The plan for nose in parking showed 10 stands capable of accommodating BAe.146-300 aircraft (3 of which were shown as being capable of taking an A320 - assuming the runway was suitable for their operation). This would have been in addition to the stands located in front of the cargo sheds. The covered walkway has numbered doors which I believe would have corresponded to the appropriate stand numbers. Try parking 10 146's on the present stands! The ATP bringing the newpapers was unable to land this morning due to a lack of parking caused by an extra 146 nightstopping as a result of G-JEBB having gone u/s yesterday. The ATP diverted to Jersey before coming on to Guernsey at 0740. I am sure most of us can think of other instances such as the ZK- reg Dash 8 which operated to Jersey rather than Guernsey as previously planned, the Eastern SAAB 2000 which weekend stopped in Jersey after dropping off its pax in Guernsey, the similar case of the Swiss 146 which day stopped in Jersey and not forgeting the Flybe Dash at Christmas from SOU which had to wait on the taxiway for the Flybe Dash from BHX to land, drop off its pax, load up again and taxi off stand before the SOU aircraft could park. There is also the issue of Trislanders parked in the wake of jetwash from aircraft parked on stand 15/16 - nose in parking would resolve these issues too. I wonder how many States members who voted for the new terminal are aware of these issues or even bother to find out.