CRM Press Conference at Radio ZJB – September 4, 2001
KG: Good day listeners. We’re here with the Citizens for the Reconstruction of Montserrat group. And the group will be updating the public on their activities, what has been happening with the group. And to lead us into this particular discussion is the Chairman of the CRM, Jim Bass.
JB Thank you, Keithstone. I think I should first begin by saying what is the Committee for the Redevelopment of Montserrat. We have been on the air before but we may have new listeners. We are basically a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization. We are registered. In fact, our registration is dated on the 25th of November 1999.
At this time with me in the studio here is the vice-chairman, Mr. Cedric Osborne; the secretary/treasurer, Mr. Hylroy Bramble; Mr. Vernon White, the Chairman of the Engineering Committee; Mr. Julian Romeo, Chairman of the Public Relations Committee; and Mr. Bertrand Burke; and Mr. Ray Tyson.
We are here because given the circumstances under which Montserrat now exists. We initially began our activities out of a concern for the direction of development in this country. Actually, we came together first because we became alarmed when an effort was being made to return W.H. Bramble during the crisis. We were told by one governor, on the air, that Montserratians would begin to use the airport again and we would have a terminal at Jack Boy Hill and whenever aircraft came in, we would have a 15-minute window in which offload and take on passengers. So we came together and decided to look at other alternatives beside W.H. Bramble at the time.
There were discussions held, some of them at DFID headquarters with respect to the alternatives that Gibb had been asked to look at: Blakes, Thatch Valley, Geralds. And we decided to take a serious interest in this issue because we came to the conclusion that an airport with a runway that can be extended and which initially would be able to take at least a Dash aircraft was a fundamental requirement for Montserrat’s redevelopment.
So, at this point in time, we just want to say to Montserratians and all concerned friends of Montserrat out there, that we are convinced that the proposal to establish a“temporary airport” at Geralds at a cost of $39 million EC dollars, using a runway that is not extendable and which is only 500 meters or 1625 feet is not in our interests.
It is not in the interest of the people of Montserrat because, even if Geralds was determined to be reasonably safe, which we doubt that it is – and we have regional flying experts and other technical experts, who believe that it is not – we cannot, Montserratians cannot settle for a runway, indefinitely, that would only be able to take a Twin Otter at half-load and more likely a 9-seater aircraft.
I also want to say that whenever, if her majesty’s government were to spend 39 or 40 million dollars on any airport in Montserrat, they are not going to spend that money again. It will be a once-and-for-all expenditure. And at no time in our lifetime are we going to see any other effort to build a runway that would be in the interests of the people of Montserrat.
What we are saying is that we do not, and I want to state, unequivocally. that we do NOT agree with the decision taken by our political leaders to accept the Geralds alternative. We believe it is dangerous and apart from being dangerous, we cannot build our economy on a runway that is only 1625 feet or 500 meters long. W.H. Bramble was 3,200 feet long and a decision had been taken at one time to realign it. So, I just thought I would make that very clear.
We have other interests, certainly, that we are concerned about but this matter of an airport that will contribute to our redevelopment long into the future, for us, is a matter of life and death. Thank you very much.
KG: Mr. Bass, your group, the CRM has been meeting on a regular basis, having meetings, looking at the whole redevelopment of the island particularly so the northern part of the island. Given what you’ve just said, for all intents and purposes, it now seems as though Geralds will be the site based on the reports that I’ve heard from government and otherwise. What can the CRM do at this particular stage or achieve at this particular stage in terms of mounting a public campaign to sensitize the people of Montserrat about this particular location which you alluded to? There’s some question about the safety?
JB: Well, we want the matter brought out into the public and we want our leaders to come to the community and discuss the matter publicly and without any restriction or hesitation.
There have been several consultancy reports on that Geralds area. In fact, the Italians were in here maybe about two months ago and recently the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is the UN organization that oversees air transport worldwide whether you live in Afghanistan or in Zambia. There was one their experts here who looked at Geralds and had some views on other possible options: Old Quaw, where we can get about 1400 meters and he expressed some views on Thatch Valley as well. These should be looked at in reasonable detail.
But one thing I want to point out is that to date, no wind studies nor other essential studies which the ICAO requires for a permanent – and note I say permanent, not temporary – for a permanent airport, has been carried out on any one of these sites and it is something that I think that the public should be aware of.
So, for Geralds to be designated, right off, as the only alternative and the one where we are going irrespective of the circumstances. If fact, this is how I understand it because I have sat in on meetings where – this happened for instance in May when the DFID Chief Engineer was saying to the Chief Minister, when he was asked whether or not Geralds is safe? He just said, “we know it’s safe.” And, he repeated that several times in a group which was about 25-30 people and even though that no studies had been done. So these are the things that caused us some anxiety.
And as this discussion goes on, I think that there will be enough thrown out during this interview that will cause our people great anxiety once the decision has been taken, or given the decision that was taken to settle for Geralds.
KG: Have you been able to gauge any sort of public support for your cause? Clearly you are opposed to the Geralds site. You’ve mentioned about the safety aspect and you mentioned about the wind and so on but how much public support…. Have you been able to gauge, in any way, whether or not you’re getting the message – because you’ve been doing this for some time – having meetings. You’ve been on radio and so on before, in the press and so on but have you been able then to get any sort of a gauge as to whether or not people are hearing, are listening to you, or following or supporting your cause?
JB: Yes. I’ll ask by colleague, Julian Romeo to respond to this.
JR: We ourselves have not carried out a study as to what sort of response we’ve gotten from the public. As individuals in the public, we’ve gotten responses from various people showing that they are not for Geralds. We can’t say it’s a majority or not. But what we do know is that when Gibb did the last report they did a study and overwhelmingly the response was, among Montserratians, they did not want Geralds and they wanted Thatch Valley.
KG: As I’ve indicated earlier from all reports it seems as though, and I stress that word and I use it advisedly, it seems as though Geralds has been picked as the site for this temporary airstrip or airport, as the case might be. Now the group is trying to mobilize public support, given what it is now on the ground will the group in any way will be, let’s say for example, staging or mounting any sort of a public protest, public demonstrations – maybe the use of placards, demonstrating in front of the government headquarters? And getting people to come out and really say, look, you know, we really need to do some more work on this. Is there anything planned by the CRM to take their cause beyond just the radio and the media?
JR: We are hoping to go into the community to have some interaction with people and to stage some sort of protest for or anti-Geralds. I think one of the things that affects this decision-making about Geralds is the fact that the local government and DFID themselves have not even spoken to the people of Geralds about Geralds. And I think a lot of people in Geralds are very unhappy about that situation and I think that’s one of the first places that we need to go. We are going to go into Geralds and hopefully try to mount some sort of support against the government putting down an airstrip there.
KG: How much dialogue has there been between the group and the present government? I know, for example, that the Minister of Communications and Works may have had one or two meetings with the group, but how much official dialogue, at that level, the group to the government at that higher level, has there been?
JR: The government before this government, we had met with the Minister of Communications and Works and the Chamber of Commerce and everybody was involved in several discussions concerning the airport and the sentiments that we had. And ever since this new government has come into place, we have had several discussions with the Minister in charge of Communications and Works. And, we have had discussions with the Chief Minister himself.
It so happens that, it seems as if the government now, basically needs to come out and let the public themselves know where they stand and entertain some sort of discussion in the public as to the feedback from making the decision.
WC: Winston Cabey for Radio Montserrat. I don’t know who wants to take this, but recently we’ve been hearing that the people of Montserrat might have been mislead into thinking that we could have an airport at either Thatch Valley or Old Quaw. What is the reason for this? Because, we thought that the CRM and the government were working together. Why is it now that we’re hearing now that somebody was mislead into thinking – and maybe you explain the difference between a proposed site and a potential site? I don’t know who wants to take this.
JB: We don’t really want to get into a situation where we are trying to determine the difference between proposed and potential sites because, to me at this time, it is not the essential thing that we need to do. What I would say is that even the experts and this includes the ICAO Engineer who visited several weeks ago, he admits that Thatch Valley is a more or less ideal location but there is the element of cost. And it’s somewhere in the area, on a finished basis, of over $200 million.
And this is why that our local engineers and surveyors – we have on our team here, Mr. Burke who is a fully accredited surveyor and who has been the Chief Surveyor of Montserrat. We have on our engineering team, Mr. Vernon White who is a highly qualified engineer and is the former Director of Public Works – they have looked at Old Quaw. Mr. King Lee as well who is an engineering specialist. They have looked at Old Quaw and determined that in terms of alignment and length, which is 1400 meters, that there is enough area there to accommodate a runway that can take at least the American Eagle or the Dash aircraft that would meet our needs in the immediate as well as the distant future.
So that, though we would love to have Thatch Valley, we believe that Old Quaw would present a better alternative. And I want to state up front that one of the things that we are looking at as a Committee is the possibility of assessing the suitability of Old Quaw. If nobody is going to do it, we will undertake to do it ourselves, certainly the wind studies and the other engineering aspects.
But let me just state, categorically, that Geralds, for Montserratians and for the future of Montserrat, is trouble. Some weeks ago, both Mr. Tony Meade and Mr. Carl Burke stated publicly on radio – and these two men are senior Dash aircraft captains – that any aircraft flying into Geralds, because of the shortness of the runway must come in at near stalling speed and that is something that we have to take into consideration. It cannot be extended and they are saying that irrespective of what the circumstances are, there is danger involved.
KG: But Mr. Bass, given what you’ve just said, from these two very well qualified airline pilots…. Given what you’ve just said, do you think – and given the situation as we understand it now with the Geralds and the government’s position and that of the U.K. government – Isn’t this like a signed deal that this thing is going to happen with or without the support or the backing of the people of Montserrat? Don’t you think this thing is going to be at Geralds based on what we’ve been hearing?
JB: Well we are in trouble and let me add something else. Let me read from the report by the Italian firm, SEA Aeroporti di Milano dated June 200 and it’s taken from their technical appendices, part 4, page three, the last paragraph and I quote. The gentleman writes, he says “unfortunately no specific data are available with reference to the presence and characteristics of air turbulence, wind shear which could affect the flights operating in the island and in particular at Geralds Bottom. The need to evaluate this problem has been raised by many experts we met during this study. Discussing with the pilots we understand that it’s a problem which mainly affects the coastal areas with cliffs but can be present and important also in a flat area bordered by two valleys such as Geralds Bottom. We also had indications from the pilots that the presence of turbulence can be faced with specific operational procedures used during landing and takeoff.”
Mr. Meade and Burke, they were very particular about saying that any pilots that would fly into Geralds would have to be specially trained because of the inherent dangers which are involved there.
And before I stop speaking, I just want to make one point, you know I had an experience some years ago at W.H. Bramble. Now, there was a runway there of 3,200 feet and one evening I was traveling out on government business on the Twin Otter and it went up to the starting line and began its takeoff run and just before the point of takeoff with the engines at full throttle, one of them cut out. One of them cut out and the pilot was barely able to stop it at the very end of the runway. You can ask … the records of the Ministry, they are there to be checked. And there are several taxi men who remember it. I was discussing it with one of them the other day. Now, that’s 3,200 feet. On a runway half of that and that were to happen in a Twin Otter – in fact, you can’t take a Twin Otter at Geralds because it is said in the ICAO report that a Twin Otter can only operate there at half load. But if that were to happen at Geralds in a Twin Otter, you’re dead, simple as that.
JB: But given all of this information that you are providing, Mr. Bass, why, in your view, hasn’t this sort of information been taken on board because one gets the feeling that this project is going to go through, come hell or high water? It seems to be a signed deal. So given all of this information that you’re providing, very valuable information that you are providing to the pubic, why, in your view, hasn’t there been something done in this respect because I am getting here this whole safety question which is paramount in the airline industry?
JR: On of the things that I want to re-emphasize and it comes out Kafu’s question and yours, is: he mentioned proposed sites or potential sites, and what was the difference? I think, personally, that the word should not proposed site or potential site but the word that we should stick to is option because that is the word that appeared on the terms of reference for the airport, the review of airport options in Montserrat.
And let me say here and especially to DFID that they must understand that development, which is one of the areas that they are supposed to be concerned about, is that democracy plays a very important part in development and discussion is a very important ingredient in democracy. And when you read the terms of reference it says, a location further away from the volcano that would provide little sociological and political impact. That was one of the points in the terms of reference and there has been very little consideration for even the people at Geralds. To this date, nobody has spoken to them.
And I’m saying especially to DFID and to the government that democracy is important, discussion is important. If there are issues about safety they must prepare a level playing ground and come out willing to hear the alternatives and the options that will be presented by other people.
KG: So will the group now be proposing that there be further studies done on this whole airport development project looking at all the options that are available or that the studies should continue?
JR: Originally, the terms of reference had spoken more about finding options and alternatives for a site, especially the last one concerning Geralds because we had concerns and because of restraints by the British government, DFID and the budgetary aid and European Union money and the fact that the European deadline was at the end of this month, September? and the government needed to make a decision by then – forced the last review to be only done in Geralds. Originally we had said, let’s find alternative options. Let’s find options for an airport.
WC: While we are talking about studies and options, we understand that it takes a certain number of years before a site can get approval as to being fit for an airport. So while we wait, what happens then? And how about the funding to carry out more studies?
CO: When the ICAO man was here they told us that actually they would prefer to have wind studies for over a period of five years, if it is going to be a permanent airport. This we could have done if we started in 1997. We probably would have had four years already. But of course we are not going to get that even if we start at Old Quaw any way right now. But no wind studies, as he said have been ever done so we really don’t know.
One of the concerns we have is that if Geralds was to start now and the wind studies show that it is unsuitable for the Twin Otter, we could have spent 40 million dollars for only an Islander to land. What we’re looking at is that if you’re going to spend 40 million dollars – because when this was supposed to be a temporary airport, I think the government really thought they could have it done for 20 – 25 million dollars. Now the picture has changed and the Italians show that this is going to cost 40 million dollars, what we would have liked to see is some sort of discussion or something to say well, if we are going to spend 40 million dollars at Geralds, how much more is it going to cost us? Would it cost us any more to get something temporary or the same length but with expansion capabilities at somewhere like Old Quaw? So why not let’s spend the 40 million dollars on somewhere that could be expanded later on and not 40 million dollars on a fait accompli that you know that after that you’re not getting anything else.
We know the problems of even with the Twin Otter alone, when we owned our own Twin Otter. The Twin Otter is limited in terms of the baggage it can bring. Sometimes when you have a full load of people coming in and you know when they are coming home for Christmas, they bring in three and four bags. When you have a Twin Otter with 19 passengers, it can’t bring all the bags. What we had to do the last time, we had to charter an Islander to bring over bags. And when you’re talking about, as I understand it, just last weekend, 215 people came on the ferry. One of the things I think – when a few of us met the Italians when they were here, they kept telling us that we’d still have the ferry even if we get a short airport and we’d only have a Twin Otter, we’d still have the ferry. And we asked them who told them that and they said that’s what they were told. But I think that they probably misunderstood what somebody told them because it is very clear to us and it’s been said several times, from the time we get a fixed-wing facility, we lose the ferry and the helicopter.
So if Geralds falls back to an airport only long enough to take an Islander, because the ICAO people are saying that if you want a Twin Otter, which is the regular standard Twin Otter, you need 600 meters. You need 40 meters wide and all that kind of thing they asking for before they could regulate it. We are not talking about the same kind of airport at all. It may even cost more than 40 million dollars.
The question we ask ourselves is: with 40 million dollars, what can we really get at Old Quaw for 40 million dollars? I mean, they talked about the road and the facilities. We realize that … we did our estimates for Old Quaw to show that a paved road to Old Quaw would probably cost less than 7 million and we have 40 million dollars to play with. So the services can’t cost that much.
But no study has been done because they’ve already decided, that you’re going to get an airport at Geralds, like it or not. But we know that -- if I was the British I would laugh at the fact that they have to be stupid if they think we’re going to build anything else after we spend 40 million dollars at Geralds. I mean we have to put ourselves in their shoes too. If I was them and I spent 40 million dollars on an airport, there’s no way I was going to build another one five years down the road. So let’s not fool ourselves. This is what it’s going to be.
So if we are going to spend 40 million dollars at all, shouldn’t we take a little more time and decide well, what can we get at Old Quaw, Blakes or somewhere else for 40 million dollars?
KG: So what is the next move now for the CRM? What other public awareness campaigns, programmes, are you prepared to go about ….?
JB: To make the point, maybe Mr. Tyson here who is a qualified and licensed pilot should make a statement.
RT: The situation is basically we have three options and right from the very inset when we tried to talk to DFID, which is very difficult, was the fact that you are getting Geralds or nothing.
At that stage, we thought, well even not having Geralds would be better than the option that they were giving us because as a pilot you have to look at the options, of which obviously Thatch Valley is ideal, as we’ve always said, but the cost is prohibitive. It’s been said in reports from 1997 and we’ve had consultants that have come in that’s been paid by British Government and the major factor that’s being missed out of this development of an airport, even today, is wind studies and the consultations which should have taken place with ICAO who are the regulative body and who eventually will give you a license for your airport, were never consulted as far back as 1997.
So all the options are on the same playing field and what we are trying to establish here is that if we are going to have wind studies done for Geralds we have to have it done for all the other options from a safety aspect. And I don’t think anybody is going to try to fudge any safety standards because if you’re flying, distance and length is what we what we call height is might; length saves lives. And if you just took the length of Geralds at 490 and Old Quaw at 1400, if I was taking off at Geralds and experienced an engine failure, I don’t think I would be trying to go around again, I would be going down and trying to save to people’s lives by going down to the old airport.
And these are the concerns that we are trying to say to the British government because if you do spend this 40 million for a 9-seater aircraft, we are going back to the 1960s and Montserrat has no future.
KG: So you’re saying, Mr. Tyson that these wind studies are absolutely critical to this …. ?
RT: Well, you cannot license an airfield or even attempt to build an airfield if you’re not going to get a license from ICAO because it has to comply to international standards.
WC: But we also understand that one of the companies-- they did not have the capability of carrying out the wind study so what happens here?
RT: Well ICAO will recommend one of the organizations, you know, meteorology and everything else to come and put these instruments, which is basically a year’s study. Sometimes, they insist on five years. We have some history from Blakes about wind studies and the old airport, Blackburne and on that side of the coast, there’s going to be obviously problems along that area of coast. So it’s important that we have to be able to stop an aircraft on takeoff that may lose an engine or have a puncture.
WC: How serious is going to be the environmental impact if we should put the airport in Geralds.
HB: Let’s look at the environmental impact from a social perspective. In Geralds, it will be total disruption for an entire community, basically. I think one reported stated that only 2 people would be displaced but then coming out of it, you found that you would have had about 12 families being displaced plus others on the fringes, so it will be a social upheaval, so to speak at Geralds.
The other point is that it will be taking up some land, land that could be used for community development.
The access to Geralds will be virtually blocked. One study even recommended to put a stop light on the airstrip for people to pass to go down to the bottom of Geralds, Drummonds and that area. And what we’re saying again is if you were to put a stop light on the airstrip and the 96-year old lady down in Drummonds is sick, how could you get that lady to the hospital on time if an aircraft is landing on the strip at the same time? That three-minute or five-minute window, as the case may be, the lady would be dead before she reached to the hospital. So we are seeing social chaos, so to speak, to put an airport at Geralds at this point in time.
WC: Noise pollution is not one of the problems though?
JB: Well it’s important.
HB: Well noise pollution is a problem. It will be a problem especially with the hospital and the old folks home in the immediate vicinity. Not only the hospital and the old folks home but, we’re also looking at the residents at Lookout because the flight path will actually take you directly over the houses over that Caricom Village area. And to come back to the hospital and the old folks home, noise to people who are recuperating from serious illnesses could just cause further illnesses.
KG: But I’ve also heard on the flip side of what you just said in terms of the noise pollution, that in fact the wind pattern in the general area – I’ve been told by some other people who are looking at this whole situation on the other side – that the wind pattern normally comes the other way. It comes away from the hospital so it wont’ have too much of an impact on the hospital. How do you look at this?
VW: Wind or no wind, you still will get a certain amount of noise from an airplane coming in or leaving.
KG: But Montserrat is not unique to this. There are other Caribbean territories where you have the flight paths, the aircrafts coming directly over inhabited areas? So, how do we distinguish and differentiate this? If you can just play devil’s advocate to get the other side?
VW: Right. I mean but it’s good, bad, better, best. Not because – those people in other areas or in maybe, for instance, going up the islands in Dominica and Grenada and some of these places, they experience a certain amount of noise pollution also but, that doesn’t mean that it is not noise pollution. So whether it’s a little or a lot, it’s still noise pollution.
KG I asked earlier what’s the next step for the CRM in this pubic information campaign, trying to sensitize the public on this whole matter? And I’ve stated before that this project seems very much – this Geralds situation seems very much on the card from all the reports that I’m sure all of us are aware of.
BB: Keithstone, we’ve been looking at the various sites and we think that Geralds is going to be a disaster.
Now, the last report stated that Old Quaw, the site which we seem to be preferring now, had a bad alignment but that alignment was similar to Bramble’s and it was certainly better than the proposed extension of Bramble. Now we propose to do a wind study for Old Quaw. As a matter of fact, by going on the site and viewing the direction of the winds and so on, it seemed a perfectly good site. And I cannot see how a site like that could be written off without having wind tests.
KG: But how are you going to convince the government, both the local and the UK government, the eventual financiers of this project, that Old Quaw, given all the prohibitive costs that they’ve indicated in the previous reports, how are you going to ….?
BB: As a matter of fact the reason why we were preferring Old Quaw, because the ideal site, as far as we are concerned, is Thatch Valley but Thatch Valley is proposed to cost about 200 million whereas, Old Quaw, we think that we can do it for about 50 million and that would be 50 million for a 1400 meter strip compared to say, 40 million for a 500 meter strip which could only take a 9-seater plane?
HB: Let me get back to your question, Keithstone, how do we intend to go about informing the public, basically. What we have been doing so far and we will continue to do. We will continue to put releases in the newspaper from time to time. We will also continue to try and educate the public as to the whys, hows and wherefores of all the sites, of all the options by way of radio. We are also using the internet. And we intend to go back again to host some community meetings in the evenings. As Julian said earlier, we would definitely have to start the next one at Geralds because these would be the people most affected by putting an airport in Geralds.
We have also got in contact with Montserrat groups overseas and during the St. John’s school re-union, several of them met with members of the Committee and we spoke with them. We gave them the pros and cons of all the options. And, whereas Thatch Valley, Again, is the ideal option, everybody recognizes that given the prohibitive cost of Thatch Valley, that Old Quaw was the next best option.
Because, you see the thing is, Keithstone, that when Christmas comes and you have 200 people coming from Boston on a charter to Puerto Rico. We would like to see about two trips made from Puerto Rico to Montserrat, instead of having a 9-seater making I don’t know, God knows how many trips just to get the people over without their luggage. And then again, we are also trying to prevent the losses of luggage in Antigua because we have seen in the past, where people came, they had to go down to Lindy ? store to buy clothes because their clothes never reached. Some people came and spent three weeks and their clothes never reached. So when we spoke to the overseas groups, this is one of the things we had to impress on them to get their support for a reasonable temporary airport with deference to the Geralds Bottom option.
KG: I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been any meeting with the Geralds people, the people in that community and these are the people that would be directly impacted by anything going at Geralds. Why hasn’t there been an approach earlier to consult with these people bearing of mind, they will be the ones who would be severely impacted by any development in that area?
JR: That’s one of the reasons why I emphasized democracy as a very important ingredient in development. And development is about people and DFID speaks about empowering people. This is one of the things that they need to do. They need to now, after buying …. I mean, buy a horse before you buy a cart. And they need to do the other studies for the proposed, alternative, optional sites, whatever you want to use. They need to do a study that includes all the other options to satisfy us publicly that there are other options.
Not only that. One of the things that we have to tell them that we think – and we hope that through this interview today that we might be meet with them sometimes. We hope that they will find an independent person to do the wind studies for the proposed sites or the optional sites or the alternative sites that are available.
JB: Or an agency such as CMI.
JR: And we are thinking about CMI, which is the Caribbean Met Station. And, we think it is a credible source and we think it could be done, but we want them to not be a part of doing this study. We want them to have an independent body do this study on the wind studies on these sites. Lately, Dr. Lewis said that, I think, that there’s some 3 million dollars now being given to do the wind studies and that’s a way forward. And I think I must give the group a plus for that because we have been able to at least get them to realize that you have to do wind studies.
Right now, as the heliport stands, it is not stamped and considered a safe airport for commercial use.
RT: It is not legal.
JR: It is not legal and we don’t want the same thing happening to Blackburne … to Geralds or any of the other sites.
KG: So let me get this clearly. Are we saying that… Have we been operating an illegal facility in Montserrat since …..
JB: It’s classified as emergency.
JR: It’s classified as emergency, not for commercial purposes. But I’m just saying that this is one of the things you might need to have an interview with the governor, because the day something happens to anybody here in the helicopter, they’ll be getting a lawsuit from somebody, worse yet if it’s an American. But the point is: is that they must do the proper studies.
And mind you, remember that even now the Italians are proposing 39 point million something dollars for Geralds, they had the option of not spending the millions that they’ve spent doing studies so far. They have spent millions so far and it has come back that they realize that they have to do studies now for a site. And if it’s going to take 4 or 5 years, or 2 years or a year, we need to know that other sites are taken into consideration because you can’t wait for them to do a study in Geralds to find out 5 years from now that it’s not the best site. So that’s why we’re saying, let us have an even playing field. Let us find some alternatives for an airport. Let us get wind studies done in all those sites so that we could make a decision.
JB: Let me raise another crucial issue: the question of overall development. Montserrat cannot develop effectively on the basis of the carrying capacity of a 9-seater aircraft.
The question of a Twin Otter at Geralds is ruled out. I mean, the ICAO gentleman says so on page 8 of his report. He says – and it’s paragraph 4 – he says, the proposed runway length of 500 meters is insufficient for operations of the design aircraft Twin Otter in conventional mode with full payload on the Antigua to Montserrat sector, no refueling available, elevation of 550 feet, temperature of 32 degrees, etc. Basically what he is saying is that a Twin Otter coming into Geralds cannot come in with a full load. That’s what he is saying there.
But the point I am making is that Montserrat, given the fact that we have a future, cannot develop effectively – we can’t get out of grant-in-aid, which we have to get out of as soon as we can, so that the government can have discretionary control over its revenue. We cannot get out grant-in-aid, ever. on the basis of a 9-seater aircraft.
Let me just state this. A few weeks ago, a team of consultants came to have with us, CRM. They met with a group of us. They said that they were hired by DFID to undertake a study that will work toward the rehabilitation of Montserrat’s economy. They said that they are supposed to report this month.
What they also said is that as consultants they specialized in – after they submit a report – to assist in the implementation of the report. Fine and good, we said. But we asked them the question. We said now, you all are smart enough to know that the devastation that we have in the southern half of the island is also an opportunity because if you market it right, if you provide viewing facilities, if you provide accommodation, which we have some. We have Mr. Galloway’s hotel next door. We have View Pointe. We have private accommodation, others. We’ll build more.
And if you provide transport, that we can have a major – in fact, some consultants, some of them, European, have said that we are sitting on a gold mine because it’s a major tourist attraction. You can’t utilize and develop that on the basis of what a 9-seater aircraft can carry. It doesn’t make sense.
So we asked the gentlemen, explain to us. I mean, you have to include in your proposal the full development and utilization of that devastation there. How are you going to do that on the basis of a 9-seater aircraft? Ask my friends here. They had no answer because there is no answer. It doesn’t make sense. It is illogical, verging on the idiotic.
All right, so what we’re saying is that Geralds is not the way to go and we have to get out of grant-in-aid as soon as possible. And that is one way that we can because failing that, Montserrat will be permanently locked into dependency.
WC: Hence, the education program. Can we expect to get any support from government with your educational program seeing that they tend to be going for Geralds while the CRM and others are thinking about either Old Quaw or Thatch Valley? Will we get any support there?
JB: Well, the facts are there. Let me just add two more things before I finish. If we are moving ahead as a country: (a) Any country that’s going any place, you have to have the capacity to move freight. If MONLEC has a major breakdown and they need some assembly out of Michigan or someplace – that they need in a hurry? Shipping isn’t going to bring it in. You have to be able to put it on an aircraft that is big enough to bring it in and this applies to other things.
And then if you are doing other activities, you’ve got to move raw materials, you’ve got to move semi-finished goods, you’ve got to move finished goods and you have to move them fast.
You know, I hear them talking about inviting Dr. Tien to come back here. Come back here? On the basis of a 9-seater aircraft? When students want to go home? In a hurry? Nine of them at a time? Going where? I mean all of these are considerations that enter …..
We need a runway with adequate length and extension capability. Other than that we are in serious trouble, going no place, fast.
JR: I want to re-emphasize the issue about safety which I think is one of the most, if not the most important of all the points we want to make.
And let me say, the powers that be and those forces that are out there, were the ones who chose for us a few years ago to go back to Blackburne. Those are the same people who are proposing Geralds. Can we trust them to make decisions for our safety in Montserrat? And my answer is, NO.
We need an independent study to be done for us to be satisfied that whatever is done will be done in our best interest.
BB: I would like to make one other point and that is, in speaking to the pilots and other airport officials, it was brought to our notice that we don’t have to have a completely finished airstrip. The most important thing they say is that the landing section should be paved and then the rest of it could be grass. So who knows? Maybe if the wind studies prove that Old Quaw is a good place to put an airport, we could just use the same 39 million dollars and do an airstrip until we can go further.
JB: Or if push comes to shove and we have go to Thatch, we use the same principle.
BB: Yes, or use the same principle at Thatch.
WC: But, of course, the thing is convincing the folks who are providing the money.
JB: Well I think that Montserratians will …. This is, I think is the time in our history when if we are to survive, wherever we are, we have to come together as a people and come to ourselves.
We have listened to endless absurdities. In fact, some to the things that are said over there in the public arena actually are a mockery. They defy commonsense.
And I think Montserratians …. This is one time in our history that we have to come together from across this country, whoever we are, whether we are mechanics, farmers, teachers, school children, fishermen, everybody, civil servants – we have to come together, pool our resources. And if we have to do something on ground, if we have to start off with a grass strip, as we originally did when air service began in Montserrat, if we have to start off with a grass strip, we have enough technical capability in this country. We have enough mechanics and engineers. There are endless Montserratian engineers locally and technicians locally, as well as abroad.
We have to help ourselves this time. If not, we are stuck with permanent impoverishment, if we do not have a runway that is adequate and suitable and extendable.
KG: Thank you very much, indeed, the chairman of the CRM, Jim Bass and the other members of his team. Thank you all very much.