Select a region
Any decision on extending the runway will be pushed back under recommendations by Economic Development after four years of investigation.
In November 2019 it was directed by the States to develop a business case and cost benefit analysis of creating a 1,700 metre runway.
A majority of the committee has concluded that any move to extend the runway should “be a commercial decision taken by the States’ Trading Supervisory Board”.
“The next planned resurfacing of the runway at Guernsey Airport (to take place in five to 10 years) or the ongoing work on the Airport Master Plan would provide relevant opportunities for this to be considered as a coherent overall investment decision,” its much-delayed States report has said.
If accepted, it would leave the ball entirely in STSB’s court - that committee is responsible for the operation of the airport and for Aurigny.
Economic Development president Deputy Neil Inder said: "We're recommending that this is neither the day nor the hour to spend significant amounts of public money on a project with some benefits but not without risk to our Islands’ overall connectivity."
The committee’s latest estimates are that a runway extension could deliver a total net economic benefit to Guernsey’s economy, over a 40-year period, of £109m.
Extending the runway would involve a substantial capital investment, it said, estimated at £79m. for a 40-year lifespan.
Accommodating larger aircraft and higher peak time passenger numbers would also require an expansion of the terminal building and its facilities, including creating a third security lane, estimated at up to £23m.
The committee said that Jersey and the Isle of Man’s experiences have also shown that Guernsey Airport would have to lower its fees and charges substantially, with limited scope to offset this through non-aviation revenues. Analysis by York Aviation suggests that the Airport’s ongoing financial position would therefore worsen substantially.
“An extended runway would provide infrastructure that could enable new air services, lower average fares, and therefore new visitors, each year, to the Islands of Guernsey,” the States report says.
“This would lead to increased direct expenditure in both the local tourism sector and the wider economy (including local accommodation, retail, catering and on-Island transport businesses).
“Furthermore, this could also support Guernsey residents through new business growth opportunities, additional tax revenue and enhanced social benefits (linked to access to healthcare, sport and cultural activities).”
In October 2009, when the States backed an £80m resurfacing and development project at the airport, members rejected the option of using Engineered Materials Arrestor System (EMAS) technology - a collapsible concrete that would have meant shorter runway safety zones at either end and potentially a longer runway landing length.
In its latest report, the committee says that “importantly” it had identified EMAS as an alternative engineering option which, if approved by the regulator, could facilitate similar benefits to an extended runway of 1,700 metres but keep the extension within the airport’s current boundary.
“This would ensure that the valley to the east of the runway is preserved, together with the properties located within it, as well as the Villiaze Road, the Route des Blicqs and the nearby cemetery.”
It said that delivering increased passenger numbers is more than an infrastructure decision, as it would require a significant shift in Guernsey’s air connectivity policy.
“There would also be significant implications for the airport’s finances and business model, the ongoing cost of route development support, service levels (frequency, reliability and flight times) and Aurigny’s sustainability.
“In short, extending the runway is only one part of major set of interdependent infrastructure, financial and policy decision.”
Committee member Deputy Simon Vermeulen disagrees with Economic Development’s recommendations.
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.