Short on runway facts

He should recognise that the PwC report commissioned by P&R is informative only. It is P&R’s job then to assess whether the information about the possible lengths of the runway is sufficiently persuasive for the States of Guernsey to commit humongous sums of public money – Mr Le Page’s, mine, yours – to extending the runway. The simple fact is that the PwC report does not provide the necessary information for P&R to make a decision in favour of an extension to the runway. Neither does Mr Le Page provide that necessary information, nor does anybody in the flying industry provide that information, nor does the local tourist industry or any other sector of Guernsey’s business or non-business community provide that information.

That is because that information does not exist. Nobody can predict whether a longer runway of 1,700m will produce such a meaningful increase in tourist flights and in tourist numbers holidaying in Guernsey that it will justify the £23.7m. that would be needed to build its extra 237m (based on the estimates in the PwC report).

The one fact that we do know for certain is that the present length of runway is sufficient for our lifeline route to Gatwick to be run profitably, even if a full payload of paying passengers means that the Embraer has to reduce the weight of the fuel it carries (a good thing, since it means less CO2 emitted per journey because the aircraft is lighter than with full tanks and so has a lower fuel burn).

So, it all has to do with ‘tourism’, and the crux of the matter is whether the cost of a longer runway will be offset by the increased revenue from a more successful local tourist industry. On that score, it appears to me that the tourism sector has not been forthcoming with projections of how much extra money might be generated locally by increased tourism consequent upon a longer runway. I would guess that this absence is because it is just as much a big unknown to them as it is to the rest of Guernsey.

In touching upon easyJet’s business model, Mr Le Page makes the interesting suggestion that the company’s comment in the PwC report (that it will operate off a 1,570m runway) may have been cut short. I agree with him and to the first part of his suggestion of what might have been excluded from the report. His suggestion as to what the missing bit may be is: ‘that most likely they would have to operate with reduced loads [I fully concur] and would want the States to pay for the empty seats [I totally disagree]’. I don’t think that he’s really thought that one through. EasyJet are hard-nosed realists but I doubt that even they would expect any jurisdiction to agree to that carte blanche condition which could, as a reductio ad absurdum, encourage the airline to fly with as few passengers as possible (i.e. all seats empty), thereby cutting flying costs (fuel, cabin crew etc.) to a minimum and yet earning as much money (all from Guernsey) as if it were flying with a full complement of passengers.

If one were going down the route of subsidies, I would suggest that Guernsey would do better to offer a subsidy per head of all passengers travelling by air both to and from Guernsey on the current runway. This could be easily scaled so that any airline with ‘oversized-for-Guernsey’ aircraft would potentially still be able to make the same profit flying into and out of Guernsey, even though the airline would not be able to make use of the aircraft’s maximum seating capacity. (Partly full Boeing 737s used to take Madeiran seasonal workers back to Madeira only a few years ago and, it would appear, current technically equivalent aircraft, e.g. A319s, could do this as well.) This would take the ‘it’s-too-expensive-to-fly-to-Guernsey’ assertion (probably true) out of the equation and in the long run would show just how attractive to tourists Guernsey actually is and would at the same time quantify the detriment to Guernsey tourism that high fares to Guernsey is undoubtedly causing. With these facts to hand, future discussions on an extension to the runway would be put on a sound factual basis rather than on the emotional beliefs of some politicians and air enthusiasts.

If successful, such a per capita subsidy would cost far less than the millions needed for the runway extension and it would probably need only a few years to see whether such a scheme is financially viable (i.e. the increased tourist take more than balances the cost of the subsidy). If so, such a subsidy might entirely obviate the need for a longer runway or might point to the fact that a longer runway would probably bring in even more benefits to tourism. It would certainly clarify whether there are currently significant numbers of holidaymakers who are indeed put off coming to Guernsey solely because of the cost of flying here, or whether they are also put off by Guernsey’s shrinking ‘tourist product’ – fewer attractions, falling numbers of tourist beds particularly in the lower, more affordable grades of hotels, etc.

If, however, the cheaper fares to Guernsey (thanks to the subsidy per head) did not generate an adequate increase in air passengers and visitors, such a scheme could be halted and only the modest cost of the subsidies would have been lost.

On the other hand, if the 1,700m runway didn’t increase tourist numbers enough to cover the £23.7m. cost of extending the length of the current runway by nearly 237m, it would stand for decades to come as a white elephant reminder of an appalling fiscal decision made by the States.

TONY LEE

Les Salines,

Le Vallon,

St Martin’s, GY4 6DN.