Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

VM385 - Motion on the expansion of Heathrow Airport watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with this motion?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    29.17%
    On the contrary, No
    58.33%
    Abstain
    12.50%

    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As Secretary of State for Infrastructure, i implore members of the government to vote against this motion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How exactly do you propose making disused RAF bases commercially viable?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Upon consulting with a friend who is very knowledgable on all matters of transport I've chosen to vote against this motion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Bar a large surge i thank you all and will prepare my alternative bill forthwith.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Ayes to the right: 14
    Noes to the left: 28
    Abstain: 6

    The Noes have it! The Noes have it. Unlock.
    Turnout: 96%
 
 
 
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: May 23, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.