It's not a simple case of extend runway and airlines will come
I HAD rather hoped that when I wrote my article on why we shouldn't extend the runway that I'd said all I wanted to say. However, in the light of the recent opinion piece by Tim Robins [Tuesday 30 May], there are a few things I'd like to respond to and I'm grateful to the editor for allowing me the space to do so. Tim says that my desire not to extend the runway is based on 'passionate environmental beliefs'. He's quite right that I believe in protecting the environment – only a fool wouldn't as it's pretty vital. However, I was basing my case against the runway extension on two things: cold, hard cash and what's likely to be best for Guernsey. Indeed, there is perhaps a long-term case that bigger aircraft operating less frequently would be marginally better environmentally.
He suggests that as I stopped flying in 2012 when I entered local politics, I'm out of touch with what's been happening 'in aviation over the last 15 to 20 years' (despite the fact that 2012 was only five years ago). But really, you don't need to be jetting off to the Caribbean or Middle East or anywhere a couple of times a month to be able to keep abreast of things. During my time in the States, I was privy to negotiations between a low-cost carrier and the airport and know the sort of terms on which they operate, so it's not just airline experience that counts. And given that recent experience seems so important to Tim, I'm surprised he counters my evidence that reports have shown no desire among local operators for a runway extension by quoting a superseded 2003 report – now 14 years out of date.
Tim labels my observation that Jersey's population is 50% bigger than ours and can therefore support more air services as a 'tired old claim'. Otherwise known as a fact. Perhaps he is hoping that a bigger runway will enable us to markedly increase our population? I'm not sure that is what most islanders want.
He goes on to say that what Guernsey needs is jets in the 120 to 160 seat range. Well, as luck would have it, Aurigny already has a jet with 122 seats that operates most of our Gatwick services. Moving to a 160-seater would inevitably reduce the number of services operated daily. Currently, Aurigny's load factor varies between 68% and 82%. Low-cost operators look for 90%. The upshot of introducing a 160-seat aircraft on the Gatwick route would mean a reduction to three services a day. How on earth would that improve matters for the business or leisure market? What would it do to the vital preservation of our landing slots?
Tim correctly quotes me as saying that there are at least 15 airlines in the UK or near continent that have aircraft that can operate to Guernsey's runway just as it is. He dismisses this by saying that they are 'niche regional operators … very few of them affiliated with major carriers'. Here are just a few of those 'niche' airlines and their subsidiaries which have aircraft that can fit our runway: Air France (HOP!), Alitalia (Cityliner), Finnair (Nordic), Austrian, BA (Cityflyer), Lufthansa (Cityline) and finally, KLM (Cityhopper), the subsidiary of the Dutch national carrier that Tim works for. They're not coming here and it isn't because of the runway length.
He ends his piece by making emotional appeals, comparing life in the 21st century with life in the 19th century, and in his conclusion he lists an imaginative litany of what will befall us if we don't extend the runway. Where is the evidence for this?
In 2014, I voted against the States facilitating the purchase of the Liberation by Condor. Part of my reason for doing so was because having a larger boat on the route would mean that the frequency of services would go down. The same applies to aircraft. Consider the service that Aurigny used to offer to Jersey with up to 12 flights a day. Then, via various twists and turns, we end up with an aircraft three times the size, with three times the number of crew, operating one third as often and we are surprised when fares go up and passenger numbers drop off a cliff.
I also voted against the bond, and in particular the extra £80m. that was added on top. But at least when the bond was approved, strict conditions were put in place to ensure it could only be used for projects with a defined income stream. Yet Deputy Kuttelwascher is on record saying that that hurdle could be 'engineered'.
The argument being made by proponents of an extension isn't even 'build it and they will come'. It's 'build it and they might come, perhaps, maybe'.
That might be vaguely defensible if around £100m. of taxpayers' money was not involved. But it is, and however you cut it, the taxpayer will pay for it.
YVONNE BURFORD
