Forum Topic

Heathrow CEO Urges Starmer to Back Third Runway

If Starmer were to allow this, he will go down in history as our worst Prime Minister in modern times.Accommodating Heathrow expansion would require a massive investment of taxpayers' money in infrastructure at a time when we cannot afford anything like the level of funding needed to prevent our public services from collapsing.  Whatever the budget, the lesson from HS2 and major projects before, is that it will be four or five times higher.  Heathrow is a hub.  Which means much of the traffic is in transit.  The only beneficiaries will be the airport's foreign owners while the taxpayer foots the bill for generations to come.  Can it be hoped that this weak Prime Minister will take a holistic view in deciding that the nation has far more pressing needs?      

Ian Armstrong ● 23d44 Comments

You are spot on about Heathrow freight. It cannot go through the tunnel as new markets will not be in the EU. Heathrow must expand.

Nicholas Beard ● 4h

The 2019 consultation had the new northwest runway at 3500m which is a shade shorter than the existing ones (3,902 and 3658m according to google). But I don't remember hearing it would limit larger planes or prevent night flights.[I think those restrictions might have applied to the earlier 2007 expansion plan which proposed a 2200m third runway]

Tim Henderson ● 18h

Am I right in assuming the third runway would be to the north and go directly over the northern part of Chiswick but would be shorter than the existing ones and therefore wouldn't cater to larger planes or night flights?

Anita Blake ● 1d

The Euston section of HS2 will absorb most of the remaining skilled construction workforce. Other economies in the world would manage this issue by having a large South Asia construction workforce basically confined to compounds while the work was being carried out. I'm not sure our legal or ethical framework would allow us to do this. Labour might feel they have to wait a few years and then make expansion a manifesto commitment at the next election knowing that the Tories and Reform would probably not be able to pledge to stop it.

Andrew OSullivan ● 5d

Labour having spurned the EU's offer of Free Movement for the under 30s which seemed like a win win for everyone, any prospect of improved trading arrangements with Europe boosting economic growth must be close to zero.The indications seem to be growing that some sort of announcement is coming although it may not be the green light that Heathrow wants. Labour's growth plan is housing led and they may feel that the current shortage of construction workers means they wouldn't get close to targets if the airport project was providing competition. If only we had some sort of arrangement with neighbouring countries in which people with key skills could easily come and work here.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 6d

YepI dont think night flights is even worth mentioning.Third runway reduces polution,quite simple if you understand how operations by NATS and ground work.Third runway does bring in more effected areas for overhead operations to a point and i say to a point as we use both runways in peak times to land while holding and slotting in departures.

Julian Pavey ● 7d

Even JFK/La Guardia/Logan have a strict night movement curfew, far more stringent than LHR.

N V Brooks ● 7d

A third runway infact reduces emisions based on landing at heathrow and the holding lines to take off.A third runway allows operations to be faster and efficient to allow more flights. You only have so many stands for planes so you cant add more,you just have turnaround much quickerBovingdon,Biggin Hill,Lambourne and Ockham are holding areas for landing. At at peak times a plane can fly around in a oval in these holding areas 3-5 times in a stacking pattern at various heights which can add atleast an extra 15 mins if not more before to landing.At busy times the holding areas will hold around 7 planes at a time and circle in that oval pattern for atleast 1-2 times minimum before being in the ILS.A third runway i would say takes away any idea of night flights,not that i think night flights would ever comes around

Julian Pavey ● 8d

While you can quibble about some people benefitting more from growth than others, the pain of no growth will hit the most vulnerable hardest. As a nation we are highly indebted, have an aging population which will bring further costs in terms of pensions and health service funding, an increasing amount of sickness and people opting out of the workforce and have hamstrung our economy by leaving the EU.  If we want to maintain or improve public services and keep a lid on our national debt then there is absolutely no alternative to growing the productive sectors of the economy. If you are looking to expand trade with global markets to spur growth you can't then say you won't grow the principle means of transporting those goods.

Andrew OSullivan ● 8d

Continued ‘Growth’ is a questionable concept, relying on ever-greater consumption of raw materials and energy, with associated environmental impacts. There’s also the question of who benefits from ‘growth’ and if those benefits remain with big business rather than percolating down to the masses.

Peter Evans ● 9d

How do I know that? As mentioned previously, the number of night flights is already limited and there is no reason those limits couldn't remain in place if a third runway is built or no reason they couldn't be increased if it wasn't. As for pollution, that is an argument that could be used against any sort of investment including housing. A bigger economy means more emissions but there isn't really any other option but growth for us with our present state of borrowing. I'd be quite happy to see Heathrow being ruled out totally, as long as there was a plan in place to get economic growth on track which, in the present circumstance, could only be a prompt rejoining of the Single Market.

Andrew OSullivan ● 9d

You know that an increase in night flights, as well as pollution, is inevitable should a third runway go ahead.

Claire Moran ● 13d

There is no reason to increase the number of night flights because of the addition of a third runway. They are separately regulated and you could argue pressure to increase them will grown if the airport doesn't expand.As for the cheap flights argument, this hardly applies to Heathrow which doesn't handle many package holiday or city break flights and those that they do are usually considerably more expensive.The economy needs to grow if we want to start paying back national debt and maintaining services and that can only really be done by increased trade. This leaves a choice between rebuilding commerce with our near neighbours i.e. rejoin the Single Market, or boost the sales of our enterprises globally which means expanding Heathrow. Take your pick.

Andrew OSullivan ● 13d

“ addition of a third runway is a very bad thing.”Of course it is. It’s unnecessary. People are flying far too much. It’s far too cheap to fly these days.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

If you care about the health and wellbeing of thousands of people who will be sleep deprived with associated family and work and medical consequences, as well as adding much more pollution to the air we breathe, the addition of a third runway is a very bad thing.

Claire Moran ● 15d

"Flying 4 or 5 times a year for holidays and weekend breaks also isn’t necessary and it’s far too cheap" Stats show brits take on average 1 flight a year for leisure They mostly save up for that one break and paying a year in advance on a monthly basis for a holiday is now the most popular way of paying for that one holiday

Julian Pavey ● 15d

Well said Keith, he's losing it completely.

David Burke ● 15d

Someone stop him,please.

Keith Iddon ● 15d

Flying isn’t always necessary. Especially since Covid proved that many people don’t even have to go into the office - people can conduct business on Zoom calls etc. I have travelled a lot on business but in hindsight I can honestly say that it wasn’t necessary. It was a jolly and ‘excuse’ to travel the world. Flying 4 or 5 times a year for holidays and weekend breaks also isn’t necessary and it’s far too cheap. It’s very pleasing that many cities in the world are begging tourists (especially Brits) not to come and pollute their cities. Flying should be taxed heavily and made unaffordable for most.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

France has banned a lot of internal flights, however they have TGV. We don't many High Speed lines, HS2 partially cancelled, so flying is necessary.

Nicholas Beard ● 15d

I do indeed walk and cycle. Tomorrow we’re going to Broadstairs and, although much, much more expensive than driving, we are going by train. “ The total carbon impact of a single flight is so high that avoiding just one trip can be equivalent to going (gasoline) car-free for a year.”This government should be making flying as inconvenient, uncomfortable and expensive as possible so that people are discouraged from flying. They shouldn’t be wanting to expand airports. Flying is far too cheap.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

Thanks Steve, I thought that was likely to be what you meant.Now, for my follow up question … you seem to advocate and encourage the idea people driving from a to b (where possible) in preference to other modes of transport e.g. buses, walking or cycling.But isn’t driving yourself in a car worse for the environment than the other options of buses, walking or cycling?

Andrew Jones ● 15d

If their decision is bad for the environment and bad for the greater good and wellbeing of people, it is obviously a bad decision and a wrong decision so I would question their motives.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

Heathow i can tell you are not just needing anither runway but airlines are crying out for slots that are not available,which means possibly another terminal.But Capacity  is constrained mostly by runway capacity and air traffic movement limits. The house is chocker block at LHR. Latest "Air New Zealand Request to Operate World's Longest Flight Denied by London Heathrow. Air New Zealand Seeks to Restore Auckland to London Flights But Faces Slot Shortage at London Heathrow" "Heathrow is very slot-constrained, with more airlines requesting slots than can be accommodated. Air New Zealand applied for a daily slot at Heathrow but was denied. However, they were granted daily slots at London Gatwick Airport for summer 2025" "Air New Zealand could try to buy a slot from another airline at Heathrow, but this would be very expensive" They are looking at ones options.

Julian Pavey ● 15d

"Politicians will do what they have to do to maintain their seats even if their decision is bad for the environment and the greater good and wellbeing of people."I'm reading mixed messages from you Steve - on balance, is a politician supporting the expansion of Heathrow a good thing overall, or a bad thing overall?

Andrew Jones ● 15d

“ it will provide an economic boost, then that seems a justifiable stance.”Of course it’s all about money, money, money. Everyone who wants Heathrow expansion is in it ONLY for the money and they will be sure to lobby / bribe politicians as appropriate. Politicians will do what they have to do to maintain their seats even if their decision is bad for the environment and the greater good and wellbeing of people. Money, money, money. Greed, greed, greed.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

John McDonnell has has the Labour Whip suspended not removed and he is due to be reinstated next month.If Seema Malhotra supports airport expansion on the grounds that she represents a deprived community and it will provide an economic boost, then that seems a justifiable stance. What evidence, apart from your own prejudices, do you have that there are a significant proportion of illegal immigrants in the Feltham and Heston constituency?

Mark Evans ● 16d

The Labour Whip was already removed from John McDonnell when he voted to end the two child benefits payment limit. He currently sits as an independent. Cadbury and the Feltham MP, whatever her name is, (isn’t she already a minister of some sort? ) would support a third runway because it would bring employment to areas which are deprived and populated with illegal immigrants and people on benefits.

Steve Taylor ● 18d

I'm pretty sure John McDonnell would resign the Labour whip if  the Third Runway was proceeded with and probably be re-elected as an independent.Maybe it is just coincidence but neither Andy Slaughter or Ruth Cadbury have been given cabinet positions but head up select committees from which they wouldn't have to resign if they rebelled on a Heathrow vote.

Mark Evans ● 18d

The Third Runway would probably been under construction by now if we haven't had the pandemic. It was a pre-condition of making some sort of success out of Brexit. Starmer now needs to pick between two potentially unpopular choices — either seek to revive trade with the EU or go for global Britain. Perhaps the reason for not going for the first option is that it would necessarily involve some sort of shift back towards Freedom of Movement. Given that we have seen an explosion of immigration since getting rid of it, the British electorate probably now have a more nuanced understanding of what it actually is and won't fall for the falsehoods of 2016 again. Labour might feel reviving Heathrow is the easier option as they aren't likely to lose many seats and, even if they do, John McDonnell might be one of them.

Andrew OSullivan ● 19d

One key point from Keir Starmer's speech last night is the change of tone on economic growth. The original pledge of 'fastest sustained growth in the G7' looks unachievable even at this stage and even if it was, Biden achieved this and it didn't do his party any good. A focus on real disposable income growth is welcome but it has to come from somewhere and that can only be the productive sectors of the economy.The shelving of the growth pledge must in part be down to a greater understanding of the economic damage that has been done by Brexit and the slow puncture affect it has on growth. I still can't understand why Labour doesn't commit to a Customs Union or Single Market return but they are clearly not prepared to consider this.This means that new markets must be developed and with 30% of freight exports going out through Heathrow and capacity constraints limiting further growth in key industries, expanding this airport seems to be a necessary condition for achieving any sort of sustained expansion of the economy.

Francis Rowe ● 20d

Not optimistic with Heidi Alexander now in charge of transport. At least her predecessor was anti a R3.  Looks like we may have to fight the good fight all over again.

Claire Moran ● 22d

I can see the argument that an expanded Heathrow might be needed to encourage economic growth but I don't understand why the government would have to subsidise this - how much taxpayers' money are we talking about?

Felicity Caborn ● 22d

M4 north of Heathrow even...!

Alex Cavell ● 23d

They're planning to build it over an already congested section of the M25, so that road would come to an absolute standstill over the many years it would inevitably take to build a tunnel.Not to mention the fact that the M4 south of Heathrow is already limited to 60 mph due to "air quality", so it would seem somewhat contradictory to build an extra runway.

Alex Cavell ● 23d

Devaluation of the pound in your pocket.

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

Homosexual law reform

David Burke ● 23d

Harold Wilson? Passed several important pieces of legislation on his watch : Abolition of capital punishmentHomosexual reformRelaxation of birth control and abortion lawsLastly keeping the UK out of the Vietnam war despite LBJ's requests.

David Burke ● 23d

Heathrow can have their third runway if they fully fund it without a single penny from the public purse. In addition, £10 billion or so to improve public transport infrastructure should cover it. Can't/won't pay = no runway.

N V Brooks ● 23d

I would say its a case of airlines not flying to destinations from destination that causes an airport to become a hub rather than distance.And its not so much the aircarft but the engines and the fuel.Its more better to fly somewhere with less fuel and more weight than to fly fully loaded in fuel but less weight in say less cargo etc.More passengers,more cargo and less fuel is more better for the pocket.

Julian Pavey ● 23d

I guess you are too young to remember Harold Wilson.

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

I agree - we live by the river and the noise of the aeroplanes that already fly over - coupled with the helicopters since Prince William moved to Windsor is terrible especially in the summer when the windows are open

Joy Skinner ● 23d

In the occasional  aeronautical news feeds I get.Some are saying that the new aircraft being built will fly much longer distances hence not needing to use hub airports as much. I really hope this is true as I am against Heathrow expansion.

Paul Jennings ● 23d

I don’t think anyone will ever beat Truss as worst Prime Minister EVER, but I take  your point.

Steve Taylor ● 23d