Select a region
There is still support within the Committee for Economic Development for extending Guernsey's runway.
York Aviation, a firm of aviation specialists, recently advised that a runway extension was likely to damage the island's air links with key destinations and cost the States tens of millions of pounds a year in lost income.
But the Committee's lead member for tourism, Deputy Simon Vermeulen, told Express that he remains committed to an extension and pointed to other consultants' advice which suggested that lengthening the runway could lead to more visitors and significantly benefit the economy.
Pictured: Supporters of extending Guernsey's runway, including Deputy Simon Vermeulen, see the project as a way of boosting economic growth.
"I have been a supporter of extending the runway for some 23 years now and remain 100% supportive of the project and creating lower fares and more growth on passengers," said Deputy Vermeulen, pictured top.
"Whilst the report into the cost-benefit analysis is not yet fully complete, Frontier Economics, the highly regarded consultants used by the Committee for Economic Development, do state that it would create growth and pay for itself over the next 30 years.
"We are still awaiting information and costings...over the use of EMAS at the end of the runway. That would significantly reduce the overall use of land and cost for a 1,700-metre runway. This could be a game changer for Guernsey."
EMAS - which stands for Engineered Materials Arresting System - is a surface which quickly stops any aircraft that moves onto it.
Guernsey's runway currently measures 1,463 metres. The other Crown Dependencies - Jersey and the Isle of Man - have runways of around 1,700 metres and 2,100 metres respectively.
Pictured: A longer runway would allow larger aircraft to operate from the island and supporters of an extension believe this would encourage lower fares and more routes.
A year ago, the Committee's President, Deputy Neil Inder, told a public scrutiny hearing that "what will be placed in front of the States in May or June [2022] will be a real, honest assessment of the benefits of extending that runway".
In September, Deputy Inder told the States that his Committee still had further work to do before it could report to the Assembly in quarter one or quarter two of 2023.
Most of the Committee's members are now remaining tight-lipped as they come under increasing pressure to present their policy letter and recommendations.
Ahead of the publication last week of York Aviation's damning conclusions about a potential extension, Express submitted questions to the Committee about the status of its draft policy letter as well as asking each of the Committee's voting members for their current views on the issue.
Three members - Deputies Inder, Steve Falla and Nick Moakes - did not reply. Deputy Sasha Kazantseva-Miller said only that she was "not able to comment on live Committee matters which have not yet been publicly released". Deputy Vermeulen alone provided a substantive response.
Express understands the Committee is divided on whether to recommend an extension.
Pictured: At this week's States' meeting, the Committee for Economic Development will come under further pressure to submit much-delayed recommendations about the future of Guernsey's runway.
York Aviation spent eight months of this year reviewing the pros and cons of extending Guernsey's runway after being commissioned by the States' Trading Supervisory Board, which is responsible for the airport and acts as Aurigny's shareholder on behalf of the States.
York Aviation warned that business connectivity could be hit hardest with an extension resulting in less frequent flights and fewer routes. And they estimated that it could worsen the airport's losses by up to £2-3million a year as well as reducing Aurigny's revenue by up to £25m a year.
In the final conclusion of its report, York Aviation stated: "We recognise that having a longer runway could enable other mainline air services to operate with larger aircraft as well, but the scope for such services is limited by the small size of the Guernsey market, particularly without broader initiatives to improve economic performance.
"Overall, it seems highly unlikely that the scale of any mainline services would be sufficient to justify extending the runway, nor would they bring the anticipated air fare benefits."
The Board's President, Deputy Peter Roffey, is a long-time opponent of extending Guernsey's runway. However, Deputy Vermeulen told Express that he had concerns about the Board's approach to running the airport.
"It is understood that the States' Trading Supervisory Board's airport masterplan involves spending multimillion pounds upgrading the airport without extending the runway or indeed creating growth in throughput of passengers at our loss-making airport," said Deputy Vermeulen. "How is this to be paid for, if not by growth?"
Pictured: York Aviation advised that extending the runway could take up to £25m a year off Aurigny's revenue. Others argue that the island's air policies are overly influenced by the States' ownership of Aurigny.
The future of Guernsey's runway is likely to feature in this week's States' debate on proposals to extend Alderney's runway.
Deputy Yvonne Burford has submitted a motion which proposes re-ordering decisions on runways.
Deputy Burford wants the future of Guernsey's runway resolved before a decision is made on Alderney's runway. And she hopes to persuade the States to direct the Committee for Economic Development to submit recommendations on Guernsey's runway in the next few weeks.
Aviation specialists reach damning conclusions on runway extension
"Guernsey's air strategy is being dictated by the needs of an airline"
Deputy wants Guernsey runway debated ahead of Alderney runway
Runway report delayed by months - but Committee won't say why
Presidents at odds over latest attempt to extend runway
Aurigny could survive if Guernsey's runway is extended
Independent report supports runway extension
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.