Untimely, unnecessary expense
There is something that is not exactly clicking. Malta is building a Parliament house that it does not actually need and it is doing so right at a time when, given the economic circumstances and the difficulty to bring down the deficit in the government’s finances, common sense dictates it should not. Now, on top of this, comes the news that the national airline, Air Malta, deep in the red and at pains to carry out a restructuring in a bid to get it out of its economic turbulence, has spent nearly €2 million on a rebranding exercise.
Does it make sense? Should it not have at least waited until better times for rebranding?
Not only has the airline got the timing of the rebranding wrong but, to boot, it is also celebrating the event. No wonder the airline pilots are feeling a bit uneasy about the situation. They are quite right in lashing out at the airline, arguing that, given the situation facing Air Malta, the celebrations are inappropriate.
The amount spent may not be phenomenal but, placed in the context of the situation, the expense is unnecessary and the message is wrong, very wrong.
The airline bosses need to get their priorities right. Airline CEO Peter Davies said at the launching of its new logo that he considered it to be an investment, not a cost. The point may be arguable to the management team but not to others, again considering the circumstances.
The good news is that, according to Mr Davies, the restructuring plan was on the way to being realised, with costs being cut further in the first quarter of the financial year. It would have been cut even further had the airline held back from spending so much on rebranding at this point in time.
Mr Davies also said the airline was on track in achieving its target of cutting losses to €15 million. “We are actually slightly ahead of budget,” he said. Well done, but rebranding and celebrations should have been left to the time when the airline slips out of the red. That would be a milestone, one that would also need to be continuously sustained by judicious decisions.
As to the government and its various authorities, they too need to be careful how to spend the money. No one would surely be against going for important infrastructural works, such as, for example , the laying of the interconnector with Sicily, which would help ensure the continuity of electricity supply, or the extension of the power house, however much controversial the project has turned out to be.
The redevelopment of the Royal Opera House ruins just at the entrance to the capital city had also been long overdue but there was surely no need to build a brand new Parliament house. If the present site has become inadequate for the needs of today, the government should have utilised an existing building elsewhere, as many had suggested, but it ignored the people’s opinion on this and went ahead with its pet project.
True, the project has given many a lot of work in the process but the money could have equally been used on another, more useful project. As the country gears up for the general election, the temptation to spend more than warranted may be strong but this would need to be resisted at all costs for if the deficit rises again it will be the country as a whole that would have to carry the burden, not the politicians.
Popular Stories
Editorial - Labour’s most divisive...
Labour’s most divisive appointment
Labour’s blue-eyed boys?
Developing personal, social skills
Yet another appointment from hell
Mallia’s views on libel differ to PM’s
Wobbly start for new Administration
Malta being held at gunpoint
Muscat’s promised change is for the worse
In Discussion
Editorial - Labour’s most divisive...
Labour’s most divisive appointment
Malta being held at gunpoint
Maltese perceptions of Muslims
Unethical behaviour cannot be tolerated
The lady who was not for turning
Another divisive appointment
What kind of ‘good governance’ is this?
Official script for political division
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 3rd 2012, 10:34
Don't you think that you are now protesting a mite too late? Where were you when people were saying the same thing at the time of the planning for this project?
Emanuel Farrugia
Aug 2nd 2012, 19:12
That is the amazing part of Maltese politics. You have decent families who distribute the family income so wisely and seem to make miracles in the family circle, to make ends meet. And then they see the waste and irresponsibility of the PN Government with the taxpayers money, which comes from the husband, the wife, the partner, the single taxpayer, be it layman or clergy, the Pensioner and they still venture to vote for the PN. Each time the PN is elected, there is still more extravagance with the taxpayers money.
This is amazing, perplexing, dumbfounding and all the other adjectives you may add.
Oliver Grech
Aug 1st 2012, 19:46
I disagree completely. I work with various companies and notice that in tough times, the first costs that management decreases are the marketing expenses. And this goes against any theory, any logic....we do have it all wrong. And same goes for Air Malta. Hence my disagreement.
As for parliamnent, yes it could have waited, but then again go and say it to all the employees who are earning their daily bread, from the Valletta project.
Eddy Privitera
Aug 1st 2012, 17:46
I take my hat off for your excellent editorial ! But do you think Dr. Lawrence Gonzi and his party strategists will listen ? NO ! They are still hoping that spending extra millions which the government doesn't have, on the eve of an election, may turn round its political fortunes.
This is a grossly irresponsible administration, and the sooner it is booted out of office the better !
GL Calleja
Aug 1st 2012, 17:02
Does it make sense? NO
Should it not have at least waited until better times for rebranding? YES.
There is a time and a place for everything and this is not the right time or the right place.
But then this government has been doing the wrong thing for the last eight years, at least when it comes to Air Malta. The sad part is that nobody is held responsible for the fiasco, like nobody is held responsible for the whole mess with Arriva. I guess " the Buck did not stop here." Those 2,000,000 Million euros being spent on the new livery could have been put to better use than show a partial Maltese Cross on the tail of the aircraft or eliminating Air from Air Malta. Mr Farrugia put the Air back on the aircraft.
ANTHONY PAVIA
Aug 1st 2012, 16:24
Excellent points well presented.
Paul@ Micallef
Aug 1st 2012, 16:24
Fully agree with the above. I always worked in the private sector and the moment things starts to go wrong in the company I used to work for the financial control was always the first priority in the company. This means that not only the management have to control the daily cost of whatever goes on and used in the production level but also the senior staff and board members have to show that they are doing their share as well.
It seems that even though Air Malta today is managed by a team with vast experience in the private sector the mentioned €2 million expense in re-branding the airline gives the impression that the financial aspect of the company is not being given the importance they should. If it was a private company the Chairman and the board members at the end of the year would have to face the shareholders. Being a public company, with the PN in Government, money is no problem.
Victor Rodenas
Aug 1st 2012, 12:54
It`s nice to have your name inscribed in Gold in a prominent place in Valletta. My name will only be inscribed ,....on my tomb.
John B. Borg
Aug 1st 2012, 11:38
Very well said. We have a government that spends millions on ego trips (Dr Gonzi's and Austin Gatt's) like the City Gate project which the PN media and PBS have started to call it "Il-Progett tad-Dahla tal-Belt" instead of ta "Bieb il-Belt" having finally realised that there is no gate. Only last week we had another celebration to mark the inauguration of another ego trip project - this time Austin Gatt's - the Breakwater bridge to nowhere that cost us 2.5 million euro. So we should not be surprised that Air Malta follows joins the fray by throwing another cool 2 million Euro down the drain on a rebranding exercise that could have waited. In another news item related to the same subject it was reported that Mr Davies skirted around the hot issue of the RJ 70's that busted Air Malta. Why?
M Cassar
Aug 1st 2012, 11:15
I agree with the main thrust of this leader.....except for the part that deals with the Air Malta's rebranding.
I have little or no sympathy for the present team leading Air Malta.
But a restructuring exercise has to include a rebranding element so that this troubled company can project a new image of itself with the public it serves. Unfortunately to project a new image of itself Air Malta, like every other company, needs to spend some money. As long as this money is well spent and those not go almost exclusively to consultants, than it may help Air Malta to turn a page over its troubled recent past.
But full marks for the comments on the new parliament.......a sad waste of taxpayers' money.
Joseph Cauchi Senior
Aug 1st 2012, 10:55
Reading this editorial, has really kept me speechless!
I am just wondering whether this editor has taken into consideration the prevailing international economic climate when preparing this leader!
In such economic climates a basic knowledge of economics and marketing would be an asset in order to weather the current economic storms; and certain projects are essential as per John Maynard Keynes economic theories!
JC.
Wally Vella-Zarb
Aug 1st 2012, 16:19
So, should we follow the Keynesian model and, once it is finished, tear it down so that we can then rebuild it, thus keeping the workers busy and the economy running?
ANTHONY PAVIA
Aug 1st 2012, 16:23
Which economic theory glorifies waste? Please enlighten us.
Joseph Cauchi Senior
Aug 2nd 2012, 12:38
@ Wally Vella-Zarb,
If this is your interpretation then YES!
JC.
Francis Sammut
Aug 1st 2012, 10:40
Mr. editor, sir, this is one of the best articles I've read so far. Especially that part about the new Parliament building. As you rightly said, couldn't the government wait or at least have utilized an existing building, as suggested instead. The people feel they were left out where projects like city gate which can affect them directly, are concerned. Without sounding as a LP apologist, I'd venture to say that that political billboard, erected some time ago, where it shows our Prime Minister blocking both his ears, meaning he's not listening and is not to be bothered, is very apt indeed!
Alfred M. Falzon
Aug 1st 2012, 10:35
Well said. The new parliament building is not being built because there is a need for it but, because the minister had given his word to Renzo Piano, as if the Hon. member was dealing with his own personal money. He did this without a call for tenders but, worst than that, the local talent was discriminated against by giving Mr. Piano a direct order for euro 80 million, We ended up with a breach in the bastions and a topless opera house. Had this strange plan come from a local architect, I bet it would have cost him his licence.
Please choose the reason of your report below: