A Bill to Improve the Infrastructure of Large Airports
Debate Rounds (3)
1 : A Large Airport is defined as an airport that
2 : handles Twenty Five Thousand or more passengers per day and
3 : has a customs office.
4 : Infrastructure improvements are defined as:
5 : a. Re-pavement of Controlled Aircraft Movement Areas
6 : b. Updates of computer assisted landing systems
7 : c. Updates of navigation systems
8 : d. Improvement of runway run-off areas
9 : e. and updates to airport lighting systems.
10 : A total of 10 Billion dollars will be put towards the
11 : completion of this program with the option of an additional
12 : 5 Billion Dollars with approval of the Congress.
13 : This program will be overseen by the Federal Aviation
14 : Administration.
15 : This legislation will take effect immediately upon passage.
16 : All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby null
17 : and void.
Why should we invest in airports? Is it because of safety? If that's the case the decision should be made on a marginal improvement rate basis, that is, compare the number of fatalities due to insufficient airport safety we have now to what we could have after the improvements, then divide the cost of improvements by that difference and get a dollar vs. safety improvement ratio. Than compare this to the same ratio for other transportation systems (highway, train, etc.) Without going too deep, and admitting I don't have a detailed statistic in hand, it seems that aviation would offer a very low safety improvement against a brutally high cost. In plain English, a waste of money. I'm pretty sure highway transportation has a much higher potential for lowering significant fatality figures, so even if the cost is not cheap the improvement ratio should be much better.
So if safety is not the main driver, could there be a good reason to increase air traffic? While Americans keep a high geographic mobility (we move anywhere for a better job, a romantic relationship or any other reason), personal travel is on the decline. If our kids move out of state, we might visit with them for Thanksgiving or Christmas, but frequent visits are becoming a thing of the past. Air travel is kept alive by business. And a potential increase of business travel is quite impossible to justify -as teleconferencing becomes more and more common, the need to travel for meetings, conferences and the like is less and less justifiable. Of course there is still need for physical work (you can't fix equipment via GoToMeeting) but the overall trend should be for business travel to diminish.
The response to air safety is mostly emotional. Every time there is a big accident it makes headlines, media and people ask for more safety and money is thrown -often for meaningless purposes. But on a rational basis, not only air travel should not receive fresh money, it should be left to decline to a lower level, where it already is for other, more sensible countries where people only fly if they have a really good reason.
Senator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really have good arguments and he also quit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.