While the BVI government has been reluctant to release any consultant reports on the Beef Island expansion, the British government did release their report as a result of a FOI request. Here is a link to their report.

Interesting that I ball parked a $150pp usage fee and that seems to be the generally accepted number in this report.

That $150 fee is the nail in the coffin. " commercial acceptability of an additional $150
passenger levy
(the Boyd Report suggests airlines may require an incentive rather than a levy). Gov't thinks they can collect an ADDITIONAL $150 when it's likely the airlines will expect a subsidy. That trans shipping port in Anegada is looking more reasonable by the minute <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/Grin.gif" alt="" />

I read the entire report starting with:

2.2.1 The project has a strong strategic case, with a clear need and obvious benefits.

What are already paying in incremental fees, taxes, fares, risks, and time when we connect through SJU or the STT, Taxi, then Ferry dance. I believe most of us are consuming over $150 and much more when we private charter or private water taxi.

This report talks about an approach where the airport stands on its own as a business. That is not how 21st Century airports work unless they are operated in conjunction with a large real estate rental enterprise. For this to work the entire BVI will need to put skin in the game with the cost spread across all the visitors revenue stream attracting competitive public financing. That would get the entire ingress and egress costs to less than $100 per visitor. Read the entire report and you can see the BVI's leadership attempt to plan for the future including the increase demand for 4 day hospitality travel.

Pretty cool how a FOI request filed on July 20 of this year has already been processed and responded to. Like that would even come close to happening in the US. Kudos to the Brits!

That'll be because they wanted it releasing. You try requesting something they'd rather keep quiet and see how long that takes <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/Grin.gif" alt="" />

The report does not address the practicality of the current location which is virtually zero. The 150 dollar charge is in addition to the current 40.00 charge so the total will be 190.00 assuming they can stay on budget.
G

George, what is the per head cost for STT? $190 per head BVI seems high to me.
The report shows a real need to lay out all the costs and risks of this venture.

It wasn't clear, either, whether that was $150 each way, which would be
$300 r/t. At that price, even more traffic would go to STT!

StormJib, we must have read a different report! It said this is "amber/red" because a private entity won't finance it and the government can't. They are already tapped out on borrowing under the Protocols. I doubt the Panama Papers have improved that.

What this does is provide cover for the government to postpone the project.

Stormjib
I for one am not interested in paying an additional $100 if I fly thru STT to come to the BVI. Why would I be interested in supporting an airport which would give me little in return?

Sounds like fixing the ferry service is the way to go for the BVI.

If you are flying to STT, catching a taxi, then a ferry you are already expending in the area of +/-$100 to use STT as your transportation hub. When you factor in the lost vacation time. Time where many are spending great sums for every minute in the BVI. The costs to connect through STT or SJU are far greater. Many others on this forum post about spending the first and/or last night on St. Thomas as some expense. Direct jet service to the US mainland from the East Coast will increase the value of every villa in the BVI and the rental rates of every villa in the BVI. Without a competitive sustainable fix to ingress and egress to the BVI, property values and revenues will wither.

I think that everyone in the BVI is going to end up economically supporting this whether they wish to or not. Returning from a recent charter on a flight out of STT, I ended up sitting next to one of the members of the House of Assembly. I could not resist bringing up the airport. According to him, this is a done deal and it is a matter of sorting through the bids and finding a way to pay for it.

It does not seem likely to me that the entire cost can be passed through to the traveler with the $150 subsidy, departure, and other fees on top of the air fare. This could make private water taxis from STT look cheap by comparison.

You have to also consider that is a per passenger tax. Flights from SJU to EIS are going to be really expensive.
G

I also read the report...
And, found it to be the epitome of British politeness

Thanks for a nice vacation - but good flippin luck with this concept
We ain't helpin ya... and g'luck finding someone who will

Perhaps I mis-read

You can shear a sheep a bunch of times. But, you can only skin him once.

I'm sure the ferry and water taxi companies can't wait. They'll be able to jack their rates up $100 a ticket and still be cheaper,that is, unless the gov't decides to escalate ALL the departure taxes, regardless of mode of transportation.

So $300 for a r/t from Sju to EIS You got to be kidding! That will kill air travel from SJU to EIS. All of these costs are out of control. What are they going to charge a cruise passenger $15. Let them also pay the $100 entrance fee.

yeeaahhhhh.... that might make the new cruise ship pier awful quiet

For now there is a guaranteed contract both ways at $15 per head. The way the cruise ship industry works is the ship operators put their visits out to bid. Today and even more so tomorrow there will be more Caribbean births than ships. The results will be according to the sophisticated plans of the cruise ship operators. That plan is a world where ports or local governments bid to pay ships to visit their markets. If anyone pays for the airport expansion it will be through hospitality taxes or fees on overnight visitors.

Always fly SJU to EIS... But then always spend time in PR as a real part of the vacation. Flying to STT from SJU is already way cheaper then EIS... Increase in price will make STT my fly in destination - will make it also part of the vacation. Time will tell but does sound like they are squeezing too hard.

The report seems to be two years old. Have any of the recommendations been adopted?

I am not sure I understand the question? But, the VI local press has published several pieces on the report this week and more on the airport last week.

Here is one sample and link:

It also made six major recommendations as to how the BVI could have improved the project.



http://bvinews.com/new/uk-averts-major-pre-election-blunder-in-bvi/

EIS is an awful point of entry to BVI.....the last time we arrived in Beef was a very good example of the complete absence of any understanding by staff and govt that the first reception is a very important look.

To have to pay $190 for what we experienced is not something easily accepted by this writer

Ron,

What part of the question didn't you understand?

The part where I asked if the report was two years old? Or whether any of the recommendations were implemented? I guess its easier for you to just cut and paste instead of answering the questions I posed.

You can find part of the recommended actions here:

http://www.bvi.gov.vg/pub/BVI%20TBLIA%20...0May%202016.pdf

With the expansion of the Airport on Antigua and the pledge to double the hotel rooms there and the pending opening of the very large runway on St. Vincent. I do not know how anyone would produce an "investment grade" report on the future traffic for any area airport much less an unbuilt extension of a runway.

While some press reports claim nothing has been done on the recommendation list. There appears to me some action on the list made available to the public.

http://bvinews.com/new/american-airline-likely-to-return-signs-mou/

The only rational path I see to "investment grade" anything would be some form of dedicated hospitality tax that would give a sovereign guarantee any new debts would be paid back.

There is a "new" PwC report see link above. There is a non-binding MOU with AA.