There is a particularly trenchant saying in Maltese which badly translates into English: to condemn someone to a 'hobz u ilma' (bread and water) regime means the harshest of prison regimes, dating back to the days when this was the prelude to a hanging.

So when today's Air Malta passengers are told their flight will be on a 'hobz u ilma' regime they may be pardoned for thinking the airline has ordered they be put on a penitential regime.

The announcement by the airline had been in the air but, when it came, it came at the end of a working day and week, in the midst of the Christmas shopping. There was none of the usual preliminaries and PR preparations for the announcement. Nor were there any consultations, as the side issue with the cabin crew union later showed. The announcement gave the news without any possible margin for negotiations.

There are many questions one may ask at this point.

Given that the fare was not a world-beater in culinary preparation, and given that the airline must reduce its expenses so as to fit in with the EU regime to which the previous government committed it, is it in any way plausible this was the only saving that could be made? And could the savings happen to be at the expense of the much-suffering public?

Most of the KM flights are in the short span sector, an hour or two at the most, but others are upwards of three hours. Yet the airline has not made any difference at all between the various routes.

It is true that low cost airlines covering more or less the same routes have done away with food altogether but they never had one in the first place. Whereas in this case, there used to be food and now there is only bread and water.

There are airlines and airlines. Apart from the low cost airlines, other airlines flying to Malta have different culinary regimes. Some offer a tasty baguette or sandwich plus a choice of soft drinks; others still offer wine which disappeared from Air Malta's flights some years back.

Besides announcing this austerity regime in the worst possible manner, the national airline did not temper its harshness with, for instance, a choice of alternatives - it did not even come to an agreement with its own cabin crew how to implement this decision. The public, as far as is known, has still not been told what alternatives there are and price ranges.

People use a plane to come to Malta because that is the only transport means there is. Whether they are on holiday or on business or for any other reason, people travelling by plane have no real alternative. To impose on them a bread and water regime adds to the punishment. If Air Malta were to conduct a survey of what its passengers think of this latest innovation, it would be surprised by the vehemence of passengers.

It used to be said (by the previous CEO, bar one) that just entering the plane means for many people the actual beginning of the holiday. What are they to make of this sudden decision - that they are on their way to a prison camp?

Air Malta used to boast its planes were an extension of Malta and it offered the best that Malta could offer. This decision will thus have the same impact as when in the bad old days we kept our roadlights switched off and public buildings darkened from a skewed perspective that such savings were warranted and that people accepted them. They did not then, and do not now.

Even now, the airline can tweak this decision and build on it to re-establish good relations with passengers and crew. We look forward to seeing this happen.