IN THE next few months the States will surely approve the £80m. project to reconstruct the runway and taxiways at Guernsey’s airport.

Certainly that debate has to happen soon because we’ve been told that the tender price for the job holds only until the autumn.

And we must presume the States will approve the scheme because if it was mindful to reject it, then it would be hard to understand why it agreed to use compulsory purchase to buy the Le Messurier field.

Then again, maybe that assumption is just too logical when it comes to this House’s decision-making process.

After all, it managed a dazzling pirouette through 180 degrees over the other huge capital project to come before this States.

Within a few short months, it signed up to buying a waste disposal system from French firm Suez and then changed its mind at a very considerable cost.

So, with that precedent, it could surely do a similar about-turn over the airport runway – particularly if the public campaign against the project mounts in intensity.

It is to be hoped that this time around, our deputies will show a bit more backbone.

I’m no expert on runways and I have no idea if ‘scheme C’ is the best way of renewing our dilapidated landing strip.

In an ideal world, I would have far preferred that the project could have been completed within the present airport boundaries.

What I do know is that safety standards change, work on our runway and the rest of the airport infrastructure is long overdue and PSD has no reason to wilfully propose a more expensive and extensive solution than is actually needed.

Like most Guernsey people, I have a natural resistance to passively accepting expert advice without questioning it, but there are some specialist areas where you do need guidance from experts in the field.

Runway reconstruction is surely one of them and having gone down the consultant route, agreed a scheme, gone out to tender and selected a preferred contractor, Guernsey has reached a point where the only sensible option is to see the project through. Simply tearing up the plans and asking Ronez to slap on another coat of Tarmac would be a recklessly dangerous path – no matter how many cars sport green ribbons.

While on the subject of air transport, we are about to see a fascinating legal challenge over Commerce and Employment’s decision to suspend Flybe’s licence to fly between Guernsey and Manchester.

I am certainly not going to presume to make any judgements about the legal issues involved.

Those will be for a non-locally-based Lt-Bailiff to determine when the case is heard. However, I do have a number of comments on the general principles involved.

Firstly, having two airlines licensed to operate on the same route with one flying it year-round and the other on a purely seasonal basis is grossly unfair.

That’s not to say that licences to fly on routes should never be granted on a seasonal basis.

When Guernsey has no air links with a particular region and an airline offers to establish one for the summer months only, that is a clear net gain for the island’s connectivity. Even if the original application is for a year-round service but this proves uneconomic, changing to a seasonal service is a good fallback position – if there is only one operator on the route.

But to issue a second licence on an established route to allow a new airline to come in during the summer months and take trade from the existing year-round operator is a total nonsense.

Not only is such an approach to licensing an invitation to cherry-pick trade at the expense of the only airline willing to maintain flights year-round, it could even put that established operation at risk. If by sharing out the summer ‘cream’ it means neither airline can afford to provide a year-round service, then we all lose out – whether it’s business travellers or local fans wanting to see a Manchester United game in the depths of February.

Flybe insists that before it set up its Manchester service, it received a verbal promise from Commerce and Employment that the department was happy to see a summer-only operation. That could well be a matter of dispute when it comes to court. If the allegation can be substantiated, then whoever gave that promise – politician or civil servant – made a serious error of judgement.