Two important letters on that Bobbardier deal

By the time this letter appears the Bombardier jet matter may have been settled. Whether or not that is so, I have - only for now - a few comments and questions to which I hope Minister Mariano Browne and/or Mr Arthur Lok Jack can, within the framework of the transparency to which the Government they serve says it is committed, condescend to give straightforward and comprehensive answers.

First, two websites I have recently visited describe the plane in identical terms as "the world's most expensive (business) jet."

At a time when income differentials in Trinidad and Tobago are increasingly so wide, and the less privileged increasingly so marginalised, as to require the country to subscribe to a poverty reduction programme, why is this particular model sought to be purchased by the authorities?

Second, Caribbean Airlines says it "has identified a niche market in the Caricom region" for the rental of the jet. Mr Lok Jack adds that CAL "would be able to lease (the) aircraft at rates between US$13,000 and US$15,000 per block hour, which is in line with rates available in the open market."

What I have just seen in an Internet search, however, is an hourly lease rate range of between US$4,000 and US$7,600 for the same aircraft. Could this discrepancy be cleared up?

Third, although Mr Lok Jack assures us that "a niche market in the Caricom region" has been identified, he also says that it would be "uneconomical" for the plane to be used in that same region. (By contrast, the Guardian Holdings jet, he says, is "good for the Caribbean and Miami." I shall - only for now - refrain from comment.)

What then is this "niche market" of Caricom-based persons and interests that would on the face of it be prepared to pay between two and three times the normal hourly rental rate for travel outside the Caribbean? Could we please have details? Is there a security concern here?

Fourth, I am surprised to hear that Bombardier has a problem with the CAL-proposed anti-corruption clause. The 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which Canada (Bombardier's home) is a party, contains very stiff anti-corruption provisions.

These apply to all individuals, businesses, etc in OECD countries. Bombardier must know this, so why its alleged hesitation?

Is it perhaps being suggested that the company has been in the habit of paying bribes, and that CAL has found a cast-iron way of blocking it from so doing in this instance?

Perhaps the Canadian government might show some interest in the issue?

May I also say how deeply impressed I am that an administration which for years has not managed to bring to Parliament draft legislation on public sector anti-corruption procurement procedures can now so strongly support the wholly state-owned airline in its insistence on a clause of such apparent rigour as to cause discomfort to Bombardier?

Could we please be given the full text concerned? In what previous government contract negotiations has it been used? The rapid rail matter, for example?

I would not want it to be thought that my queries above mean that I favour the principle of the direct or indirect purchase of any jet by the Government for its use, and that I merely have difficulties with the implementation of the principle.

On the contrary, I totally reject the principle. Especially given the declining quality of life in our country today, I quite frankly find the whole thing obscene.

Reginald Dumas | Tobago
___________________________________________________________________

There is a saying that if you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself. This is exactly what has happened to the principal spokesmen in the Bombardier Jet affair.

It was obscene and provocative in the first instance, that whilst ordinary people were facing severe hardship, the Prime Minister and his Government sought to throw millions of taxpayers’ dollars behind a venture in the name of saving an hour waiting in the airport.

The public reached boiling point, and rightly so.

All attempts to spin the purchase of an executive jet in a favourable light simply failed, as explanation after explanation was riddled with inconsistencies, incredulity, and arrogance.

So the deal is now off, for the time being we are told, and apparently it’s all the fault of Bombardier.

What is disturbing is the insistence that an executive jet service is a viable venture! A venture can only be viable if you do not have to go cap in hand to the Government, but this basic business principle seems to have escaped the Caribbean Airlines chairman. If any profit could be made, the private sector would have already filled the gap.

The entire episode requires a thorough investigation, and the public, as owners of Caribbean Airlines, ought to be told of that company’s financial position to date.

The public also deserve to know the details of the “anti-corruption” clause which Bombardier was hesitant to sign.

All of this is necessary, given the insistence of the Government and of the Caribbean Airlines Chairman that an executive jet is still on the cards.

Wayne Jaggernauth | Couva