| | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 24 January 2008 Posts: 2, Visits: 5 |
| I am sure most of us in business use the airport more than 5 times a year... It brings in and takes out commuters to the city, brings us our beloved tourist, and our post our newspapers, and in some cases our food.
Why can´t the States do their homework first before opening their mouths. How can you get it nearly 500% wrong?
As the chap in charge says he´s not up for re election in April, so hey.... oops sorry made a small error in my math.
Does make me very cross!
|
| | | |
Group: Administrators Last Login: 15 September 2008 Posts: 81, Visits: 309 |
| | Guernsey Press Story: http://www.thisisguernsey.com/code/shownewsarticle.pl?ArticleID=003192 Copy from story: Treasury surprised by cost of runway repairsby Nigel Baudains
THE level of expenditure needed on the airport runway was a surprise to Treasury and Resources.A presentation by UK consultant RPS Burks Green on Friday revealed that between £30m. and £45m. would have to be spent on the runway, taxiways and aprons. Treasury minister Lyndon Trott said the Public Services Department, which runs the airport, had known for some time that the work was required and had budgeted about £10m. for it. ‘Just before Christmas, T&R was made aware that the likely expenditure was anticipated to be considerably more than Public Services had originally indicated,’ he said. Deputy Trott, who attended the presentation with chief officer Dale Holmes, said capital projects on the airport and harbours were usually funded from the Ports Holding Account. That was why no provision had been made for the work in the 2008 general revenue budget. He said all funding options would be considered and he would not commit himself on whether the States would have to borrow the money. ‘No decisions have been made on the funding arrangements,’ he said. ‘The priority for Public Services is to determine exactly the extent of the essential works required and to report to the States. ‘The States will then be in a position to make the necessary decisions on a fully informed basis.’ Public Services minister Bill Bell was unable to say yesterday when the matter was likely to go before the House. ‘It’s a difficult question to answer precisely,’ he said. ‘The presentation on Friday was of the draft report, the consultants are still working on it and we will have to wait for the final version.’ The problem came to the fore early last week when airline Flybe said it had been told that it could not operate its new Embraer 195 jet into Guernsey fully laden because of deterioration to the runway. General manager market development Ian Taylor said Flybe intended to meet Public Services and Commerce and Employment as soon as possible to resolve the issue. Deputy Bell said that when his department had tried to set up a meeting with Flybe, the airline had declined because it had a board meeting on the day recommended. The airline had wanted to use the Embraer as a replacement for the BAe 146 jet, which will be withdrawn from service in March. Mr Taylor said yesterday that his airline’s eight locally based pilots had been due to start a three-month course on flying the Embraer. ‘We had booked the courses for the pilots but when we became aware that the 195 could not operate in Guernsey, we tried to stop as many attending as possible,’ he said. Sending the local pilots for training meant getting replacements from elsewhere on the Flybe network. But engineers’ courses had needed to be booked earlier and two members of staff were currently away on training
Regards Administration Teamwww.guernseychamber.com |
| | | |
Group: Administrators Last Login: 15 September 2008 Posts: 81, Visits: 309 |
| | Dear All Executive have surveyed Chamber members on the issue of the airport and its environs. Attached to this post are the survey responses. Feel free to download and comment.
Regards Administration Teamwww.guernseychamber.com
|
| | | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 11 March 2008 Posts: 4, Visits: 7 |
| A lot of the blame for the current situation goes back to previous administrations and airport management, who ran the airport as civil servants and were totally uncommercial. As a previous worker at the airport, the inability of the management to respond in a timely fashion to practical issues was unbeleiveable. Therefore when it came to bigger issues it must have been ignored as well.
However, I am not convinced that we do need an extension to the runway, but it does need upgrading as a matter of urgency.
Why do the States take so long to carry out common sense projects which to everyone else is a simple decision. (Maybe the lack of speed in resurfacing St Julians Avenue is an indication of the States lack of commercial reality).
Flybe are also out of order to want a subsidy to keep jets on the route, just because they took a commercial decision which was right for the rest of their business. Flybe may not be wrong about the runway condition, but their arrogance gets to me. |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 03 September 2008 Posts: 26, Visits: 30 |
| The results of the survey make for interesting reading.
A wide raft of views,its good to see intellect is alive and well and living in Guernsey.
I suppose all things have a limited life expectancy really,Harbour Qauys,Airport runways,schools etc Politicians too!
Its not just in Guernsey that things wear out,look at Jersey,their runway now needs work aswell.
The sums seem somewhat less over there than in Guernsey and it does seem to be similar specialist work .
Are these oversights though,not to include them as part of a planned prevantitive maintenance programme ?
Were they excluded from the Business plan ?
Why was it all such a surprise that such investment is now needed.
In being pennywise it appears we have been pound foolish. |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 19 June 2008 Posts: 2, Visits: 6 |
| The (Burks Green) detailed study with Airport Management to establish what essential works are/may be needed on the airport, for upgrading of the runway and taxiway’s, and reconstruction of the main parking stands, plus other associated works, and alternatives for extending the runway were presented to States members, and the CAA for consideration. Burks Green have costed up the works and following comments from the CAA the proposals will go to a States meeting for consideration and they will make a final decision as to what work will be carried out.
Details were well reported by the media with reported £50+m of essential works to upgrade the airports infrastructure in order to maintain the present operation and licensing levels. If it is decided to extend the runway at the same time, then whilst this would make sense, there will be additional costs to bear.
It would make sense that spending £50+m to go part of the way, a good businessman would spend the extra and complete the job so that we have an airport runway fit for the aircraft that need to use it now, and see us through perhaps for the foreseeable future.
All this will take time, and it is thought that commencement of the works will not be until 2009.
In the meantime inconvenience for some continues due to insufficient hard standing being available to meet demand for parking of aircraft. However options for provision of more and improved parking arrangements have been considered within the initial review process of 'essential works'.
|
| | | |
Group: Administrators Last Login: 24 September 2008 Posts: 127, Visits: 118 |
| Latest word from the inside is a spend of £100m to get what we should have ? - is this so ?
|
| | | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 19 June 2008 Posts: 2, Visits: 6 |
| My view is £100m is a fair assessment, considering the unforseen that will have to be included.
If essential works and runway extension is done for this, it will make sense, give opportunities for the future, and see us though for the foreseeable future with an incredibly important strategic asset.
Interestingly this will represent good value as well when comparing against works at other airports.
Rob |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members Last Login: 06 August 2008 Posts: 7, Visits: 11 |
| | In terms of funding the 100m, it makes sense to look at banks that specialise in infrastructure lending such as Macquarie. In no way should the Island look to fund this using cash reserves, if the Treasury department is now pragmatic enough under the new leadership then this should be the way ahead. We have a golden opportunity here to extend and improve, lets not waste it. |
| |
|
|