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.

  • Simon says:

    Every time I taxi past T4 it looks like a morgue. So whilst the runways are at capacity, the buildings clearly arent.

    • Phillip says:

      Which makes T4 a joy to travel through these days!

    • Rob says:

      T4 has 50 flights per day I think, and some of those are short haul. Only Qatar and Etihad are doing big numbers.

    • jjoohhnn says:

      Presumably they want to leave some additional capacity here to allow them to redevelop T3 as they are unlikely to be able to fit all of T3 airlines into an expanded T2.

  • TooPoorToBeHere says:

    There will never be a third runway. The HS2 fiasco has ended any kind of large-scale concrete-pouring infrastructure build in the UK.

    Government is unable to focus on anything further out than a few months, and this is a structural not party political problem. You can’t vote your way out of it. Dismantling the media/lobbying/courts/civil service apparatus that stops anything being built is a project that would take longer than most of us have to live.

    All participants in a proposed infrastructure project from here on will be just going through the motions, collecting their pay, knowing that the project will be killed off before completion.

    An investor would have to be stark, staring bonkers – and I admit, looking down the road at private capital building the *third* fibre broadband network in the same council estate that this type of investor does exist – to put up capital for a decades-long project to pour concrete in Britain.

    • valeoak says:

      This is hyperbolic. Whilst both are big infrastructure projects, HS2 and a third runway at Heathrow are otherwise quite different beasts. Building a third runway at Heathrow comes with risks and potential pitfalls, but nothing like the risks (that quickly escalated) along the 330 miles of route originally envisaged for HS2. This includes considerable lengths of tunnel, cutting, embankments and viaducts. A third runway at Heathrow, by comparison, is considerably more contained.

      The cost-benefit analysis was only ever marginally favourable for HS2 (with the BCR being significantly lower than would normally be required for such a large project to receive significant public funding). And when the foreseeable cost spirals started to bite and the stretched benefits were further undermined by COVID, the political support so necessary to the project (for it was a political project rather than an economic one) predicatably evaporated. The economic analysis and business case for a third runway at Heathrow is significantly stronger than the case for HS2.

      That’s not to say that this country shouldn’t be investing in rail infrastructure and improving both North-South rail links and rail links across the North, but HS2 was more a project about aping high-speed railways on the Continent (many of which have their own serious problems) rather than investing in a serious economic benefit for the UK.

  • Phillip says:

    I think people are forgetting that the third runway is an entirely private development. The government has given its go ahead as it stands. It’s now in the hands of the planning inspectorate as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project to approve IF an application is made. But as far as the decision to go ahead with the plans for a third runway right now, it is solely in the hands of HAL! The government has no say at this specific stage of decision-making.

    • abc says:

      The government could change their mind, though. Not sure if they could just stop it without legislation (though apparently they could this for HS2), but if the government/a new government wanted to they could change the law if they have a majority in parliament for it. (There is no indication that this will happen, mind you, but it would certainly be possible.)

      • Phillip says:

        The government can do many things but this is my point; “HS2 Ltd is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Transport”. So managing HS2 is not just within the government’s gift, but they are responsible and accountable for it. They can make decisions on it at any point. This is not the case with HAL. Of course if they want to they can propose/pass legislation to change things but they are not responsible for any decision making in terms of the next steps or how it’s done at this point in time.

        • Londonsteve says:

          What doesn’t feel right is that the decision to build infrastructure of prime national importance shouldn’t solely come down to a bunch of private investors undertaking a cost/benefit analysis. I understand entirely that single-handedly, new owners might not want to go for it, in that case the government should partner with HAL shareholders and work out a solution that’s satisfactory to all but ensures this essential piece of infrastructure is built. If they need financial incentives to push it over the line, so be it, but it cannot be the case that it’s dropped solely because the new owners don’t fancy the challenge.

          The new shareholders might decide it’s not in HAL’s commercial interest to build the 3rd runway, moreover their biggest customer is also against it because it dilutes their dominant position (and demolishes their HQ!). This is why we need firm handed government that can regulate and arbitrate in the national interests, which is historically not a signature feature of the way the UK is run.

  • L Allen says:

    The new 777x with the folding wing tips will help increase passenger numbers as airlines buy those to replace older aircraft.

    The outsourcing of security staffing is only at the control posts – where vehicles enter airside – not staff or passenger facing search areas inside terminal buildings. That was stated in the Torygraph article but not made clear in this article. Searching a vehicle is very different to searching people. (Yes, I know there are being being searched too at the control posts, especially when it’s a crew bus going through the checkpoint).

    • L Allen says:

      *people being searched… (my proofreading skills are obviously absent today)

    • Dubious says:

      The folding wingtips are optional extras.
      It is unlikely many airlines will order them because of the extra maintenance costs and complexity they bring without any direct gain for the airline.

      • Rhys says:

        Erm no, the folding wingtips are not optional extras?

      • jjoohhnn says:

        Nonsense. The benefit of the larger wings is increased efficiency! And as Rhys says, they are not optional!

        Upscaling is probably one of the key ways LHR are looking to increase capacity. The 777X will help where they probably lament the demise of the 747 as it has meant a decrease in passenger number per plane. IAG might take up to 42 of them on current numbers and they will replace some of the older 772’s helping to increase capacity.

  • Paul says:

    On an island of our size it should be possible to travel end to end in under 6 hours. Develop the rail network linking every major airport to mainline trains and end domestic flying. At Glasgow for example the rail line is half a mile from the terminal yet no rail link
    Ban further expansion of flying at LHR by requiring that any changes to slot use at LHR require use of a slot at another airport in Scotland Or Northern England. This supports economic growth outside the M25!

  • dan_a_man says:

    Still makes me wonder why an airline like BA with so many slots didnt go all in on the A380… Understand the business traveller point regarding frequency of flights being very important, but the slot constraints didnt come out of nowhere. Imagine the new suites and a proper first in a BA A380 plus do&co… too much dreaming for the morning.

    • Bagoly says:

      Has always mystified me too.

    • Ian says:

      The outgoing CEO of Qatar Airways is reported as saying that buying the A380 was the worst decision of his life. QR are going to get rid of them. I’m guessing this is down to the fuel consumption of those 4 enormous engines, which offsets the benefits of higher passenger capacity (but apparently not great freight capacity).

    • Londonsteve says:

      It’s a circular position for BA. They operate from a heavily slot restricted main hub, suggesting that large capacity aircraft like the A380 are ideal. But they cannot fill them because they operate from a heavily slot restricted main hub. Half their passengers are transiting LHR but slot constraints clamp down on BA’s ability to offer flights to a broader variety of onward destinations and at the frequencies necessary that would ensure they can reliably fill an incoming A380. That and the perception that Heathrow is crowded, inefficient and unreliable that means some target passengers actively avoid travelling through it.

      If LHR was a 4 runway 24 hour hub airport, I don’t doubt BA would have no trouble filling A380s while acting as the definitive European lynchpin airline on all roads between the Americas and Europe. Maintaining their status at the crowded little airport that is LHR is easier solution, but more capacity would enable them to accomplish visionary stuff while growing to become Europe’s largest airline. That, however, would entail an element of risk and requires hard work.

  • Stu p says:

    Sell RAF Knortholt to Heathrow, build a tunnel for a few Billion. Bosh. Third runway.

    • RussellH says:

      I am old enough to remember meeting a commercial flight into Northolt – we went to pick up my grandmother there in the 1950s off a flight from Hamburg – would have been either Lufthansa or BEA.

    • Lady Londom says:

      Northolt has a number of different types of user that will (and can) keep this from happening.

      • Bagoly says:

        Don’t underestimate some governments’ desire to flog “the family silver”.
        Neither main party is immune.

    • Dubious says:

      I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Northolt has not have long enough runway overrun areas for scheduled passenger air transport operations.

  • Harry Holden says:

    Serious question. Is operating separate runways for take offs and landings the most efficient use of tarmac? Logic suggests that well planned alternating take offs and landings across both runways would increase movements.

    Is the current setup designed with local residents and noise disturbance in mind rather than efficiency?

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.