An association of 81 taxi drivers, which has been exclusively operating at the Piarco International Airport for over three decades, has sued the Airports Authority of T&T (AATT) over changes to its commercial arrangements.
Guardian Media understands that the Piarco Airport Taxi Co-operative Society Limited, which is represented by attorneys Yaseen Ahmed and Tara Lutchman, filed the breach of contract case against the authority on Thursday.
In its court filings obtained by Guardian Media, Lutchman noted that before 1989, the authority allowed 81 taxi drivers to ply their trade at the airport in exchange for a fee.
She claimed that between 1989 and 1990, the drivers were advised by the authority to officially register as a co-operative society.
She claimed that the drivers began paying monthly membership fees to the society, which in turn paid fees to the authority.
Lutchman alleged that when a new airport terminal was being constructed between 1998 and 2000, the authority kept the society abreast of developments including the proposed location of a taxi line and car park for taxis.
“The society was allocated free car park usage to the car park facility behind the special taxi line (holding up to about 100 taxis),” she said.
She also pointed out that in 2001, the society was required to pay a monthly concession fee of $5,750 to operate at the new terminal.
She claimed that in 2015, the authority provided a booth outside the arrival wing for use by the society at a monthly cost of US$374.07.
Lutchman contended that throughout the society’s commercial relationship with the authority, it (the society) was assured that it was the exclusive taxi provider for the airport.
She pointed to three occasions between 2003 and 2016, in which a taxi company and two hotels attempted to provide services at the airport but were stopped after the society raised concerns.
Lutchman claimed that in recent years, the authority began acting in bad faith.
She claimed that in July 2021, the authority withdrew the use of the car park facility, forcing its members to park on a road that could only accommodate 22 vehicles.
In October 2022, she said, the society’s president Lutchman Julien was presented with a draft lease for continued operations.
The society challenged the position, as it claimed that its arrangement was of unlimited duration based on previous dealings and assurances.
After several failed attempts to hold meetings between the parties, in April, this year, the society proposed a 25-year lease with a monthly fee of $8,050.
The authority responded in September and indicated that the rights granted to the society were non-exclusive. It also rejected the proposed 25-year lease as it indicated that it was only prepared to enter into an agreement for a seven-year term.
It gave the society until last week to agree, leading to the filing of the case.
“The vast majority of members have all acted to their detriment by leaving good paying jobs to take up work and membership of the society, position known to be of unlimited duration, by the purchase of expensive and special taxi vehicles to be used in furtherance of their new jobs, and whereby the sudden seven-year time limit is to be placed on their operations, by the gradual removal of their exclusivity of services and the unacceptable manner of treatment the members are receiving from the authority on a daily basis,” Lutchman said.
Lutchman claimed that the authority has also failed to prevent competing external taxi services from operating at the airport.
“In this regard, the authority has failed to regulate vehicular traffic within the airport and has failed to prohibit waiting by taxis except in areas appointed by the authority and for designating parking places for motor vehicles in breach of the promises and/or assurances and/or agreement given by the authority to the society,” Lutchman said.
Through the lawsuit, the society is seeking a series of declarations against the authority and an order compelling it (the authority) to allow free access to the car park for 15 taxis.
The society is also seeking an injunction blocking the authority from interfering with its exclusive provision of taxi services at the airport as well as damages.