Dear Editor,
I found three articles in two sections of the Barbados media of Wednesday, February 19, 2014 absolutely fascinating. Two articles reported on Dr Leroy McLean, Chief Executive Officer of the Barbados Industrial and Development Corporation’s address to graduants of the ‘Export Readiness Seminar’ held on the previous day. The third was Rickey Singh’s column headlined: ‘The region owes LIAT much.’
Dr McLean is reported as saying: “Instead of wasting so much money on LIAT,” regional governments should “put a fraction of it into finding one or two ships that can go through the Caribbean to replace the Federal Maple and Federal Palm and perhaps we will see greater development… If we can move goods, people will follow.”
On the other hand, Mr Singh criticized persons who dare to comment on LIAT’s commercial and operational performance, writing: “Disappointingly, however … LIAT’s management has to cope with the salvos of traditional critics, often short on alternatives, but long on complaints, including unsubstantiated claims.” He went on to accuse commentators of ‘bad-mouthing’ LIAT’s operations.
On two separate occasions, LIAT made a solemn commitment to the taxpayers of the shareholder countries that the company would be transformed into a viable and financially self-sufficient one. The first such occasion was 2006 when Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados and St Vincent and the Grenadines invested US$70 million in the carrier to enable it to purchase the assets of Caribbean Star and become a virtual monopoly provider of passenger transportation by air in the region. On the second occasion, in December 2012, LIAT published a Business Plan that projected profits ranging from two and a half million US dollars in 2013 to sixteen million US dollars in 2016. On neither occasion has LIAT performed – the projected two and a half million profit in 2013 has turned into a fifteen million US dollar loss. If LIAT has underperformed so spectacularly in the first year of its planning cycle, what are we the taxpayers to expect in subsequent years, particularly when there are no discernible changes in the composition of the board, executive management and policies? Is the 2013 performance typical of a company’s behaviour at the apex of what management theorists call the ‘cone of divergence’, where LIAT’s financial performance will deteriorate over time?
I am sure that Mr Singh would agree that LIAT has failed to deliver on its solemn promises to be financially viable, and to provide good customer service on a consistent basis. The level of complaints and the frequent explanations/excuses from LIAT’s management bear testimony to this second failing.
What is pellucid is that urgent and fundamental change is required. Clearly, what the board and management are doing is not working. Mr Singh should deal with the message, not the presumed motives of the messengers. It is a proven fact that LIAT is in urgent need of structural change, strategic change and above all, cultural change. I am reminded that the first prerequisites of change are recognition that things are not working, and that ‘status quo’ or ‘stay the course’ are not acceptable responses. It is these realities that the “salvos of traditional critics” are designed to point out. It is a frustration born out of non-performance, lame excuses and LIAT’s apparent satisfaction with the status quo that these critics express. I assure you that their point of view is welcomed by many people who are closely associated with LIAT, a group that is anxious to see LIAT succeed.
The fundamental point that they are making is that LIAT needs bold and enlightened leadership to take the company on a renewed journey to success.
Yours faithfully,
Rufus J Letang
