Shifting runway west will clear the way to extend it
Wednesday 30th June 2010, 11:30AM BST.
MOVING the runway now means it could be extended in the future, according to the Public Services minister.
Deputy Bernard Flouquet said, if approved, work on moving the runway 120 metres to the west would start next year. It is expected to take around two-and-a-half years and cost in the region of £80m.
Until the project goes out to tender the final figure cannot be accurately predicted.
The runway is currently 1,463 metres long and extending it to 1,700 metres would cost a further £25m.
Public Services does not believe this is justified at this time – but the proposed scheme would enable an extension in the future.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
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
OR here’s an idea, leave it where it is and save 80m! if it get approval for extension….extend it West for only 25m! so instead of paying 105m on an IF basis, you only spend the 25 when approved! THINK ABOUT IT!
Report abuse
Cue nimby western deputies who are happy to put regaining their seats at the next election ahead of the island’s strategic interests.
Report abuse
I still think the best option is to rebuild the airport in its entirety on the land reclamation in st. sampsons where the incinerator was proposed. This is simply finanically the best way forward. Wonder why? here’s how.
The land the airport is currently on could be turned into half housing, half green belt. The potential building land value to developers of the airport site would more than cover the cost of this idea. The states would pay for the houses to be built, however sell them privately themselves therefore quashing the islands over population and generating a massive amount of communal income. This would more than pay for the development of a new airport and runway.
There is the added bonus that it is often less foggy (when foggy) at sea level, therefore more than halving the days lost to bad weather. Also aircraft noise pollution would be drastically reduced as it would be ‘lost at sea’ !
I can’t believe this isn’t considered as feasible. The airport would be free !!!! No, 80 million on resurfacing, all brand new, all technically on paper free.
Report abuse
damo
Remember- or at least read what happened to the Fort. is that what you want, a ghetto for the idle rich, having made their money in England retire with their booty to the best viewing place in Guernsey.
HOPE CAMERON AND OSBORNE read about these cheats on their own people.-
Must drop a line to SKY News.
As for FLOUQUET, it’s about time He used his supposedly honourable way and resign as he promised to do.
Anyway on election time kick him out get rid of the excess baggage we must carry around.
Report abuse
Fair enough Martino. When it’s in the island’s strategic interests for your house to be demolished I look forward to you making this generous sacrifice…
Report abuse
I’d be more than happy for my flat to be demolished in the island’s strategic interest providing I am adequately compensated but as it is in the grim north, with its landfill and power station, I don’t think this situation will arise.
And isn’t it about time you pampered south west nimbies sacrificed a little for the greater good – just like those of us who live down to the Vale and St Sampson’s have had to do for decades, eh!
Report abuse
Martino_
come off it after all you’re nearer to your pals a bit further north
Besides in those good old days you couldn’t ever field a decent football team ‘Chocolate and blue I ask you-
Rangers for ever Up the red and Blacks. Ho Ho-
Report abuse
I would tend to agree with starscream. This whole proposal seemed like an april fool`s joke at first.
Report abuse
Slep and Starscream obviously haven’t been to any of the presentations! Or are just stirring for the sake of it.
RESA’s baby, it’s all about the RESAs. The relocation west is so they can have a CAA compliant RESA at the other end. If they don’t, the CAA can curtail the operations of the airport.
Then it’s goodbye London flights, goodbye freight flights and others.
It might be pricey, but that’s the world we live in these days. Safety first and it’s expensive. Learn to deal with it!
Report abuse
If the runway moves left in the proposed 2.5 years its going to take to construct and we have the extra 237 meters available from the start would it not be feasable to do it in one go? I think this way it maybe cheaper and in years to come would not cause further disruptions in extending it at a later date, also this would allow other companys flying to us bringing more revenue to the island and give us more flights to choose from so we wont be robbed by the 2 airlines we have now!!
Report abuse
Interesting letter from David DeLisle in todays paper comparing the cost of resrfacing the runway in Jersey with the refurbishment etc of ours. An inconvenience for some of his parishioners or an inconvenaince for the whole island. Come on David you are elected to do what is best for the island. If you think voting against the work is best for the island thats ok by me BUT where will we be without an airport! If the work had been done when it was first realised that there were problems with the runway then the cost would have been far less than the £80 million at todays prices. Just think David, silence for your part of the island will mean silence for the rest of the island. No tourists, no businessmen, no income, no states members salaries. Infact the island will die.
Report abuse
I am an aircraft Technician and have travelled to and fro from england some times on 50 seater aircraft with 4 passengers on board. Why do we need to extend the runway for larger aircraft when we cannot fill the aircraft, we operate at present. I think if the airlines reduced our travel costs across the English Channel(the most costly stetch of water to cross in the world)then they may actually get more custom on their routes they serve
Report abuse
On Garden incineration I am in support that it should be aloud to continue. However I am also aware that people burn, plastic, man made clothes, etc these can normally be identified by black smoke comming from the fire. If this is apparent then a call to enviromental health could bring an inspector to address the offender.
I believe it is nessecary as sometimes when I have Potatoe or tomatoe crops the weather can often bring on Blight of these crops so when it is spotted I burn the plants to kill the disease
Report abuse
Mile Bubb & Martino: Whilst you may view David De Lisle’s comments as being somewhat protective of the western parishes he does have a point. Do you really trust PSD with a)their statements on noise pollution and b)the £80 million estimate? I don’t. As for the sabre rattling by the CAA I suspect the whole issue of safety and compliance is being over egged by PSD to justify the spend.
Moreover,your logic seems to go like this – we’ve aesthetically and environmentally ruined one half of the island, now let’s destroy the other half by building a longer runway, and then more people will want to come here. Next time you fly in or out of Guernsey take a look; what you see is a large housing estate and car park, interspersed with a few green fields in the western parishes. Then take a look at Jersey and you will realise why people prefer to visit their island.
Report abuse
For a deputy and representitive of the people to be still comparing our project to Jersey’s shows that he either hasnt bothered to attend the meetings or has not listened at all.
Jersey resurfaced their runway for 16m, they have also had to rebuild some of the aprons and taxiways but not from the 16m.
The 80m for ours includes not only the provision of runway end SAFETY areas but raising a portion of the runway, reprofiling various parts or the landscape, reconstructing the runway(not just resurfacing.)reconsructing and reprofiling the aprons,all which are falling apart! new lighting, Radar, relocating Instrument systems etc,This is to bring us up to CAA standards which we currently do not meet. Seems not bad value when you put it all together eh!
The other option, just reconstuct the runway and shorten it, we HAVE to have RESA’s so if you or Mr Delise likes flying on Trilanders be my guest.
At the end of the day this is all being done to bring the airfield up to current safety standards.
Would you put your children in a car that did not meet industry standards because our states said it was ok?
Please dont ask me too.
Think about it
Report abuse
JUST STICK A RUNWAY DOWN BY CHOUET, NO MORE FOG DELAYS, AND IF WE EVER NEED TO REPAIR THE RUNWAY, JUST GET FLYING BOATS IN, SIMPLE AND CHEAP
Report abuse
Following on from Mile Bubb post, what Deputy de Lisle fails to mention in his letter when comparing the £15 million cost to resurface the Jersey to our estimated £80 million refurbishment is that the Jersey project was basically just resurfacing work,ours requires complete reconstruction, levelling to remove the dip, alteration to the RESAs, taxiway realignment and resurfacing, new lighting right through and a complete apron reconstruction – ever so slightly more involved than what has been done in Jersey!
I’m assuming Deputy de Lisle is aware of this and choose not to elaborate in his letter?
Report abuse
If you think an extension to the runway through green belt land is a good idea you need to be protected from yourselves.
Report abuse
Geezer Boy, what about sea fog? And of course we shouldn`t disrupt the autocross!
Report abuse
If you think this is a runway extension, then you need to be protected from yourself!!!
For crying out loud, the runway will still be the same length – we will not be able to have any bigger planes in. I can’t believe some people still think it’s an extension, particularly someone who claims to be a technician up at the airport. If he or she can’t grasp that simple point, then I’d be a little scared!
IF we extended to 1700m, then we’d need more RESA on top of that – so you’d be looking at over 2km of tarmac!
IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION!!!
And yes, De Lisle is over simplifying to suit his goals. Then again….. De Lisle…Simple things…. Actually….??
Report abuse
The airport project falls between two stools. It is neither a runway extension to allow 737s to land nor the basic minimum to bring the runway up to standard for our current turbo-prop services. We will be spending £85million on the off chance that Flybe decides to use its Embraer 195 regional jets.
PSD itself said in its 2008 Billet Report;
“Item 6.5 – The types of aircraft that currently use Guernsey are considerably smaller than those that use larger International Airports, and are predominantly turboprop rather than jet, and therefore have slower approach and take-off speeds than typical regional jets. A safety case could potentially be made that a full 240m RESA at Guernsey could be excessive on this basis alone.”
But PSD never made that safety case. Why should it when its project is predicated on accommodating regional jets at whatever financial and environmental cost?
It is a myth that the new runway will result in a range of new destinations or cheaper fares. To quote PSD’s Report again;
“work carried out by the Commerce and Employment Department since 2006 to identify potential new routes would suggest that there is very little appetite from carriers to operate new routes into or out of Guernsey…they are of the view that the limited catchment size..is..a limitation…”.
Whatever money we spend on the airport will, at best, only go towards maintaining existing services.
Report abuse
Google the plans. You’ll see that there are a number of options being proposed.
You will note that there is an almost hidden agenda in there – there IS a plan to extend the runway to 1700 metres – albeit in phase 2.
The purpose of which is to allow FlyBe’s Embraers, and other airlines 737′s and A319/320′s in. And of course the increasing number of large biz jets to operate into and out of the island.
Yes the runway has to be CAA compliant and RESA’s are a part of that package…but is there a strategic requirement to allow bigger jets in?
This simply isn’t covered in the documentation. I have grave doubts about the integrity of the proposals. Again.
At the end of the day Guernsey has a small regional airport with a runway that is adequate for the aircraft that currently use it.
Surely the most sensible plan would be to do what is necessary to get the current infrastructure up to date and compliant and not have the apparent hidden agenda for trying to make Guernsey airport into Heathrow.
As a parting question – how can Jersey’s western end be RESA compliant as any aircraft over shooting simply goes off a cliff?
Report abuse
Shane
Surely PSD have never pretended it was anything other than continueing to provide for the existing services, but in an environment where compliance has become more stringent.
My understanding on speaking to people is that if we do any significant work (ie resurface the runway) we are obliged to make good any other non-comliances by the CAA?
So we can’t “just” resurface. And, Gilthead, as Shane says himself, it’s not an extension!! hmm.. seems like I’ve said that before…
The option will exist to do so in the future, the report does indeed say that, but PSD have come out and said they don’t think it’s needed?!
Report abuse
I doesnt matter what we all think anyway, by the time we actually get to do anything we will all be teleporting!
Report abuse
Billythefish – watch this space!
I’ve had it on good authority that the runway extension will be East. The RESA area at that end is the only way it can go – the proposed shift of angle etc makes it easier to then subsequently extend in an easterly direction.
My question is what is the mimimum that can be done to service existing carriers and aircraft?
That question is not answered or addressed in the documentation.
Report abuse
How deep is the shelf off Choet. Is the sea bed rock or sand?
Report abuse
£9 landing taxes manchester £40 landing taxes guernsey ermmwonder why planes are empty yes its stopeed us getting away more often just wonder what they would/will put the taxes up to may bring them down and might get more people coming here and spread the costs over more then tax the few (taxes i have put roughly )but hey ho it will prob happen tax it more run over budget no one new will want to opperate from here same down the harbour but well theres a diffrent kettle of fish
Report abuse
The IOM airport has been expanded to 1743m. Lat year there wwere c 240k less passengers through this airport than Guernsey and there is no competion on the Gatwick route (although this is a less important route from there).
Flbe also used to run the BAe Jet from there but now runs the same aircraft as Guernsey . There is still no sign of the new Flybe jets coming in there, and for anyone travelling on the red eye from Guernsey will know its hardly full these days so cannot see them increasing capacity whatever happens to the airport.
So whether its extension or safety its likely the aircraft will remain the same
Report abuse
There is a few things that make me worry about all these proposals.
But my main worry is about going West, will they meet any INJUNS. will it be the Wild west-or will it just be East is east and West is west- but the wrong one they have chosen—
Oh dear Mad yes I suppose so. just trying to keep up with our educated government.
Report abuse
Billythefish
Compliance has become more stringent. That is because the CAA has a policy of keeping the absolute number of accidents constant. To achieve this, when air travel is growing, they have to increase their standards but the law of diminishing returns applies. Twenty years ago they were recommending 90m RESAs, now 90m is mandatory and the recommendation is 240m. Do we really need the same length RESAs for our turbo-props as Heathrow needs for its 747s?
PSD repeats the argument that if we even touch the runway we are obliged to do the lot. That is just not logical. The CAA comprises reasonable people, is it likely that they would stop us doing £25million of essential repairs and insist we spend £75million?
Rather than starting with what we have, making maintaining existing services the priority, PSD started with a 1700m runway extension to accommodate 737s which will never come. Then they worked backwards. That is why we have ended up with such an eye-wateringly expensive project.
Report abuse
Shane Langlois
Is it correct to claim the “CAA has a policy of keeping the absolute number of accidents constant”
Surely the objective is to minimise accidents and not to keep the number of accidents constant.!!
Report abuse
@Stephen John – I would hope the CAA has an objective of keeping the absolute number of accidents constant at zero! Of course that’s not going to happen in the real world but surely it should be the aim?
Report abuse
Stephen & Paul
Safety is all about statistics. Nothing, including air travel, is ever going to be 100% safe so those drafting airport design regulations have to choose an acceptable rate of what are called ‘occurences’. Over a twenty year period in the UK there were 14 ‘serious’ runway overruns in 25.5million air movements. The current benchmark safety level is 1 ‘serious’ runway overrun in 10million air movements.
In Guernsey we have only had three runway overruns over the last forty years and none that reached the end of our RESAs. What has changed is that PSD wants to accommodate regional jets which are larger and have a higher landing speed than our current turbo-props. This despite there being no evidence that anybody would provide such services on a long-term basis or that there would be any benefit to us if they did. For most it is the frequency of flights not shaving ten minutes off the flight time that is important.
Report abuse