Fallout over airlineOne day after the Director of the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA), Egbert Field came out saying that the Guyana Airways Corporation (GAC) never filed an application with the Authority to operate in Guyana, the airline has lashed back saying that the GCAA is doing nothing but trying to create discourse and is being vindictive in its ways.Guyana Airways CEO Collin AbramsIn response to the statements made by Field, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the airline, Collin Abrams during a telephone interview with Guyana Times on Monday morning said the GCAA is being vindictive, especially since the airline recently won a court order against the Government and because the Director happens to be affiliated with Fly Jamaica.“For him to say that, it’s vindictive and I don’t know why he’s got this smear campaign against Guyana Airways,” Abrams argued.According to the airline’s CEO, GAC met with the Civil Aviation Authority back in March 19, 2018, and the two were locked in discussions concerning the operations of the airline.However, it was five months after the initial talks that the airline was greeted with a court order, which documented that the name of the airline had been removed from the registry; it also ordered a resubmission of documents for the proposed operations.“We filed a pre-application…then we filed a PASI (Pre-application Statement of Intent) -that’s the pre-application stage and after you filed that…we were supposed to file the actual AOC (Air Operator Certificate) application, but we could not have filed the application until we had everything in place (such as) contracts for the aircraft, ground handling, hire contracts, every single thing had to be in place before you could submit the AOC application,” Abrams explained.He went on to say that the airline was hoping to resume its application from where it left off. “Five months later when we were in the midst of our process they (GCAA) interjected themselves, telling us, in a legal matter, that they stopped the entire process,” Abrams recalled.GCAA Director Egbert FieldNonetheless the CEO said that GAC will be hand-delivering that court order, where they won the case against the Government for the use of the airline’s name, to resume the process.On Saturday Field said the airline never filed an application to operate in Guyana.Although it has been in the air that the proprietor of the airline had submitted his application for operations, the director noted, “They’ll have to submit an application. They never did submit an application before and I want to make it pretty clear.”According to him, Guyana Airways filed an ‘intent of operations’ on the work they intended to pursue. Guyana Airways was hoping to begin operations in February 2019 as was related by its CEO.His dream may once again be postponed as this may not be possible since it takes at least 12 or 13 months before an airline’s application is approved due to the processing requirements.This period, Field said, is “absolutely important” as officials would use this phase to ensure that all aspects of the operation are covered such as training for staffers, evaluation of personnel and the documentation of the airline, essentially the operations manual, flight attendant manual, weight and balance manual, maintenance manual and several others, to outline the procedures for the specific section.Government had taken the private airline to court this year for using the name which was used by two other companies which no longer exist.The inconvenienced businessman explained during a previous interview, “Two years after we’ve been registered and putting all this together and spending all this money, they just snuffed the life out of us without a hearing, without anything. We just had a marshal show up at our secretary’s home and that’s it, so they kinda murdered us.”According to him, 110 flight attendants have already been hired for the two airlines which will soon provide flights to Cuba, Barbados and Trinidad for now and will extend its services to the United States of America when Guyana becomes authorised to do so.
AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORERose Parade grand marshal Rita Moreno talks New Year’s Day outfit and ‘West Side Story’ remake “I think it’s greatly unfortunate for the taxpayers,” said Bisno, chairman and CEO of Bisno Development Co., which proposes a 2,300-unit multifamily development called Ponte Vista for the site. “I think it is a clear demonstration … of the degradation of responsible fiscal management to put themselves in a position where they’re paying hundreds of millions of dollars for an asset they could have had, if they’d planned ahead, for free. “I think it’s a slap in the face for the taxpayer.” The project has divided elected officials and members of the community who are concerned about the traffic and other problems the large campus would generate and whether a smaller school could be built elsewhere, such as near Los Angeles Harbor College. At a news conference Monday, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn asked the school board to postpone a decision. And in an interview, Hahn said the LAUSD has rushed the process without addressing community concerns and thoroughly exploring the alternatives. “It’s unfortunate they missed an opportunity to have land free of charge,” Hahn said, adding that the proposed Ponte Vista project also is too large for the community. “But we were told their demographers indicated they did not need to build a high school in this area less than five years ago. Now, it’s problematic to put a high school there … a 2,000-seat high school will bring a lot of traffic. They should build smaller learning academies.” Board member Mike Lansing, who represents the area, defended the district’s choice of a site for the school, which would serve communities in San Pedro and Harbor City. He also accused Hahn of being “squeezed” by a developer who is lobbying aggressively for a zone change that would allow his multifamily project. Hahn responded that she hasn’t decided whether to back a change in zoning, adding that the community has issues over both the proposed housing development and the high school. “It’s a perfect location for the two communities it serves,” Lansing said, adding that the district has looked at 10 alternate sites, including several suggested by city officials. Lansing also defended the district’s actions in August 1999, saying there was no money or designated school project at that time to justify competing with the city’s master plan – which included the two private schools – for the free land. “The story is, that was then, this is now,” he said. “Public school seats are needed.” He also said building a 2,000-seat high school would be more cost-effective than building several 500-seat campuses in separate locations, and that the large campus could be configured into smaller learning communities. School board member David Tokofsky said it was shocking that public entities throughout the region weren’t able to capitalize on all the free federal land. “It’s truly an amazing drop of the ball by every public entity,” Tokofsky said. The LAUSD staff defended its efforts to acquire the site, saying student demographics have shifted and that the district now must work to ease overcrowding at San Pedro High School and at Narbonne High School in Harbor City. Roderick Hamilton, LAUSD consultant and south region development manager, said the LAUSD approached the U.S. Department of Education again in 2003 and asked to reopen its application for the free land. Barbara Shawyer, U.S. Department of Education project manager in the federal real property assistance program, said agencies cannot reapply under General Services Administration distribution rules. “The door is pretty much closed” once applicants say they’re no longer interested, Shawyer said. Hamilton said the district monitored the March auction, but couldn’t afford the entire parcel. Beth Barrett, (818) 713-3731 email@example.com 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! Six years after rejecting surplus federal property in San Pedro, Los Angeles Unified is now prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars to purchase the same parcel for a 2,025-student high school, the Daily News has learned. The district applied for a portion of the former San Pedro naval housing site in January 1999, but withdrew the application seven months later rather than compete with the city of Los Angeles’ plan for the property. Part of the surplus land was given away for two private high schools, which are now being built, while residential developer Bob Bisno bought some 62 acres for $121 million during an on-line auction held last March. Tonight, the school board is set to consider designating about one-quarter of the land at Western Avenue and Westmont Drive as a “preferred site” for a $165 million high school, indicating it might try to acquire the land through condemnation proceedings after conducting a yearlong environmental review. District officials estimate the cost of the 15-acre school site at roughly $30 million, based on the developer’s purchase price. But Bisno said it could run as high as $150 million to $200 million once the adverse impact on the project is factored in.