Labour dispute stops the construction of the St Helena airport in mid-Atlantic

Thursday, September 5th 2013 - 03:23 UTC

Full article 12 comments

South Africans working at the British Overseas Territory of St Helena airport have gone on strike, in what is thought to be the first industrial action on the island in half a century, according to the local news. It is understood they are in dispute over employment terms and conditions. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules

Mr Ed
If they'd hurry up and finish it, then they could fly away from whatever is upsetting them.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
I seem to remember that this airport on St Helena was 'essential' for the rapid deployment to the Falkland Islands in times of potential trouble ... or was that Wideawake Airfield, on Ascension?
Sep 05th, 2013 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Conqueror
@2 It couldn't be “essential”. It wouldn't be big enough. It will only be able to accommodate two twin-jet aircraft up to the size of, say, an Airbus A319. Even the new RAF Voyager, a version of the Airbus A330 MRTT, couldn't use it.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Pete Bog
@3
What about a C-17?

I'm not meaning the one Maximo might buy when he gets too big to squeeze through a standard cargo bay door, but it would be recognisable by the constant stream of 'pie packaging' ejected out of the back of the aircraft if it asked to land in SH.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Mr Ed
@ 2 it was Wideawake in Ascension for the Falklands anti-genocide War, St Helena has yet to have an airport and it would be too short a runway for RAF use in war in the Falklands.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
Thanks, guys.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
ChrisR
I hope that the contractor has to sort this out from his own pocket because if the statement “At this time we cannot comment further as we do not know what these grievances consist of, or what it entails” is true, then it is a damning indictment on their HR department.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Mr Ed
@ChrisR Possibly, but they might just be crazy demands from rambling agitators, not unknown in industrial relations.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Conqueror
@4 Think about it. A C-17 needs 3,500 feet (1,060 metres) in which to land and 7,600 feet (2,316 metres) to take off. The airport will have a 5,085 foot (1,550 metres) runway. It could get in, but it couldn't get out. In addition, a C-17 is longer and has a greater wingspan. A319 length 111 feet (33.84 metres), wingspan 111 feet 11 ins (34.10 metres). C-17 length 174 feet (53 metres), wingspan 169.8 feet (51.75 metres). I reckon if one got in, that would be it. You couldn't get a second one in. And then you'd have to take them apart to get them out! Take it a bit further if you wish. Note that the airport information clearly states aircraft the size of an A319. But not an A320, which is 12 foot longer. or an A321, which is 35 foot longer. I'd say the limitation is the wingspan and the take-off distance.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
brasherboot
Simple solution: sack them.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Mr Ed
@9 There's always RATO.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Gonzo22
“The South Africans have brought a slice of South Africa with them. Saints can walk away from it all.” and that seems to be a crime. Talking about empathy.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 04:29 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!