M385 - Motion on the expansion of Heathrow Airport

Watch
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
M385 - Motion on the expansion of Heathrow Airport, the Hon. barnetlad MP
This House believes that the option of a third runway or extended second runway at London Heathrow Airport should be completely ruled out. This House considers that the existing levels of noise and other pollution in the area around the airport are already too high and will only get worse should the airport be further expanded.

On competition and economic grounds, this House believes it would enhance the market power of British Airways and its codeshare partners, at the expense of other airlines and airports. This House believes that the level of surface infrastructure needed is greater and more costly than that considered by the Airports Commission.

This House believes that, should there be a need for greater airport capacity, other options such as expanding London Gatwick Airport, regional airports, or bringing old air force bases into civilian use, are better options and can be delivered without the major environmental, anti-competitive and costly option of expanding London Heathrow Airport.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Nay, unless you do more convincing on the economic point.

Ruling out development because of noise pollution is absolutely absurd.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Aye, Gatwick would be better.
0
TeeEff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Hooray for NIMBYism.

Could you expand on why you think the costs are greater than what the commission found?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Nay, and I imagine even if it somehow passed Rakas will swiftly put forward a statement declaring the motion contrary to policy and thus the motion is being ignored

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I will be abstaining on this one. I think that we need to expand airports to prepare for the future and plan ahead but I realise that this expansion could have a serious economic and environmental impact.
0
Midnightmemories
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Aye, Gatwick is the better airport for expansion.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I should note that I do not believe that the sole belief that Gatwick is the better option should mean that one should vote in favour of this. It seeks to rule out the option even in the absence of any other expansion possibilities, and indeed, for all eternity.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
HS2 to Birmingham International anyone?
0
Whiggy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
I have mixed opinions on this. I'd like to be convinced further.

I do agree that extending runways at London Heathrow Airport would be detrimental at this time, mainly due to pollution and cost.
0
EricAteYou
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Aye.

A strong aye from me.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay, unless you do more convincing on the economic point.

Ruling out development because of noise pollution is absolutely absurd.
Heathrow is already a very large airport, and after working around there in Hayes and Hounslow it's a strong aye from me.

I know from my own experiences of three years that it's a ridiculous idea to even think about expanding LHR when it is already so busy and loud; and so many flights go out from Gatwick, Luton and Stansted that are just as important, and the fact that it is trying to expand into the city when there are better options in airports just as close.

Instead of having a single huge airport and three other small(ish) ones, why not have four large ones? It would be much more organised and more planes could be chartered to and from London, for another economic reason.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Heathrow is already a very large airport, and after working around there in Hayes and Hounslow it's a strong aye from me.

I know from my own experiences of three years that it's a ridiculous idea to even think about expanding LHR when it is already so busy and loud; and so many flights go out from Gatwick, Luton and Stansted that are just as important, and the fact that it is trying to expand into the city when there are better options in airports just as close.

Instead of having a single huge airport and three other small(ish) ones, why not have four large ones? It would be much more organised and more planes could be chartered to and from London, for another economic reason.
I've got to say, I don't know too much about the argument, but I am 100% certain that this motion goes too far for me. I would consider a motion which supported Gatwick in this individual decision, but placing limitations above and beyond the present situation seems to go much too far for me.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Nay. I see no convincing reason why the state should prevent expansion of any airport provided that the proprietors are willing to build without subsidy or guarantee.

To put it another way, i'm supportive of expansion at both Gatwick and Heathrow and wherever else. Let the market decide.
3
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I've got to say, I don't know too much about the argument, but I am 100% certain that this motion goes too far for me. I would consider a motion which supported Gatwick in this individual decision, but placing limitations above and beyond the present situation seems to go much too far for me.
Possibly. But expansion of Heathrow should be ruled out for at least the next 10 years - it's just not sustainable.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Possibly. But expansion of Heathrow should be ruled out for at least the next 10 years - it's just not sustainable.
Maybe even that, but I still think the motion as written is unsupportable.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Maybe even that, but I still think the motion as written is unsupportable.
I'm tired. *shrugs*
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by nebelbon)
Aye, Gatwick would be better.
(Original post by Midnightmemories)
Aye, Gatwick is the better airport for expansion.
Why do you believe the state should prevent competition between Heathrow and Gatwick by preventing expamsion at either.

As one of the old libertarians used to say.. 'Stop molesting business!'.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Aye! Bring some flights back to the North!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
BenC1997
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Nay.

Hardly the strongest of arguments against a new runway, if demand dictates that a new runway is needed, why should the government prevent it from happening?

So long as the government doesn't fund/subsidise it, it need not stop others from doing so.

If Gatwick and other airports really need new runways, there would be more calls for them to be made.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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 worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (138)
58.72%
No (52)
22.13%
Not sure (45)
19.15%

Watched Threads

View All