For nearly 20 years, there has been talk of London Heathrow Airport (LHR) getting a third runway. It’s recommended by the government. Then it’s approved. Then it’s blocked by a court. Then it’s approved again. Then it’s blocked again.
Well, there’s now a new development, as there’s a renewed push for Heathrow to get a third runway. Will it actually happen, though? Well…
In this post:
The debate over a third runway at Heathrow Airport
Heathrow is one of the world’s biggest airports, and it served nearly 84 million passengers in 2024. The catch is that the airport is heavily capacity constrained, as it only has two runways. Currently the airport allows up to 480,000 aircraft movements per year.
In order to operate from the airport, airlines need slots, and those slots are incredibly valuable. Famously, in 2016, Oman Air paid a record $75 million for a pair of slots at the airport, to be able to fly there.
The only practical way Heathrow can significantly expand capacity is with the construction of a third runway. As you’d expect, this is controversial.
The argument in favor of a third runway is pretty simple — it would help fuel economic growth, by allowing more nonstop service between Heathrow and other destinations. Air connectivity fuels economic growth. Period. However, the arguments against it are numerous:
- It would be costly, and once construction starts, it would take at least a decade to complete
- Roughly 1,000 homes near the airport would need to be demolished, to make room for the airport
- Another runway won’t help the UK with its climate targets, since it will lead to increased emissions
- The London area has six different airports, and some have significant capacity available, so in many ways this is just about continuing to build a mega hub
While it was a quiet several years when it came to the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow, this is now being considered more seriously again. Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the UK’s finance minister, has today backed a third runway at Heathrow.
She has stated that it could create 100,000 jobs, and that “a third runway is badly needed,” and that the government “cannot duck the decision any longer.” As she went on to explain:
“I can confirm today that this government supports a third runway at Heathrow and is inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer. We will then take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement. This will ensure that the project is value for money and our clear expectation is that any associated service transport costs will be financed through private funding. It will ensure that a third runway is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate objectives.”
Interestingly, she has criticized previous governments for backing the third runway proposal without actually making progress, so she’s really setting herself up for a bit of a test here, by seeing if she can do better. Of course let me emphasize that any project like this would take at least a decade, so this wouldn’t open before 2035 at the very earliest.
My take on the prospect of a third runway at Heathrow
Should Heathrow have a third runway? I mean, yes, personally I think this seems like a reasonable proposal, and ultimately it’s important for a major market to have a large, competitive airport, with lots of nonstop connectivity.
That being said, do I think this will actually come to fruition? I think it’s unlikely, and that we’re going to see more of the same — proposals, recommendations, approvals, blocking by a court, etc.
Why? Well, a couple of reasons. First of all, infrastructure investments just aren’t very sexy for politicians. People are only in elected office for so long, and if you put a lot of effort into something that takes a decade or more to complete, you don’t really get political brownie points for that, in the same way as something that has more instant gratification.
The other issue is just all the parties that are at odds with one another, and how often public sentiment shifts based on who’s in office. The third runway is opposed by many politicians, environmentalists, those living near the airport, and even many airline executives. For example, since British Airways is the single biggest airline at Heathrow, the airline opposes this expansion, since it would increase competition.
Even if we see a proposal now, and then a tentative approval, you know there’s going to be endless litigation, and a judge somewhere along the way who blocks something. Then if there’s a change in political vibes, the project will be scrapped as fast as it started. At least that’s my take…
Bottom line
There’s once again talk of Heathrow Airport getting a third runway, as the current government has expressed strong support for the concept. This is a debate that has been going on for nearly 20 years, so this is hardly novel. In the past we’ve seen this concept proposed and even approved, only to then be blocked by courts.
Only time will tell if things go differently this time. I do think a third runway for Heathrow makes sense, though I also think that actually seeing this all the way through is an uphill battle.
What do you make of the prospects of Heathrow getting a third runway?
Would be sad to lose the 17th century pub in Longford village. A quick walk from the Premier Inn Terminal 5 / Thistle and so much nicer than their own bars, plus you get to commune with airport employees in a historic setting.
I agree with those that say there are other ways to achieve growth. Heathrow isn't convenient for anyone not in West London. Expand the other London airports and make it easier to...
Would be sad to lose the 17th century pub in Longford village. A quick walk from the Premier Inn Terminal 5 / Thistle and so much nicer than their own bars, plus you get to commune with airport employees in a historic setting.
I agree with those that say there are other ways to achieve growth. Heathrow isn't convenient for anyone not in West London. Expand the other London airports and make it easier to fly overseas from major other UK airports to not constrain London.
Let's be honest a hub only works by having both long haul and short haul connectivity + OD demand. This way all markets are funneled in one place. The failure of NRT in Tokyo is a blatant example being too distant from the city center while lacking onward connectivity what it has in capacity vs HND.
There is value in the UK managing to be the gateway to Europe while being out of it,...
Let's be honest a hub only works by having both long haul and short haul connectivity + OD demand. This way all markets are funneled in one place. The failure of NRT in Tokyo is a blatant example being too distant from the city center while lacking onward connectivity what it has in capacity vs HND.
There is value in the UK managing to be the gateway to Europe while being out of it, leveraging London's attractivity, and be a strategic platform to connect major Indian cities to a granular number of US and Canadian cities (which ME3 struggle to do). But that requires 1 efficient hub with 3 runways (or 4 like CDG) and strategically located terminals.
The better package would be to add at least a runway each to LHR and GTW close LCY to scheduled flights, close LTN, STN and SEN altogether and improve national connectivity to the 3 remaining airports (express local trains for up to 2 hour journey and subsidized air service from the rest of the country).
Sell that as an overall infrastructure project. This will give an incentive to Virgin to develop as a full carrier increasing competition and business, LCCs will have space to grow in GTW and the lower fares from increased competition can fuel some added airport taxes esp. in LHR international connections to make it worthwhile long term to the British. The Brits are business savvy and the Nimbys don't weigh that much when you tally the votes, the issue is that people that are not at all disturbed by LHR expansion are against it because they feel it's all for London once again. The project is good, the package lacks some lubricant.
@Barbarella: "close LTN, STN and SEN altogether"
DON'T YOU DARE!! I use LHR and LGW specifically so that I don't have to share an airport with a billion Ryanair oiks! Those N / E London airports keep them out of my sight for a reason.
I wrote my politics degree thesis on a third runway and alternates to Heathrow- in 1973
I don't see the third runway as the optimum answer to the problem. The UK needs better connectivity between LHR and the UK train network (south, west and north) to release slots currently used by UK domestic flights, a second runway at Gatwick to provide extra capacity (note NZ is likely to recommence flying from LGW rather than LHR due to slots), better connectivity between LHR and LGW (Cross Rail to Thameslink with a change...
I don't see the third runway as the optimum answer to the problem. The UK needs better connectivity between LHR and the UK train network (south, west and north) to release slots currently used by UK domestic flights, a second runway at Gatwick to provide extra capacity (note NZ is likely to recommence flying from LGW rather than LHR due to slots), better connectivity between LHR and LGW (Cross Rail to Thameslink with a change at Farringdon is currently the fastest way), a review of LHR night time landing restrictions, and more A321LRs and XLRs flying from MAN, BHX, GLA, EDI!
The pent-up demand for a third runway is such that, upon having slots formally open, would exhaust 100% of the. Capacity right away. The temerity is that they need 2 runways today and, in another ten years (when the runway is finally competed), an additional one.
All of the other London airports have just one runway each. As they are privately owned enterprise, the concept of big giantess adding traffic, noise, and pollution prevail. If...
The pent-up demand for a third runway is such that, upon having slots formally open, would exhaust 100% of the. Capacity right away. The temerity is that they need 2 runways today and, in another ten years (when the runway is finally competed), an additional one.
All of the other London airports have just one runway each. As they are privately owned enterprise, the concept of big giantess adding traffic, noise, and pollution prevail. If they were government owned, there would be greater demand for not standing in the way of progress. So it looks nicer to add another airport (which happens to have a runway), than to build another runway. Each airport takes up a massive amount of urban space that would be better suited for other purposes.
This is the problem with Labor!
I am not sure this UK government could build the simplest of Lego sets so this is so unlikely. I have a feeling this is just a distraction to make it look like the chancellor is doing something other than trashing the UK economy.
However, expanding Heathrow makes sense to me but is there not the potential to use nearby RAF Northolt as the third runway and lino it to Heathrow via a tunnel similar...
I am not sure this UK government could build the simplest of Lego sets so this is so unlikely. I have a feeling this is just a distraction to make it look like the chancellor is doing something other than trashing the UK economy.
However, expanding Heathrow makes sense to me but is there not the potential to use nearby RAF Northolt as the third runway and lino it to Heathrow via a tunnel similar to how T5 is linked.
I do like Heathrow and prefer it for changing (I live in the north of England) than either CDG (much improved over the years) or the ever worsening Schiphol (why do I always seem to land on THAT runway?)
You answered your own question: Northolt would mean planes would taxi for 20 mins like they do at Schiphol.
Only T4 is really a headache but if you decommission it or assign it to LCCs and build a new terminal between the current complex and the new runway it would be fine.
The climate nonsense needs to stop being used as a reason for it to not happen tho.
Also the area around heathrow is an absolute hole, knocking it all down would improve it tremendously.
I moved to Longford in 2022 so I could be closer to Heathrow. I love being able to leave my house and walk to Terminal 5. It only takes 15-20 minutes. But a THIRD RUNWAY?!! Are you crazy. Can't we just have a little peace and quiet? People from all over the world think they can just takeoff and land over my quiet little neighborhood whenever they want. I won't stand for it. I won't...
I moved to Longford in 2022 so I could be closer to Heathrow. I love being able to leave my house and walk to Terminal 5. It only takes 15-20 minutes. But a THIRD RUNWAY?!! Are you crazy. Can't we just have a little peace and quiet? People from all over the world think they can just takeoff and land over my quiet little neighborhood whenever they want. I won't stand for it. I won't stand for it. The third runway will cause me a negligible amount of additional noise pollution. Not in my back yard. Sorry! Fly out of Gatwick.
Let me get this straight, you can walk to T5 so everyone else now has to take a flying jump? If you move to Luton and use the airport there, the rest of the world could get on with making Heathrow worth using.
Build it big. Build it deep. And put in some good restaurants for once.
Yay...lets make the uk even more London-centric, when you still can't even get to LHR by rail from large parts of the country without heading into London and doubling back on yourself.
This is like building the second largest airport in the UK right next to the first, and it is going to get so much resistance (again), not least from the useless mayor, and the loony militant climate idiots (see: just stop oil),...
Yay...lets make the uk even more London-centric, when you still can't even get to LHR by rail from large parts of the country without heading into London and doubling back on yourself.
This is like building the second largest airport in the UK right next to the first, and it is going to get so much resistance (again), not least from the useless mayor, and the loony militant climate idiots (see: just stop oil), it is not going to happen. Again.
See you in another 20 years when it is still being argued about... and hey, there is always Boris Island to argue about again afterwards (which won't happen either).
But the United Kingdom IS London-centric, and has been for centuries. There's no escaping the primacy of the capital, and there's no escaping from the fact that Heathrow is the most convenient airport for the bulk of travelers arriving in the city.
Old Oak Common station is going to help with the doubling-back issue, at least…
Expanding Heathrow makes no sense. Gatwick is right there and is better suited for this.
Getting to Gatwick from anywhere besides South London, Surrey and Kent is a PITA.
Not really, very easy by train from anywhere in London which run 24hrs, 7 days a week. I live in North London and have no problems getting there.
Gatwick is a nasty cheapo airport tho.
It's not. It's a pretty decent airport and with another runway, I imagine that would mean redevelopment of the terminals too. Gatwick also needs a runway more as it's the busiest single runway airport in the world.
The government is supporting a second runway at Gatwick too. So this should put to bed all the arguments that expansion should be elsewhere. Airlines want to fly to Heathrow, full stop.
The longer you wait, the more difficult and expensive the task becomes. IMO, the gov't should make a last maximally concerted effort to get the third LHR runway built. If they fail, drop expansion of LHR and prioritize another airport with less opposition to expansion to replace LHR as the regional superhub...or even start with an entirely new airport removed from the population center but with a nearby rail line that can be upgraded to...
The longer you wait, the more difficult and expensive the task becomes. IMO, the gov't should make a last maximally concerted effort to get the third LHR runway built. If they fail, drop expansion of LHR and prioritize another airport with less opposition to expansion to replace LHR as the regional superhub...or even start with an entirely new airport removed from the population center but with a nearby rail line that can be upgraded to support high speed access to London. This endless cycle at LHR is madness.
"or even start with an entirely new airport removed from the population centre but with a nearby rail line that can be upgraded to support high speed access to London"
Is that you, Boris?
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :)
MF, your suggestion is not as outrageous as many might think and over the decades several alternatives have been suggested.
For example, FAB is requesting flight extension times and alternative aircraft types, etc. Some contend that there is scope for major expansion, however, no local small ‘c’ conservative party MP would dare to even think about supporting such a move. NIMBY’s rule the roost hereabouts.
Many do not believe that the south east...
MF, your suggestion is not as outrageous as many might think and over the decades several alternatives have been suggested.
For example, FAB is requesting flight extension times and alternative aircraft types, etc. Some contend that there is scope for major expansion, however, no local small ‘c’ conservative party MP would dare to even think about supporting such a move. NIMBY’s rule the roost hereabouts.
Many do not believe that the south east is suitable for much more air traffic expansion, loony Labour on the other hand want to be spiteful by imposing more and more south of London.
As long as The Pheasant stays I’m good with it!
IMHO it would be nice to have a third runway, how often do I find flights that are marked with the "find your own freaking way from LCY to LHR", so annoying.
Ugh... It's like a Narita/Haneda transfer, only considerably more irritating.
Personally, I think that the idea floated here regarding a more modest 3rd runway is probably the most logical and best way to "split the baby" here. That said, one issue not really discussed here - that could doom this proposal politically - is the current housing crisis in the UK....particularly acute in Greater London. Accommodations are very limited and what is available is very expensive. The idea of taking 1,000 dwellings out of the...
Personally, I think that the idea floated here regarding a more modest 3rd runway is probably the most logical and best way to "split the baby" here. That said, one issue not really discussed here - that could doom this proposal politically - is the current housing crisis in the UK....particularly acute in Greater London. Accommodations are very limited and what is available is very expensive. The idea of taking 1,000 dwellings out of the market is bound to create outrage right now, even if there are mitigation plans already drawn up.
And this is in addition to the usual NIMBY crap that makes such projects challenging to begin with.
What you could do that wouldn't have quite the impact is if you put a rail chord to the southwest of the airport for people from Guildford, Southampton even Bournemouth. This in turn means you could get rid of the car parks to the north and convert them into a 320/737 length runway and use a back loop for taxiing.
This is part of the proposed Heathrow Southern Railway project, with the goal to connect with the SWR at Woking. Agreed that it would be huge for rail access from the SW and should be contingent on any third runway scheme.
With or without the railway link, the plan is to move all the parking off site to multi story constructions and use electric vehicles to bring people to the terminals. This was to minimise concerns from local authorities concerned about an increase in road traffic locally.
The thing is, they don't need to build a full length 3rd runway, if they built a smaller runway that just handles smaller planes such as 320's and 737's it would free up so much capacity for the other runways and wouldn't require such a vast mega project.
Do that, add in another runway at Stansted along with improved fast connections into central London and you can get the same result for 1/3 of the price.
A short runway for narrowbodies doesn't increase available slots for widebodies from the ME. 1/4 of Heathrow is owned by Qatar Corp.
That's 1970s thinking. Today's widebodies don't use any more runway for their average segment length than narrowbodies do.
787 can easily do 8hrs off of 2000m/6550ft, which is more than enough for all of the Middle East, and even northern India.
Restrict the runway more than that, and you start penalizing the...
That's 1970s thinking. Today's widebodies don't use any more runway for their average segment length than narrowbodies do.
787 can easily do 8hrs off of 2000m/6550ft, which is more than enough for all of the Middle East, and even northern India.
Restrict the runway more than that, and you start penalizing the 739s/A321s out there, making it just as difficult for all but the most modern narrowbodies (A220s) or high-powered inefficient birds (A319s/73Gs/7M7s)
We'll have GTA 6 before LHR's 3rd runway groundbreaking
Or the next Game of Thrones book.
youll have all of them before that absolute embarrasment that is HS2 is finished.
Just so ya know, GTA 6 is due to be released September of this year..... ;)
https://www.indy100.com/gaming/gta-6-release-date-trailer-leaks-rumours-map-news-2671019224
Another factor standing in the way is that BA strongly oppose the third runway as it would increase competition at the airport with more carriers allowing more flights.
Absolutely, BA an EU centric conglomerate.
This is the absolute number one reason for having a third runway.
Anything that decreases BAs monopoly would be great because it would force them to not be such a crap airline.
Also, the third runway would run through the Harmondsworth/West Drayton area, where BA's Waterside headquarters is. Considering it was just opened in the late 90s, it doesn't serve their interests to flatten the building and set up shop elsewhere (it's a beautiful building, by the way. Been there personally).
They've waited about 8 years too long to try and get this approved.
It should have been a post-Brexit boom to put the UK "back on the map" but now, with sustainability so much more important than a decade ago, it will never happen.
Part of the opposition is that the runway would not only displace many homes but also destroy a historic town with many old buildings and that alarms many preservationists and historians. I would agree with the article that this probably is not going to happen.
Meh, almost all of those 1000 homes were bought up by speculators a decade ago when the runway was looking like gaining traction, displacing the families who already lived there. Most of those houses are now rented out to workers from the London area who commute into the City / airport. Now those owners are just waiting for Heathrow Inc to come to along with a chequebook.
The older I get, the more I dislike this idea that everything should be preserved for future generations. Sure there's old buildings and a "historic" town, but other than just being old, what's special about any of it? What differentiates it from the thousands of other historic towns and millions of old buildings in the country? This is the line of thinking that has San Francisco preserving parking lots and stick-built Sears catalog homes from the 1930s.
What historic town? Hounslow and the area around heathrow is a horrid area, like an absolute dump of a place. Its long since been taken over by ppl who have no interest in keeping the area looking nice.
It's not Hounslow - it's Harmondsworth that would be flattened to make way for the third runway. Plus it's likely that BA's HQ at Waterside would also need to be flattened.
If the massive infrastructure project HS2 which was railroaded through despite judicial reviews, green campaigners setting up tent city’s and what seems to be an open chequebook on its spiralling costs is anything to go by then if the government wants something then it will happen especially if the taxpayer on the proposed LHR expansion is not liable as this will be paid for by private investment, coupled with a new bill she also mentioned...
If the massive infrastructure project HS2 which was railroaded through despite judicial reviews, green campaigners setting up tent city’s and what seems to be an open chequebook on its spiralling costs is anything to go by then if the government wants something then it will happen especially if the taxpayer on the proposed LHR expansion is not liable as this will be paid for by private investment, coupled with a new bill she also mentioned in her speech to effectively stop blocks and judges from stifling developments it will move forward but at what pace who knows.
Atlanta will get a 6th and 7th runway before Heathrow gets a 3rd runway.
@Ben
"Even if we see a proposal now, and then a tentative approval, you know there’s going to be endless litigation, and a judge somewhere along the way who blocks something. Then if there’s a change in political vibes, the project will be scrapped as fast as it started. At least that’s my take…"
This is spot on Ben. I couldn't agree more.
Flip flip Labor. When the other mob were in power, Labor harped on about the rights of newts, voles and red-legged frogs not to be disturbed by an expanded airport. Now that the newts, voles and frogs have cast their votes, Labor is free to ignore them again. Typical Labor.
There have been 2 Labour and 2 Conservative governments over the last 30 years and only 2 Large Infrastructure Projects completed in that time: Channel Tunnel & Crossrail. Shameful.
Every successive Government in the UK does everything they can do NOT build anything, from roads to schools to hospitals. I expect Heathrow Third's Runway to follow suit.
Thank you for your assessment UR, you are basically right of course, except for one important fact. In reality GB has not enjoyed a truly Conservative government since Margaret Thatcher.
All none Labour governments since she was deposed by the wet, weak John Major have been, in reality, LibDem affairs.
Only a Reformed Conservative Party under the leadership of Nigel Farage can call themselves Conservative.
Farage's Reform Party is the BNP is disguise. Waaay further Right than any true Conservative Party. And no-one ever listened to the LibDems, even when they were sharing power :)
One is aware that many so called conservatives (LibDems wearing blue rosettes) have long forgotten what true Conservative politics are all about.
Some might consider NF to be too right wing, however, he is a true British patriot and a Conservative, he is a long way from the BNP.
Sadly, far too many so called conservatives have moved unwittingly into the LibDem domain.
GB needs a true Conservative Party, LHR needs a...
One is aware that many so called conservatives (LibDems wearing blue rosettes) have long forgotten what true Conservative politics are all about.
Some might consider NF to be too right wing, however, he is a true British patriot and a Conservative, he is a long way from the BNP.
Sadly, far too many so called conservatives have moved unwittingly into the LibDem domain.
GB needs a true Conservative Party, LHR needs a third runway. Possibly the only way LHR will get that runway is if a NF led government gave the green light?
Ben, your assessment of the LHR third runway is spot on. The rumbling and rumours are no closer to a conclusion than they ever have been.
There are those who consider that it is essential for the future prosperity of the country, while others fear the population increase locally.
One thing that most people agree upon is that while GB is a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights, the EU intervention...
Ben, your assessment of the LHR third runway is spot on. The rumbling and rumours are no closer to a conclusion than they ever have been.
There are those who consider that it is essential for the future prosperity of the country, while others fear the population increase locally.
One thing that most people agree upon is that while GB is a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights, the EU intervention will prevent any expansion at LHR.
The EU wishes to exclude GB from any future gains expansion might bring.
Really is incredible the amount of things people like to blame on the ECHR. If this gets stopped it'll be NIMBYism that stops it, not the ECHR. Mind you I'm more optimistic than I have been for a while that it might actually happen.
I wonder how much emissions could be reduced by not needing planes to do holding patterns waiting for landing due to congestion. I hope they get their 3rd runway
Problem then is you'll have even more planes in a holding pattern. Think of it like a freeway in houston or atlanta. Just one more lane I promise.