Airport expansions

[Magdalia]

It’s hard to imagine a runway - a two mile long slab of tarmac - is much harder to design and build than a motorway.

I highly doubt a new runway is enough to make a meaningful impact on headline statistics

If it was just about laying a 2 mile long strip of tarmac then I wouldn't be worried, but it isn't.

The comparison with a motorway is apt because a Heathrow third runway is likely to require a significant rebuild of the A4 and the M25. Previous proposals have also included a new terminal.

A 2009 estimate given to the House of Commons said that construction of a third runway at Heathrow would create 60000 jobs. But that was in an era when the labour market was not as tight and free movement in the EU meant that the project could draw on an EU wide workforce. The labour market is much less able to withstand 60000 people working on a single project now.

 

[JamesT]

A 2009 estimate given to the House of Commons said that construction of a third runway at Heathrow would create 60000 jobs. But that was in an era when the labour market was not as tight and free movement in the EU meant that the project could draw on an EU wide workforce. The labour market is much less able to withstand 60000 people working on a single project now.

This I find decidedly odd. We've had historically massive net immigration over the last few years. How can the labour market be tight? Unless we're somehow importing the economically inactive?

 

[Magdalia]

This I find decidedly odd. We've had historically massive net immigration over the last few years. How can the labour market be tight? Unless we're somehow importing the economically inactive?

Part of it is demography, the UK baby boom is much later than in the USA, running roughly 1955-73. Those people are retiring and leaving the workforce. The UK is now entering a period where the ratio of people of working age to people retired is going to get worse and quickly. It is a particularly critical issue in the construction industry, because lots of men from that generation entered the construction industry when they left school and are now coming up to retirement.

Part of it is brexit, and no longer having free movement of people in the EU.

And part of it is people of working age being economically inactive. A particular issue in the UK is the large number of young people not working for health reasons.

 

[renegademaster]

Unless we're somehow importing the economically inactive?

We are, asylum seekers +students+ dependents, nether who are allowed to work or are restricted , are the majority of migrants , cut that down and theirs plenty of room for builders and other shortage occupations without raising net migration

Heathrow doesn't have unlimited funds, naturally the wage bill will prevent them for taking too much away from the rest of the work force. We are never going to get the growth necessary to pay for Labour's promised house building unless we actually start building infrastructure again and not appeasing nimbys and their post hoc excuses

 

[camflyer]

I have yet to see a convincing case that those issues cannot be addressed by making better use of existing capacity, without needing to build a new runway.

Neither have I seen a convincing case that resolving those airport capacity issues is more important and beneficial than building 1.5 million homes.

Heathrow have been making better use of existing capacity for years. That's why there are more A380s flying to Dubai and Doha and fewer regional UK services. If you think you could do better then drop Heathrow a note. They may have a job for you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Those against a third runaway also need to think more deeply about what doing nothing would mean.

Doing nothing would mean nothing. Heathrow isn’t bursting at the seams. Heathrow doesn’t require the additional capacity.

BA have always been lukewarm about Heathrow expansion as they’d primarily be the ones paying for it. And BA are “bursting at the seams” so much that they regularly fly 150-seat aircraft into Heathrow as they can’t fill anything bigger, even with the bargaintastic ex-EU fares.

The only people Heathrow expansion benefits is the Qatari and Saudi owners of Heathrow.

Actually the third runway will help in reducing the carbon emission. The amount of waiting times and wasted energy both in air and ground for the want of a run way is very high in Heathrow compared to any other airport in world.

Flying more aircraft actually reduces emissions. Are you sure?

 

[Magdalia]

Heathrow have been making better use of existing capacity for years. That's why there are more A380s flying to Dubai and Doha and fewer regional UK services. If you think you could do better then drop Heathrow a note. They may have a job for you.

You have it the wrong way round.

It is for Heathrow to demonstrate that they have reached the limit of doing things like your examples to make more use of existing capacity.

The clear evidence from this discussion is that there is still more that can be done to make better use of existing capacity, for example see here:

Heathrow isn’t bursting at the seams. Heathrow doesn’t require the additional capacity.

BA have always been lukewarm about Heathrow expansion as they’d primarily be the ones paying for it. And BA are “bursting at the seams” so much that they regularly fly 150-seat aircraft into Heathrow as they can’t fill anything bigger, even with the bargaintastic ex-EU fares.

 

[camflyer]

You have it the wrong way round.

It is for Heathrow to demonstrate that they have reached the limit of doing things like your examples to make more use of existing capacity.

I'm confused. So you want Heathrow to operate more/bigger planes and fly more passengers within existing capacity limits? Won't that lead to more noise, traffic congestion and pollution?

 

[Magdalia]

I'm confused. So you want Heathrow to operate more/bigger planes and fly more passengers within existing capacity limits? Won't that lead to more noise, traffic congestion and pollution?

Better use of existing capacity will have a much smaller impact on noise, traffic congestion and pollution than building a new runway with a big increase in the number of flights that would be facilitated by removing the strong incentives to use capacity efficiently.

But that's not what I'm discussing. I want Heathrow to concentrate on the flights that really need to be there for economic growth reasons. It isn't necessary to build a new runway to do that. It can be done through managing existing capacity.

And yes, fewer bigger planes.

 

[Joe Paxton]

At university I studied London airport expansion policy in the 1960s/1970s, especially the Roskill Commission.

Heath opting for Maplin Sands was cowardly not courageous. It was the most expensive option, and therefore very vulnerable when the economic situation worsened.

The courageous decision would have been to accept the Roskill Commission recommendation to site the new airport at Cublington. If that had happened we would now have a big airport:

• near to HS2
• near to East West Rail
• near to the West Coast Main Line
• near to the M1
• near to the freight distribution golden triangle
• accessible from both London and Birmingham

(My bolding.)

Interesting contribution, thanks.

 

[Skymonster]

Heathrow isn’t bursting at the seams. Heathrow doesn’t require the additional capacity.

No you’re right of course. Heathrow isn’t full. The commercial owners want to put down more concrete, build additional terminals, pay to relocate businesses and homes, for the fun of it. They want to spend multi-millions unnecessarily. Oh wait, maybe the owners are running it as a business and see an opportunity to make more - you know, because its nearly full (will be full soon) and they see an opportunity to increase their business.

Only in your fantasy world, where the only passengers allowed are those that originate or terminate in the UK are allowed go use the place, is Heathrow full. Meanwhile, in order to make some routes viable, connecting passengers are needed. Those pesky people fill the airport up, but unfortunately there aren’t enough UK passengers to make some services work.

Pre COVID Heathrow was full. That’s why slots were being traded for millions of pounds (I see to recall £60m was the record). COVID struck and some airlines and services disappeared. The owners of Heathrow backed off from the costly expansion because it wasn’t full. But now the demand is back, the airport is nearing capacity, and the line goes on upwards.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Youd need a lot more than that. At least two new rail links to central London*, and another round to (say) Cambridge and then onto EWR. And at least two Motorways.

*The LTS does not have capacity for the passenegrs this airport would generate.

I'd accept one more express rail link could do with being built, maybe a dual carriageway fast link towards Kent as well on top of what I previously proposed, but loads of high capacity roads are not the future of travel to airports built in this era.

So you want to forcibly cool/devastate the economy of west London and the Thames Valley by moving hundreds of thousands people and jobs to.a new town in Essex/Kent and yet think a third runway would be an "upheaval". If firms can "easily relocate" then the could just as easily move to Dublin or Amsterdam

If you convert LHR into a huge housing estate then where will everyone who lives there work since all of the jobs have moved away? Sounds like a massive sink estate in the making.

Actually the departure of Heathrow would provide a lot more space for business and residents to relocate away from the overcrowded parts of west London and the Thames Valley. You could even encourage a specialised very high value business cluster to develop on a part of the site, similar to the Docklands regeneration scheme, if you wanted.
The third runway would be an even bigger upheaval, mostly because it cuts rights through an existing populated area with a bridge over one of Britain's busiest and most heavily congested motorways.

Foulness Island has already been largely depopulated for use as a military firing range, and the toll road tunnel I mentioned can easily be built as a private concession without too much upheaval.
There's also an existing railway line with scope for capacity improvements that terminates nearby and could be used to carry local rail traffic, while an express tunneled railway is able to be built by a private concession again that has the power to set fares to cover construction costs and profit, if needed.

There's only some railway extensions that can be reasonably built to increase Heathrow connectivity, and very little that you can do with roads in the area.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oh wait, maybe the owners are running it as a business and see an opportunity to make more

Well yes, obviously.

Doesn’t mean Heathrow is full, or anywhere near it.

 

[Bald Rick]

That all takes time, time we haven't got.

In a situation where construction capacity is limited, government policy choices will determine what gets built and what doesn't. I don't know how many of the government's 1.5 million houses won't get built if Heathrow third runway goes ahead, but I'd hope that the economists in the Treasury and in the Office for Budget Responsibility would be thinking about it.

If it was just about laying a 2 mile long strip of tarmac then I wouldn't be worried, but it isn't.

The comparison with a motorway is apt because a Heathrow third runway is likely to require a significant rebuild of the A4 and the M25. Previous proposals have also included a new terminal.

@Magdalia I’m quoting you not to single you out but because you have most succinctly made the points about the work and constraints in the construction industry, especially civils.

There is, however, a very large civil engnieering construction job nearby that will be coming toward its conclusion at just the time that (assuming an average period of time for consents etc), Heathrow R3 will be due to start constrcuction.

I'd accept one more express rail link could do with being built, maybe a dual carriageway fast link towards Kent as well on top of what I previously proposed, but loads of high capacity roads are not the future of travel to airports built in this era.

I’m sorry that’s just not realsitic. Have a look at what has happened for Istanbul’s new airport, or for the new Western Sydney airport currently under construction.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Only in your fantasy world, where the only passengers allowed are those that originate or terminate in the UK are allowed go use the place, is Heathrow full

BA are flying 150-seat planes and selling seats on those planes off for buttons to connecting passengers.

But please do tell me more about how the place is full to bursting.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’m sorry that’s just not realsitic. Have a look at what has happened for Istanbul’s new airport, or for the new Western Sydney airport currently under construction.

Worth noting that those are countries where car travel to airports is especially dominant, and the opening of a new airport would be a perfect opportunity to change things.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the new Western Sydney airport

Another example of how more, bigger, now won’t actually contribute anything to the economy. It’ll make a few construction magnates rich but, beyond that, nah.

Badgerys Creek will make Montreal Mirabel look like Kai Tak.

Both are also, of course, examples of how it’s more complicated than “build it and they will come” when it comes to airports.

 

[camflyer]

And yes, fewer bigger planes.

Fewer, bigger, planes would mean that it would be only economical to serve destinations like JFK, Dubai and Doha. You can wave goodbye to links to the Isle of Man, the Scottish Highlands and Northern Ireland and many European routes..

 

[Bald Rick]

Worth noting that those are countries where car travel to airports is especially dominant, and the opening of a new airport would be a perfect opportunity to change things.

The point being both have decent rail links and motorways to them.

 

[weeklycommuter]

@Magdalia I’m quoting you not to single you out but because you have most succinctly made the points about the work and constraints in the construction industry, especially civils.
There is, however, a very large civil engnieering construction job nearby that will be coming toward its conclusion at just the time that (assuming an average period of time for consents etc), Heathrow R3 will be due to start constrcuction.

That will not be during the current Parliament which ends in 2029 and probably not the next Parliament either.

 

[renegademaster]

Well yes, obviously.

Doesn’t mean Heathrow is full, or anywhere near it.

How would you make extra money expanding an airport that isn't full?

 

[tomuk]

Worth noting that those are countries where car travel to airports is especially dominant, and the opening of a new airport would be a perfect opportunity to change things.

Maplin, Foulness, Thames Estuary are all in the wrong place. In the middle of nowhere miles from passengers. The Roskill Commission choice of Cublington\ RAF Wing \Calvert is far superior in terms of transport links both rail and road.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How would you make extra money expanding an airport that isn't full?

Landing fees are per movement, irrespective of how many people are on the flight? They can also offload the cost of the expansion on existing airlines through additional rises in landing and passenger handling fees.

And if there is a glut of extra slots then Heathrow will likely attract airlines away from the other London airports as the airlines do perceive Heathrow as having the most prestige. Pinching traffic from Gatwick to Heathrow is good for Heathrow’s Saudi and Qatari owners but, again, doesn’t demonstrate that Heathrow expansion is needed as a matter of national importance.

 

[renegademaster]

Pinching traffic from Gatwick to Heathrow is good for Heathrow’s Saudi and Qatari owners but, again, doesn’t demonstrate that Heathrow expansion is needed as a matter of national importance.

Pinching Gatwick Traffic through an expansion (which implies Heathrow was full or close to being so) would make connectivity much better. Putting the xenophobia against foreign ownership aside, like we don't have any investments abroad, it would be saying like merging all the London terminals into a London hbf wouldn't bring connectivity benefits

Additionally Gatwick is only really easier to get to from South of the river , and the ECML and MML. From Euston/Marylebone , Gatwick and Heathrow are about equal(but the WCML towns have good coach links from Heathrow); GAML and GWR Heathrow is a lot easier to get to. Anywhere by coach is much better connected from Heathrow.

 

[TravelDream]

Landing fees are per movement, irrespective of how many people are on the flight? They can also offload the cost of the expansion on existing airlines through additional rises in landing and passenger handling fees.

Landing fees are generally based on maximum take of weight/ mass of the aircraft.
Most airports also have a noise multiplier built in to the calculation too.

Passenger fees are obviously per passenger.

Pinching Gatwick Traffic through an expansion (which implies Heathrow was full or close to being so) would make connectivity much better. Putting the xenophobia against foreign ownership aside, like we don't have any investments abroad, it would be saying like merging all the London terminals into a London hbf wouldn't bring connectivity benefits

Gatwick is also planning a big expansion - though it's much cheaper and easier than Heathrow's and entirely privately funded.

I can't see LGW pasenger figures going down to be honest even with Heathrow having a third runway. London passenger growth is very decent and 2025 will likely see all airports above 2019 figures.

2024 figures have Heathrow serving 83.9 million passengers.
Gatwick's final figures aren't out yet, but in 2023 they served just over 40 million and based on summer figures, I'd expect the final number to be around 44 million.
Luton served 16.7 million.
Stansted served 29.8 million.
London City figures aren't out yet - but will probably be in the 4-5ish million range.
Southend served a couple of hundred thousand, though easyjet is opening a base this year.

For Heathrow and Stansted, they are record numbers. Luton served 18.2 million in 2019 and Gatwick 46.6 million in 2019 so are close, but not quite back to pre-Covid numbers.

That's a lot of passengers and very strong growth year-on-year with no sign of that growth abating. There's no reason why a three runway Heathrow serving around 100 million passengers a year would greatly affect the other airports.

The London airports serve such a wide area, it often makes sense to serve multiple airports to the same destination.
Emirates flies to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to/from Dubai.
Ryanair flies to Stansted, Gatwick and Luton to/from Dublin.
BA flies to Heathrow, Gatwick and City to/from Gatwick.

Take Emirates' example. They already fly to Heathrow six times a day. They can afford to buy slots, but think it makes more sense to add capacity to Gatwick (3 daily), and Stansted (twice daily) than fly even more to Heathrow.

Though your point on connectivity is totally right. A better connected UK is better for the UK. Even if it means BA might sell some seats from AMS-LHR-JFK cheaper than LHR-JFK because that's how the market worldwide works.

 

[Cross City]

As expected the third runway has (sensibly) been backed by the Chancellor.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Pinching Gatwick Traffic through an expansion (which implies Heathrow was full or close to being so) would make connectivity much better.

It's fair to say the slots at Heathrow are fully allocated. That is, of course, very different to saying that Heathrow is full and that those slots are allocated efficiently.

Take Emirates' example. They already fly to Heathrow six times a day. They can afford to buy slots, but think it makes more sense to add capacity to Gatwick (3 daily), and Stansted (twice daily) than fly even more to Heathrow.

So on the one hand you argue that Heathrow simply must expand to "improve connectivity" (whatever that means) and then on the other hand you argue that Gatwick and Stansted- neither of which are at capacity either- are perfectly attractive airports in their own right.

Add in to your argument that Heathrow is full to bursting even though BA, in particular, can only fill their 150-seat planes through price dumping, and it's clear that you are simply jumping on the same MUST HAVE SHINY SHINY bandwagon that our confused Chancellor has jumped upon.

I see the Chancellor has- as expected- been swayed by the idea of MUST HAVE SHINY SHINY and is quite content to destroy West London and destroy the environment in pursuit of the shiny shiny. Indeed our Chancellor, who couldn't remember her job title for her CV, is now seemingly taking huge pleasure in "making it harder to object to developments". I see all those donations to Reeves from FGS Group- a public relations company which has many construction and aviation companies as customers- has paid dividends. Trebles all round.

 

[Cross City]

even though BA, in particular, can only fill their 150-seat planes through price dumping

That's just not true though is it. BA's fares are comparable to, or higher than, the completion on the same/similar routes.

 

[Skymonster]

The market for Heathrow slots is heating up again, indicating its getting full or close to. There are already been more than 20 slot trades registered for the summer of 2025, some of which will have involved money (and airlines don‘t spend money unnecessarily). Slot sanctions (non-use, etc) are also virtually non-existent again now - another indicator that slots are in demand and being used. And a quick inquiry on capacity available at Heathrow for a random week in mid-July 2025 shows that at certain times of day the planned passenger load is around 300 passengers short of maximum capacity.

And if there is a glut of extra slots then Heathrow will…

But there isn’t a glut of Heathrow slots - you’re just making yourself look silly suggesting there is. Same week in mid-July: except on Saturday afternoon (when demand is traditionally lowest) and during the overnight period when the majority of aircraft movements are banned, most hours there are zero slots available this coming summer and the highest number is three (see image).

Landing fees are per movement, irrespective of how many people are on the flight? They can also offload the cost of the expansion on existing airlines through additional rises in landing and passenger handling fees.

Heathrow’s fees are capped by the CAA (otherwise known as the government). This year the maximum it can charge is pretty much unchanged from last year.

 

[londonbridge]

So, the Chancellor backs the new runway, yet she was apparently opposed to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport which is near her own constituency…..