It makes no sense to extend Alderney’s runway

It is undoubtedly the case that the runway at Alderney Airport is in need of repair and widening (Option B). However, it does not make sense to extend it (Option C).

The latter option will be far more costly, not only in terms of the works required to the runway, infrastructure, terminal and fire station, the costs of which may well exceed the numbers presently being quoted, but there will also be a very substantial cost to be borne every year in maintaining an airport which has to meet the CAA requirements for aircraft carrying more than 19 passengers. With losses of over £6m. a year incurred in running our ports, to do something which makes this deficit even worse in unwise.

The obligation upon the States of Guernsey under the terms of the 1948 agreement between the two islands is to maintain Alderney’s airport, not develop it.

Taxpayers in both islands are being prepared for further taxation because the island of Guernsey, at least, cannot balance its books. We are told that there are some hard choices ahead for its Deputies.

In the case of the Alderney runway, I suggest that if the island did not own Aurigny, there would be no debate and Option B would probably already have been undertaken. However, we do own Aurigny and much of what is being proposed turns what can be achieved to nationalise its fleet of aircraft and its losses. With respect, that should not be a driving factor here.

Operating a 72-seat aircraft, which can only lift little more than one half of its passenger capacity from an airport where it will be heavily restricted by crosswinds, a wet runway and temperature make for numbers which would make any objective airline professional shudder.

The States have spent considerable sums in commissioning reports from York Aviation and Frontier Aviation, and each has made the case for what should and should not be done at Alderney. Why would you ignore this advice? The professional flying community (those of us who are free or willing to speak) have been unequivocal in pointing out that extending Alderney’s runway in order to shoehorn in Aurigny’s ATR72 is folly.

No, the answer for Alderney, its population of 2,300 and limited tourism offering is exactly what it had pre the Dornier, what the Isles of Scilly and many other small communities have: that is to say, an Alderney-based third level operator with a fleet of small (19 seats or less) simple aircraft providing a variety of routes, a good level of frequency with sensible fares, and an on-island medical evacuation capability.

With this in mind, it is unthinkable that Guernsey Deputies would saddle taxpayers with the very substantial cost of Option C and the very much more substantial annual financial burden of running a larger airport, when a satisfactory and proven alternative exists.

I write as a taxpayer, resident in both islands, having been concerned with civil aviation for several decades, and as a person who flies himself in and out of Alderney almost weekly.

ROGER DADD