Turn on thread page Beta

B1069 – Airports Bill 2016 watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B1069 – Airports Bill 2016, TSR Government
    A

    B I L L
    TO

    Allow expansion of metropolitan airports and attain the economic benefits that accrue with it.

    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 Airport Expansion
    Airports wishing to expand within the counties of Greater London, Hampshire, Bristol, Nottinghamshire, West Midlands, South and West Yorkshire, Greatr Manchester, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear will be permitted to construct new runways and terminals.

    2 Constraints on development
    (1) Aforementioned construction requires no direct subsidy or guarantee in the form of an unfunded liability from the state.
    (2) CAA and ICAO requirements must be upheld.
    (3) Where compulsory purchase is required, property in the form of land, commercial and residential dwellings will be purchased at 105% of current market value subject to an independent assessment of said value.
    (4) Any development must include rail provision to the largest city within said counties in order to reduce road traffic.

    3 Inclusion
    For the purposes of this Act, Gatwick International Airport is granted inclusion meaning that expansion is permitted subjected to compliance with constraints.

    4 Environmental Impact
    In order to mute the environmental impact of greater airport capacity, airports will be prohibited from allowing air traffic greater than 30 years of age from using their facilities on a commercial basis.

    3 Short title and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Airports Act 2016.
    (2) This Act extends to England.

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Currently some of the UK’s largest airports are at or near full capacity with both Heathrow and Gatick notably the busiest single and dual international airports in the world despite surging passenger growth.

    The expansiion of major international airports involves significant infrastructure development and as a result this bill will generate tens of thousands of jobs up and down the supply chain at no cost to the taxpayer.

    Although Gatwick is technically located outside of Greater London, as the airport currently in largest need of expansion and a credible plan to expand free of state assistance (the Heathrow plan currently requires taxpayer subsidies) it was judged that inclusion of Gatwick would be adequately benefitical to both the airport and the wider economy.

    By imposing restrictions on old aircraft this act provides an incentive for operators to purchase newer, more fuel efficient and less noisy aircraft which provides benefits for all stakeholders involved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, I don't think a lot of airports will expand but they should be allowed to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I support the aims of this bill but the Liberal influence on this bill is laughable with clauses that do not make sense, and clauses which do not mean anything, for instance, needing to abide by CAA requirements is already a thing, that is why the CAA exists. Section 4 is rubbish, it means a 747-400 built in 1989 will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow in 2019, but an identical aircraft using identical engines, and having identical environmental performance, which was built in 1999, will be allowed to fly from Heathrow for ten years longer; that is absurd.
    • Section Leader
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Aye
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I support the aims of this bill but the Liberal influence on this bill is laughable with clauses that do not make sense, and clauses which do not mean anything, for instance, needing to abide by CAA requirements is already a thing, that is why the CAA exists. Section 4 is rubbish, it means a 747-400 built in 1989 will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow in 2019, but an identical aircraft using identical engines, and having identical environmental performance, which was built in 1999, will be allowed to fly from Heathrow for ten years longer; that is absurd.
    The bill was created by Rakas and the Liberals first saw it yesterday. They did not ask for any amendments…
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Greatr Manchester
    Aye.

    Great spelling by the way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The bill was created by Rakas and the Liberals first saw it yesterday. They did not ask for any amendments…
    I am surprised, I thought Rakas21 would see it is faulty logic saying two identical planes with identical environmental performance will be banned from using Europe's busiest airport in three years' time if the older of the two identical planes is not replaced quickly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye - a needed bill.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    Aye - a needed bill.
    Why are you ignoring a clear fault in this bill which will cause airlines to abandon Britain as a hub?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    nay, i agree with the general point, but i don’t trust private companies to get the job done.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    aYE
    aye
    Aye
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    nay, i agree with the general point, but i don’t trust private companies to get the job done.
    Because they're failing so badly now...oh, wait, that's because politics is necessarily involved.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I support allowing airports to expand but I don't support compulsory purchase.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, if anywhere should be expanded it should not be Heathrow- Gatwick or Stansted first.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This is a sensible idea and shifts the main burden of providing key infrastructure from the state to the private sector, something which I'm very keen to see. It is also refreshing to see consideration given to airport provision in the wider UK rather than just the South East.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RomanBowling33)
    I support allowing airports to expand but I don't support compulsory purchase.
    It's one or the other, can't have both.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Nay, if anywhere should be expanded it should not be Heathrow- Gatwick or Stansted first.
    This always them to expand, also why shouldn't Heathrow be expanded, it is the worlds busiest airport with only 2 runways.

    Heathrow has more passengers travelling through it than Aberdeen, Bournemouth, Gatwick, Leeds Bradford, Newcastle, and stanstead combined, when one airport is matching 6 other international airports and increasing the amount of passengers and aircraft movements it might be a good time to expand it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am surprised, I thought Rakas21 would see it is faulty logic saying two identical planes with identical environmental performance will be banned from using Europe's busiest airport in three years' time if the older of the two identical planes is not replaced quickly.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because they're failing so badly now...oh, wait, that's because politics is necessarily involved.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Airports should be owned by the general public, because that’s who they serve.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Airports should be owned by the general public, because that’s who they serve.
    so does PC world..
 
 
 
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

1,060

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.