Airport monopoly

Rosette Fenech, head of communications at Malta International Airport, refers to Ryanair's offer to operate the old air terminal building as "unrealistic" and unfounded. It is not clear why the word unrealistic was placed within inverted commas. It is also more unclear why she has deemed the offer as unfounded, as if this offer is being seen as an allegation.

For the benefit of MIA, I would like to remind all and sundry that Malta now forms part of the European Union and we have a conservative government which does not believe in state enterprises as a matter of principle, and also strongly believes in free market economies and thus free competition. In fact, we have a ministry responsible for competitiveness that totally upholds the principle of free competition. The ministry, for example, has taken measures to dissolve the monopoly of a certain agency at the water ports and hence there is nothing unrealistic about having a new initiative to end the monopoly at the airport.

Another clear example of such a practice is the setting up of a new enterprise, by the private sector, to carry out ramp activities at the MIA, a service that for quite a long time was carried out only by Air Malta.

The above examples are all a clear indication that MIA cannot continue to assume that in the future it will continue to enjoy its monopoly over a service as critical as airport management in a state island, where there is no real alternative to air travel for all those persons wishing to fly for leisure, business or any other purpose and/or reason.

In a free market economy, the argument that the MIA already offers adequate service for about three million passengers, and that it has the capacity to service five million passengers, does not hold water. Otherwise we would close most businesses in Malta since, for example, one company can import, distribute and service all the white goods required by Maltese households. Or we can close 50 per cent of our restaurants since I am quite certain that restaurant occupancy, on average, would not be more than 50 per cent all year round.

Competition is healthy and, if well organised, it can be a great benefit to the consumers. In Malta's case one has to emphasise that air services are a critical aspect of our living standards and no one should be given any form of monopoly in the provision of such services or any part thereof. The consumer has the right to choose the operators that provide the services in connection with travelling to and from Malta. In order for the consumer to be able to exercise this right, there must be more operators that offer the required freedom of choice.

I strongly believe that all low-cost carriers, especially Ryanair and Easyjet, should continue to actively lobby the Maltese government for their right of operation from and to Malta in order to make travelling more accessible to us Maltese, and to diversify our tourists' markets. After all, low-cost airlines should also be regarded as part of the reforms so as to make Malta more competitive as a business location since more and more business people are making use of such low-cost airlines to travel to their business meetings, attend conferences, send their staff for training, etc.

There is nothing unrealistic or unfounded in Malta having a single airport but with two independent terminals operated by two different companies. If the current vision of MIA is to call such a proposal unrealistic and unfounded, then I must state that this is surely a short-sighted vision, and one that infringes on the basic principles of free market economy and free competition. MIA cannot assume the role of the regulator since its role in Malta is that of an operator. It is the government that is to decide whether Malta should have another air terminal operated by a new company.