I refer to your leader entitled Turning a defeat into an opportunity (TMIS, 10 September).

The editorial was based on the wrong premise that government was sitting on a simple solution to a simple problem that was keeping major low-cost carriers from operating to Malta. Apart from being simplistic, the leader also contained some inaccuracies that need to be rectified.

First of all, low-cost carriers do not need a permit from government to operate to Malta. A number of low-cost carriers were already operating to Malta, even prior to the scheme announced by government last April. Our airline sector is by no stretch of the imagination protected. As a matter of fact, there are over 50 airlines that operate to Malta. Even if government wanted to protect this sector, it cannot do so because of EU regulations.

Government did not drag its feet on the issue of low-cost carriers. Government has dealt with this issue with urgency throughout. Urgency means doing things (rightly) in the shortest time possible. Unfortunately, urgency cannot always mean in a matter of days. Neither did government act because it had “a pistol to its head”. From day one, government’s position was that low-cost carriers must form part of our tourism product. It was never a question of if, but a question of how they should be introduced into our business mix.

Consider this: the Maltese government could not have done anything to prevent low-cost carriers, had they decided to operate to Malta and pay the existing Malta International Airport (MIA) charges. In that case, government’s job would have been to try and manage the inevitable restructuring that always occurs when a major player moves into an existing crowded market. However, low-cost carriers made it clear that they needed lower airport costs to operate to Malta. A number of solutions were thrown around – ranging from utilising the existing cargo terminal in Luqa to building a new terminal and runway in Gozo. The most sensible and practical solution was for government to fork out the difference between the airport charges and the price low-cost carriers were willing to pay to develop low-cost routes. By implementing this solution, however, government is by definition entering the market place and influencing the state of play. This government was only prepared to do so after identifying a way forward that minimised the effect on existing sources of business and respected the stringent EU regulations that govern the airline sector.

Your leader suggested that this work could have been done faster. It also suggested that government spent no effort to the extent that government is now “putting a spin that it was thanks to government that such a revolution came about”. I ask, whose fault would it have been, had tour operators pulled out because of a quick-fix response by government? Who would have shouldered the blame if hotels that are 95 per cent dependent on tour operation suddenly (and by suddenly, I mean within days) lost their main source of business?

Your leader talks about what people expect from a government. The people expect a government that acts responsibly and in the interests of all, be they hotel owners and their employees, restaurant and entertainment spot operators, shareholders in our airport, the tour operators and legacy carriers that helped us grow our industry and, yes, our national carrier. This is precisely what government did. There is no spin here. What happened was months of hard work, meetings and negotiations with operators, low-cost carriers and the EU Commission to find a workable solution.

The introduction of low-cost carriers, as proposed by government, will have a net positive effect on our tourism industry. Government is seeing this as a first step and certainly not the last.

Francis Zammit Dimech

Minister for Tourism and Culture