Surinam Airways (SLM) has once again deployed a foreign airline for its regional flights. Since 3 September, World Atlantic has been operating flights for the company. According to SLM, this cooperation should provide greater stability and predictability in regional operations.
That may sound like a solution, but questions surrounding Global X have not yet disappeared.
On 29 August, SLM itself announced that extensive arrangements had been made with ACMI partner Global X and recorded in writing. Their implementation was said to have differed in practice in certain respects from what could have been expected on the basis of the agreements and operational principles.
SLM did not disclose exactly which agreements had not been carried out as expected, or who was responsible.
It was precisely for this reason that TFD asked a question during the press conference preceding the meeting of the Raad van Ministers (Council of Ministers) to Minister Raymond Landveld of Transport, Communicatie en Toerisme. He was asked which agreements with Global X had not been honoured or had been implemented differently.
His response showed that he was not aware of this announcement by SLM.
Communication between SLM and minister raises questions
Naturally, a minister cannot be expected to be aware of every operational detail within a state-owned company. However, this did not concern a minor internal problem.
A large number of travellers were affected by delays and disruptions. In addition, SLM itself had publicly announced that the implementation of written agreements with its ACMI partner had not proceeded as expected.
How does communication between SLM’s management and the responsible minister take place?
Is the minister actively informed of major operational problems? Does he receive feedback from management when large numbers of passengers are affected? And after the problems arose, did the minister himself ask SLM management questions about the cause and the agreements with Global X?
These questions are important now that SLM has deployed another airline partner, World Atlantic.
What is Global X’s position?
In its communiqué of 7 September, SLM states that after the aircraft bearing registration number PZ-TCX became unavailable in Georgetown, it temporarily called on Global X.
The company acknowledges that passengers experienced delays and disruptions as a result. However, the current position of Global X remains unclear.
Has the agreement with Global X been terminated, or is it still in force? Is World Atlantic the second operator previously mentioned by SLM, or has World Atlantic replaced Global X?
Little known about agreement with World Atlantic
Little is also known about the agreement with World Atlantic.
SLM refers to World Atlantic as an airline partner in its communiqué, but does not say whether this airline is also being deployed through an ACMI or wet-lease arrangement. Nor does it state the duration or financial scope of the agreement.
These are relevant questions, particularly if several foreign operators may be hired while SLM remains financially dependent on government support.
Clarity is therefore needed not only on World Atlantic, but also on Global X and on how the minister is informed.
What is the current status of the contract with Global X? Which written agreements were not carried out as expected? Has World Atlantic been hired through a wet-lease or ACMI arrangement? What does this deployment cost?
And how does feedback between SLM management and the responsible minister take place when operations are seriously disrupted?
A minister does not need to know every detail of daily business operations. But when large numbers of travellers are stranded and a state-owned company itself publicly reports that agreements with a foreign partner were not carried out as expected, it may be expected that the responsible minister knows what is happening – or has at least asked for an explanation himself.
