Turn on thread page Beta

B1069 – Airports Bill 2016 watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    so does PC world..
    does PC world serve the world? is PC world a service such as trains, buses, i.e. is PC world public transport?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    does PC world serve the world? is PC world a service such as trains, buses, i.e. is PC world public transport?
    Does PC world serve the general public?
    Does serving the general public apparently mean it should be owned by the general public?
    Does that then mean that PC world should be owned by the general public? Well, yes, or no apparently

    Oh, and funnily enough you can own it because Dixons Carphone plc is publicly traded, and its dividend yield isn't awful either.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    It seems that the Department for Infrastructure is one of the government's more innovative ones.

    It seems to me that section 4 would be more effective if some sort of standard more specific to environmental safety were established.

    Probably Aye.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I hate to say it, but I agree with Nigel Farage MEP. I get it's the end of term, but do some quality control at least. I support the policy, however.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I hate to say it, but I agree with Nigel Farage MEP. I get it's the end of term, but do some quality control at least. I support the policy, however.
    Nigel is just being picky and forgetting that new aircraft will at the very least be more fuel efficient even if emissions are not reduced significantly. It's a step forward and the core of the bill is still achieved.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Does PC world serve the general public?
    Does serving the general public apparently mean it should be owned by the general public?
    Does that then mean that PC world should be owned by the general public? Well, yes, or no apparently

    Oh, and funnily enough you can own it because Dixons Carphone plc is publicly traded, and its dividend yield isn't awful either.
    You’re missing the point. Airports, like schools and buses and trains etc., are utilised for the good of all and are basic public utilities and should therefore be publicly owned.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's highly unlikely that said new plane would not be more fuel efficient even if not more emission efficient (though it almost certainly would be).

    If including the environmental provision means that customers can enjoy newer claims and a few on the left can be happier not to vote against this bill then so be it.

    Stop objecting on an irrelevance, the primary aim of this bill will be achieved.
    You are missing the point, as aircraft are made over a long period with no changes, the aircraft you believe would be more fuel efficient would not be; the same engine, same materials, and same blueprints would be used to build the planes. The second catastrophe your bill creates is a huge burden on airlines, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Air Canada, and a load of Asian airlines will be forced to buy new aircraft if they are to continue flying to the UK.

    For Heathrow whose dominance comes from being a hub airport, the better move is for foreign airlines to create partnerships with the foreign airlines to avoid needing to buy new aircraft. As an example, there will be no incentive for American Airlines to continue its transatlantic partnership with British Airways, where each airline uses each other's domestic network, if American Airlines needs to replace its fleet. The incentive will be for American Airlines to move that partnership away from British Airways to another Oneworld airlines like Iberia who has a large domestic network in Europe, and whose main airport does not impose silly environmental restrictions. It is clauses like this which will have real-world, catastrophic impacts that make me wonder if you have a clue about the economic situation of Britain's aviation sector.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You are missing the point, as aircraft are made over a long period with no changes, the aircraft you believe would be more fuel efficient would not be; the same engine, same materials, and same blueprints would be used to build the planes. The second catastrophe your bill creates is a huge burden on airlines, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Air Canada, and a load of Asian airlines will be forced to buy new aircraft if they are to continue flying to the UK.

    For Heathrow whose dominance comes from being a hub airport, the better move is for foreign airlines to create partnerships with the foreign airlines to avoid needing to buy new aircraft. As an example, there will be no incentive for American Airlines to continue its transatlantic partnership with British Airways, where each airline uses each other's domestic network, if American Airlines needs to replace its fleet. The incentive will be for American Airlines to move that partnership away from British Airways to another Oneworld airlines like Iberia who has a large domestic network in Europe, and whose main airport does not impose silly environmental restrictions. It is clauses like this which will have real-world, catastrophic impacts that make me wonder if you have a clue about the economic situation of Britain's aviation sector.
    AA wouldn't need to replace its fleet any more than it currently is, you seem to overestimate how long a plane can fly.

    Looking at AA's fleet on planespotters.net they have around 20 planes approaching 30 and they are all short or medium range planes so none of them are used for transatlantic flights and they are getting replaced anyway
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    AA wouldn't need to replace its fleet any more than it currently is, you seem to overestimate how long a plane can fly.

    Looking at AA's fleet on planespotters.net they have around 20 planes approaching 30 and they are all short or medium range planes so none of them are used for transatlantic flights and they are getting replaced anyway
    But aircraft are designed with long lifespans in mind, British Airways have 747s from 1989, and come 2025 lots of the 777s in fleets of big airlines will be 30 years old.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    But aircraft are designed with long lifespans in mind, British Airways have 747s from 1989, and come 2025 lots of the 777s in fleets of big airlines will be 30 years old.
    The 747's airframe is certified for 30000 cycles if you assume 3 flights a day then a 747's lifespan is just over 27 years.

    I can't find the information about the 777 lifespans.

    Experts estimate that the a380 will have a lifespan of 25 years
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The 747's airframe is certified for 30000 cycles if you assume 3 flights a day then a 747's lifespan is just over 27 years.

    I can't find the information about the 777 lifespans.

    Experts estimate that the a380 will have a lifespan of 25 years
    Three flight a day is generous when a 747 is designed for long haul flights that average 10 hours, when turn around time is considered that gives us two flights a day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Three flight a day is generous when a 747 is designed for long haul flights that average 10 hours, when turn around time is considered that gives us two flights a day.
    A quick look on ba and the routes they say they fly the 747 it is not generous to say a 747 could do 3 flights a day, turnaround can be done in less than 1 hour.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 29, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

2,920

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.