Time to act over air fares

Don't even think of trying to book a month or so in advance, especially over a weekend or during any school holidays, unless you have just won the Christmas lottery.

The only hope is that Aurigny start a direct flight from Guernsey to Southampton and introduce some competition to Flybe.

I understand that there are a few deputies looking into this, along with the Condor situation, but this needs urgent attention as after speaking to a few people while away recently they said that it is cheaper to fly abroad than come to the Channel Islands.

Making the runway longer could help, but why was this not done when Lagan was here, as that was a no-brainer?

However, there must be other jets etc. that can land here as Aurigny always manage to find some when their Embraer is out of service.

It is a waste of time the States talking about encouraging tourists back to the island when the cost to get here is so high.

Something needs to be done or we might as well rename the island Alcatraz.

newliberation@cwgsy.net

Editor's footnote: Rob Veron, Blue Islands' managing director, replies:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your reader's letter. Blue Islands' partnership with Flybe, for clarity, is not a merger or a code share, it is a franchise. As such, how we look has changed as we adopt the Flybe brand. However, Blue Islands still retains full control of its commercial choices, including routes, schedules and fares.

Fares need to be sustainable to secure long-term viability, yet the real cost of air fares is on a par with what they were 20 years ago. In that time there has been a huge increase in operating costs. It might surprise you to learn that 25% of revenue goes to the airport, while fuel in the Channel Islands is the most expensive on our network. Despite this and claims by your correspondent that fares have 'jumped up' and the 'cost to get here is so high', our Southampton-Guernsey fares are now available from £29.99, compared to £49 previously.

Of course, Blue Islands has a vested interest in, and is 100% committed to, promoting Guernsey. However we need to be realistic when encouraging tourists to come to Guernsey. Why are cheaper airfares always the anecdotal solution? There are a huge range of destinations competing for visitors' bookings, whether it's Cornwall or Wales in the UK, or European destinations including Portugal, Spain and Turkey etc. which are more accessible than ever and where there's more-predictable weather too. Weather aside, is Guernsey's product proposition strong enough to attract visitors, versus other destinations, or do we need to reinvent our product and give potential visitors a compelling reason to visit our island?

Furthermore, does Guernsey offer good value accommodation, especially when compared to its competitor destinations?

Regarding a runway extension, your correspondent says this is a 'no-brainer' as it 'could help'… that would suggest it's not a no-brainer? Jet aircraft are inefficient when deployed on short regional services, which is why turboprop aircraft are preferred on these routes.

Therefore, we would ask your correspondent, which airline's jets serving which routes are likely to be operating from Guernsey Airport should the runway be extended? We are still looking for an Emirates Boeing 777 at Jersey Airport!

We are in grave danger of not actually understanding the following:

1) Who wants to visit Guernsey and where today's market exists for this product.

2) Guernsey does have exceptional air links for an island of its size, predominately offered by two committed locally-based carriers and failing to accept that we're a relatively small island and too small a demographic to attract a low-cost carrier.

If a low-cost carrier did operate to Guernsey, the contra-implications of this introduction would be at the detriment of existing services, depriving our island community of the year-round frequency of services it currently enjoys.

3) We believe in route development, but with a holistic approach, without risking destabilising our current service provision.

There are alternatives to a direct capital investment of £20m.-£30m. for a runway extension to stimulate route development (plus unknown indirect costs given the States of Guernsey's investment in Aurigny).

Guernsey Airport is seen as a profit centre, with airport fees and charges some of the highest on our network, but what are the benefits to stakeholders?

Airport subsidies would make it an enabler for Guernsey PLC, by allowing lower fares and route development to stimulate growth, without any additional capital expenditure.

Again this would be without the potential negative impact on island life, should there be a reduction in frequency of year-round services as a result of the introduction of a low-cost carrier.

One-third of all aircraft seat capacity to and from Guernsey Airport is empty. Additional capacity will only further destabilise what we currently have.

We would strongly urge our States not to waste a further £30m.