B802 - Aviation Bill 2015 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B802 - Aviation Bill 2015, TSR UKIP
Aviation Bill 2015

An Act to introduce a fair tax on flying while allowing expansion of aviation in the United Kingdom.




BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance
with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of
the same, as follows:-

1: Expansion at Heathrow

A third runway to the north-west of Heathrow Airport will be authorised.
A sixth terminal to the north-west of Heathrow Airport before the runway will be authorised.
Both (1) and (2) are in line with options shortlisted on the report by the Airports Commission established by the government in 2012.
Homes and property will be bought for 135% of their current market value as will assessed by an independent estate agent.
i) Payments will be made in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1973

2: Expansion at Gatwick

A second runway at Gatwick Airport will be authorised to be built in line with recommendations from the report by the Airports Commission.
A new terminal will be authorised between the current runway and the new runway.


3: Control at Heathrow

Aircraft must not land or takeoff between 23:00 and 06:00.
The angle of the glidescope will be increased to 3.20° to reduce the sound of arriving aircraft.
Takeoff and climb angle will be increased to a minimum of 6.5° until the aircraft is at an altitude of 7000ft to reduce noise.

4: Aircraft Duty Charge

Aircraft Duty Charge will be introduced to replace Air Passenger Duty
The duty charge will be 1p (£0.01) per kilogram of CO₂ emitted per passenger per kilometer, multiplied by the number of passengers aboard, multiplied by the distance of the flight (measured in kilometers).
Passengers in a higher cabin will pay 75% more than the standard rate.

5: Short Title, Commencement, and Extent

This bill may be cited as the Aviation Bill 2015.
Sections 1 and 2 will come into effect immediately after passing, section 3 will come into effect when the approach and departure equipment at London Heathrow Airport has been changed to accommodate the new approach and climb restrictions. Section 4 will commence on the 1st April 2016.
This bill shall extend to the whole of the European Union.


Notes

Currently APD is £13 for flights under 2000 miles and £73 for flights over 2000 miles regardless of the distance flown or the fuel efficient of the aircraft.

Worked example: A 6797 km flight from Manchester Airport to Orlando International Airport on a Boeing 787-8 which emits 75g of CO₂ per person per kilometer, emits 5097.75 kilograms of CO₂ per passenger in total. Charged at £0.01 per kilometer each passenger will pay £50.98 compared to the current £73.

The same route flown by the less fuel efficient Boeing 747-400 that emits 101g of CO₂ per passenger per kilometer emits a total of 6864.97 kilograms of CO₂ per passenger in total. On this flight each passenger will pay £68.65. On both aircraft passengers sitting in a premium cabin will pay 75% more than the standard rate.

A report by PWC reveals that a decrease in APD will see the economy boosted of £16bn as well as creating an extra 60,000 jobs. This bill aims to reduce taxes on flying to provide that boost to the economy while at the same time penalising the worst polluters more. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and engine manufacturers will have an incentive to produce more fuel efficient, quieter aircraft and engines.

We may not like the thought of an increase in aviation but the UK will be left in the sand if we doing nothing to meet the growing demand. Billions of people in Asia are seeing unprecedented growth to their disposable incomes and there is a world they want to see. The UK should not shut itself off from the world on ideological reasons by proactively destroying aviation in the country, and allowing other hubs in Europe to take over Heathrow’s role as one of the world’s largest airports when it comes to onwards connections.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hu...er-flying.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...passenger-duty
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/psrc/united...ger-duty.jhtml
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Nay. The London airport question is currently under discussion in the Government, but we are unlikely to support any further expansion of Heathrow.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Also, what's with the spelling kilometer?
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Aye, of course
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Not numbered?

Also section 4 is weird, why not just charge per kg of CO2 emitted per flight. Although I'd like to see it changed to per 'co2 equivalent' so other GHG's are taken into consideration.

I also don't support the expansion.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Aph)
Not numbered?

Also section 4 is weird, why not just charge per kg of CO2 emitted per flight. Although I'd like to see it changed to per 'co2 equivalent' so other GHG's are taken into consideration.

I also don't support the expansion.
We will never agree on the main part as this bill will be expansionists versus non-expansionists, but charging people per flight would peanalise people who emit less pollution as much as people who emit more pollution. The longer the distance, the further people fly, the more fuel the engines will use, the more pollution a person emits, the more the person should pay, hence charging people on a per km basis.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
We will never agree on the main part as this bill will be expansionists versus non-expansionists, but charging people per flight would peanalise people who emit less pollution as much as people who emit more pollution. The longer the distance, the further people fly, the more fuel the engines will use, the more pollution a person emits, the more the person should pay, hence charging people on a per km basis.
No I agree with the idea... It's just
aircraft Duty Charge will be introduced to replace Air Passenger DutyThe duty charge will be 1p (£0.01) per kilogram of CO₂ emitted per passenger per kilometer, multiplied by the number of passengers aboard, multiplied by the distance of the flight (measured in kilometers)
thats weird... Why not just say
the duty will be charged at 1p (£0.01) per kg of CO2 equivalent emitted during the flight
Although I'd like to know the costing for this.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Why a third distinct runway over hub?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
No I agree with the idea... It's just thats weird... Why not just say

Although I'd like to know the costing for this.
If something results in the same answer as this does, I am natural about change.

My favoured alternative is to scrap all types of aviation taxes which will boost Britain's economy and tax revenue by £16bn according to the report I have sourced by PWC, but I do not think many people would agree with me in removing aviation taxes.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why a third distinct runway over hub?
The Airports Commission's report believes a third runway at Heathrow is the best option with maximum benefit. As I do not have the resources to conduct my own research on the issue I trust the findings of the report written by people neutral to all options.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The Airports Commission's report believes a third runway at Heathrow is the best option with maximum benefit. As I do not have the resources to conduct my own research on the issue I trust the findings of the report written by people neutral to all options.
Hub is an extension of the North runway as opposed to a distinct third.
1
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Hub is an extension of the North runway as opposed to a distinct third.
The report stated an extension of an existing runway would allow a quicker cycle of aircraft to take off and land but capacity would reach 100% quicker than a third runway, and a longer runway would not allow three aircraft to land or take off as three runways do. A third runway has the additional benefit of allowing an extra terminal to be constructed between the runways to boost capacity.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The report stated an extension of an existing runway would allow a quicker cycle of aircraft to take off and land but capacity would reach 100% quicker than a third runway, and a longer runway would not allow three aircraft to land or take off as three runways do. A third runway has the additional benefit of allowing an extra terminal to be constructed between the runways to boost capacity.
If a North extension doesn't allow 3 take off/landing at a time it hasn't been done right.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If a North extension doesn't allow 3 take off/landing at a time it hasn't been done right.
To allow three departures would require the lengthened North runway having one plane start rolling half way down in and the second plane start rolling at the end of it. Both planes would have to takeoff in departure patterns that avoid each other, and if plane in front had a rejected takeoff the second place behind would have to stop or definitely takeoff. During landing if the second plane had to have a go around but the first plane was doing a departure there is a chance the go around sequence of the second plane behind the first would overlap with the departure sequence of the first plane doing a takeoff which is incredibly dangerous. A lengthened runway could support 3 takeoffs or landing but it would have to be nearing three times the length it is now; it would cost more and destroy more homes.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
To allow three departures would require the lengthened North runway having one plane start rolling half way down in and the second plane start rolling at the end of it. Both planes would have to takeoff in departure patterns that avoid each other, and if plane in front had a rejected takeoff the second place behind would have to stop or definitely takeoff. During landing if the second plane had to have a go around but the first plane was doing a departure there is a chance the go around sequence of the second plane behind the first would overlap with the departure sequence of the first plane doing a takeoff which is incredibly dangerous. A lengthened runway could support 3 takeoffs or landing but it would have to be nearing three times the length it is now; it would cost more and destroy more homes.
Not at all, on the North runway you have one landing and one take off, of the south runway you have a take off or landing as required, meaning you can have three aircraft taking off/landing as necessary.
It would requiring a doubling of length plus a bit extra in the middle for safety purposes, any homes destroyed in doing this would be destroyed anyway for a third runway, the total number of homes lost is lower with hub.

The FT at the weekend had the figures. For hub:
242 homes
238ha of green belt
£101-214bn economic benefit

Third runway:
783 homes
431ha green belt
121-211bn

And based on a torygraph article a bit back, hub is either a similar price or cheaper.
0
It's a Shame
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
The expansion isn't a good idea...
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Not at all, on the North runway you have one landing and one take off, of the south runway you have a take off or landing as required, meaning you can have three aircraft taking off/landing as necessary.
It would requiring a doubling of length plus a bit extra in the middle for safety purposes, any homes destroyed in doing this would be destroyed anyway for a third runway, the total number of homes lost is lower with hub.

The FT at the weekend had the figures. For hub:
242 homes
238ha of green belt
£101-214bn economic benefit

Third runway:
783 homes
431ha green belt
121-211bn

And based on a torygraph article a bit back, hub is either a similar price or cheaper.
I did not make myself clear, hopefully these diagrams help me explain my point better. A lengthened runway operates in the way the first diagram shows with departing and arriving aircraft departing in different directions on both sides of the runway. The second diagram shows the current runway operation where one aircraft comes in from one direction followed by a second aircraft at the other end of the runway heading out in the opposite direction. As a departing plane leaves wake turbulence along the runway there must be a gap between departures, however, arriving aircraft are less affected by wake turbulence allowing them to landing in a time which only extend slightly beyond the safety gap. Aircraft always land and take off into the wind which requires the direction of travel for both landing and departing aircraft to be in the same direction. The dueling action in the second diagram has a higher turnover rate of aircraft than a single runway dedicated to either landing or take off. The problem with extending the north runway is that it will result in two runways doing one role at any one time rather than three runways doing two roles at any one time that construction of a third runway will allow. It is this inefficiency an extended runway allows which has left the idea, which was first draw up 25 years ago in a pub, always being rejected in favour of an extra runway.


0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
If something results in the same answer as this does, I am natural about change.

My favoured alternative is to scrap all types of aviation taxes which will boost Britain's economy and tax revenue by £16bn according to the report I have sourced by PWC, but I do not think many people would agree with me in removing aviation taxes.
We shouldn't make air travel cheaper at the expense of the environment. We should be discouraging people from flying frivolously.

And my point was that the statement is overly verbose.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
I'm concerned about runway expansion, mass CPOs always upset people, regardless of how well you pay them.

Also, isn't the 2300-0600 rule likely to interfere with other airport's flight schedules?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I'm concerned about runway expansion, mass CPOs always upset people, regardless of how well you pay them.

Also, isn't the 2300-0600 rule likely to interfere with other airport's flight schedules?
I believe 2300-0600 are the same as the current restrictions, or at least not far off. It's actually slightly more generous, currently, general operation doesn't start until 0700, although flights are allowed between 2330 and 0600 with a load of restrictions

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (160)
17.66%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (78)
8.61%
No I am happy with my course choice (540)
59.6%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (128)
14.13%

Watched Threads

View All