'Where?' is key runway question

A rapid perusal of the financial contribution of Guernsey's various business sectors (see Guernsey Facts & Figures) immediately shows that, although a longer runway might bring business to the hospitality sector, its contribution to island finance is so small as to render its part in any business case as minimal.

The 'business' which Deputy Ferbrache wants to be seen to be 'open' has to be the many and various elements of our 'finance sector'.

However, much of the finance sector pays just 10% tax on its profits and the other half 0%, so don't look there for income – and anyway all the tax income is already committed elsewhere.

No, the repayment of the £30-plus million cash presumably to be taken from the Island Bond will come as a £2 per journey levy on every air passenger movement for the next 20 years.

Compared with the amount of landing tax and security charges loaded on air tickets and the ease with which airlines change fares from £40 to £200, an extra £2 won't be a problem.

Anyway, do the kind of business folk utilising Guernsey's finance sector travel on budget airlines when travelling on expenses-paid journeys? Do their private aircraft need long runways?

However, 'where?' is the question that is not so easy to answer.

The flat land to the west – easily spotted from the screams of objection already emanating from residents of St Peter's and Torteval – would be the most economical route. Politically, not even worthy of consideration.

At the eastern end of the runway there is a road, already diverted, quite busy and not easily closed because the alternative has very narrow sections. So a tunnel would start the ball rolling.

Then the land slopes downward, requiring at least half a million tons of suitable rubble to be imported and placed over good farmland and several houses. That is twice the amount required last time.

Some folk have suggested not using rubble, but building a platform for the runway and leasing out the space below for a multitude of industries – with the demise of mail order I cannot quite think of some tenant that would raise sufficient profit.

Certainly forget about a £30m. cost.

So despite the determination of some deputies to disregard the research carried out last time we messed with the runway, and despite the dire warnings from Aurigny over the quality and cost of services, the States will find the many thousands of pounds required to seek independent advice that can then be disregarded and no doubt lengthening will proceed just as airships that need no runway become the vision of low-cost air travel.

ROY BISSON,

Le Caprice,

Cobo Coast Road,

Castel,

GY5 7HE.