About Air Antilles and Winair Accountability

Dear Mr. Editor,

Thank you for allowing me the space to address the accountability, or lack thereof, around Air Antilles and, to a lesser extent but still important, Winair.

Every time Air Antilles comes up, we end up in the same place, people looking for a single face to blame. The last CEO. The last management team. The last decision. It makes for neat talk radio, but it skips the real question: who designed the restart in the first place, and who signed off on a model that never had a real chance of lasting?

Air Antilles did not have one “founder.” It was relaunched by the Collectivité of Saint-Martin and EDEIS as a public, political project. The goal was to protect regional connectivity, and I understand that goal. But let us call it what it was, it was not a market-driven airline plan, it was a political decision to revive a symbol. That matters, because when you build an airline as a political project, the politics become part of the structure, and the structure decides the outcome.

So, who was accountable for starting it? The public institutions that designed and approved the restart. The Collectivité of Saint-Martin, as majority owner, was the main architect. EDEIS, as minority owner, supported the restart with technical and managerial input, but it was not the strategic driver. Then there were the other regional political actors who backed it, and helped push the idea of the airline as something to defend emotionally, instead of something that had to stand up financially.

Here is the part people do not like to say out loud: Air Antilles was under-capitalized from day one. If you push a relaunch without long-term financial guarantees, without the right-sized fleet, and without a business model that matches the market, you are building an airline on wishful thinking. That is leadership and shareholder responsibility. Full stop.

And because that is true, it is not fair, or accurate, to dump the failure on one manager or one CEO. Management had a job to do, operate day to day inside the constraints they inherited. They had operational responsibility, yes, but they did not invent the founding assumptions. They did not design the political model. They did not create the financial structure. They were operating inside an impossible setup.

What caused the collapse was structural miscalculation. Political decision-makers carry strategic responsibility. Shareholders carry financial responsibility. Legacy debts, labor disputes, and competition made things worse, faster, but they did not create the core problem. The core problem was the way the relaunch was built.

Now, if we are serious about learning anything from that mess, we should apply the lesson with clear eyes to Winair, and I am not making accusations here, I am talking about basic transparency. Air Antilles should have taught us one thing, political enthusiasm does not replace commercial reality. And public ownership does not remove the need for transparency, it increases it.

Now about Winair. I want to preface my comments by saying that I have looked high and low and cannot locate the financials that I'm about to reference. If I am wrong, then Winair should publish these right away. If I am not wrong.....then Winair should publish these right away!

Winair has not published 2023–2024 financials. For a small, government-owned regional airline, operating in a volatile market, that is not a small thing. Maybe it is something simple, audit delays, limited accounting staff, a complicated process because of government ownership. That is the least worrying explanation, and it still signals strain.

But the silence can also mean other things. It can be that the results are weak and they would rather not spotlight them. It can point to governance problems, especially when an airline puts out route updates and fleet messaging but not the numbers. That looks like marketing over transparency, or weak internal controls. It can also be political sensitivities, disagreement over what should be shared. Or it can be cash-flow stress, restructuring, a company under pressure that does not want the public to start asking hard questions.

None of that guarantees some immediate crash. But let us be honest, in aviation, opacity is rarely accidental. And when you see expansion talk, new routes, fleet growth messaging, but no financial reporting, that mismatch is a yellow-to-red flag. Not panic, but a warning light.

The point is simple: the public cannot be expected to rely on a narrative without numbers. If Winair is expanding while not showing financials, anyone building partnerships or dependence around that airline should assume elevated financial risk. Operational reliability might still be fine, but financial health is a different question, and right now the public has no way to judge it.

(𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 - 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘜𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘢 “𝘓𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.  𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.)

‍