The front page story of the Financial Gleaner of March 20 carried the headline 'Duckenfield idea shelved, Ken Jones bypassed $100m upgrade for Boscobel aerodrome'.

It is very interesting to note that the opening sentence of the story stated Government has, at least for now, shelved its plans for a new international airport for eastern Jamaica and will instead, expand and upgrade the airdrome at Boscobel, St Mary, on the island's north-eastern shore.

Nothing in the body of the story was attributed to the minister or his ministry which could be inferred that the Government had taken the decisions that were reported by the story.

The story went on to say: So while the project has not been formally abandoned, most analysts expect it to lie in fallow for the foreseeable future, although this was not the declaration of the AAJ's Richards. He said that necessary preparatory work, including feasibility and environmental studies, was at a very preliminary stage.

No official comment

Although Richards has been quoted in the article, we are unaware of the circumstances.

Did Richards call the reporter and make the statements attributed to him or was he responding to questions from the reporter? Did the reporter seek to get the minister or the ministry's position before publishing a statement purporting to be the government's position on the matter?

From the material published, it is very clear that Richards did not attempt to usurp the minister's role in the matter.

He pointed out a valid deterrent to the Ken Jones Airport expansion because Various studies have been done show that the Ken Jones runway is not feasible from an aeronautical perspective because of mountainous obstacles.

The story seemed to have been a kite-flying exercise. If it were, it accomplished its objective beautifully - a front-page lead story which provides no link to the source from which it is supposed to have emanated, but succeeds in eliciting response from an influential source, thereby producing the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the story and allowing the minister to be able to flex his muscles and, most importantly, to distance the Government from the story.

In the meantime, hopes of those who look forward to the implementation of those projects that have been deemed imprudent by objective analysis are kept alive, for the time being.

It is sheer folly to contemplate the building of a third international airport in a country with two very fine international airports where the maximum distance from an international airport is likely to be less than 70 miles.

No more 'white elephant'

I would invite the minister or anyone who has figures to show that the building of Duckenfield Airport is a viable proposition to come forward and bare them to the public.

Jamaica cannot afford another white elephant. Special interest groups induced a gullible government to build 'Greenfield'; now another set want 'Duckenfield'.

I would recommend to anyone who thinks it is wise to embark upon the third international airport to raise private funds and do it.

If it does not make sense for private capital, then we should recognise that our government is in no position to build an airport to facilitate the 'top-end tourist' who may or may not come here in the numbers required to make the third international airport a viable financial preposition.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS WHITE

Kingston 6