Select a region
The debate about extending Alderney’s runway continues, with Alderney’s Chamber of Commerce coming out in support of the idea. However, ex-politician and ex-Aurigny staff member Ralph Burridge has once again offered his rebuttal:
“Following my recent articles, wide-ranging questions have been asked in such numbers, that to answer them all would be impossible. So, I have to put together answers to the more important questions, some of which might even offer reasoning for questions that weren’t.
“I have neither commercial nor vested interests in either GreenAir, Harrisson Aviation, or Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. My role is purely advisory and was invited to their Alderney presentation, to answer any questions relating to level 2 and 3 airline structuring, together with any other airfield legislation or operational matters.
“My platform is to ensure that a considerable amount of money is not used for unnecessarily re- generating Alderney airport into one that would be capable of accepting a very limited programme of commercial aircraft fitted with more than 19 seats.
“I am however supportive of GreenAir as a level 3 carrier, in as much that they appear to be capable of setting up an Alderney ‘Hub’, that could offer back to the Island, the unique service that it once had. It would appear that that are capable of achieving this without the need for either the present £2 million Southampton subsidy and over time, provide a Zero carbon operation.”
“At present, the States of Guernsey are not in a position to make a definitive decision, as there aren’t any numbers, or recommendations on the table on which to make one.
“What is known is that in 2019, the States voted to spend £11 million on rehabilitating the Alderney airport runway.
“In March this year, Guernsey Ports made a public presentation on Alderney, at which members of the public were made aware of three proposals; known as Options, ‘A’ ‘B’ & ‘C’.
“Option ‘A’ is virtually the original rehabilitation proposals and for which in round figures, the funding was already in place.
“Option ‘B’ is virtually the same as ‘A’, but with the addition of taxiway realignments, turning heads and apron extensions, for which additional funding would be needed
“Option ‘C’ is an entirely different ‘kettle of fish’, as it includes all of Option ‘B’, plus the rebuilding, lengthening and further widening of the entire runway to a greater strength.
“In answer to the comment made by Chamber that “While the repatriation (rehabilitation?) of our runway from 17 metres to 23 metres is under way, does it not make it commercial sense and financial efficiency for the lengthening to happen at the same time?” the answer is a resounding ‘NO, it certainly does not.
“Any runway rehabilitation carried out under either Options ‘A’ & ‘B’, would be more or less a resurfacing of the existing runway, whereas Option ‘C’ is a world apart. The need to have a lengthened, widened and stronger runway, means that the existing runway would have to be closed and re-built to give it the required strength needed for heavier aircraft.”
“It is worth noting, that when developing an airport to allow regional airliners to land requires an extensive (and therefore expensive) number of infrastructural changes. If Option ‘C is approved, the die is cast and compliance with all legislative requirements have to be carried out, irrespective of the final costs. As a guide:
“The UK CAA classifies the ATR 72-600 (27 metre wingspan), as a Code 3C aircraft, requiring a runway at least 1200m long and 30m wide. The UK Department of Transport enhanced airport security requirements for any airport handling aircraft with more than 19 passenger seats (the number of passengers actually being carried is irrelevant), is a terminal building that provides separation between departing and arriving passengers, a separate secure facility for screening hold baggage, plus electronic screening of passengers and their carry-on baggage. The present fire and rescue service upgraded and expanded to Category 5 level and installation of security fencing around the airfield perimeter.
“The original guestimate for the Option ’C’ runway development is £30 million (an additional £19 million on top of the £11 million already approved). The additional cost of all of the additional UK DofT requirements listed is estimated to be a further £20 million (hence the estimated total cost of £50 million).
“I am sure that if you have seen the SofA media releases to both press and public and listened to the radio interviews given by both our new Chair of P&F and the CofC. you will be in no doubt as to the pressure that is being put on the Alderney residents to believe that extending the runway by way of that Option ‘C’ is the only way forward and that it is going to happen, irrespective of the astronomical development and future running costs.
“For what it is worth, my personal view is that the Islands would be better served if Aurigny continue with what they do best; operate as a level 2 regional carrier out of its Guernsey hub and allow by negotiation, a level 3 carrier to set up a financially independent hub on Alderney, to operate the inter- island services together with the Alderney Southampton route and of course an Alderney based medivac service."
Alderney Chamber of Commerce: Runaway extension “essential”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.