Adviser to Chairman TI-Pakistan Adil Gilani in a letter to chairman and CEO of PIA has mentioned that PIA, by issuing this clarification in press, has agreed with TIP comments submitted in the Supreme Court, that PPRA Rule 10 of the Public Procurement Rules 2004 does not allow mentioning of brands names in tender specifications.

Pakistan International Airlines clarification dated August 18 is quoted below:

“The TIP earlier blamed PIA for specifying brand names for the Boeing 737-800 aircraft. The same was very much in line with the PPRA Rules as the same type of aircraft is already being operated by PIA in its fleet.

Induction of the same type of aircraft results in huge savings in terms of cabin and cockpit crew, maintenance engineers and spare parts commonality.

Now again TIP is accusing Pakistan International Airlines of not specifying engine brands and may acquire B777 aircraft with Pratt & Whitney instead of General Electric (GE) engines. Such strange logic of TIP on specifying brand names is beyond understanding. PIA did not specify the brand name of the engines and would be acquiring aircraft with lowest cost to PIA.” The letter of adviser TI-Pakistan says: “How can PIA state that Boeing 777-800 is not a brand name, and that PPRA allows PIA for only leasing of Boeing 777-800, whereas PIA itself has now admitted in August 18 press report that stating that PIA did not name the engines (ie GE engine) is not allowed under PPRA as it is a brand name.

“Kindly note that PIA does not have any discretion to circumvent PPRA rules in same tender, by using two different criteria for use of brand names and not use of brand names.

In the letter dated August 15, TIP has pointed out that PIA is in fact circumventing PPRA Rules as it deemed fit for PIA manipulation.

“The press release of August 18 also confirms that PIA reason that it has opted for Boeing aircraft because is presently operating Boeing 777-800, (another false statements as PIA dos not have any 777-800, but it has only Boeing 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 ER), and PIA will have savings in terms of cabin and cockpit crew, maintenance engineers and spare parts commonality, and that any additional crew requirement will be easy to fulfil due to availability of trained instructors. But the fact is that PIA has trained engineers and spare parts for GE 90 Engines, and not for Pratt & Whitney 400 engines.

“In case of this procumbent, Pakistan International Airlines therefore will have to spend extra funds to get their engineers trained on Pratt & Whitney 400 engines and also buy and keep enough additional spare parts for Pratt & Whitney 400 engines, as each engine costs approximately $25 million. And this is a contradictory situation, as PIA is going for the lease of only Boeing aircrafts, and not considering Airbus, as 12 Airbus A310-300 aircraft are reported to be in PIA fleet, which are equivalent to Boring 777-800.

The letter concludes that Pakistan International Airlines has made a wrong statement in the Supreme Court that mentioning of the B-737 aircraft is, therefore, covered under the relevant clauses of PPRA rules, and that use of any brand name is not allowed under rule number 10, and the Supreme Court has to adjudicate the HR Case No 49143 – S/2011.