Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
Can we put this recurring fantasy about Ryanair to bed once and for all? Ryanair are standardised on Boeing 737 800-series, using a lean burn engine. They've done this because it's a lot cheaper to have one plane type in terms of maintenance. These need 2000 metres of runway for safe operation, which is way beyond what Guernsey has available. The Airbus 319/320 ( easyjet option) can land on the length we have, but can only take off again with a reduced payload ( which means flying a two thirds full plane only, thereby losing money). Add to this the fact that the low cost operators base their routing decisions on what kind of catchment area they have for passengers at BOTH ENDS of a route. Arguably, there are plenty of potential Guernsey visitors on the London area , but Guernsey, with a 60,000 population is going to struggle to fill 180 seats goping the other way especially in lower season months. With planes costing what they do, it's not just about whether the airlines could break even on the route, it's about whether the same plane could make them more money if it was flying East Midlands - Perpignan, or Leeds - Strabourg or whatever instead. That said, if those in power had decided to lengthen the runway whilst doing this work, it could have increased the potential options. If one day Flybe decide for commercial or political reasons that they don't want to fly to Guernsey any more ( and they did this to Norwich), and Derek decides to stop playing at airlines, or the cost of Aurigny becomes unacceptably high to the States, a longer runway would at least have widened the potential number of operators to the island. In any of the above scenarios, Guernsey might have ended up being grateful for, say, four 737 or airbus flights a day into Gatwick rather than multiple turbo-prop flights, but with the runway stuck at its present length, that's not an option.