MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 15th 2017 - 12:20 UTC

Falklands' considering investigation of Stanley Airport future development options

Friday, October 6th 2017 - 07:27 UTC
Full article 12 comments

The Falkland Islands' Executive Council has considered a proposal to investigate the future development options for Stanley Airport. A paper put to ExCo by the General Manager Aviation Services and Director of Civil Aviation was described as not a comprehensive review of all the options, but gives approval for the Chief Executive to develop clear terms of reference for a study which can define the realistic potential usage options for Stanley Airport. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • portman

    concerns are expressed about airport duplication. the same concerns have been expressed about deep water port duplication. if existing facilities (supply) are unable to meet demand then consideration needs to be given to the economics of two options: upgrading or duplication.

    Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Portman - actually the RAF are making it more and more clear from a variety of actions - although they earn from seats sold via FI Govt enough to pay for 20% of the Annual cost of their military flight link to UK ,that they would be far happier if there were no local civilians using Mount Pleasant at all, nor the Air Tanker flights to UK nor civilian commercial aircraft using the airport.

    Oct 06th, 2017 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RedBaron

    Islander1 - actually the RAF were making it more and more clear that they didn't want to have civilians running around their base and on their flights when I was using these facilities already in 2010, so their reticence is nothing new. Military people operate their own private club and don't like outsiders or interlopers - even those who are the same nationality and paying for their existence. I always had the feeling I was a Johnny-foreigner when I was in and out of MPA.

    Oct 07th, 2017 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • portman

    might make a difference if fig (fi taxpayer) made some investment. then fig would be a stakeholder. so far all deep water port (mare harbour) and airport (mpa) investment has been down to uk taxpayer. he who pays the piper plays the tune. equal stakeholders should have equal say with both pipers playing in harmony rather than discord.

    Oct 07th, 2017 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Quite a bit of FIG investment up at MPA - at least 2 houses for married military accompanied family posts built each year fully funded by FIG for many years. The swimming pool was FIG funded, and so the list goes on.
    FIG pays for approx. 20-25% of the annual cost of the airllink with UK - but only fills say 10-12% of the seats. Then FIG subsidises local airfares for serving personnel on our airservice
    if they want to travel out to a wildlife lodge or whatever - and there- the loge owners and operators will give them a discount rate as well.
    You would be pushed to find another place as British and PRO Military and supportive of all military personnel - that the Falklands.

    Oct 08th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • portman

    when kemh (hospital) was joint facility costs were shared and so was management. it worked reasonably well before it was returned to completely civilian control. remember bulk of running costs at mpa are met by uk for defence purposes (the primary purpose). if argies are not kept out zero development purpose. the cost of building mpc (£450m+ at 1980s prices) and subsequent replacements and refurbishments have been met by uk. for fig to be an equal stakeholder will need fig to cough up proportionate and meaningful share of costs. contributions (token) quoted by islander1 are small percentage of costs by comparison.

    Oct 08th, 2017 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    portman.
    Think that if you take the FIG direct and indirect contributions to the annual running costs to UK taxpayers of maintaining Br Forces Falklands (£110-120m a yr) and then take from that the annuaL value to the UK economny of:
    All the goods purchased from UK by the Falklands and shipped here.

    Falklands taxpayers origen Salaries paid to UK sourced contract officers - and the proportion of that money that ends up in the UK.

    Cash spent in the UK by Islanders holidaying there.

    You will indeed find that one way and another- FI makes a HEFTY contribution towards the cost of Defence.

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gevera

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • portman

    islander1. after 30 odd years those numbers have not resulted in mod allowing fig to have anywhere near an equal share or say on operating mpa. it will need a more direct and substantial contribution for fig to obtain better use of the facility for development. the arrivals, departures and car parking are crying out for further investment to modernize. in negotiations if fig was prepared to put its money where its mouth is and offer to finance that modernization then fig might be treated as a serious stakeholder. it seems mpa is adequate for rapid reinforcement for defence purposes so it is doubtful that uk taxpayers will be persuaded to modernize or improve facilities and why should they.

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Portman - we are not asking MOD to put any investment in. The larger new departure lounge- if built at MPA will be entirely FIG funded. Car parking is adequate at the moment and close, a few closer ones could take a few more vehicles if MOD narrowed the space paint lines down to cars and not tanks.
    Yes it is indeed adequate for military needs - but after 30yrs and commercial use it was never even thought about let alone designed for - it is no longer adequate for that level of todays civilian use. Hence FIGs move. Plan is then that all flights would depart from new lounge and facilities - all arrivals through the old one then converted purely to arrivals to give more luggage collection space for all - military and civilian.

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    It seems fair that FIG might develop Stanley airport further, to the length specified by Shackleton in the 1970s. In any times of crisis, civilian aircraft could bypass MPA and land at Stanley. Also handy to have two airfields the RAF could fly to from UK in a time of crisis. It is not easy for the FIG to allocate the money to MPA that it deserves, being a small country, but proportionate to its income the UK military have done alright. In addition to what has been pointed out, haven't FIG paid for a windfarm that will reduce MPA's running costs?

    Surely it must be good for the military when there are complaints from Falkland farmers that there are NOT enough low flying RAF aircraft?

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • portman

    sounds a good plan islander1. if it's supported by the next assembly lets hope it can be completed before it hands over to another new one in 2021. sounds like fig is already having to make a more realistic contribution to mpa for met services. before 1982 fig funded them 100% but the late danny can't be brought back!

    Oct 09th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!