seemed to shoulder responsibility for the team’s score….” (Chapter 3, famous captains — page 32).

The West Indies can win the 3rd and 4th Tests, but the skipper must get needed help from the batsmen and bowlers. Concentration and Thinking the Game must be applied as part of the plans outlined in “Captaincy in Cricket!” Without Hooper, Chanderpaul and Jacobs on the team skipper Brian Lara has shown that the Aussies can be matched, but once again it was a veritable one man show in the second innings. The question arises — Why help sour history to repeat itself?

FYZUL HASSANALI
Lower Santa Cruz

THE EDITOR: When, by chance, I found the Vision 2020 (V2020) document on the government’s website (www.gov.tt), I fully expected to read the planners’ vision of TT as a developed country, their assessment of our present status, and their action plan for closing the gap. This was not to be.

Although there are bold statements, the actualisation is unclear. V2020 was so disappointing, that for one anxious moment I thought that a demented hacker had sought to discredit our government by placing this absurdity on the gov.tt website. The much-touted V2020 turned out to be just another political manifesto; such as we have grown accustomed to, devoid of a true philosophy that expressed the beliefs and aspirations of our people. However, the most critical oversight to me was the absence of strategies to transform the provincial attitudes of large sections of the population into values that are consistent with developed nation status.

Human development must enhance the ability of the people to make choices, unhampered by superstition, prejudices, and inhibitions. I searched in vain for proposals to reduce precipitant decision making with a culture of research. Nothing was said about transforming our passive acceptance of mediocrity, exploitation, and even corruption, into a culture of skepticism and critical evaluation of whatever confronts us. I longed to see something about removing kinship and patronage as criteria for advancement, and replacing these with a focus on meritocracy.

I saw no real plan to remove our people from servile dependency on government, to make them self-reliant and empowered, willing to take responsibility for their own destinies. No clear strategy was mentioned to arrest our people’s enchantment with foreign heroes, lifestyles, and brand names, and to inculcate national identity and help us recognise and appreciate our own capabilities. There was no clear plan to cure us of our preoccupation with short-term goals, and to develop a positive disposition towards long-term planning. Most of all, very little was said about developing values of consideration, responsibility, justice, compassion, caring, honesty, cooperation, and respect for human dignity. Development without these values would entrench us into situations of even more robberies, kidnappings, and violence.

Instead, V2020 placed emphasis on the expansion and upgrading of institutions and programmes that have been on the landscape for some time. These include URP, On-the-job training, Transformational and Development Centres, SHARE, YTEPP, Civilian Conservation Corps and Self-Help. I have no doubt that some of these programmes have value, but should we not evaluate them before relying on them to launch TT into the rank of a developed nation? Coming out strongly in V2020 was the belief that we can buy our way to developed status with revenues from oil and gas. According to V2020 we can become more healthy by building numerous health care facilities. Only a brief mention was made of public education on diet and exercise.

V2020 expects community development to be a consequence of building new social and recreational centres. National security will improve by training the forces, by acquiring new vehicles, and building new stations. Nothing was said about motivating law enforcement agencies to do their duty. In the same manner V2020 expects that building a Family Services Centre, and nine regional centres will enhance family life. Nothing was said about taking parental education into at-risk homes. I am truly disappointed by this document; perhaps it was placed on the website prematurely. It surely does not meet the expectations expressed by the Hon Prime minister and the Hon Minister of Planning and Development in their speeches to launch the project.

DAVID   SUBRAN
Chaguanas

THE EDITOR: I read in the press recently that a leading alcoholic beverage company is to contract Iwer George for some of their product promotions and that some of this extends not only from Iwer’s popularity base which he has garnered over the years but also from his patriotic Carnival hit “Ah Home”.

All this is just straightforward marketing strategy which is all well and good. However, at the same time, I do wish that the alcohol producing and distribution company would also include or embark upon some public service promotions for “drinking responsibly”. For too long in our culture we seem to have taken a very casual view towards drinking and driving. In this country we have developed the nonsensical bravado that “we could hol’ we liquor” without regard to the sometimes dire consequences that result when inebriated drivers take to the wheel.

Within recent times too, the country has lost Professor Michael Beauburn, who for years was the country’s most ardent advocate for the introduction of a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) test, better known as the breathalyser, for use by traffic police to apprehend drunk drivers and so thwart any disaster that they may wreak upon themselves or others. Yet, for all of Professor Beauburn’s good efforts, his remained a voice crying in the wilderness, his appeals falling on deaf ears from one administration to the next. So without the government shamelessly showing any interest, even with Caroni Limited as a government owned entity being also part of the alcoholic beverage industry, I call upon the private sector of this industry to do more for the promotion of drinking responsibly for the increasing numbers of drivers on our roads.

I say “do more” because I do acknowledge that some advertisements do bear the phrase “drink responsibly”, and that some of our overpasses do have the slogan “Don’t Drink and Drive” emblazoned across them (although for an already drunken driver, this serves no purpose). However, I do believe much more can and has to be done with respect to putting an end to drinking and driving in Trinidad and Tobago, via public service advertisements, promotions and education in the mainstream media and in the schools, both primary and secondary. Some may argue that the driving age is from age eighteen so why the need for such information in our primary and secondary schools. But I would counter that by stating that the situation is somewhat of a cultural acceptance that must be addressed from early so that our children grow up hearing repeatedly enough about the dangers of drinking and driving and so hopefully will not partake or condone such behaviour when they reach adulthood.

Medically it has been found that it takes at least one hour for your body to get rid of a typical drink of say one and a half ounces of 80 proof liquor, which is about a one shot glass, straight or with a mixer, or twelve ounces of beer, the amount in a regular bottle or can. The so-called remedies of fresh air, cold showers, coffee or exercise do not help. Time is the only thing that will sober you up as it takes time for the digestive system to process the alcohol in the body after which the effects of it will have diminished. Ideally, it would be great if the breathalyser were introduced here and have Professor Beauburn’s efforts finally bearing fruit. Nevertheless, in the meantime I do wish that the alcoholic beverage industry would indeed show more patriotism in this situation so that overall and particularly, over long holiday weekends and after Friday night liming all of us could arrive home safely and cheerfully sing “Ah Home!”

GEDDES DAVIS
Bellingham WA, USA