Should we liken them to highway robbers, these monopolies that unilaterally impose excessive increases on consumers to compensate for what they perceive as a loss?
Take the No 45 mini-bus operators, for instance. The gasoline price at one outlet has been increased by $50. Some operators have increased fares by $10 per passenger. With 14 passengers, the operators collect an additional $140 for each trip that leaves the Stabroek Market terminal. The distance covered to Albert Street and return is about three miles. Let us say that one gallon of gasoline is consumed in six trips to Albert Street and return to the Stabroek Market. For each gallon of gasoline the operator makes $840, without taking into account the additional passengers entering the bus on the outward or return journey. The operator pays $50 more for gasoline and gains $790.
It has long been the perception of consumers that not only mini-buses but taxi services, supermarkets and others who provide goods and services for consumers take advantage of any excuse to raise prices far above what they should really be. When the price of flour was increased, some consumers argued that the high increase in the price of bread was not justified. The companies that are now offering cars and other fabulous prizes are not taking the cost of the prizes out of their salaries. No; we the consumers pay when we purchase at prices higher than necessary.
Mini-bus conductors are maintaining that passengers would not have small coins if the fares were raised by a nominal amount, say, three or five dollars. We also hear that spare parts are excessively high and that Government has not provided the spare parts that mini-buses need. Why depend on Government? Why cannot the mini-bus associations form a co-operative and import parts?
We would accept that maintenance costs are high. It is understood that these buses are designed to have a passenger capacity of 12 persons but an extra three seats are built-in when the buses arrive in Guyana. And with the reckless driving that we have witnessed, there is no doubt that maintenance costs are higher than they should be.
We would agree with those who argue that the number of mini-buses on each route should be monitored and should be kept at a level that would allow for a fair profit each day.
On the question of profits, operators are saying that they would welcome being regulated by the Public Utilities Commission as they would then be assured of receiving a profit of 15 per cent on their investment. They would also have to raise their standard of efficiency, cease their loud music and give satisfaction to consumers. Gone would be the days when they could leave senior citizens and handicapped persons standing on the road.
The increase in mini-bus and taxi fares should not have been done unilaterally. The taxi-service owners have upped their short drop fare from $200 to $240 which allows them to collect 80 per cent of the gasoline increase on each short drop, an unacceptable proposition!
The increase in fares should vary from route to route. The mini-bus associations would do well to consult with the Guyana Consumers Association (GCA). Consumers should continue to resist the excessive increases and should press for larger buses to be on all routes with fixed schedules. Let us have some discipline in the transportation system.
Consumers need protection from these excessively high charges. If we look at the surcharge imposed by the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T) we will see another instance of consumers paying money with no verification of whether the surcharge was really necessary.
This is an old story but it is not forgotten by the two consumer organisations, the GCA and the Consumers Advisory Bureau (CAB). The surcharge was imposed on consumers by GT&T following the High Court decision of Justice Carl Singh in 1997 which quashed the rate-reduction order (Off-Peak) issued by the PUC in October 1995.
The (CAB) appealed against the surcharge and Justice Claudette Singh in November 1999 ordered GT&T to refund the sum of money collected. GT&T appealed and quite recently the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of GT&T allowing the company to retain the very large sum of money it had collected.
During the hearings in the Appeal Court, Justice of Appeal Carl Singh was asking the question, "Is the company not entitled to regain the money it lost?" CAB's lawyer, Mr Peter Britton, S.C., held out that money was not the issue. The issue was that GT&T had acted illegally.
Well, it would appear that consumers are on the wrong side of the fence. The need for an appeal to a further court stands out in this matter. If Justice Claudette Singh could be wrong in her decision then also the three Justices of Appeal could be wrong.
What is puzzling is that in the Appeal Court it was not determined whether GT&T did in fact lose money when the rates were reduced. The consultant who advises GCA and CAB, Mr Joseph Tyndall, has requested certain information such as:-
the total amount of revenue that GT&T claimed to have lost as a result of implementation of the reduction order; and
a full explanation of the method used by GT&T in computing its losses.
The GCA has appealed to the PUC. We anxiously await the information.