Kevin Butt points to the cracking and disintegration on the runway. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 0672182)
GUERNSEY’S runway needs urgent work to bring it in line with international safety standards.
Public Services today reveals the breakdown of the £85m. bill for maintenance and improvement with a warning that if it is not done, further restrictions could be placed on airlines.
It will not be recommending an extension, although pressure from Commerce and Employment means a separate report into that by the Policy Council.
Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet gave a warning to anyone who thought the maintenance and improvements were not needed.
‘If the work wasn’t done, we’d have to continue to patch. In all probability – although I can’t say with any authority – our airport licence could be downgraded and we may have to put restrictions on aircraft being able to use it. I’m not saying that is a given, but we can’t just put a sticky plaster over a situation that needs attention.’
The department’s Green Paper on the issue goes to the States in January but a final decision will not be made on whether to go ahead with the work until the capital prioritisation debate in March.
Work would take two years, with resurfacing of the runway itself needing to be done at night.
‘It is much more than just overlaying a strip of tarmac on the runway,’ said Deputy Flouquet.
‘It deals with concrete aprons, taxiways, lighting on and off the airport, drainage and pollution prevention and, most critically, dealing with a number of non-compliances with current national, European and international requirements and standards.’
Civil Aviation Authority requirements mean that whenever major work is carried out at an airport, any non-compliances need to be addressed. Chief among those in Guernsey is the length of the runway end safety areas (Resas).
Although there can be mitigation, the CAA recommends these should be 240 metres.
They are currently 90 at one end and 110 at the other.
Under the department’s plans the runway would be moved to the west and La Mare Road permanently closed, resulting in 202-metre Resas at either end. A dip on the western end also needs to be built up by about 1.5 metres.
Deputy Flouquet said that funding the work was up to Treasury and Resources.
‘If necessary they will come up with some solution, whether it’s part funding to no funding at all, but that’s something we’re going to see when Treasury comes forward with its proposals early next year.’
Commerce and Employment believes there may be a case for lengthening the runway from its current 1,463 metres to 1,700.
Its main concern is the risk that limitations on the type of aircraft that can use the runway will lead to a deterioration of air services.
But it does not want to hold up the improvements planned so accepts that work on any extension would have to begin after Public Services’ planned programme had been completed in mid 2011.
Article posted on 21st November, 2008 - 2.30pm
21 Article Comments
I dont quite understand how it has been quoted to cost that much and take so long. Edinburgh Airport is finishing an 8 month resurfacing project at the cost of £16m. Jersy has recently embarked on a similar £17m project which is also expected to take 8 months. Why are the figures for our work so drastically different?
Report abuse
dont forget the consultants fees, they will add another 30 to 40 million to the final price….
Report abuse
oh and the Ronez factor!!
Report abuse
I feel it is now time that all of our politicians needed their personal wealth looked into. We seem to pay well over the odds for everything. Why is this exactly? Someone somewhere must be doing very nicely from all of this. It is now time we asked ourselves who these people are and where they are! 85 million for tarmac? Does it come with diamonds and a lifetime guarantee then!
Report abuse
The high cost estimate seems incredible unless of course its an attempt to ensure that the States finally deliver a major project within budget.
I still don’t understand the provision for “land purchase” costs within the £85m figure, if the runway is merely being resurfaced and upgraded but not lengthened. What land purchase costs are necessary ?
A prominent island open market resident is Peter Tom, formerly of Aggregate Industries PLC, who must have undertaken similar projects. It might be very interesting to see if he thinks if would cost as much as £85m. After all, he will have a better idea of the likely cost than a pen-pusher at Frossard House, whose estimates of recent capital projects don’t exactly inspire me with confidence. Has the relevant States department sought a quote from the companies doing the Edinburgh and Jersey runway projects ?
Report abuse
£85 million? You must be joking. It’s time to batten down the hatches and stop spending. At least postpone this project for a year or two until we are in the middle of the depression, then firms will clamour for the contract at half the price or less.
Report abuse
Where do the States pluck these figures from? I bet if I did the job on my own and did it properly I could do it for half the cost and still have a nice £50 million left over so I could immediately retire at 40 and not have any money worries for the rest of my life.
The States seem to be more and more like one of these shopaholic women, going out spending more and more money, they have not got, on unnecessary shoes and clothes.
We could save money by getting rid of some States members, why do we need 45 anyway, for a population of 61,000 when most towns in the UK would have a handful for the same population.
I know as an ex plane spotter the surface is made of many more layers then a road surface and a lot thicker, but even so the States should just fix the bad patches on the top surface, for the foreseeable future. Like the saying goes, make do and mend!
Report abuse
MrBooojangles
I am struggling to work your figures? You could do it for half the cost and still have a nice 50 million left over?
Report abuse
MrBooojangles
I am struggling to work out your figures? You could do it for half the cost and still have a nice 50 million left over?
Report abuse
Okay Paul, you got me there. I was going to go back and change the wording in the first column, before I posted it and forgot.
Having said that, I could be allowing for when they say the cost has gone up to £100 million in a weeks time as it probably will do eh!!!
Report abuse
Re Confused,
I also saw the article over this weekend on the teletext regarding the total cost of Edinburgh Airport resurfacing work costing £16 million. Bearing in mind that Edinburgh Airport runway is a larger and busier airport than Guernsey will ever be. I believe it handles somewhere in the region of 110,000 flights a year including large jet aircraft.
Maybe the states should bring over the company that resurfaced Edinburgh airport and despite their travel and living expenses it could still save us the Tax Payers a minimum of £50 million.
I think its time our deputies spent our money in the same way they spend their own personal cash and realised we are not a bottomless pit of money for them to spend as they appear to have been doing for years. Come on all deputies WAKE UP TO THE REAL WORLD.
Report abuse
Whilst I agree £85 million is an awful lot of money most of you commenting on this topic are missing the point.
Our airport work cannot be compared with Edinburgh or Jersey as they are just straightforward runway resurfacing – the £85 million pounds estimated for our repairs include taxiway and concrete apron area replacement which are both massive projects requiring probably more work and expense than resurfacing the runway itself.
Report abuse
Just Googled Bristol Airports new runway – that included its taxiways and came in at a mere 17 million.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to work out that at 85 bars someone is having a laugh.
If we add in the new terminal at 20 odd million then we could have built a new airport somewhere else.
Which would have been a whole lot better!
Report abuse
In the breakdown of costs for airport runway there was a figure of over £10 million for apron repairs
If I remember correctly wasn’t this paid for when they did the new Terminal building?
Report abuse
Hi
I am currentley working on the resurfacing of Jersey airport and previously worked one the Edinburgh job.
Let me explain why Guernsey will be so expensive.
Edinburgh was a well maintained runway and all that was required was lifting of the top 40mm of tarmac and relaying. Also they had a full lighting replacement.
However Guernsey is basically in very poor shape. In order to have modern aircraft land, the runway must conform to certain criteria. One example is that the runway must be level. Guernsey runway needs (in places) building up 2 meters to get this level. That is 2 meters of tarmac built up over many layers. A very expensive job when you consider cost of raw materials and labour etc. There are other factors as well such as major upgrading of draining etc etc.
Of course lets not forget that being an island everything has to be shipped in, materials,machinery and ashphelt plant all at great cost.
Hope this helps people understand where their money is going.
Report abuse
I guess it would have been better for us to have upgraded our runway before we overspent on a new Terminal building, but where would Berry have hung his photo then?
From what I understand Flybe could operate their new Jet aircraft here now, but it’s the States that has prevented this, not Flybe. Perhaps this is just another way of protecting Aurigny (lame duck) Airline and the unwise investment made in that venture.
Report abuse
David makes some sound points.
One is about land purchase. Answer they forgot to take this sum out when the plan was to increase the length of the runway was dropped.
Why not use the the expertise of Peter Tom? Simple answer is that they won’t use hom because of his expertise. Better to pay UK consultants massive fees
Never mind the cost. Joe Public will pay. Sounds more like Brown every day. In fact Brown’s budget, sorry Darling’s budget, sounds very much like the zero 10 gamble of relying on growth.
Report abuse
I dont think the work should be done at all.
We the public were tricked into funding the new terminal building when they knew the money should have been spent on the runway. I say lets have a rough landing strip and force the airlines to use Hercules aircraft. This would teach the empire builders a lesson. Besides, boarding the aircraft will be much more fun and quicker if you can run up the back ramp of the aircraft carrying your cases.
Report abuse
Guernsey’s airport does need renovation. But 85 million pounds worth of reno and expansion? A stunning figure! Something is terribly wrong here! But regardless of cost, Guernsey’s airport must never be ‘expanded’ or enlarged. Here’s why. I live in an area where against public objections the airport was ‘expanded’. All the usual reasons and excuses for doing so where given by airport authorities and by the commercial sector. Tax-paying residents were ignored. Now, increased noise and pollution from jet aircraft and greater road traffic is destroying the living conditions in our community. There is no peace. No fresh air.
By world standards Guernsey is a very very small piece of rock/land. Enlarging the airport for larger aircraft and increased air traffic will destroy it too, and any expansion will seriously impact the lives of those who live near the airport and/or beneath the flight paths, I guarantee it. Do yourselves a favour, stop any airport expansion the same way you stopped the Belle Greve Bay fill-in.
Mike
Report abuse
Bloney hang! We managed to build the airport and runway from horticulture and tourism. If we are struggling to repair it from finance then surely we’re in the wrong business us now, eh?
Report abuse
£85m is an extortinate figure barely a year after Flouquets Mickey Mouse Dept came up with a figure over £20m less. I suppose he inherited it from Roger Berry OBE who’s use of words and figures were so inaccurate communicating with him was a worthless task.
I agree with other comments, the runway was always the priority for islanders and for that reason Berrys photo should be taken off the airport wall and binned for wasting taxpayers money and for the farce of the mismangement of the airport contract itself
Report abuse