Alderney does not need a longer runway or larger aircraft

DUE for debate on 16 November this proposal is unsupported by any expert evidence and is illogical and would be catastrophic if adopted. It would not ‘future-proof’ the Alderney economy but would damage it and would fail to meet the needs of the population individually or commercially.

Alderney does not need a longer runway or larger aircraft such as the ATR72 – the proven formula which was tried and tested successfully over 35 years was for a fleet of smaller aircraft such as the Britten Norman Islander and Trislander or the Twin Otter.

Alderney does not need a dedicated medivac aircraft and medicair team such as that proposed by Gamma Aviation, the cost of which would be exorbitant: their aircraft are based off-island and unable to land in Alderney in adverse weather conditions such as fog or crosswinds prevailing when a casualty arose in Alderney or an expectant mother entered labour early.

I note that Option C is supported by Ian Carter who is a retired schoolteacher and submits no independent expert evidence in support of his recommendation.

I met with Steve Roberts and Alex Snowdon on 30 May 2022 to discuss Option C and we had the benefit of John Cadoret’s presence at our meeting whose 35 years’ experience as Operations Director of Aurigny offered sound expert guidance and confirmed that from its inception in 1967 to 2003 when Aurigny was sold to the States of Guernsey STSB Aurigny had operated the BN Islander and Trislander aircraft and had made annual profits year on year and paid tax to Guernsey Exchequer, as did its 100 or more aircrew and ground staff.

The flexibility of the smaller (8, 15, or 19 passenger) aircraft enabled Aurigny to serve the needs of the three islands and also to provide emergency medivac at cost price having at least two aircraft based on the apron in Alderney overnight every night 24/7 with no question of their being shut out by fog or cross winds. Seats of aircraft were removed and stretchers substituted and the patient transported to Guernsey in a matter of 35 minutes.

Following Aurigny’s purchase by STSB Aurigny bought an Embraer 195 and ATR42 and ATR72 and Dornier 228s and the loss of profits was blamed on ‘the Alderney routes’ which had previously been served profitably by the smaller aircraft. Neither the Embraer nor the ATRs could provide medivac. The current proposal to lengthen the runway and fly ATR72s would be to repeat the same error and the ATR72 would fly less frequently and would never be able to fill its passenger capacity of 72.

Our meeting with Steve and Alex on 30 May concluded with their challenging the view that lengthening the runway and buying ATR72 would be flying in the face of experience and would lead to loss. They asked three questions – 1. Will the CAA maintain the ‘Single Pilot Exemption’?, 2. Query necessity to adopt Option C and lengthen the runway, and 3. Medivac by Gamma Aviation.

I investigated and replied to Steve and Alex on 31 May 2022 that 1. The BN Islander and Trislander were certificated by the CAA in 1965 to operate ‘Single Pilot IFR’ which is a Type Certificate not an exception or derogation and is still valid today, and 2. Lengthening the runway is not necessary for smaller aircraft such as BN Islander /Twin Otter, and 3. Medivac any company based ‘off island’ (such as Gamma Aviation in Jersey) is not suited to serve Alderney.

I have received no reply from Steve or Alex. Option C should be rejected as also concluded by Guernsey Aviation Action Group (GAAG) in a paper submitted by STSB and P&R, October 2022.

MICHAEL HARRISSON

States’ Trading Supervisory Board president, Deputy Peter Roffey, responds:

Alderney Airport requires major investment to address the condition of the runway, which is the island’s lifeline. I think most people agree with that aim, although clearly there are different opinions on how best to achieve it.

Unfortunately a lot of that debate has centred around what size of aircraft are best suited to the island, when really the question must be how do we ensure best value for Bailiwick taxpayers, given the considerable sums involved?

Whatever air links the island enjoyed decades ago, and no matter how fondly they are remembered by some, time moves on. The old services your correspondent refers to may well have been profitable a long time ago, but that is not the case now. For a number of years the Alderney routes have been subsidised by Bailiwick taxpayers, including when the old Trislander fleet was still operating.

The Policy & Resources Committee and States Trading Supervisory Board considered different options for the runway, before proposing a scheme that includes an extension. That is our preference simply on the basis that it represents the least cost solution in the medium term. There will be additional construction and operating costs for Alderney Airport, over and above what would be required to simply resurface the current runway, but we believe they will be more than offset by a reduction in the subsidy on these routes.

Extending the runway will enable the operation of larger aircraft to and from Alderney Airport, but does not in any way preclude the use of smaller aircraft. That is entirely at the discretion of operators, although clearly Alderney would become a viable option for more airlines.

That would be an added benefit, and there are others, which could potentially be very significant. However, our choice of preferred scheme is not predicated on any of those materialising. It is simply based on what provides best value for taxpayers.

I do have to take issue with your correspondent’s suggestion that the ‘proposal is unsupported by any expert advice’. That is simply nonsense.

As the policy letter sets out, all the designs and estimates have been developed by a leading firm with extensive, relevant experience in aerodrome design, including comprehensive knowledge of international regulatory standards. We have also had considerable input from our regulator and other stakeholders.

With regard to the GAAG paper your correspondent refers to, which was published in the Guernsey Press, that unfortunately contained numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions. The project team has addressed these with GAAG, and a copy of that response has been shared with the Guernsey Press. Unfortunately, given the length and technical nature of the original paper, it required quite long and detailed explanations, so perhaps does not lend itself well to publication in full in the newspaper (although the editor is welcome to do so). I am happy to share a copy with your correspondent should he wish.