Airport work gets go ahead
Friday 29th July 2011, 2:30PM BST.
Deputy Shane Langlois, who voted against the project, and Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet.
PLANNING permission and potential legal action will be the next hurdles for Guernsey’s £80m. airport project after the States gave it the go-ahead yesterday.
Concerns were raised over different elements of the plan during debate, such as the £1m. cost for hiring a project manager, and the potential disruption and damage caused by trucks carrying 350,000 tonnes of aggregate from Longue Hougue to the airport. But just six deputies voted against giving the contract to Lagan Construction while 40 approved it.
Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet said it had been a good vote. ‘Clearly the States understand all of the issues,’ he said.
Deputy Shane Langlois, who voted against the project, said deputies who shared his view would now have to voice their concerns when the planning application went live in August. He said there was also an option of going to a judicial review if that failed.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- 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
Its great news,lets hope they employ mainly people from outside the island to get real value and real skills
Report abuse
‘Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet said it had been a good vote. ‘Clearly the States understand all of the issues,’ he said’
What a condescending comment to make!
For a related read with many posts on then this thread is also running on the same subject.
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/07/28/airport-project-passed-by-states/
Report abuse
So, a million quid for two years work as overseer to the Airport construction. I’ll do it for one tenth of that,and I beleive I can do it as well as anyone, and being a Guernseyman, with the added advantage of not having to import labour.
Report abuse
Waiting with bated breath for Deputy Spruce to complain that it wasn’t a fair vote because the Environment Deputies did not abstain
Also wondering how Deputy Dudley-Owen (who IS now making that complaint) voted in the Suez debate
Nothing quite like brown nosing your own election fodder is there?
Report abuse
Why oh why such folly ?
This vote should not be celebrated – except maybe by the people who will profit from the plump contracts awarded.
I understand the need for repairs to the runway, and the replacement of the lighting if safety issues are at stake. I understand also the more stringent safety regulations for the overshoot areas.
But why does the runway have to be maintained at the same length of 1463 metres ? What is so magical about the number 1463 ??
Do the ATRs of Aurigny need all 1463 metres to take off and land, even when fully loaded ? No.
Which aircraft that are operating to Guernsey on a regular basis do need that length of runway ?
It would have been better to have shortened the operating length of the runway to 1300 – 1340 metres – enough for the usual aircraft that fly here. That would have given space to increase the overshoot areas without all this shifting of the runway nonsense and would have cut millions off the total bill for this job.
Report abuse
@ A.J.
Oh my!!! Nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one. Brilliant Guern comment. “I believe I can do it as well as anyone!”
Frankly pathetic. I was listening to the debate – the guy’s name is Gerry Prickett. So I google him. This is from his company’s website, ironically in a bit about his appointment by the States:
“A chartered engineer with more than 35 years’ experience, Gerry was most recently project manager for the £42 million runway safety upgrade in the Isle of Man. He has also overseen aerodrome developments at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Oxford and airport construction projects in Ghana and Madrid.”
So A.J., if you think that you can better that because you’re a Guern, go for it. That said with £80m of your and my money, I’d rather have someone with experience in the field.
Report abuse
Maybe what is needed in this whole debate is a whistle blower someone who knows exactly what goes on behind closed doors, someone who can expose serious flaws in this long running and over inflated project, someone who really knows who are the puppets and who are really pulling the strings….. States Members and Airport Management, hang your heads in shame, as the realisation of what you have done will become evident for future generations to see!
Report abuse
Looks like Shane Langlois, David de Lisle, Al Brouard and Gloria Dudley-Owen have secured the support of the western NIMBY voters on August 18 2012. All four will be wearing their green ribbons with pride on election day no doubt.
Report abuse
There could be some considerable delay in getting the plans passed as Environment are now up to their eyeballs investigating someone in Rue du Friquet who is allegedly selling … wait for it … BIRD SEED from their property
I don’t want to wish my life away but PLEASE hurry up April 2012
Report abuse
Okay it’s now agreed but it will go over budget like every other project put forward in recent years, Yes is the answer. The States are a massive failure when it comes to this type of thing and the paying public will suffer.
Report abuse
Sorry, I meant APRIL 18 2012 – not August!
Report abuse
Within Budget
Just a correction, there hasn’t been any overspends on any States projects since the Policy Council has been in being. All the overspends were historic and were in the days of the old Board of Administration, before 2004.
Report abuse
I think we could paint these trucks green and yellow and paint some windows on the side with people in them, it would be more pleasable if they looked like big buses.I think Winston Churchill put some wood on some jeeps to make them look like planes so the Nazi s would drop bombs on them
Report abuse
Ref no overspends:
Isn’t that because all projects since the old BoA have been so padded with contingencies, consultants, extras and the like that not even the states can overrun with the additional hidden funding they have?
Report abuse
I see that Mr Pricket is already in the employ of the Public Services Department.So sleep soundly ‘Billy’
Report abuse
I won’t be spending a dime on this airport extension, my wife and I have decided to have 13 children.
Report abuse
Alvin J Furrer,
Flybe Dash 8 Q400s require 1300-1400m take off distance when fully laden, also anything less than we have now would probably restrict them in poor weather, also there is a number of private jets that already restricted on landings/take offs in certain conditions.
With this in mind I’d say we need the length we have now.
Report abuse
Mr G has the right idea. Good luck !
Report abuse
Dave Jones
I stand corrected, but when I heard the news of the Airport go-ahead I just thought instantly of the 11million overspend on that flippin Jetty which when going back was agreed in 2001, so ties in with your 2004 comment.
Report abuse
Within Budget
I don’t disagree with you on past projects like the New jetty but another important point to remember, with the notable exception of Millar & Baird, is that all the overspends were as a result of using outside contractors, the track record of local contractors delivering on time and within budget is absolutely remarkable and our local contractors have shown that they out perform many of the companies brought in on nearly every occasion, something I think is mostly forgotten by States departments that insist on awarding these projects to off island firms.
Report abuse
Now that NASA has cancelled its Shuttle Programme, do we need this extension?
Report abuse
Dave Jones
Does not bode well for this project then. But then this project is going to be a jack in the box, I suspect plenty suprises along the way.
Report abuse
I saw on the front page of Friday’s Press someone who works at the airport saying that as a consequence of the runway work, and I quote “We’ll be able to have bigger aircraft”. He also said that if it were not for his job at the airport, he would not have any idea what was going on.
I thought that we were assured that this work and additional take-off runway was NOT a runway ‘extension’ and therefore larger aircraft would NOT be able to come here.
The consultant from Mott MacDonald expressly told me that he would strongly advise against a longer runway that could allow larger aircraft in since with small regional airports, it can lead to one carrier undercutting smaller companies and driving them out of business. That obviously then results in reduced choice, not more.
The runway needs essential maintenance. However, I do not think that it needs the extensive work that is due to be done in order to increase safety, since looking at historical records, it is already a very safe airport. If saving lives is what we are after, then the money would get far greater results if spent on health and education.
Report abuse
I can understand the many concerns regarding this HUGE project. But it will help future proof our vital transport links. I can see the need to bring in “expert” migrant workers and hope they will pay tax locally and contribute to the revenue pot required to run this Islands excellent facilities. This project will generate lots of work for local companies and lets all hope we all benefit from this project.
Report abuse
Jim , for £80m, I want a bit more than hope!
Could you explain to me what you mean by “future-proof” please – it is a phrase that has been bandied around as some supposed justification – I would love to know what those using it actually mean by it.
Report abuse
Rosie, I do not understand your comment:
“If saving lives is what we are after, then the money would get far greater results if spent on health and education.”
Please explain that one as it sounds like you are suggesting that by spending money on kids education we will make flying safer?! Remarkable!!
Report abuse
Rosie – as I’ve been saying all along during this shambles is that the wool is being pulled over our eyes.
Plans for the nose in parking that is “essential” include provision for aircraft up to Airbus A321 size.
Also keep your eye on the commercialisation/privatisation of the airport in a couple of years with massive expansion…
We’re simply not being told the truth.
Report abuse
j jones
In September 2003 the Board of Admin promised that within twelve months a report would be coming back to the States detailing firstly the routine maintenance option, that is, the resurfacing of the runway and replacement of the landing lights and secondly the additional works necessary as phase one of a possible future extension of the runway including longitudinal levelling, RESA enhancements, etc. That report did not materialise, the States was never given the chance to debate the two options. Instead the new PSD pushed ahead with the second option and the phrase ‘future-proofing’ was adopted to justify the extent of the work when the project was unveiled in 2008.
Report abuse
No overspends since 2004?
Le Rondin School – hundreds of thousands spent in rectifying [often serious] defects over a number of years after Dew left the job high and dry. That must have gone over budget – or like other projects maybe further sums were authorised [ie the budget increased] so as to keep it within.
As Dave Jones rightly points out, an imported contractor. How the hell they got that job after their performance at Beau Sejour remains a mystery to me.
What about the new hospital block where the final bill isn’t yet known [disputes with subbies and consultants ongoing]. Personally I also class CLQ as a foreign contractor despite them sticking “(Guernsey)” into their name.
BTW – are CLQ still trading?
Report abuse
I Hope that the ‘experts ‘who will be brought in to operate the’specialist equipment’ required to manufacture and lay concrete,at the Airport, are not from the same company that made the ‘reinforced concrete beams’ for the Beaucamps school.
Report abuse
How much money has been put aside to cover the damage to sea walls, property and services under the road surface that will be caused by the large number of heavy vehicles using the coast road. This damage will happen at each of the road humps along the route. At Cobo the road had to be repaired in recent days as it was breaking up without being subject to the loads that will be experienced when work goes ahead and many thousands of tons are carried along the route. In the UK service companies have told the authorities that they will charge all repairs to damaged services below the road surface in the area of road humps. Millions of pounds have been spent repairing roads, walls and properties and in compensation to motorists for the damage caused to suspension and tyres. In many local authority areas road humps are being removed as the cost of maintaining them and the associated costs that are arising from claims is too high to be borne by the taxpayer. The simple answer for the States is to remove them before all the lorries start their journeys. Such a move will save the taxpayer many thousands of pounds. And I mean many, many thousands.
Report abuse
C Sense,
Do you have the ‘hump’ by any chance?!?
Report abuse
as long as they put all accomodation at the forest outside my mates house i’ll die a happy man.
Report abuse
Alvin, AJ:
A Q400 is weight limited into or out of Guernsey on the current and future 1463m runway length. That means that operators (Flybe, Air Berlin) have to reduce the fuel uptake and/or the payload to ensure safe operation out of Guernsey. Usually they carry less fuel, often because they stage via Jersey one way or the other (cf. the Birmingham flights).
A Q400 which goes engine out on take-off from Guernsey is going to have to make a very difficult take-off and then quite possibly a divert, on one engine, to somewhere with a longer runway. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
And no, the ATR72 used by Aurigny et al is not significantly better in this respect than the Q400. A 1463m runway is perilously short in a crosswind on a dark winter’s night with pressure to position the aircraft for the following day’s operation.
Boeing 737-500 aircraft were regularly used to Guernsey and similar aircraft will no doubt be used in future, even if rarely. (Aurigny occasionally lease Boeing 737-100 aircraft to cover when one of their ATR72s is not available.) The current runway is in such a dreadful state that larger Boeing 737s cannot be used at Guernsey at the moment. The interest for Guernsey is that lots and lots of airlines – including Flybe – operate regional jets. Almost none operate turboprops such as the Q400 and the ATR72. Without a new, full-length, runway, there can never be any prospect of even slight growth for Guernsey airport and for the dependent Guernsey economy. For proof, note that Air Berlin operate Q400 to Guernsey but Airbus to Jersey. British Airways flies to Jersey but not to Guernsey. That adds up to a more attractive offer by the sister island. Jersey has about 25% greater puoulation but 50% more air passengers (and loads more sea passengers to boot).
Here in France, people have heard of Jersey and even visited it. Of Guernsey, they know nothing but that Hugo once lived there, that it’s a hated “paradis fiscal” and that no, they don’t think they’ll be visiting any time soon!
The States of Guernsey has bravely voted for change, about a decade too late and about 200m of runway too short.
Back them now, why don’t you? The loss of a few fields may yet save lives.
Report abuse
MarkRennes – what you say is partially correct.
However there are two issues that need addressing:
1 – would FlyBe and Air Berlin increase capacity if we had a longer runway i.e. put Airbus or Embraer on the routes? Pretty unlikely. Which is why they run Q400′s – not just here but a lot of their regional routes. That’s the whole purpose of regional turboprops. I’m not sure of Air Berlin’s number of Q400′s but FlyBe have 60 and that’s not just for Guernsey!
2 -If, as you argue, the runway is too short then the current site simply isn’t suitable for expansion – which has been the point that many have made on here. If we really need 1700 or 1800 metres then an alternative site would be much more suitable i.e. L’ancresse.
FYI I recently visited the Airbus facilty in Toulouse – they also manufacture ATR’s there and the tour guide noted the recent upsurge in orders for the ATR aircraft – the same is true for Bombardier (Q400) – simple reason is that they are 30% more fuel efficient than jets on legs of < 400nm's – even more so on shorter routes. Which are primarily the routes to/from Guernsey.
Jersey still has a pie and chips tourist market – we don't thankfully. This partially explains the different and higher passenger numbers (plus the larger population). But note that Jersey's grand plans to massively increase passengaer numbers has been reined back in the last few years as operators such as EasyJet can't make it viable.
Logic dictates, therefore, that the commercial air traffic market into Guernsey will be almost totally dependant on turboprops for the foreseeable future.
Because of the smoke and mirrors from PSD over this issue (lies and untruths) many have come to their own conclusions regarding the expansion of the runway and other expansion at the airport.
Without proof that the extension is needed for commercial reasons there can only be one conclusion: the public are being fleeced for a commercialisation of the facility in the next few years and to allow larger biz jets to use the airport. Watch this space!
Report abuse
Captain Oveur:
Judging by the aiport records, we already have a very safe runway. It appears that it is becoming less safe due to lack of maintenance so that needs to be rectified pronto. In the process of repairing the runway, additional improvements can be made that will make it even safer than it already was- i.e. improved drainage and grooved surface will lessen the chances of aquaplaning, and better lighting etc. And of course aeroplanes are getting safer too.
The idea that we need to shift the whole runway westward and flatten it out at an additional cost of tens of millions is simply a luxury that we cannot afford, and it seems utterly unnecessary when you consider our historical safety record. We are not having accidents up there and we are even less likely to with a resurfaced runway.
We are however, going to suffer the repercussions of a community that is becoming increasingly divided into the ‘haves’ and ‘havenots’. As has been seen on the mainland, ignoring that reality is not going to make us a safer or healthier community. Money invested now into education at all levels to tackle a growing discontent would rescue more lives in the long term in my view.
As Gilthead suggests above. This airport project is not about safety but about expansion and that would be a ludicrous path to follow. As I mentioned above, even the consultant from Mott Macdonald strongly advised against that.
Report abuse
MarkRennes:
Reducing fuel load for a DHC8-400 is an irrelevant argument. Full fuel would allow for about 4 hours flying – there is nowhere a Dash goes or would go direct from Guernsey that is that far away. And as fuel is more expensive in the islands, airlines are careful not to uplift more than they need from here.
Also, even if we had a runway twice as long, we just do not have the catchment for direct flights to places other than the principal mainland destinations so it is also irrelevant how many airlines have B737s etc.
Remember, Aurigny could not even fill a 33 seat Saab to Switzerland.
Report abuse
Oh, and an engine-out on takeoff is difficult regardless of the departure airfield length. Vectoring for a return to Guernsey or a diversion to Jersey makes little difference.
And statistically the combination of your dark stormy night and the loss of an engine on take-off are vanishingly small, and if pilots are feeling pressurised then that certainly needs to be addressed by their pilots association, but not by spending £80m of Guernsey people’s tax.
Report abuse