Does "OneMore Chance" Justify the Means?
Whither Cayman Airways is the question thatmust be on the minds of many a concerned citizen in this land.
Of course, coupled with that question mustbe when will the powers-that-be stop spending money on this venturewhich continues to show a predilection for chalking up losses.
Throwing good money after bad, has beenthe hue and cry for many who yearn for an end to the bleeding.
It is no longer possible to continue business as usual with thehandling of this state owned operation. The people, are haemorrhaging.
Many who are doing the spending of the public'smoney are saying give it one more chance. When do we begin countingto reach 'one'? After 'one' what?
In a time of economic prosperity peoplecan afford to turn a blind eye to an operation or two which maybe registering losses but not enough to make a dent in such goodtimes.
But, every one who cares about the economichealth of these islands know that there are serious challengesto our prosperity and the good times, as we once knew them tobe, are things of the past.
In adjusting to a new era, albeit temporarywe hope, there must be belt-tightening. In these tough times everycent not spent because of vanity and pride counts. The loss-makingoperations are now causing more than dents on our challenged economy.
The time is now to cut the losses. It iscertainly not the point at which we give hand outs to a stateenterprise over which there has always been a red mark.
It is therefore painful to hear of the millionsmore that government plans to sink into our beloved airline whichexperts say has long gone past the point of no return under itscurrent structure. It's wings are far too heavy with debt to recover.
While the country aches over the financiallosses of our national carrier and hope for prudent decision-making,we hear not only of the further plunging of money into the companybut also of the current structure of management being expandedinstead of getting down to fighting weight.
On its wings, CAL now has to carry an additionallevel of management, making the number of such units feeding offthe top five. Or will there be a paring of staff to justify themeans?
The problem of this additional boss, theconsultant firm, is that it comes with tie-in arrangements ensuringthat a percentage of anything which can be called a saving bythe airline must flow to it.
Maybe the politicians who by theiractions appear reluctant to let go of this company shouldtake time out to explain to the people the rationale behind moremoney being spent on a company that many do not believe will everbring the cash back.
Then, added to our malaise, we are witnessinganother burden being put on the said enterprise to feed off it.
In their explanations the politicians shouldtell us what they term a 'saving', a percentage of which the consultantswould share.
Does this arrangement mean that if the consultantssay fire a faithful member of staff, they get a percentage ofthat individual's annual income which is now cut from the payroll?
On the other hand, does the country getback money when they find out that the consultants' advice goesawry thereby causing us to pay more?
In other words, out of whose pockets willthe consultants' yet to be delineated "out of pocket"expenses be met - the people's or the politicians'?