Heathrow’s third runway is back on as airport wins Supreme Court case

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Doc says:

  16 Dec16 December 10:31

  Does not make sense currently. Introducing drop off fees, take out free public transport travel in the zone when passenger numbers are down and using ?environmental excuses and then the third runway is back on the table. I suppose with third runway, there may not be a Bath Road and so free transport is probably a mute point. What are people’s thought on this. Very fascinating.

  • Dominic says:

    16 Dec16 December 10:54

    Given the time it will take to actually build, the current situation is irrelevant imo.

  • callum says:

    17 Dec17 December 09:25

    While I don’t personally support an expansion, you’re not factoring practicalities in to the environmental criticism. It’s completely consistent to try and reduce current emissions while still expanding and creating more emissions.

    For example, I wouldn’t think twice about flying when I need to get to Australia because there’s no practical alternative. However, I wouldn’t drive half a mile down the road. The emissions would be insignificant in relation to the flight to Australia, but there are practical alternatives so it isn’t necessary.

    While I don’t personally accept the argument that more flying is “necessary”, I’d say it’s still a valid one to make. It’s a somewhat subjective argument after all.

• ChrisW says:

  16 Dec16 December 10:31

  I guess in the 25 years it will take to actually finish this thing, travel will have fully recovered from the pandemic.

  • tony says:

    16 Dec16 December 11:03

    Indeed in 25 years the pandemic will be a thing of the past, but it seems wildly presumptive to believe that growth trajectories can be sustained. Many schools of thought suggest that we’re now past peak air travel, at least in the developed world.

    • illuminatus says:

      16 Dec16 December 11:16

      IMO mass business travel is dead for good

    • Holam says:

      16 Dec16 December 11:19

      in 5 years the pandemic will be a thing of the past, probably even in 2 years time!

      • illuminatus says:

        16 Dec16 December 12:21

        The pandemic will be long gone, but the mindset has already shifted, same as with WFH

        • Holam says:

          16 Dec16 December 15:30

          hm, don’t think so, I can’t see mass WFH going forward post-covid. I love WFH and did prior to covid a fair bit. Perhaps a little more balance than before but office will certainly have a place imo

    • Chris Heyes says:

      16 Dec16 December 14:28

      Wow 25 years there will be 3 recessions and 2 “New” highs in that time
      4th runway required and plans for a new “Airport” submitted lol

• Lady London says:

  16 Dec16 December 10:46

  “Heathrow has already committed to net zero”.

  That’ll be why Heathrow has just stopped the free bus service operating within Heathrow then. At exactly the same time as they introduced a new charge that users forced to access terminals by car (age, infirmity, luggage needs etc.) have to pay.

  If only Covid could stop such corporate claptrap from the greedy owners of Heathrow who dared to ask the UK government to replace profits they’d paid out to their shareholders instead of retaining a longterm reserve for business resilience, raising debt or asking their shareholders to contribute. As other businesses have been forced to do that hadn’t had licences to print money awarded to them by the British government.

  • Nick says:

    16 Dec16 December 11:19

    By the time anything is built the free travel zone will be back, it was removed only as a short term cost saving. But if the government has any sense they will include an immediate and mandatory FTZ in any plans that get approved, to stop this madness ever happening again.

  • memesweeper says:

    16 Dec16 December 14:23

    Heathrow (HAL) has debts of £ 17bn. If it cannot survive the pandemic it would probably be in the national interest to let it go bust and either nationalise it or let a newcomer step in and take it off the administrators hands, debt free. A new runway would be slightly less expensive than the debt load of HAL today, significantly less if they went with the ‘extend the runway’ option.

• Andrew says:

  16 Dec16 December 11:09

  Best to get it built in case the eco-campaigners manage to stop HS2.

  Short haul flights may well be battery powered by then anyway.

  • Lady London says:

    16 Dec16 December 12:02

    no idea, on earth why HS2 has not disappeared.

    • ChrisBCN says:

      16 Dec16 December 18:02

      Capacity capacity capacity

• GraeM says:

  16 Dec16 December 11:10

  Complete madness. Heathrow Airports PLC don’t really give a damn about climate change and benefits to the UK, it’s all about profit.

  • Mark says:

    16 Dec16 December 11:55

    A private business wanting to make a profit. What a shock? 🙄

    Heathrow has been falling behind massively in recent years. Heathrow doesn’t compete with Manchester or Birmingham but Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. The whole UK needs a 3rd runway at Heathrow.

    • callum says:

      17 Dec17 December 09:33

      In what way has Heathrow been “falling behind massively”?

      And why does the whole UK “need” this? While I can see a third runway sustaining a few thousand jobs in the Heathrow area, that’s hardly nationally significant. What else are you expecting from it?

• AJA says:

  16 Dec16 December 11:10

  This does seem odd that Heathrow will build the third runway given the current economic doldrums and lack of travel because of Covid. I do hope the government does not allow Heathrow to increase taxes to recover from the losses they’re currently experiencing.

  It does also fly in the face of logic (pun intended) of a commitment to reduction of carbon emissions though ultimately I think the runway will be built as traffic will return meaning Heathrow will be back to over capacity as it was approaching in 2019. Even so I think the plan to open in 2030 is optimistic.

• TimM says:

  16 Dec16 December 12:00

  The pandemic has served as a catalyst for changes which were going to happen anyway, only more slowly, e.g working and learning from home, video-socialising, the repurposing of our town and city centres, faster internet everywhere, home deliveries, shopping-local etc.. The prospect for business travel looks forever grimmer. Businesses that indulge in it will find themselves increasingly uncompetitive and either die or adapt.

  Sustainable leisure travel however looks rosy as there will be a greater desire to escape the home and locality and to experience new things and places taking advantage of the new flexible working arrangements. I cannot see people paying the current business class fares out of their own pockets when newcomers arrive offering a selection of luxuries that the leisure traveller wants on a direct flight at a far lower cost.

  Would the hub-spoke model used by all the major airlines be sustainable without the lounges and the fares that pay for them? Would you really choose to spend three hours between indirect flights in an uncomfortable, over-priced shopping centre each time you flew?

  Three runways is not very many in the overall scheme of things but I am not sure Heathrow’s by-then outdated business model will ever repay its astronomic cost.

  • Ollie says:

    16 Dec16 December 15:09

    I wonder if there are any similarities we can draw here between the current situation and the fall of the railways post-WWII.
    The “railway mania” of the 19th and early 20th centuries perhaps mirrors the relentless increase in airline passenger numbers we saw pre-COVID. Back then, the railways were competing by outdoing each other in passenger luxuries (Pullman dining, luxury sleepers, cross-channel “boat-trains”) with their focus on wealthy first-class passengers, to the extent that they neglected third class passengers as much as legally possible (think open-air cattle wagons!). Up until recently we had something similar with airlines competing for the premium passenger, just that it was on a scale of the world rather than a country in the case of the railways.
    If the airlines do follow the railways in such a way (and this is pure conjecture), then perhaps airports will just turn into shopping centres (as you suggest), as that’s what’s happened to train stations, as well as the degradation of the passenger (nay, “customer”!) experience in the name of progress.
    100 years ago, it was the rise of the automobile that stifled the railways, now it is perhaps remote communications that is doing the same to the airlines. And, like WWII back then, we are currently in the midst of a catalyst which is merely accelerating changes which are bound to happen anyway (as you say).

    • TimM says:

      17 Dec17 December 10:12

      An excellent comparison Ollie. As Rob said in a post recently, ‘premium economy’ is only like how ‘economy’ used to be. The new ‘third class’ has got worse, almost to the legal minimum. The loss of premium customers should certainly up-end the traditional carriers, none of which are known for their nimbleness. For too long their business model has been all about their premium cabins including, dare I say it, points to collect personally when the employer is paying the fare. I wonder how many more state rescues (‘nationalisations’) of flag carriers there will be before they are simply allowed to go bust?

• Kiran_mk2 says:

  16 Dec16 December 12:13

  I’ve always thought Heathrow could commit to seriously disincentivising airlines from landing older, less efficient planes to lower emissions (or keep them stable with a 3rd runway). For example if you land an aircraft other than a 737Max, 787, 777X, A3XXneo, A350 (or equivalent from other manufacturers) then the landing/parking fees will be very high.

  • Rhys says:

    16 Dec16 December 12:48

    No need – Covid-19 has done that for them. Gas guzzlers have pretty much all been retired.

    • Kiran_mk2 says:

      16 Dec16 December 15:20

      True, in terms of 747s but I bet once travel picks up there will be a lot of 737NGs, 777s, A3XXceo and even the odd 767 flying in again.

      • Rhys says:

        16 Dec16 December 15:22

        …all of which are on the way out too!

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.