VM385 - Motion on the expansion of Heathrow Airport

Watch
Poll: Do you agree with this motion?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (14)
29.17%
On the contrary, No (28)
58.33%
Abstain (6)
12.5%
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
VM385 - 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
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Nay
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Nope.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
As Secretary of State for Infrastructure, i implore members of the government to vote against this motion.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
How exactly do you propose making disused RAF bases commercially viable?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Wellzi)
How exactly do you propose making disused RAF bases commercially viable?
Instead of allowing a third runway or extended one at Heathrow, developing a terminal would be a fraction of the cost. Restricting landing slots at Heathrow and allowing new ones elsewhere will I think be taken up by airlines. It is the same principle at Berlin Schonefeld when established.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Upon consulting with a friend who is very knowledgable on all matters of transport I've chosen to vote against this motion.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by barnetlad)
Instead of allowing a third runway or extended one at Heathrow, developing a terminal would be a fraction of the cost. Restricting landing slots at Heathrow and allowing new ones elsewhere will I think be taken up by airlines. It is the same principle at Berlin Schonefeld when established.
Your plans ignores the reality of the airline industry which has changed since its conception, in 2014 more than 36% of Heathrow's passengers were transit passengers. Forcing military bases to become commercial airports, or wanting to spread aviation out over hubs, removes the ability for passengers to easily transit, destroying the airlines in Britain who use short-haul European routes to feed their long-haul routes, or their long-haul routes to feed their short-haul routes. This motion destroys Heathrow's standing in the world, reduces the profitability of airlines who rely on transit passengers, pushes the valuable aviation sector to Continental Europe, and removes a big advantage the City of London has in its role as the financial hub of the world: air connectivity.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Bar a large surge i thank you all and will prepare my alternative bill forthwith.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by barnetlad)
Instead of allowing a third runway or extended one at Heathrow, developing a terminal would be a fraction of the cost. Restricting landing slots at Heathrow and allowing new ones elsewhere will I think be taken up by airlines. It is the same principle at Berlin Schonefeld when established.
Except how much more do you on top of the terminal need to put into the aircraft infrastructure, touching up taxi ways and runways if necessary, and all importantly the infrastructure costs to accommodate the new airports. If we take, for instance, T5 vs the first proposal for a third runway I was able to find a cost for, the terminal is a quarter of the cost, but then how much extra infrastructure is needed to go with it? How many former bases are needed for the same capacity?
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
Ayes to the right: 14
Noes to the left: 28
Abstain: 6

The Noes have it! The Noes have it. Unlock.
Turnout: 96%
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 (105)
61.4%
No (35)
20.47%
Not sure (31)
18.13%

Watched Threads

View All