‘Cheaper tickets, improved reliability with longer runway’

ECONOMIC growth and job creation come with a longer runway, the Chamber of Commerce has said.


As a business case into doing the work is put forward, Chamber said this should happen as soon as possible because it would ‘deliver significant options to Guernsey’.

Other destinations have already invested in longer runways – described by Chamber as a ‘brave investment decision’.

‘Aberdeen and Birmingham have in recent years undertaken runway extensions. While the impacts are yet to be properly measured, they expect to report lower ticket prices for travellers, higher volumes of tourism visitors, increased long-haul traffic, additional employment and growth to GDP and improved reliability of their business transport links.

‘Such outcomes are also critical for Guernsey’s immediate future, its competitiveness, its ability to attract further inward investment and, indeed, the island’s ongoing economic sustainability.’

An estimated £30m. is needed to fund the project, which would see the runway extended from its current 1,583 metres to 1,720 metres – slightly longer than Jersey’s.

It would mean, Chamber said, cheaper tickets, improved reliability, along with energising growth in tourism, business travel and ‘underpin the successful development of our nascent digital sector’, along with having safety benefits.

‘An extension of 120m on to the current runway, plus a grass 240m run-off safety area at the east end, will extend the operational length runway to 1,700 metres for use in both directions,’ said Chamber.

‘This will then allow ubiquitous regional aircraft fleets of Boeing and Airbus to fly into Guernsey without the economic handicaps of weight restrictions.’

Comments for: "‘Cheaper tickets, improved reliability with longer runway’"

Adopted Guern

Where are all of these airline queuing up saying, yes we'll come, but only if your runway is longer?!

Easyjet were willing to come without the extension, but that deal was scuppered by route monopoly.

And as for improved reliability, will it stop the planes 'going tech', will it stop the fog descending or severe crosswinds?

Our States keep telling us that they have no money and so the tax payer/consumer has to contribute more. Yet they can afford £30million on an 'if you build it they will come' project?

Fly into Aberdeen you have access to the whole of Scotland. Fly into Birmingham, you have Shakespeare country on the doorstep and access to the rest of the UK. Fly into Guernsey, you have access to Guernsey. Improve Guernsey, make it more attractive, provide more for tourists to do. Then if more tourists come and we actually NEED to extend the runway because we can't cope with the volume, spend your £30million then.


Spot on!

There is a limit to what people can do here to the locations mentioned in the article.

Further to this if the airlines wanted to come here the States would also need to look at the licencing currently in place. This would have to be removed and allow an "Open Skies" policy. That would attract other airlines but would almost certainly ruin Aurigny and Blue Islands as they will not be able to compete on the low fares.

The project is a waste of money if they fail to look at other factors which will impact on the overall success of the runway extension; improving local attractions, cheaper hotel accommodation, better public transport and of course the reputation of the islands itself (after the last 2 years of travel woes)!


If we don't extend the runway, we will face a declining future of poor air links and continued decline in our visitor economy.

If we do extend (using money from the St Pier bond fund, which we are already paying for!) we would need to revise the current licensing system, perhaps shrinking to a monopoly on the Gatwick route (and reducing its burden on the taxpayer) but allow competition on other routes.

Without reasonably priced fares and the advertising distribution that major airlines can bring Guernsey is locked into a downward spiral.


Ooops - 3rd paragraph should read:"..shrinking Aurigny to a monopoly..."


If you look at air passenger numbers so far this year, there has been a slight increase in numbers in arrivals/departures from/to the UK and the Continent.

Aurigny, just over two years ago, started a new route to London City and this year two new routes to Norwich and Leeds/Bradford. Aurigny have also been given approval to operate on the Luton route, ( a route that Blue Islands also applied for ). Whilst Blue Islands have been given approval to operate charters on the Liverpool route and also regular flights to Cardiff.

So please don't talk about a decline in air links - they have actually improved. ( Whether they are profitable or not is another matter ).

The only route that is being protected is the lucrative Gatwick route which accounts for one third of all air passengers to and from Guernsey. Admittedly, Blue Islands were denied permission to operate on the Bristol route some years ago. But I have not seen any other airlines even applying for any of the other routes operated by Aurigny, let alone being denied permission. So a runway extension is not going to help one little iota - in fact it will cause an increase in airport charges for the existing airlines.

The current decline in tourist arrivals is due to a serious drop in passengers on the inter-island routes and on the sea links to the island, notably the loss of the Weymouth route and declining numbers on the Jersey, Poole and St Malo routes. For business travelers, the Jersey route is the biggest route after Gatwick.

Once again, a runway extension is not going to help one little bit ! Do you think EasyJet will apply to operate on the Guernsey-Jersey route ?? Even if they did they would not need a runway extension as the fuel load would be relatively small !!

Sorry, but your statements are totally flawed.


Vanity, all is vanity

Casino government has now migrated to The Chamber of Commerce. Unelected desk-warriors who will soon go into hiding when this folly is seen to have failed.

"While the impacts are yet to be properly measured...." that is the caveat. But it is only Other Peoples Money.

Guernsey is now on the edge - we are becoming the next Jersey.

I really do despair.


Yeah yeah, we get it - you're going to do it no matter what the people or experts say.

Just don't say tickets will be cheaper, because we all know it's a lie.


If the island is really stone cold broke like we keep being lead to believe why are we willing to gamble on such a huge capital project when the benefits aren't guaranteed?

GFC fan

A positive and succinct analysis as to why we should press ahead with extending the runway.

Island Wide Voting


Are you the same GFC fan who is always going on about a permanent ban on traffic along our sea front?


Maybe some evidence that the situation would improve before wasting £30m would be a better plan?


Now that's what I call 'A positive and succinct analysis'!


Do you know any words with more than four characters?


what a load of tosh.


How does a piece of tarmac decrease ticket prices and improve reliability?

Surely costs would have to go up as PSD will surely want to increase air passenger duty to pay for the cost of the work?

Boeing and Airbus aircraft can currently fly into Guernsey, in fact Easyjet wanted to operate a LGW route using an Airbus aircraft but were denied by Treasury and Resources.

What nascent digital sector? That project is dead in the water, why would anybody want to operate a digital business in Guernsey with poor connection speeds, expensive rent and expensive staff?

Has anybody from the Chamber of Commerce actually talked to any of the airlines that operate Airbus and Boeing aircraft and are the interested in flying to Guernsey?


The Chamber of Commerce should be ashamed of themselves for issuing such misleading and incorrect statements.

There is no evidence that a longer runway will reduce air-fares. In theory, larger aircraft tend to be more economical than smaller aircraft, but only if the larger aircraft is filled to the same seat occupancy percentage as the smaller aircraft. An Embraer 195 with 120 persons on board, ( 98 % full ), is more economical to operate than an Airbus A319 with 120 persons on board, ( 77 % full ). The only routes where there would be such demand for larger aircraft would be on the Gatwick route, and possibly on the Manchester route. Will the States allow another airline, using larger aircraft, to fly on the Gatwick route ? Easyjet applied to do exactly that, without needing a runway extension, and were chased away by the protectionist stance of T & R.

In reality, larger aircraft do not always cause fares to go down. Aurigny introduced a much larger aircraft on the Gatwick route, ( almost 70 % more seating capacity ), and air-fares have actually gone up ! And beware, airport fees may actually rise in order to pay for the runway extension !!

Then how on earth will a longer runway improve reliability ? Better navigational aids on ground and on planes may improve reliability - but the length of the runway has no bearing at all !!

And the length of the runway will have no bearing on increasing tourism or business travel. More loss making routes to more and more destinations and improved marketing of the island would help stimulate tourism and business travel - as well as improved sea-links and inter-island travel.


‘This will then allow ubiquitous regional aircraft fleets of Boeing and Airbus to fly into Guernsey without the economic handicaps of weight restrictions.’

And where are these 'fleets of Boeing and Airbus' going to park? Guernsey airport can barely find space for the current (relatively small) Aurigny and BI ATR's! let alone any extra flights that 'may' come in if this extension happens


In the printed version of this article, reference is made to the Boeings. But which Boeings ? Most airlines have changed their fleets to the B737-800/900s or even bigger. These planes can not land even in Jersey !


So The Chamber of Commerce. has 'officially' announced where 'it stands' on the extended runway saga. ?Now 'to put their money 'where their mouth is' as it were, 'ALL those members 'in favour' identify yourselves,' if the finance for this very expensive project, is raised by a purpose constructed 'Public Bond Issue. ? Dividends to be paid clearly, 'based on all the 'apparently increased profits derived by the 'extended runway.? No repayment of capital, if the runway extension does not increase profitability.! I await 'the names of members, as 'in principle investors. ?


To pontificate such nonsense shows that their heads are in the clouds. Which airlines are waiting in the wings to bring in their aircraft with half-filled seats? I spoke to EasyJet not long ago about Guernsey. The short answer is that they are not interested because they have the sense to run a successful business.

The Chamber of Commerce are not in control of the weather either. Fog in Guernsey is FOG - whatever the length of the runway! We don't want more of our precious land lost in developing what could easily become "White Elephant Airport".

No - the carriers are not there, and the ticket prices are not going to come down. Chamber of Commerce go back into your ivory palaces and think again.


What amazes me is the total ignorance of the Chamber of Commerce of basic facts... such as the mentioning of "Boeing" aircraft and that to the east there could be 240 metres of grass run-off safety area to the east - after 60 metres one has a very serious steep decline in the terrain !! Don't they even realise that ?? Don't they know that the smallest Boeings now being built are the B737-900s which can not even land at Jersey as their runway is too short !!

And they talk about long-haul flights from Aberdeen and Birmingham ! What do the expect ?? Direct flights fro Guernsey to Dubai or Hong Kong ???? !!!!


Chamber of Commerce ... wasn't that Rosie's husband in charge? You would imagine pulling up more farmland for a useless extra bit of runway that virtually nobody wants would not fit ìn with her greenie obsessions? Perhaps this is part of the Dandelion Project's hidden agenda? Perhaps Gavin and his chums have only their own wellbeing at heart?


I confess I don't know a lot about aviation but it seems obvious to me that if planes seating 118 are routinely leaving with loads of empty seats, more passengers to fill 180 seats are not going to appear from thin air. 'Bigger planes = cheaper seats' sounds OK but it hasn't happened on the Gatwick route despite Aurigny's promises. The brutal truth is that we are basically a 'one airline' destination and we will continue to pay through the nose whoever operates here. Furthermore, if we bung yet another £30 Millon or so at the airport with that not inevitably mean higher taxes and/or higher fares by way of increased airport taxes?


Bigger planes just means less frequent flights...


I find the article using Aberdeen and Birmingham airports to justify a runway extension very misleading. The market/catchment of these places is far greater than Guernsey.

The facts show that air services you get depend on the market, not runway size.

Jersey has seasonal services (extra to what Guernsey gets) from Dublin, Cork, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee, Cardiff, Humberside, Doncaster, Darlington, Zurich, Berne, Berlin, Munich, Hannover; all operated with Dornier, ATR, Dash 8, Emb175, and Emb195 aircraft.

These types of aircraft can operate from Guernsey now, so why are these flights not also operated to Guernsey - it's because the market is not big enough, and not because of the runway length.

Why do people think an extended runway is going to create a market for services like Jersey or bigger markets get?

So where does that leave us: Unless we can own or control the Gatwick slots without owning an airline we are stuck.

With our small market what do those who advocate the likes of runway extension, open skies, EasyJet competition, really expect. Guernsey will still be paying airline subsidies. Low cost airlines like EasyJet ditch routes if they don't get the fees/subsidies they want. They have walked out of airports far bigger than Guernsey, (probably with millions in their pocket from the slot sales).

Competition is not sustainable on Guernsey or Alderney services. It will either be a greater subsidy of Aurigny (and its competitors) or its death, and Guernsey at the mercy of profit only services.

These advocates need to explain their solution for when we have no Gatwick slots and limited services, because that is a real risk.

You get what you pay for. Low cost airlines do not spend a lot of time in holds over airports when it's foggy, or wait at an airport for a clearance, or charter another aircraft to clear a backlog. They cancel and you get the next available seat even if it means days waiting. Aurigny do hold for an hour or more, take the plane to a close airport to refuel or wait, charter a plane whether for fog or breakdown, but it costs them, and us, a lot.

Fares have risen and I too would love lower fares, but I cannot see spending millions more on the airport, and competition, is going to achieve what people think it will.



A brilliant post. Many highly relevant points there which really need to be highlighted, especially regarding all those routes which Jersey has currently and which are all operated by aircraft which don't need a longer runway than ours.

It's the Jersey market which is very different from ours, as Jersey has the hotel bed capacity to make those routes viable. Until and unless we have a lot more hotel bed capacity, spending £30m on a runway extension is a complete waste of money.

I hope the GP Editor publishes your letter in the newspaper.

Just one query - isn't Doncaster East Midlands airport?


For the record:

Doncaster which is to the northeast of East Midlands has its own airport, sometimes called Doncaster Sheffield airport.

East Midlands airport is at Castle Donington near Nottingham, and used to be called Castle Donington airport.


Totally agree with your summary Guernie. A lot of others think along similar lines. Trouble is too many in this island have grand ideas which lack reality. If these ideas ever happened I can see this island in a bigger mess in the future and probably without any decent air links.


@ Guernie

Fantastic post. Would love to see GFC Fan, Wings, Simon V etc respond to your points. I doubt they will though.

Devil's Advocate

"Jersey has seasonal services (extra to what Guernsey gets) from Dublin, Cork, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee, Cardiff, Humberside, Doncaster, Darlington, Zurich, Berne, Berlin, Munich, Hannover; all operated with Dornier, ATR, Dash 8, Emb175, and Emb195 aircraft.

These types of aircraft can operate from Guernsey now, so why are these flights not also operated to Guernsey - it's because the market is not big enough, and not because of the runway length."

Awesome post.

guern abroad

Sort out Inter Island flights, Get that back in control regular flights at low prices. Cash in on the tourism in Jersey make it possible again to fly easily and regularily between the Islands. Just think how much cheaper flights to Gatwick could be for how many years if that £30m was used there, that would be much better odds on return. I feel this business case for lengthening the runway is very weak and that is not good enough for spending £30m!

guern abroad

Actually make that none existent, there is no substance to the business case it's flannel.


Sell the jet and use the money to extend the runway. Lease the Gatwick slots to easyjet free of charge. Done.


Instead of buying the jet, the States should have thoroughly investigated whether other airlines would have been interested in the Gatwick route... as EasyJet clearly were.

But having acquired the new plane, Aurigny and the States just have to make the best of the situation.

Devil's Advocate

....and when EJ decide they don't want to fly here anymore?


Oh DA, why do you have to spoil things? The EJ fan club know that EJ would never abandon anyone!

(They have obviously never tried going to the Isle of Man).


No, Slinky. EasyJet won't bite that one. They know that there is not enough money on a Gatwick - Guernsey service.

Seeing that Jersey has advantages over us the solution is to bring back a shuttle service between the islands as there used to be with Aurigny. Let the States subsidize the service and get rid of the ridiculous out-of-proportion fares that are currently seen. A short hop to Jersey to connect with a reasonably priced flight to any of the many destinations available from Jersey... Do that, and there will be no more loss of land for a scheme that will not work [extended runway] and £30m won't be needed.

Bring back a regular and reliable service to Jersey! That's not conceding defeat - it's just being practical. As others have pointed out, we don't have the market that Jersey does, and that ain't gonna change.


On the contrary, EasyJet know there is money to be made on the Gatwick route - they applied for that route before when they saw Flybe were pulling out. 300 thousand passengers a year on that route is not a small number. But they withdrew their application when T & R announced plans to protect Aurigny.

They have not applied for any other Guernsey routes probably because they do not see sufficient demand.

And the funny thing is that they did not even ask for a runway extension when making their application for the Gatwick route !


They never applied........


True.... very true.... technically they never actually got round to submitting the application that they were working on but they had clearly signaled their intentions... until they were put off....

"Following a thorough commercial and operational evaluation and taking into account the continued uncertainty surrounding the States’ sole operator policy, easyJet has taken the decision not to proceed with its application for a Guernsey air transport licence to operate the Gatwick route from summer 2014"


Completely agree. Its what I've been saying for a long time. Use Jersey as a hub and have a shuttle service to Jersey as in the past which Malcolm Hart got rid of thus starting the decline of the inter-Island market and Aurigny.


My comment earlier was that there was "not enough money" [NB "enough"] to be made by EasyJet on the LGW-Guernsey route.

When EasyJet applied earlier, as pointed out by Alvin, economics were different. Recent figures released by Easy Jet have been disappointing, so the airline is certainly not going to consider questionable routes. Great as many of us have found EasyJet, they are not the answer for Guernsey. To be a success, EasyJet aircraft need something like 95% of seats filled on every flight. Their A319s and A320s have a greater capacity than Aurigny's EMB195. Can you imagine EasyJet carrying 95% loads five or six times EVERY DAY? We NEED services to Gatwick throughout the day.

Added to that, how would EasyJet cope with Guernsey's fog? As Guernie pointed out earlier, at least Aurigny are prepared to get their passengers here - whether holding overhead until the weather improves or chartering another aircraft. EasyJet can't do that. They are not an airline with planes sitting around doing nothing. The essence of their financial success is keeping planes in the air. Although there might be money to make, I maintain that it would not be enough to tempt EasyJet to serve Guernsey - especially with the present financial climate.


So, Simon Vermeulen's going to get his wish, based on some entirely unproven speculation from somewhere else that is entirely different to Guernsey.


Let's skip the facts in this argument, we wouldn't want to get those in the way, like…….

Easy Jet WAS going to come here with the runway as is, and could have, but changed their minds…...that we are an ISLAND, not the UK (such as the other destinations quoted), therefore we have far more limited amounts of passengers wanting to come to this island….and what FOR, exactly….?! (there is VERY little for tourists to do over here compared with much cheaper / sunnier / more interesting climes…even in the UK)…..that the tourist industry is failing year upon year BECAUSE of those other aforementioned climes and for the aforementioned reasons (bugger all to do with whether they can come over here on Easy Jet or not)…….even if we DID get the 1000s of additional visitors that SV CONSTANTLY speculates about (more bloody speculation!), we haven't got the beds to put them in anyway……...and that (drum roll, please), WE CAN'T WELL AFFORD IT.

This is beyond Blue Sky Thinking, this is Pie in the Sky thinking, worse, it's Pie in the Face thinking, conjured up by a bunch of CLOWNS based on supposition and speculation at a time where Guernsey needs some proper well researched PROVEN strategies to take it forwards.

Cue the circus tune, Different States, Same ol' Bouvaing.


Im not sure Simon will get his way..

But I am really surprised that a successful businessmen and critic of the States like Simon doesn't provide any real evidence that spending £30m+ will achieve anything. Bigger planes will also lead to less frequency of flights. A point he seems to not get.


Simon, ahhh, Simon.

I wish I lived in HIS world, where it's all golfing, lollypops and rainbows, as long as HE gets the longer runway HE wants, for HIS business, that WE will all pay for (yet will hardly ever get to use...too busy paying for it to do much more than drive past the airport enroute to earn more money to gift our establishment for bouvaing projects), never mind the salient points and multiple facts (and factors) that don't support his halcyon dream of full beds all year round……..

the 60's must have been real good for him.


GFC fan

Yes to a runway extension!

There appears to be far too much talk and conjecture about the potential actions of one airline (Easy Jet).

The initial short term benefits of a runway extension will be cost-effective charter flights during the summer - perhaps from Holland, Germany or further afield. The economic benefits will be massive.

Once or twice weekly charter flights to the island in the summer months will pay the 30m price tag back within four or five years, in terms of the boost to Guernsey's GDP.

guern abroad

What do you not get about flights to all those extra places that Jersey already sees and they do not need a longer runway to come here. Guernsey does not have the catchment market, neither does Guernsey have the hotel beds to support those markets. Or is it that you want to see Guernsey's population swell to over 100,000 so that the market is big enough?

Sort out the Inter Island flights, they need to be frequent and cheap.


Whilst I am not totally convinced that sufficient evidence has yet been produced to support the idea that longer runway = bigger planes = lower fares, IF that was the case it would not necessarily fall over on the bed stock. Cheaper fares would lead to islanders taking more trips and their children working or studying on the mainland coming home more often. This would help fill the planes without impacting the number of beds available for tourists and business travelers.



No - the economic benefits would not be massive! How can thousands of extra visitors come here when we have negligible vacant bed capacity in the summer season? Do you think visitors are going to flock here in the winter months? Not a chance. If they can't find a hotel bed then they certainly won't be coming. That surely must be obvious to everyone.

As others have posted, every single one of Jersey's extra routes (that we don't already have) are operated by aircraft which already can and do fly to Guernsey. A longer runway will make no difference whatsoever, except run the risk of Gatwick being reduced to two three rotations per day (if Easyjet flew the route).

That is no progress whatsoever, yet it would cost us £30m. Utterly pointless and a total and reckless waste of public money.


Can you please provide evidence to backup your figures? Back of a fag packet springs to mind..


The Chamber of Commerce have not asked members like myself their views but as usual used the same cabal.

They have their opinion and make up crackpot figure's which are not which are not put to us


As a member of the Chamber of Commerce they do not represent the views of all of us.

They have a cabal who sometimes use crackpot figure's and opinion that the say are members but are only theirs.

When you are talking about 30 million of bond money that taxpayers in 2045 will have to pay. Their fire from the hip is not mine.


They talk freely about £30m, but whose money will the Chamber of Commerce be spending? I'm glad davegorvel can see through the smoke.


Funny, I would have thought turning farmland into more runway we don't need would have put Rosie into a tizz. Especially in the desperate hope that more and bigger jets will take off and land here. But no, not a word!

What with her husband being a leading light in the Chamber of Commerce, you would expect her to have some special insight. But no, no a peep out of her! It's almost as if 'er indoors' has been muzzled!

If only he owned a car dealership or two, we might all get a bit of peace and quiet!


Quite so, Bean Jar, where IS Rosie to tell us all how to live our lives….?

It seems to me that the most vociferous among us, who are hellbent to tell us how we should be living our lives - and I include puchaing peddler Burford, and her drive to convert us all away from the dreaded motor vehicle after having spent the majority of her life polluting the planet with gallons of air fuel, all the politicians who live in nice houses with enough spaces for their multiple vehicles, who have voted to restrict Fred Public's ability to do likewise (not that that decision will affect the uber rich), those who want to drive up the taxes on home owners whilst living in a home 'owned' by a Trust company (ay, Gavin…? ;)), are all, when it comes down to it, a bunch of bloody hypocrites.

Trevor Hockey


Another excellent rant from you, which I must agree with 100%. I had a respectable, middle class guy in this morning and he said that Gavin should be at the end of a gibbet.

Gavin, be warned, the hard working lower & middle classes are getting seriously p'eed off with you and your P & R mate antics, plus the loony left who are stifling our personal freedoms.


So where is Rosie?

Good question

Perhaps she has now realised that it is she who is in a very tiny minority, and on a different planet to most of the rest of us ordinary folk.


Absolutely, pyer.

The wealthier middle classes may well be able to lord it over the rest of us, saving the planet with Fair Trade tea from their fave Deli (yaaar...?) and new 4 x 4 Hybrids that don't pollute the planet, however, the rest of us peasants have to make do with a thoroughly un-green 2nd hand jalopy and whatever's on special at the supermarket for our well earned cuppa.

I really am sick to the back teeth of the wealthy of our establishment - in particular, certain States members such as Mr St. Pier - asserting their self righteous superiority over the rest of us, telling us to buckle down, recycle more, drive less, pay more taxes, 'expect' less Public Services because we dare suggest that our States need to stop spending less of our damned money, before returning to their comfortable, middle-class homes and lives, where they experience absolutely NONE of the multiple hardships that they have inflicted on us for 'our own good'.

I sincerely hope that Neil Inder's recent appointment to the League of Gentlemen makes the difference we desperately need, yet sadly, I suspect he is just one snowflake against an avalanche of total and utter indifference to the needs of local people.


So pyer….. maybe you could tell me what the ‘tiny minority’ think about the idea of a runway extension? And what do you ‘ordinary folk’ think?


Beanjar. It appears I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Either way you'll moan!


Rosie, don't hide behind that tired old cliche, just state your views. You will not 'be damned' for venting your customary spleen regarding 21st century modes of transport. How could anybody be vitriolic about other peoples little cars whilst simultaneously wanting ridiculously large planes we don't need? Is this some sort of hangover from being in Burford's Fan Club (membership 5)?

You will certainly will be damned if you prove yourself to be a hypocrite by supporting the CoC view that we should turn perfectly decent farmland into a totally useless runway extension for planes which will never show up. If you can't see that, you must be mad. If you support this pointless overdevelopment you are a total hypocrite and a disgusting sell-out.



I have been very vocal on this site about my opposition to the extent of the work already taken at the airport which I thought was likely to be more extensive than it needed to be since there was no risk assessment done by the CAA on the length of RESA we needed. It was just assumed. As well as the cost, the runway work resulted in 13 acres of prime agricultural land being taken. I went to all available exhibitions regarding it and lobbied Deputies. What did you do? That was then followed by the building of an aircraft hangar for private aircraft…. again which required the removal of prime agricultural land… another 3 small fields. I did a lot of posts in opposition to that too as well as visiting the site and writing to the planners against it. What did you do? I also posted very recently on this site, (within the last month) about the possibility of a runway extension, saying that IMO, I think that a business case will be very hard, if not impossible to prove, so hopefully it is not something that we need to worry about. So once again, you have jumped to inaccurate conclusions about me.

You accuse me of ‘venting spleen’ which is absolutely untrue as is suggesting that I have ever been ‘vitriolic’ about ‘other people’s little cars’…. you are simply writing (bitter) nonsense. I try to keep my posts civil, to the point and accurate. You on the other hand make wild accusations and dabble in name calling in virtually every post you make which puts me, and many others, off using this site. In fact, virtually everybody I know will no longer even read this site thanks to the kind of aggressive posts you make….. they just can’t be bothered with it. Shame because it rules out any sort of sensible debate about virtually anything.


Someone up there please help this Island from this large contingent of leftie greens who do not represent the best interests of this Island.

There are many ways to improve transportation but unfortunately apart from Ferbrache and a few others we have to many Twit's in the States that are leading us to nowhere


alexandra. Can you explain what your post is saying. This story is about extending the runway..... what is it you think these 'leftie greens' are up to that don't represent the 'best interests of this island'?

P'tit Colin

Possibly the best debate I've ever seen in the Press - my view is that the airport represents a long term LAND BANK for the island and that money spent should be minimised to cover maintainence and regulatory needs. Any replacement airport should be a commercial proposition with the States as a strategic shareholder only and in public ownership, deliverable in a medium term (ten - fifteen years). It is much more likely that innovation in air travel will allow aircraft to operate higher capacities in shorter takeoff runs in that time (lighter stronger materials, more fuel efficient powerful engines etc).

I think the future of Island tourism is key here - we have an attractive proposition, those enormous cruise ships would not park in the Russell if that was not so, therefore the proposed business case should be generated in the round to look at what can be achieved to continue that advantage and to attract more air traffic and longer staying visitors and not be limited to the benefits/dis-benefits of a runway extension.

BTW, THIS IS NOT a green light to get in an external consultant - enough Civil Servants have the necessary skills to deliver a business case that can be subject to public scrutiny.


Chamber of Commerce has a nifty plan up its sleeves. Tell us all what it is! Carriers need to fill all flights let alone get larger ones to fulfill your early needs. No doubt CoC have a carefully thought out strategy of purchasing all empty seats throughout day and packing them with passengers. Yes?


"Chamber" talks a lot of blockols. Aberdeen and Birmingham were completely different scenarios. And easyJet weren't ever going to come - and aren't ever going to come. Your population and traffic simply don't fit their business model in any shape, way or form. Just stop believing otherwise.

Guernsey cgull

Let's build a longer runway for 30 million smackers.

We gave plenty of money to spend out of that 300 million we borrowed !

Bigger planes will come, with more people than ever.

The reality, last week I flew from gatwick to Guernsey on the 10.20 am flight.

It was a 64 seater , and had the grand total of 23 passengers onboard ! !

My daughter is coming over for Christmas this year, flying from Gatwick to Guernsey return, 22/12 to 28/12.

Now I know it's a peak time being Christmas, but ffs 166.00 pound ! ! !

In her words , Dad it will be good to see you again, but I won't be back in the future at these prices !

Still never mind lets spend the 30 million ,and have bigger and emptier planes flying in and out !

If Aurigny were not supported by states, us !, they would have sunk by now.

Surely it's better to have 64 seats sold at say 80.00, than 23 at 122.00

It's quite beyond me how the management ? ,at Aurigny can get away with this without the axe being wielded. !

Nearly Local

There is no doubt Aurigny is not being run correctly but is it all their fault ?

The fact that they are running several different planes for the different routes they offer must make it so expensive in both training and spare parts etc .

Can they streamline the fleet of aircraft they use ? Probably not if they keep the Alderney route ?

Anybody that thinks spending £30 million on lengthening the runway and then having to offer free landing slots and a contribution to their marketing budget (Thats what happens in Jersey Simon V ) is mad.