With reference to the "almost completed" Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) building complex, and the very recent tour of Jack Warner, Minister of Works and Transport, I inquire about the quality of information offered to him by the director general and the board. Warner calls the new complex of Caroni South Bank Road "the best kept secret" in the public service, adding that there were no cost overruns and it "served as an example as to how projects should be handled."? According to two press reports, it will open in February 2011, ie, the control tower, the training facility and an administration building. Note this promise of February 2011. What the minister must ask is: was there a completion date overrun? For accuracy, he must never in future be given an incomplete briefing. No minister should be exposed to such embarrassment.
And now to explain the above assertion:
(1) In June 2008 at a Briko Air Services ceremony, Ramesh Lutchmedial, director general, CAA, stated: "Our control tower and new radar will be completed in 18 months" (see my Summit of the Americas letter in the June 18, 2008, Guardian).
(2) That brings us to December 2009–no complex as promised.
We are today in September (eight months after the promise) and being proudly informed of February 2011, 14 months late and no cost overrun?
Am I therefore reasonably to conclude that the CAA budget for this complex was therefore heavily padded and adequately inflated?
In very polite terms, I assert that Warner has received an inadequate and partial briefing from some party or parties, and by extension so have the citizens. That said, I turn now to the CAA's alleged need "to have the Civil Aviation Act 2001 amended so they could be fully self-sufficient." This is procurement, is it to be blessed by Parliament? Madam Prime Minister, please take early note. Is it correct that news emerged last year about a named central businessman/restaurant owner? Did the CAA not publicly confirm that by contract, one of his companies was granted the right to collect airspace
overflight fees on the CAA's behalf??
Why? What is the competence??And the income to CAA?? "With this amendment (to the 2001 Act) we can now engage in other aviation activities to generate revenue," said Lutchmedial (Newsday, Sept 8). And Warner "assured that he would address their need." If it is Piarco and procurement, historically and politically one must be extremely cautious: PNM and Project Pride; UNC and the Birk-Hillman pirates. Piarco certainly is a juicy mango. Be careful, People's Partnership!
Arthur L McShine
Via e-mail