‘No choice’ but to spend millions on the airport
Monday 8th December 2008, 2:29PM GMT.
THERE is no option but to spend millions on the airport, according to the Public Services Department.
It has set out proposals for an £85m. project, with work that would take two years to complete, with some of that being done at night.
‘In Guernsey, the strength of the runway and aircraft parking areas [aprons] has been reducing gradually over the years and has reached a critical point where major works have become essential,’ said Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet.
He said in considering what to do, it must be recognised that international safety standards for airports are stringent and with very few exceptions, non-negotiable. Any non-compliances must be brought up to standard whenever major work is undertaken.
‘To maintain the airport to current standards, Guernsey must spend a significant sum. This is a decision that cannot be put off for a year or two without serious risk to the economic and social well-being of this community,’ Deputy Flouquet said.
Public Services does not believe there is evidence to justify an extension, but puts the cost of lengthening the runway to 1,700m while retaining the current classification at £119m.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Why don’t you just extend one end of the runway? That would save a fortune on having to move the landing lights and instrument landing system. I appreciate people will not like what i have just said but sorry, progress is a must. Plus extend the runway and BMI may give us an airbus route into Heathrow. In order to keep the offshore investments on the island you are going to have to spend it…
Report abuse
“No choice” is clearly the 2008 variant of the oft used, and oft abused “if we don’t do it now it will cost more next year” excuse to spend taxpayer money with abandon.
I await the now almost mandatory overspend statement in a oouple of years time.
I presume the £119 million of lengthening the runway is additional to the £85 million for the strenghthning of the runways.
Report abuse
I would like to know how much working on the actual runway at nights contributes to the total cost of £85m and how long working at night extends the construction time.
If the airport runway could be closed for not too long a period then working 24 hours would I assume not only reduce the costs of night time working but speed up the actual work.
It’s interesting to see that the Isles of Scilly use helicopters to ferry passengers to the mainland.
Perhaps with a reduced service helicopter flights using similar sized aircraft could be used between Guernsey and Jersey for essential travel.
More frieght could be sent via the sea or even cargo helicopters (Chinnock?).
If timed right, and only for a short period, I think most islanders and businesses could work around a short closure of the airport if it resulted in large savings.
Hopefully those planning this work will think outside the box.
Report abuse
Is the runway going to be gold plated, I live near the City of Kamloops in Canada. Here they are just in the process of extending the runway by 2000 feet, as well as improving the terminal which will have international arrivals added. According the the latest news it is on Budget at 22 Million Canadian Dollars, today’s exchange rate would make that about 13 M pounds.
Report abuse
I seem to remember when I was quite young in Guernsey that the airport was closed for a period of time and that BEA helicopters operated a shuttle to Jersey? I may have that wrong.
It really depends on what service the island really wants out of their runway, i.e the level of service. On a short leg to LGW or LHR the type of aircraft, whether its high speed turboprop or turbojet, is not significant. Getting a slot back into LHR is a big deal now, as LGW is becoming less attractive to major carriers now LHR is opening up to foreign (US) airlines. Continental, Delta, Northwest, USAirways, all LGW users, are moving in increments to LHR not that it is open skies there. i.e where do you connect to of LGW any more? Business users need LHR for serious connections. Just today BA announced a cut back at LGW too. Might as well go to Southampton OR a European airport (AMS/BRU?CDG etc) connection. Either that , or (shudder the thought! ;-) become heavily reliant on Jersey airport and its onward services!
I think it demonstrates Guernsey’s increasing dependance on our cousins to the South East! Guernsey is a serious business centre, it needs a serious, dependable, commitment to air commerce.
It is also of note that however we ended up with an airport at the highest point on the island, with all its weather related issues, makes one wonder about the viability of the idea of land reclamation and a sea level airport…..the days of an airport building full of stranded passengers are still with us. Zero visibility at airfield level and unlimited vis at the harbor. Cat 1 flights (1/2 mile vis and 200 ceiling) are quite possible at sea level when the current airport is shut down.
RFK
Report abuse
Repair/renew the airports current runway? YES. But ‘expand it even by one inch? Deffinately NOT!. No matter ‘who says what’ in support of a larger airport, an expanded runway will mean (1) larger aircraft (2) increased flight frequency (3) increased noise (4) increased pollution and (5) increased road traffic, each of the above applicable especially to residents who live near the airport and also those many people who live beneath, or close to, the flight path.
Rest assured, the above facts noted as being detrimental to pleasant living conditions have been proven to happen time and time again at other airports in other communities where ‘expansion’ has been allowed to take place.
The results of ‘expansion’ at Guernsey’s airport would bring detrimental living conditions for those living nearby. It would also be detrimental to the tourist industry especially as most tourists who visit Guernsey come for a peaceful ‘olde worlde style’ break away from it all, not the deaffening roar of low flying jets, the stink of jet fuel, and the added crush of increased traffic.
It has to be a BIG no, and Guernsey residents would do well to action a ‘Belle Greve Bay’ style ‘NO’ to airport expansion, but do it now before it’s too late.
Report abuse
Some excellent comments, I hope there will be more and that the Guernsey Press will encourage a really full and accurate debate on the airport runway. To start with let me ask a question, if we have all the work stated done plus the runway extension, then it appears the total cost is 119 million as opposed to 85 million without the extension. What concerns me is how much extra it would cost to have a runway extension done later and we need to know this. Previous debates on this subject have concluded most definately that if we want all the work done cost effectively, we should have the runway extension done at the same time. I am concerned that the total package for improving the runway is properly debated in the States and not just the cheapest necessary option.
In Guernsey we sometimes have a record of cutting corners to try to save money and end up paying a huge amount more later. I don’t think I need to quote examples, because there are plenty of them. I sincerely hope we don’t make the same mistake with our airport, which is probably the most most important factor which contributes to our economic viability.
Tony Webber
Report abuse
Expat80. Larger aircraft mean LOWER frequency. Modern aircraft are less noisy and pollute less than older ones.
Larger aircraft do not mean increased tourism. The hotel accommodation and infrastructure need to keep pace with development.
Bottom line is that the route between GCI and UK is too short. Costs at each end of the route are basically the same as betweenb longer routes such as LHR to JFK.
A once a day jumbo.assuming it could eventually be handled at GCI, would be the equivalent of the one time daily mailboat, but
would severely restrict passenger choice. Everthing would be possible if the traveller was prepared to accept the true cost of providing an air service to and from the island. Failing to maintain and extend the runway would inevitably result in a less than third world level service.
Report abuse
The bottom of the article say’s “Public Services does not believe there is evidence to justify an extension” OK I agree with that but it appears it does need resurfacing. £85 million and then the overspend, look at Robert from Canada’s comment. I know it’s been said lots before but how about relocating it to Bulwer Avenue on a land reclamation site? Horrendous cost’s but the land at currant airport woud sell for £????????
Report abuse
Can anyone clarify exactly what we are getting for £85m as it seems a staggeringly large amount of money to resurface/repair a runway that is approximately 1 mile long.
Report abuse
Bernard Flouquet should resign. Not for a golliwog joke but because his Department is a joke. Inside a year his band of clowns have gone from a £60m estimate to over £85m, a ‘judgement’ that demonstrates unequivicably his Depts inability to run anything or do even basic maths.
Flouquet has loaded the tarmac with a whole host of pork bellied spending including updating car parks (what’s the problem?) and everything he can wish for in and outside the terminal. Even Emelda Marcos never enjoyed such wanton spending sprees.
This type of grotesque/obese public spending at a time of recession with worse to come just demonstrates his Dept is living in an ivory tower devoid of any realism, financial constraint or fiscal discipline.
Flouquet and his team have completely lost the plot. Time these sloppy wasters resigned.
Report abuse
There may be “no option but to spend millions on the airport” but the States must get their priorities right. The time for spending on the airport is not now. There are other far more urgent projects to spend money on, the most important in my opinion being rebuilding Les Beaucamps School. The States made a promise back at the time when the 11+ debate was going on, that the children of the secondary schools in the Island would all have new schools by now. Les Beaucamps was built nearly 50 years ago with a prospect of lasting about 25 years. It is now very run down and seriously lacking in facilities and it is in desperate need of total rebuilding. The pupils and staff there have to work hard to overcome situations where they are disadvantaged by the state of the school. It is not just a case of patching it up – that is just throwing good money away. The States must deliver on their promise now. Spending millions on the runway is NOT what should take priority, but I fear that the promise the States made years ago will get put on the back burner yet again if we don’t speak up now. The children of the Island are its future and they deserve better. Stop trying to brush our children off with a repair job for Les Beaucamps. Face up to it, the school is unfit for purpose and MUST be rebuilt without further delay. This is where the money should go, forget the airport for now.
Report abuse
Done a little research since my opening statement…If i can sort the extension and resurfacing out for less than £40M then let me know and i’ll tell you how. £119M is a bit like Bernard Flouquets joke…simply not funny
Report abuse
Use this opportunity to think out of the box. What Guernsey needs is not an patched up old airport, but a completely new one. Build it out to sea on reclaimed land, like everyone else from Hong Kong to Japan has done. Return all that valuable land at Plaisance to homes and parks.
Report abuse
Felix de Ville – you are absolutely right. I suggested exactly the same thing on a separate thread earlier this week. The forward sale of the airport land for housing would largely fund it and the balance would probably be no less than the £115m that is being asked to upgrade the existing one. After all, one would only need to build the runway on reclaimed land. The terminal etc would be able to built land-side.
With the need to import more workers on the next 20-30 years to address the demographic issue, that could be achieved by building another 1,000-plus homes an apartments at La Villiaze. In effect, we would be making Guernsey bigger so it doesn’t actually become more crowded. More roads and related infrastructure would be necessary but the number of airports built successfully on reclaimed land around the world is growing every year. Why ? Because its a no-brainer. I strongly suspect that a replacement for Heathrow will end up being built in the Thames Estuary, funded by the forward sale of the Heathrow site to accommodate around 100,000 new homes.
Report abuse
Think outside of the box? Great idea Felix! Wow! Now, let me see…got it!…forget about any expansion at the airport, simply repair and renew the current facilities and in doing so keep Guernsey the beautiful relatively quiet clean air island that it is? Terrific!.
Best.
Report abuse
Lets face it..its just not going to happen..
Report abuse
£85M for repairs to the runway is an absurd amount, I cannot believe the tendering process has been handled properly. Extending the runway for a further £34M is a totally needless expense that can only result in less frequent services. If the choice is between fewer, larger aircraft or more frequent, smaller planes – surely the latter meets the needs of islanders better. Any notion of Airbus-loads of merry holidaymakers heading to Guernsey (presumably only during the summer school holidays) are a pipedream. It appalls me to hear people talk about “no options” when they are throwing around £2000 of each Guernsey taxpayers money. Even before we get into the usual massive overspends. This is mis-management on a grand scale with nobody ever held to account. Should the island be bankrupted to pay for somebody’s favourite hobby horse? Stick to crass golliwog jokes, Bernard, it sucked but it was funnier than this.
Report abuse
I don’t have any knowledge of buildi, unless they have shops in them :)
But i do know how contracts have worked in the past. Gold plated an as much as a deartment can get out of the pot.
I hope you chaps with a lot more knowledge than me keep on this one. And we find a way of reducing this headline figure as much as possible.
I will read with interest. Good speech by Yan Squidbasher
Report abuse
Felix- what a great idea, now that would be a great tourist attraction. Why cant the states ever think of things like that. The new runway could be kept afloat on all our sewage swimming about rather than reclaimed land as well!
Oh! we could sell the land and spend that money on a sewage plant as well. Two problems solved in one!
No options my ****, just like the states – a little power especially with tax payers money, goes straight to their heads. What if all the states had to put their hands, in their pockets every time they overspent- then I bet they would have more options before they commited to projects.
Report abuse