Both in the media and in Parliament, the long-drawn-out Gozo fixed-wing air link subject has resurfaced yet again.

This summer saw a great recovery in tourism to Malta. However, the foreign tourist (as opposed to the Maltese visitor) business in Gozo does not really seem to have profited, at least when looking at hotel occupancy rates which, in a peak season, were just above 50 per cent.

While this has to be seen in a very differentiated way, with many aspects – such as the trend towards shorter holidays, the shift away from tour operators and marketing measures – to consider, one point that is always raised by Gozitan stakeholders is that better accessibility could help make the island more attractive to foreign tourists. Gozo’s hospitality industry cannot live merely on Maltese weekend visitors and some mainland tourist day-trippers.

Meanwhile, a British firm, East West Aviation from Castle Donington (the British East Midlands Airport), has apparently issued concrete plans for an inter-island air shuttle, proposing the use of a nine-passenger turboprop aeroplane. Given the performance data of the aircraft, to which we will come later, infrastructure requirements would certainly be well within the limits set by the regional plan for Gozo (see Mepa Gozo And Comino Local Plan Map 14.13E) and more than match with a Department of Civil Aviation suggestion – both featured by the media earlier this year.

The aircraft

The aircraft type suggested is the Pacific Aerospace 750 XSTOL (750 due to its single 750hp turbine, XSTOL standing for eXtra Short Take Off and Landing). Originally developed for use by skydivers, it has been developed further for utility/passenger transport roles, particularly for ‘bush operators’, where high performance, robustness and low costs are required to lift heavy loads from very short, unprepared airstrips, partly in very hot and high conditions. This was achieved by a combination of optimised wing design, robust construction and the powerful turbine. For utility/passenger roles, the aircraft is equipped with a large cargo pod in addition to the internal baggage space. It has already proved itself in very difficult operations, including Papua New Guinea’s highlands (it can actually work with just grass runways). Certificated by the EU Aviation Authorities initially as a cargo and parachutist plane, it also has a supplementary certification for the installation of eight passenger seats in addition to the one next to the pilot (at present in the EU, a single-engine plane may not carry more than nine passengers). Its payload capacity is 1.8 tons.

Runway requirements

A core consideration in the Gozo airstrip debate is how much land will have to be sacrificed. Here is the data for the P750XSTOL.

At maximum take-off weight, which will never be reached in a Gozo shuttle service because there will be neither such a fuel load nor such a payload (due to the nine-passenger for single engine rule), the maximum ground roll is 355 metres at 45º Celsius. This temperature will hardly be exceeded, even at 2pm on a really hot August day. The ground roll is 60 metres less when operating in a 25ºC environment. The ground roll is the distance the plane covers on the ground before take-off but a safety margin has to be added to this. A good guideline here would be being able to clear a 50-foot high obstacle.

Carrying only 350kg of cargo (already too optimistic a commercial expectation) in addition to nine passengers, the ground roll is reduced to 259 metres in scorching 45ºC summer peaks and a mere 215 metres in a more normal 25º environment.

Then there is the routine load of just the nine passengers, assuming an average passenger weight of 95kg, plus 20kg of baggage, for a total 115kg per passenger (Air Malta and other carriers calculate 95kg per passenger including baggage).

At a take-off weight of 2.5 tonnes, one has the following stunning figures:

At 35ºC

Take-off roll: 160m to clear 50ft – 304m

At 15ºC

Take-off roll: 139m to clear 50ft – 262m

The existing heli-runway is approximately 180m long, so the extension possibility drawn up by the DCA on the base of the Mepa plan should more than suffice – after all, figures for landings do not differ very much.

East West Aviation intends to use an optional German MT four-blade propeller system on the aircraft instead of the standard three-blade version. This will further reduce the take-off distance by 40 metres and reduce noise by 6 dB(A).

According to East West, looking at the figures with a “worst case scenario” in mind, it would need a runway length of 320 metres for the shuttle (of which 180m are already there) and a roughly level piece of land for another 200m with no obstacles (note: this can be a field, as long as there is no wall). This would mean limited investment and impact.

The flights would be carried out as VFR (visual flight rules) flights, just like the helicopter service, so the installation of expensive instrument flying ground equipment would not be needed. What I guess might have to be checked is whether, with a runway built as a pure extension, the current terminal building would be rather too close to the runway and might have to be moved in part to provide a larger safety margin. Small airfields in, for example, the UK demonstrate real low-cost solutions.

Fares

East West proposes fares “comparable” to those of the old MAC (Malta Air Charter) which, from the early 1990s to the end of 2004, used leased tough Soviet twin-turbine MIL MI-8 wide-body helicopters that were a help in their day and that were also included in competitive packages by tour operators – and thanks to Air Malta’s sales organisation. It will be necessary to add VAT to domestic flights and pay charges (which also had to be paid by MAC), unless some agreement can be reached as has been the case with low-cost airlines.

The fare might not be as cheap as it would be with the Australian-made Gippsland Airvan. This smaller plane, however, needs a longer runway (meaning higher development cost), does not have such high payload possibilities and has a single piston engine (single turbines as used by the Pacific are statistically more reliable than twin piston engines). The Gippsland burns Avgas, which is getting more expensive, while the turbine of the P750XSTOL uses cheaper standard jet fuel. The purchasing price of the Gippsland is, however, just a fraction.

Nevertheless, the Pacific is still considerably more competitive than other small plane alternatives, including 17 to 19-seaters. If the fare thus is acceptable, and as the capacity of the aircraft will be lower (meaning lower marketing risk), and as the fuel burn is just a fraction of that of a helicopter, it has a chance of being commercially successful, as long as there is also good distribution channel management/marketing. Thanks to the minimal runway requirements, the Pacific saves a lot on the cost of airstrip development.

One would be using

an aircraft that

• is a brand-new design with a pleasant cabin

• in contrast to other small planes, it would be one that will never have any luggage load problem due to large storage volume and lots of power reserves

• is optimised for precisely this type of very short-distance flights

• has a very robust, low-maintenance fuselage with a lifetime of 39,000 flight hours before even any scheduled frame maintenance is required.

Beware of white elephants

It would be no use installing a fixed-wing air service that has fares comparable to the failed Helisureste route, which would be the case with most aircraft if one considers the fares of unsubsidised services elsewhere in the EU.

It is commercially unrealistic to expect tourists to fly from anywhere directly to Gozo because fares – even from Palermo – would be well over €300 return with even the cheapest to operate 19-seater. It is also unrealistic to expect being able to ‘do away with MIA as the gateway’, or to expect any real cargo transport, such as exporting vegetables from Gozo to Sicily – as if they don’t have such transport there. For passengers, it will always be cheapest to transit via MIA.

The only role for an air service would be to make Gozo more easily accessible for tourists by reducing hassle and transit time and making things easier for outbound Gozitan travellers. The average length of a holiday today is shorter than it was, say, 15 or 20 years ago, so if it takes a long time to reach a place, this means proportionally more holiday time being lost on travelling rather than holidaying – to which add the hassle with luggage on and off the ferry.

The fares and frequency need to be sufficient and, particularly with the latter, smaller planes excel.

What actually ‘sells’ destination Gozo is the idea of the rural charm of the small island. An airstrip would need to comply with this, otherwise what is gained on the product on the accessibility side would be lost on the quality/environmental side.

An elongation of the present heli-strip facility by about 250m could still be in line with this idea of low impact; a completely new 1,000m runway – surely not. In the case of an airstrip, its use could be limited to public transport and AFM use, or at least the hours or days for other types of flights could be limited, which is how it works in other countries without a problem. This would avoid a negative impact on both local residents and the tourism product from too many small aircraft movements. There are given limits, as indicated in the Mepa plan which, in my opinion, do not permit any alternative layout due to an aquifer. Those supporting the airstrip cause in Gozo should perhaps be happy with a compromise that serves the core basic purpose (an MIA link): asking for too much will lead nowhere.

A compromise that does the job

Thanks to the direct shuttles to Cirkewwa available through the internet (eg through the MIA website), today one can get to Gozo and back for €25 per person, including the return ferry ticket. This is an incomparably better situation than, say, four or five years ago. Certainly this improved surface service also means tough competition for a would-be air service, with the only disadvantage being the hassle involved with boarding the ferry with luggage and, of course, the additional time involved. But if an airfare is too high, anyone who has some extra time could always add an extra day (bednight) in Gozo.

We know how long the amphibious Harbour Air Malta Twin Otter plane service – which charged around €160 return from MIA to Mgarr and back if one had normal luggage – lasted, just like the €120 return helicopter services of Helisureste and Eagle Associates. Floatplanes are clearly no alternative. Fares must be within a reasonable range.

On the other hand, too long a journey such as, say, a good three to four hours overland, is indeed a disincentive. Gozo is not a museum. With the system proposed by East West Aviation, operating a Pacific 750XSTOL, the impact/investment would be just a 20m by 250m piece of additional tarmac at most, divided as extensions to the existing 180m runway, partly within the existing fence, and the firm proposes a fare similar to that of the Russian helicopter service which had proved a help. Incidentally, the aircraft does not even require a paved runway.

This means less runway – meaning lower construction costs, land costs, and a lower landscape impact due to minimal runway requirements.

An alternative turbine plane that can also manage with such an airfield could be the new US-made Quest Kodiak, that was optimised for Rocky Mountains back-country flying (given it is built in the back-country flying home state of Idaho) and missionary aviation in remote areas, but which so far is not yet EU-certificated, though this is a problem that could eventually be resolved. However, it seems nothing outperforms the P750XSTOL.

A competitive fare is essential, just as is a low environmental impact. If the decision is taken for an airstrip in principle, then as far as environmental impact is concerned, nothing can beat the East West Aviation proposal with the Pacific P750XSTOL shuttle, and also the fare will apparently be reasonable, if it is similar to that of the MAC service. And one also has to see it in the context of development costs, which in this case are clearly the lowest possible.