| Author |
Message |
Ian Rogers
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 10:32 am: |   |
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your reader’s comments regarding products sold in the airside shops at Guernsey airport.
As your reader rightly pointed out, there are now two locations where customers can purchase gifts and other products in the departures area prior to their flight.
The airside traveller’s shop was introduced last summer in order to improve the retail experience for Guernsey passengers.
In this shop we stock a large range of products, the majority of which are sourced through locally based wholesalers, who supply products produced both in Guernsey and elsewhere.
We do sell large quantities of fudge, and take a keen interest in all fudge related matters.
We would therefore be delighted to hear from any Guernsey based producers of fudge with a view to increasing our range of locally produced products.
We aim to offer our customers the widest range of choice possible, which inevitably means that some of the fudge we sell is made in the UK.
All of these products state clearly on the packaging ‘A Gift from Guernsey’, and as you say also mentions where the product is made.
In our duty free shop, we took the decision to use the limited space we have available to concentrate on perfumes and cosmetics, as well as introducing more lines of jewellery and watches.
As a consequence of this, we only stock a selected range of confectionery and try to let passengers know that more is available in the airside travellers shop.
Ian Rogers,
Managing director,
R. W. Randall Ltd |
Sean Fuller
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 10:31 am: | |
TRAVELLING through the airport, as I do quite often, I noticed the duty-free shop confectionery section has some fudge with an iconic photo of the island and the words ‘This is from Guernsey’. Closer inspection reveals a postcode of the manufacturer in Harrogate, Yorkshire, so what the unsuspecting visitor is buying is Yorkshire fudge, not Guernsey fudge. There is a real Guernsey-made fudge and confectionery but this is not in the duty-free shop, it’s in a small kiosk tucked away by the café. Surely, to say a product is from Guernsey when it’s not is a misleading representation of the facts and trading standards should take issue as they would in the UK?
Aside from this, the airport buyers should have a policy to buy local first wherever possible and support the local economy.
SEAN FULLER. |
Simon Macphail
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2010 - 02:59 pm: | |
Passengers who are in wheelchairs are taken to one side of the walk-through metal detector due to the construction of the wheelchair. As a consequence of them not going through the archway, they are subjected to a hand search and their bag(s) scanned and also hand searched if necessary in the normal way.
Without further details of the time when the writer of the letter passed through security, I am unable to verify the incident as the author describes but it would not be in accordance with the standard recognised and approved procedure.
Simon Macphail
Deputy airport director |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2010 - 02:59 pm: | |
ON FRIDAY 6 August I checked in at the airport and went through security as the usual compulsory prelude to flying to Gatwick.
I had my personal liquid necessities in the required clear plastic bag but unfortunately I had my hair gel and moisturising cream in containers, which could hold 200ml, even though they were both less than one-third full. I realised I had transgressed and had no complaint when the oversized containers were confiscated.
However, immediately after this confiscation had taken place, I watched an elderly lady in a wheelchair be pushed around the security metal detecting arch without any check of any kind made on her person or her wheelchair.
This, in my opinion, is a far more serious breach of security than my misdemeanour and I seriously hope that no person with ulterior or sinister motives sees it as a way round the lax security and attempts the unthinkable.
Name and address withheld. |
Alex Fuller
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 03:12 pm: | |
IN THE light of the information I have read in the Guernsey Press on 13 August concerning the CAA acceptance of EMAS, I would request and urge the Public Services Department to carry out a proper and extensive investigation in the use of an EMAS system at Guernsey Airport in order to consider this as an option, which as I understand they have not done due to the uncertainty of not knowing if it is acceptable. On the face of it, this system would appear to offer a far better solution for Guernsey in terms of cost, the environmental impact and impact on residents of Guernsey and tourism in affected areas. This may seem like a step back to address the apparently necessary resurfacing works to the runway, but in the light of this development concerning its acceptability by the CAA and the increasingly frequent use of EMAS systems, we must now properly investigate and consider this option with an open mind.
ALEX FULLER,
fuller@ cwgsy.net |
A. J. Bracegirdle
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 03:12 pm: | |
I HAVE been reading various articles and letters re. the airport runway.
It seems that EMAS provides an acceptable and least disturbing solution for safety run-off and would satisfy the CAA.
This would maintain the airport within existing boundaries to the benefit of the rural areas adjoining the airport. EMAS also appears to have a good performance record in the USA.
I wonder if a grass run-off would be as effective
in wet and windy conditions?
I do hope that our politicians have adequate technical and unbiased advice to make an informed decision.
I fear that this may not be the case.
History does not fill me with confidence.
A. J. BRACEGIRDLE |
Deputy Bernard Flouquet
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 - 02:14 pm: | |
IF I may, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to two letters that appeared in the Guernsey Press on Monday 5 July regarding the essential works proposed for Guernsey Airport.
The first letter, from Martin Bishop, proposed extending the airport runway as part of the proposed programme of essential works. Such an extension has been thoroughly investigated and considered by the States on a number of occasions, and was also costed as part of the options appraisal for the current project.
As Mr Bishop acknowledges, extending the runway would potentially enable Guernsey Airport to accommodate larger aircraft. The board of Public Services is of the view that given the additional costs, in the region of £25m., and the associated significant disruption and environmental impact that such a major engineering project would entail, this is not justified at the present time.
That was also the finding of an independent study, by York Aviation, which was commissioned last year by the Commerce and Employment Department. This concluded that ‘taking into account the scale of the Guernsey market, we do not consider there is a pressing case for a longer runway length... However we cannot be certain that over the longer term there will not be pressure for a longer length of runway at a future date.’
While it is not currently proposed, that possibility is accommodated in the scheme approved by the States last year. Any current and likely future safety requirements at the western end of the runway will be addressed, and the concrete areas where the aircraft park are being reconstructed at a strength that will accommodate larger planes.
Therefore if a runway extension is required in future, work to achieve this would largely be required only at the eastern end, but one should not underestimate the scale of such an undertaking.
It would require a large section of the valley to the east of the current airport perimeter, between La Villiaze Road and La Route des Blicqs, to be filled in, and therefore involve far greater disruption than the current proposals. This includes the closure and eventual re-routing of La Villiaze Road, as well as potentially widening of lanes in the area to take the displaced traffic. It would also require the import (and transport on the island’s roads) of massive amounts of infill material and an extension of the construction period from the anticipated two years for the current project to three years.
Such a project goes far beyond the essential works currently proposed.
The scheme approved by the States last year instead looks to ‘future-proof’ the western end, and potentially save an estimated £5m., should an extension prove necessary at some point. That is a sensible approach, given the urgent nature of the improvements required and the fact that the case for an extension is yet to be established.
As already mentioned, the primary benefit of an extension would be the ability to accommodate larger aircraft. It is not clear that is either necessary or desirable.
York Aviation identified that manufacturers are actively developing aircraft with the range and capacity to operate from airfields with shorter runways than Guernsey’s, such as London City Airport. As such, there is no foreseeable threat to our current air links from maintaining the runway at its current length.
Moreover, given the size of the market and the very limited opportunities for growth, the economic case for larger aircraft is far from certain and if anything, would almost certainly be at the expense of frequency. At present the island is relatively well served as far as scheduled air services are concerned, with relatively good choice, and any impact on this would have to be closely considered.
York Aviation concluded: ‘Our assessment is that the market will be better served for the time being by higher frequency services by smaller aircraft capable of using the existing runway length.’
Just in conclusion, the York Aviation report was published as an appendix to the States report on the proposed works at Guernsey Airport (Billet D’Etat XXIV, 2009) and makes interesting reading for anyone interested in this particular project.
Among its many findings, it identifies that Guernsey Airport directly supports around 650 local jobs and provides income of more than £31m. a year to the local economy through ‘direct, indirect and induced employment and operations.’ Its contribution though, in providing connections to and from the island to support local business and the tourism industry, far exceeds this. It is that context which justifies the investment being proposed in maintaining the current provisions.
On that point I would also like to address some points made by Deputy David De Lisle in the same issue, under the heading, ‘Runway move an unnecessary one.’
Deputy De Lisle’s claim that the proposals will have a huge impact in terms of safety and noise is simply not true. It is worth pointing out that the proposed change to the runway will have no impact on the majority of flights i.e. those which take off to the west and land from the east.
For the minority of services that take off to the east or approach from the west, a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact was carried out as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. This included detailed noise monitoring and modelling at the western end, and concluded that compared to current noise levels, any increase in noise would be imperceptible.
Deputy De Lisle claims the public is being deceived by another grotesque spend. It is perhaps worth pointing out that last September he brought an amendment putting forward an alternative system that would have cost an additional £10m. to implement, and much more to maintain. That particular system was and is still not approved by aviation authorities, nor is it likely to be within the timescale that these urgent and essential works need to be carried out.
He also queries why Jersey Airport was able to resurface its runway for around £15m. last year, when the proposed scheme for Guernsey Airport is budgeted at more than £80m.
Our project, which Deputy De Lisle erroneously refers to as the ‘airport resurfacing project’, is far more extensive, wide-ranging and complex than a simple overlay of the existing runway. It also involves reconstruction of the concrete apron areas, and the replacement of the entire drainage system and airfield ground lighting, which is now obsolete. The taxiways leading from the aprons to the runway also require overlaying, levelling and realignment.
Guernsey Airport opened in its current location in 1939 and has served the island well for more than 70 years. It now requires considerable maintenance and improvement to equip the airfield to serve the island for the next 30 years.
DEPUTY BERNARD FLOUQUET |
Helen Corbin
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:20 pm: | |
I WOULD like to thank Colin Le Ray, airport director, for his incredibly efficient service when I reported the lack of baby change facilities in the airport arrivals hall. Within five days of sending a letter to Mr Le Ray he had not only responded to me in writing, but had also installed a new changing unit.
What a credit to the island of Guernsey that an official can listen to a traveller and take action so very quickly to improve their experience and that of future travellers.
I hope you are able to print some or all of the above to convey my thanks to Mr Le Ray and his team publicly.
HELEN CORBIN (Mrs),
Copthorne. |
Deputy David De Lisle
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 02:16 pm: | |
I HAVE to contradict certain statements made in your article in the Guernsey Press today (30 June, page seven).
The airport proposals will have a huge impact on neighbours – in terms of safety and noise. Aircraft will fly lower over the western approaches. Already there is damage sustained to residential roofs in St Peter’s by low-flying aircraft at current levels.
The noise levels are well above annoyance levels currently. At 57 decibels annoyance starts, over 60 decibels causes sleep disturbance at night. The aircraft are currently recording levels of more than 90 decibels over properties. Lower flying aircraft and the associated increased noise levels will arise with the shift of the airport runway 120 metres to the west.
Compensation is being called for – as attested to in my question during the States to the minister of Public Services. The question that I put to him was: ‘What compensation packages are to be offered property owners and holiday businesses under the flight path affected by increased noise and light levels from shifting the runway 120 metres to the west, as a result of property depreciation and blight, loss of full enjoyment of properties? My understanding is that claims have already been made and others are in preparation. Loss of enjoyment could also see human rights claims against the States.’
The public is being deceived yet again by PSD with another grotesque spend. Why it is that Jersey has been able to resurface their longer runway than ours – and with more limited Resa’s than ours currently – for £15m. just last year, yet PSD are asking the States to support a ‘resurfacing proposal’ for over £80m.?
PSD are describing their proposals as ‘airport essential works’ when much of the work is in fact optional or ‘nice to have’. With the current deficit budgetary situation, we have to cut costs wherever we can, and more money is proposed for the airport resurfacing project than needs to be spent.
DEPUTY DAVID DE LISLE. |
Martin Bishop
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 02:15 pm: | |
IT SEEMS funny to me that the States is willing to move our runway to the west at £80m.-plus, but not go the whole hog and extend it at the same time.
Yes, it will cost £25m. more, but surely the benefits would outweigh the costs in operating bigger aircraft with greater capacity, giving the operator more route choice and maybe saving us money in having to fly to the UK all the time for connecting flights?
Also, in the winter or when it was quiet, fewer aircraft would be needed because of their greater capacity, saving the taxpayer money in sending planes to the UK with just 10 or fewer passengers on, as I have been on in the past.
Also cutting down on noise and fuel pollution.
If the States is saying the runway can be extended, then it must think at some point in the future it will have to be, no doubt costing them and us the taxpayer a hell of a lot more money.
The States is unique in overspending constantly on capital projects in the past, yet when given a choice of spending a bit more now to save a lot more later, turn it down.
It is like building a new house with an outside toilet.
MARTIN BISHOP |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 10:28 am: | |
I WRITE with regard to Deputy Spruce's inaccurate and misleading comments made in this paper last week.
His erroneous statement relating to the airport development and the motives of certain West District deputies is yet another example of PSD spin on this matter.
To my knowledge, none of those named by Deputy Spruce has ever questioned the need for the rehabilitation of the airport runway.
On the contrary, such action is wholeheartedly supported. Unfortunately, what PSD have advocated goes far beyond 'rehabilitation'.
Their plans constitute a runway extension of 128m to the west with a consequent price tag that the island is ill equipped to afford at this time.
Deputy Spruce has chosen to divert attention from his personal conduct in the waste debate by questioning the motives of members who have chosen to side against him and the rest of the Public Services Board members who would have had us overspend by countless millions.
When Deputy Spruce decided to tender his resignation it was an honourable gesture.
His subsequent back-tracking and recent criticism of three Western District deputies is quite the opposite.
It is clear that the recent waste debate has left the current PSD board in disarray. If the only avenue open to other members of the House is to seek a vote of no confidence to restore balanced leadership, then what else are they to do?
An alternative of course is for the board to do the honourable thing and perhaps regain a little of the respect we would all like to have for our politicians.
Name and address withheld
Email: lesrondiaux@ cwgsy.net |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
