Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Are Heathrow’s dreams of a third runway over?

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

Last week, I was on the BBC’s World Business Report commenting on the release of Heathrow’s 2023 results. Sadly it isn’t on iPlayer so you can’t check out my living room!

The airport is currently going through a period of change precipitated largely by an almost-full recovery from covid. Passenger numbers reached 79.2 million in 2023, not far off the 80.9 million who passed through the airport in 2019 and a big improvement from a 40-year low in 2021 of 19.8m.

Heathrow also posted its first profit since covid of £38 million, although as this interesting article by Robert Boyle (former Director of Strategy at IAG) points out, Heathrow likes to low-ball its “adjusted” profits.

Heathrow third runway plans

For 2024 Heathrow is predicting a new record with a projected 81.4 million passengers. However whilst passenger numbers are now back to the pre-covid trajectory, there is still some catching up to do on the operational side:

  • overall customer satisfaction remains 3.6% down on 2019 levels
  • missed baggage connections are 0.9% higher than in 2019
  • security waits of five minutes or more are up 3.2% on 2019

Arguably the most significant performance factor is departure punctuality, which is defined as being + or – 15 minutes of scheduled departure. This is down a hefty 15.1% with just 63.4% of all departures going on time. Granted, this is partly down to airline performance rather than Heathrow’s own operations but it remains a significant pinch-point at the airport.

Change isn’t just confined to the pandemic recovery. After a decade-long stint, John Holland-Kaye stepped down as CEO to be replaced by Thomas Woldbye, who comes from Copenhagen Airport. Thomas started his role in the Autumn and has kept an arguably low profile as he takes stock of the situation.

A third runway?

The biggest decision on Woldbye’s plate, of course, is whether to continue the long-term strategy pursuing a third runway.

The elephant in the room is the ownership of Heathrow. Spanish construction group Ferrovial is hoping to sell its 25% stake to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and investment fund Ardian – which, in itself, is arguably a sign that Ferrovial believes that the third runway is dead. Under the terms of the shareholders agreement, other shareholders have the right to sell at the same price.

Current feedback is that holders representing 35% of the shares will do so. This would give Saudi Arabia and its investment partner a controlling 60% stake in the airport and may lead to further changes in strategy. Nothing is guaranteed however – it is possible that the Saudi investors may pull out when faced with the need to acquire the additional 35%.

Heathrow third runway plan

The legal challenges of a third runway have largely gone away. In 2020, the Supreme Court overturned a judgement saying that it would be illegal based on the UK’s climate commitments, paving the way for the airport to apply for planning permission.

The airport has yet to do so and the huge cost of the third runway – predicted at £14 billion in 2014 prices – as well as the complexity of the project mean it is not an easy choice. The project would involve demolishing several villages to the north west of Heathrow and tunnelling the M25 whilst keeping it open. BA’s Waterside head office would have to go, as would many of the airport hotels on Bath Road.

It is timely that The Sunday Times reported last weekend that that “Heathrow third runway shelved as airport seeks to be ‘better not bigger’” (paywall).

Citing leaked plans, the article suggests that Heathrow could hit 96 million passengers by 2036 “if all of its initiatives can be realised” without the need for the runway. A “core” case was said to forecast a more modest rise to 86 million passengers.

Heathrow denied the reports, saying:

“The speculation in today’s Sunday Times is wrong, and the plans and actions described are not reflective of our strategy for future growth. Heathrow connects the whole of the UK to global growth, but we’re operating almost at capacity which limits the UK’s economic potential.

Of course we’re looking at how we can optimise the current airport to achieve short-term growth within our current infrastructure. Longer term, we’re reviewing our plans to make sure the airport has the capacity to drive more global connectivity for the UK economy, while boosting the resilience of our operations for our customers, increasing competition for passengers and meeting our sustainability commitments.”

Heathrow third runway plan

How can numbers grow without a third runway?

According to The Sunday Times:

“Among the proposals to increase passenger numbers is a plan to use more buses to transport passengers from the terminal to the aircraft so that planes can be parked further afield. Other initiatives include more efficient use of the runway so that planes could take off and land closer together.

Increasing Heathrow’s annual flight cap from 480,000 to 505,000 is also under consideration, though this would require government consent.”

It’s not clear why bussing people to planes would increase the number of passengers served, because the limiting factor at Heathrow is not the number of gates but take-off and landing slots.

Short of increasing the opening hours of the airport, one of the easiest – and indeed only – ways to increase overall passenger numbers at Heathrow without a third runway would be to increase the size of aircraft that serve it. The airport already sees one of the highest concentrations of very large passenger aircraft, including A380s from BA, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad and more – but there’s still plenty of potential to upgrade aircraft across the airport.

Whilst up-gauging existing flights wouldn’t expand Heathrow’s route network, it would allow more passengers per plane.

For example, if British Airways moved to an all-A321 operation at Heathrow and got rid of the smaller A320s it would increase capacity by 20%. To some extent, this is already happening with BA phasing out the A319 from its fleet and taking a larger portion of A321neos. Other airlines are up-gauging as well.

An increase in passengers would require larger terminal facilities, but that wouldn’t be a problem. There are plenty of opportunities to reconfigure Heathrow’s terminals without a third runway, including extending Terminal 2 over the former Terminal 1, something that is being enabled by the construction of Terminal 2’s new baggage system.

Heathrow third runway

Once an extended Terminal 2 is open you could close Terminals 3 for redevelopment until Heathrow ends up as a ‘toast-rack’ style airport, the most efficient airport configuration. This could involve the total closure of Terminal 4 which sits in an odd position at the south of the complex.

What else is going on at Heathrow?

Whilst Woldbye ponders, Heathrow has started installing the first of 146 upgraded security scanners that mean you will no longer need to remove liquids and laptops from bags.

Whilst Heathrow will not meet the Government’s deadline of June 2024 for the full rollout, it does say there will a “continual roll-out of new lanes in 2024” including in BA’s First Wing and the Virgin Atlantic Upper Class Wing, both of which are currently closed for the upgrades.

Other investment in the airport is set to increase by 25% this year.

Meanwhile, Heathrow’s negotiated passenger service fees are set to decrease by 20% this year as passenger numbers return to pre-covid levels.

The Telegraph reports that Heathrow wants to outsource security staffing, with Heathrow’s chief operating officer Emma Gilthorpe saying that ICTS, a third-party supplier, would be in charge of overseeing it. Trolley and passenger services would also be outsourced. The proposals would save about £40 million.

Whilst Heathrow has assured staff that there would be no job losses, the Unions have threatened strike action. At the moment it’s all rather academic: any potential strikes would require a ballot of members and at least two weeks’ notice for affected dates.

Whatever the future holds, there is never a dull moment where Heathrow is concerned.

Comments (152)

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

  • NigelthePensioner says:

    LHR is completely incapable of reconciling checked luggage from an A380 with its passengers im a timely manner (at T5) as things stand presently. A desire for an increase in the volume of traffic consisting of planes that are no longer made is pure fantasy.

  • Gordon says:

    There will be expansion somewhere, as world travel is growing, the answer is where!

  • Phillip says:

    2036 is just around the corner. Even if they did achieve 96m by then, what happens after? Very short sighted!

  • apbj says:

    So the plan is…

    More bus gates
    Outsourcing security staff
    Outsourcing other customer service staff
    Having larger planes at existing capacity

    Well this looks like a recipe for joy!

  • Steve says:

    Apropos of nothing Rob, intrigued by your final paragraph. Do other hub airports across the world have the same ongoing dialogue / challenges reference longer term plans and objectives? Or is Heathrow something of a unique case in that regard?

    • Kowalski says:

      Rhys wrote this one

    • Rhys says:

      Longer term planning is always a challenge in a political environment that favours the 5-year election cycle.

      • Ken says:

        All western countries have an electoral cycle of 4-5 years.

        The UK tends to normally have stable governments because of first past the post, and in the last 4 decades has had spells of 13 to 18 years with the same party in power.
        Arguably there hasn’t been much between the parties anyway since the early 1990’s

        • MKCol says:

          And despite that relative stability we’re no further forward it seems.

        • Paul says:

          What stability? Have you been living under a rock?in any event delivering 80 seat majorities with just 43% of vote is no democratic.
          Germany has PR and since 1945 has had 10 chancellors. The so called stability in the U.K. has delivered 18 PMs and lower economic growth and quality of life

  • Tariq says:

    Seems inconceivable that new owners, particularly Middle Easterners, wouldn’t want to pursue a high growth strategy.

    Could more landing/take off slots be created by optimising narrow/widebody departure sequencing – and reducing taxi time by having aircraft boarding closer to runways?

    More buses are a PITA for passengers though.

    • Rhys says:

      There is probably some efficiencies you can make in terms of slots, but the problem is that when shit hits the fan (which it invariably does, whether due to weather, NATS meltdown etc etc) you have zero slack in the system to recover

      • Bagoly says:

        I had always assumed that one of the benefits of the third runway would be to reduce the slot use from 99% of capacity to create some slack.
        But the published financial justification for the third runway showed the number of flights increasing by a full 50%.
        I am guessing that planning such a large increase in flights was the only way they could get the finances to make sense.

        • Rob says:

          And where do those flights come from? Gatwick.

          This is what no-one is willing to say. For Heathrow, it makes sense to spend £20bn to attract all of the Gatwick flights to Heathrow. This makes zero sense for the broader UK economy or, indeed, for the people whose homes will be demolished.

          It is possible that Gatwick cannot even survive financially if the bulk of its flights (and it would be the long-hauls with most passengers that go first) shift over to Heathrow.

          • will says:

            That’s where the issue of private infrastructure ownership is really apparent as a problem, or at least a lack of long term central infrastructure planning.
            A potentially good solution for the public, that no one involved in running LHR would be interested in, would be to high speed rail link LHR and LGW.
            They are 25 miles apart and Gatwick has lots of scope for expansion.
            You should be able to make that journey in 15 minutes by high speed rail which would totally transform connections or the ability to fly from one airport and return to another (if you are parking a car for example)

            It is of course a huge threat to the dominance of LHR which the public has next to no interest in.

          • Londonsteve says:

            What’s the problem with Gatwick getting legged over? It wouldn’t close or be entirely without business, no different to Luton and Stansted. It benefits from an mainline with fast, regular (and cheap) trains into central London which is to its advantage. For the UK it would make sense to have a lot of LGW flights going into LHR where passengers can efficiently connect. The freed up capacity at Gatwick would be largely absorbed by LCCs, the real victims might in fact be Stansted and Luton who could find they have significantly reduced traffic due to migration to Gatwick. Or build that ultra fast rail link to enable the airports to operate as twins with airside connectivity but the cost and complexity of the rail link makes the 3rd runway at LHR look comparatively easy.

  • BahrainLad says:

    Again, the UK’s lack of a joined up transport policy is starkly exposed. Consider the original version of HS2 with a LHR station, effectively expanding the catchment area of the airport to most of the country and so eliminating the need for most domestic connections. Result: a large number of slots freed up for long haul and the need for a third runway pushed far into the future. Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Zurich all worked this out years ago.

    • Can2 says:

      Excellent point.

    • lcylocal says:

      While I don’t disagree that this would have been good, I’m not sure it would have freed up that many slots. Even with the full ‘Y’ HS2 network you could have taken out BA’s services to Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and maybe Newcastle. And even then it’s debatable whether adding 2+ hours to connecting itineraries would be competitive. Wouldn’t have affected those to North of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey or Loganair’s operation.

      As it stands the connection from Old Oak via Elizabeth Line is going to be pretty good, if the frequency can be stepped up at the expense of Heathrow Express.

    • BBbetter says:

      Never going to happen when HAL is in private hands and will be the biggest beneficiary of the project.

      • Bagoly says:

        Yes, a classic case of how different owners cannot be expected to work together to benefit other owners unless there is some relevant reward mechanism.
        Public ownership is certainly not the answer to everything, but the overall inconsistency of ownership of infrastructure is part of why we get suboptimal decisions.

        • David Starkie says:

          Don’t forget that in nationalised BAA days and a cosy relationship with Marsham St, the strategy and push by BAA (and the Department) was not to expand Heathrow but to expand Stansted and divert traffic there using the lever of the TDRs. With centralised ownership and control you also get sub-optimal decisions.

    • Panda Mick says:

      We’ve had 6 transport secretarys since 2011. I feel that it would be impossible to have a joined up transport policy without some form of stability in govt.

      We can’t even get a new train line to Manchester!

  • executiveclubber says:

    What if BA did more shorthaul routes from other London airports using the mentioned 20% bigger a320s? I wouldn’t enjoy that but it would solve lounge crowding and runway slot issues

    • BBbetter says:

      Why would it solve lounge crowding?

    • Rhys says:

      If BA did that then you would eliminate virtually all domestic connections onto long haul flights.

      • executiveclubber says:

        Imagine if they supported fast, efficient train connections to these airports rather than flying people 40 mins.

      • Ken says:

        I’m sure most people would agree that Heathrow is a fairly important strategic infrastructure asset.

        Because BA have a historic monopoly on slots, part of the capacity is squandered on crappy European holiday flights that are equally served by 4 other airports using the title London.

        I’m not sure lounge capacity should be a big driver of strategic planning though.

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

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.