As I settle down to write on Wednesday evening, I realise that I have been listening to the parliamentary debate on MTA for three hours now.

We have had a number of such sittings over the past few days: on the WSC and so on. They all have roughly the same template: the minister introduces, the Opposition has its own field day and then the minister replies to some of what has been said. There should also be a vote, but these have been bunched together and will be held at some date in the future.

I must say I have been disappointed with most of these debates but the one on tourism today takes the cake.

These should have been bipartisan sittings, with both sides contributing to the discussion. Instead, they turned out to be deeply partisan. The present government takes or vaunts credit for all the successes that have been registered and downplays the preceding government's part in anything that has worked, then blames the Opposition for anything that has gone wrong.

I would not say that the present Opposition, inasmuch as it is the successor of the preceding administration, is not to be held responsible for a lot of what has gone wrong, especially, as I will explain, in Air Malta. But, again, I think an objective and impartial analysis would also acknowledge the good that has been done by the PN government, especially in something its ministers fought tooth and nail against: the introduction of low-cost carriers.

But what strikes me most as I sit listening is that our country may have lost the plot where tourism is involved.

I must focus here on Air Malta. We have all heard the reports about Air Malta losing three of its planes, cutting down from 10 planes to seven. This has now been finally admitted by the government, even though the government had to reply with all sorts of accusations against the PN in government.

This came after other austerity measures, including the notorious bezzun that anyone flying with the national airline is given. One of the previous managers of Air Malta used to say that the Malta experience, the holiday experience, starts from the moment one enters the plane. Now the Malta experience has become a hobz u ilma (bread and water) experience.

Apart from shouting and blackballing the Opposition, the government has not provided the country with facts and figures so we cannot see how downsizing the airline was absolutely the only conclusion. As has been mentioned in the debate, downsizing the airline brings with it some inevitable conclusions: you need less staff, the overheads become more onerous, and you lose on the growth potential. The Opposition's claims that the Air Malta employees' salaries/perks will be cut was signally not addressed by the minister in the winding up.

The fewer machines you have, the more you need to use them - and that is what the government has been saying, without understanding the implications. I already feel the planes are being overused, and in fact every time there is a hiccup anywhere, this is reflected down the line. This will now get worse.

Like everybody else, I hear of prices being quoted by Air Malta and they turn out to be abysmally high both as regards flights, as well as, for example, change of names. (And I also feel the airline is coming out with far too many offers).

Yet most flights are packed to the rafters. Where will the cuts hurt?

All of a sudden we get to hear of the airline (or probably the owner, that is the government) holding talks about a strategic alliance with a big foreign airline. At first it was thought to be some airline from China, now Turkish Airlines has been mentioned. MHRA and other constituted bodies have come out against the idea. The government that claims to listen has not been listening too much so far.

As I said earlier, apart from blaming the PN administration for the RJ saga et al, the government says it is just implementing the agreement reached by the PN government and the Commission, which is drawing to a close. Hence the draconian measures are nothing if not due to PN.

The rest of the parliamentary sitting on the MTA accounts have shown other evidence of a general lack of a coherent strategy.

It is true we are getting more and more tourists and, now that we have found out how to do it, we can even look ahead at increasing the numbers. A participant at the debate mentioned two million passengers as being within reach.

But that would mean utilizing more, and better, the shoulder months, which the strategy has aimed for over the past years. How can that be achieved when the national airline is being downsized?

The strategy, the national strategy, and by that I mean the strategy of society as a whole, involving all sectors, has been focused on expansion.

I agree that maybe that strategy runs counter to the need to ensure sustainability and that deep and hard thought is called for in this respect, but this is now dependent on the low cost airlines almost exclusively. We were always warned not to put all our eggs in one basket and here we are putting them all in one basket that is not ours. At any time, and for any reason, the low cost carriers can pull the plug and there will not be a national airline to take up the slack.

One of the participants in the debate, Robert Arrigo if I remember correctly, said the strategy that should be followed is one of expansion, not downsizing.

One would have thought this would be the government's preferred strategy as this would then tie up with the demands of the construction sector, which the government is normally very sensitive about.

There is a lot to be said, for instance, for a link-up with a long haul flight or two. There are areas even in Europe such as Germany, which are underserved by Air Malta. And there are vast areas open for expansion, such as Russia and the North. And if we wait enough, maybe Libya will stabilize in a matter of years and we can benefit from that.

There is absolutely no need for the government to be so defensive whenever Air Malta is mentioned, unless it feels deep in its heart that the criticism is right and that the decisions that are being taken are the wrong ones.

It just makes no sense to boast how tourist numbers are increasing and then take decisions that will effectively cut down on the numbers.

 

[email protected]