CAL announces operating loss of US$109.2m for last year
Caribbean Airlines (CAL) yesterday announced its unaudited financial results for year to the end of December 2020, with the impact of the global pandemic resulting in an operating loss (Earnings Before Interest & Taxes – EBIT) of TT$738m (US$109.2m) on revenue of TT$802m (US$118.6m).
In a statement, CAL said that this is in stark comparison to 2019, which saw a positive EBIT of TT$76m (US$11.2m) on revenue of TT$3bn (US$440m) for the 12month period. Operating expenses for 2020 were TT$1.54bn (US$228m), 47% lower than 2019 as a result of fewer flights and strict cost controls.
Garvin Medera, CEO of Caribbean Airlines, said: “The first two months of 2020 continued our upward trajectory of the previous three years and the next phase of our strategic plan was commencing strongly. However, Covid-19 has taken a sledgehammer to international travel and tourism for the past 10 months and our financial results for last year fully reflect this new reality.”
Medera added: “Nonetheless, in spite of the pandemic, and reduced flying, we managed to add new destinations to our network and expanded our cargo offerings to include charter services. We also provided support through repatriation flights for a number of Caribbean nations and resumed operations in some destinations outside of Trinidad and Tobago where borders are open.”
Cornell’s Law School Legal Information Institute defines “domestic terrorism” as… “activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State: (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Policy and Guidelines state, “In accordance with U.S. counterterrorism policy, the FBI considers terrorists to be criminals. FBI efforts in countering terrorist threats are multifaceted. Information obtained through FBI investigations is analyzed and used to prevent terrorist activity and, whenever possible, to effect the arrest and prosecution of potential perpetrators.”
The invasion of Capitol Hill on 6th January this year clearly fits the requirements of domestic terrorism, and as such, the FBI is currently pursuing an investigation into the bizarre happenings of that day. The following statement appears on its Wanted web page:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Washington Field Office is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying individuals who made unlawful entry into the United States Capitol Building and various other alleged criminal violations, such as destruction of property, assaulting law enforcement personnel, targeting members of the media for assault, and other unlawful conduct, on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.”
Just as bizarre as the invasion of Capitol Hill by a rampaging mob was the acquittal of Mr Donald J Trump last Saturday in his second impeachment trial by the US Senate by a tally of 57 to 43 votes, ten short of the required number to convict the 45th President of the United States of America on the charge of engaging in “High Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”
How, in the face of overwhelming evidence, could 43 state representatives vote against an impeachment? The facts included the continuous moaning about a “stolen election,” summoning his supporters to a rally on the day of the riot, whipping them into a frenzied state and then falsely promising to accompany them to Capitol Hill. Then there was his outright stubborn refusal to quell the mob, preferring to enjoy the show on television as they ran riot in the Capitol building, destroying and looting property on the very day the US Senate was trying to certify the results of the elections.
Were the 43 nays just to save face for the
Republican Party and avoid the second impeachment of a Republican president? No, Mr Trump has succeeded in splitting the party. This vote was not a show of unity, in fact, it appears to have been a vote by 43 individuals trying to protect their own political futures. Why else on earth would they vote for an individual who, prior to his election, had promised “to drain the swamp” of these same senators that existed in Washington? No, these 43 senators, rather than uphold the honour of the oath they took to defend the constitution of the United States, succumbed to the element of fear.
That fear was presented in the form of Mr Donald Trump. They fear his reach and his power. In an interview on 31st March 2016, whilst running for president, he had observed, “Real power is — I don’t even want to use the word — fear.” In this instance, even with Mr Trump out of office, and a chance to sideline him from future political activities, 43 Republican senators lacked the moral courage to follow their conscience and impeach Trump.
The irony in the whole matter is that Trump is just as likely, to campaign against them should they seek re-election, just as he has promised to go after those seven Republican senators who voted in favour of impeachment: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
The 43 naysayers have witnessed up close and personal, the path of disunity sown by Mr Donald Trump during his time in the Oval Office. They have listened to, or later heard many of the thousands of lies he has spouted, yet the element of fear, the currency of all terrorists, was just too much.
The founding fathers of the United States, the signatories of the US Constitution must be spinning in their graves at the lack of integrity shown by these senators in dealing with a simple straightforward matter critical to the maintenance of American democracy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s frivolous argument that Mr Trump is now a private citizen and cannot be impeached while acknowledging after the vote, with a forked tongue, that, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for promoting the events of January 6,” holds no water.
President Trump has escaped the reach of the Senate. Will the FBI be charging him with domestic terrorism? Time, not the Republicans, will answer that question.
Almost from the first discovery of oil below our seafloor, I have been absorbing the righteous indignations over local content policy, or lack of one that hits the sweet spots for Guyanese. But on Sunday, we were all informed by the President himself that consultations on local content policy were set to begin on Monday; they did. That is a good first start; and my own take follows on where this should lead, and where it may not.
I read of documenting a slew of clauses and conditions in our local content policy, to memorialize and enshrine, what we insist is the national position, on how things should be locally, with our people and country reaping the benefits. That is good, in the saying and the putting on paper. Hard requirements and nonnegotiable positions, which must all be met, as to what must prevail. Jobs for Guyanese; penalties for breaches; and foreign payment of taxes, among other mandatory positions. Those all speak for themselves and are supportable; they are good to hear about first, and then to see committed to paper. I agree and stand in support of that I read. The word is that local content policy will cover all sectors, which is even more agreeable. The playing field must be leveled, so that Guyanese are not condemned to be stonecutters and bottom feeders.
Editor, with all that in mind, and with no intention of being a winter blast, I must be realistic and bring citizens on the same page with me. We have, and are, being held prisoner by foreign countries and companies. We, who have never experienced such sustained interest on most things, and could barely get the time of day from the occasional hard bargaining foreign investor, are suddenly overrun by unending waves of them, from everywhere, but mainly from the advanced and deep-pocketed North. Thus far, numerous foreign investors and companies have come here and put a rope around our necks, to quickly suck the air out of any leadership resistance, while extracting the richness from national treasures. All the components of what could be an official, and inspiring local content policy will have considerable cost elements for foreign operators in Guyana. They are maximum profit seekers, functioning in a highly competitive world, with still higher shareholder expectations, and almost zero accommodation for disappointment. They may agree publicly, while stubbornly resisting secretly. How successful they are, for how long they will be allowed to succeed at either dodging or denying the objectives of our national local content policy, in the future is up in the air currently. And how much political will there is to hold them to local content requirements is another grab-bag of uncertainty. The record of the recent past is not encouraging. The foreigners have been allowed by Guyana’s governments to get away with the barest minimum, regarding delivery with what is good for Guyana. To emphasize the mindset of foreign investor, I remind my contemporaries of negative and dismissive American investor reaction to the court award for Union Carbide’s chemical spill in that forlorn, impoverished outpost named Bhopal.
I further remind my fellow Guyanese that we have had comprehensive policies before on non-oil things, and then we sit back contentedly and do absolutely nothing more. To state differently, we have had a long and solid history of crafting robust policies, and then a troubled record of immediately mothballing them on the shelf to gather dust and cobweb from nonuse. To be clearer still, there is neither implementation nor enforcement. It is like a rich man who goes through with the public spectacle of a will for the handling of his business, but then promptly and quietly buries it at sea. My hope is that we do not do the same following all the current fanfare about local content policy. For certain, our final local content policy will have all the elements identified before and more. The big challenge and test would be what is done with the policy, how widely, how seriously, and how effectively. If we can do those on an uninterrupted basis, we will get something from this oil (and other treasures). In the next instance, if we don’t, then it will be business as usual, with ceaseless squabbling and bickering following. And that will be only the first down payments on the price to be paid.
Yours faithfully, GHK Lall