Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Rachel Reeves backs a third runway at Heathrow – this is what the industry had to say

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

As I’m sure you’ve seen by now, and as has been widely teased in the press for weeks, Rachel Reeves (finally?) threw her weight behind Heathrow’s third runway yesterday.

This is more of a symbolic move than a practical one. In theory, expansion at Heathrow already has the green light following a Supreme Court ruling in December 2020 that overturned the Court of Appeal’s block on environmental grounds.

However, the covid pandemic placed a big question mark over the plans. Heathrow has yet to apply for a Development Consent Order allowing it to compulsorily purchase any required land for the ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’.

Heathrow third runway

Then, just as Heathrow was picking up speed again after covid, John Holland-Kaye decided to call it quits after a decade and resigned as CEO. Thomas Woldbye, formerly CEO of Copenhagen Airports, took over.

For the past year and a half, Woldbye has kept a low profile. More recently, when pushed on whether he would press ahead with a third runway, he said he would require a clear signal from Government to back it:

“We can’t do that just as a single company. We are the tactical executors on the plan but transportation strategy is a government issue.”

“It would be my ambition that, by the end of next year [2025], we will have taken a decision. Otherwise, we keep on talking about it and spending money and time and effort on it, and I think that’s not worth it.”

It seems Rachel Reeves heard him loud and clear.

What could a third runway look like?

At this stage, we don’t know. In 2014, Heathrow settled on a £14 billion masterplan that involved building a third runway to the north west of the existing airport, over the M25. When it was announced, airlines and industry baulked at the cost, which was to be recovered through the ‘Regulatory Base’ that enables Heathrow to pass on costs to airlines.

Hotelier Surinder Arora, who owns the Arora Group and operates many of the hotels at Heathrow, made a counter proposal in which he outlined how he thought a third runway could be delivered “cheaper and better” and without having to build over the M25.

Hopefully, with the Government now backing the project, Woldbye and his team will be able to provide clarity on what they hope to achieve and how.

Industry response to third runway announcement

What does the industry think?

It’s been an entertaining day seeing companies left, right and centre jumping on the bandwagon of Heathrow expansion and economic growth. As the two largest customers both BA and Virgin Atlantic have naturally issued statements, as has Heathrow itself.

My inbox has also been swamped with commentary from other airports, including Manchester Airport Group and Southend. Meanwhile Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary, never one to back down from an opportunity to bang his own drum, has also weighed in.

Here are what they all have to say.

Heathrow CEO Thomas Woldbye called for a reform of the regulatory model:

“We welcome the Chancellor’s support for the aviation industry and recognition of the critical role we play for the economy and in delivering growth across the UK.

“Heathrow is the UK’s gateway to growth and prosperity. A third runway and the infrastructure that comes with it would unlock billions of pounds of private money to stimulate the UK supply chain during construction. Once built, it would create jobs and drive trade, tourism and inward investment to every part of the country. It would also give airlines and passengers the competitive, resilient hub airport they expect while putting the UK back on the map at the heart of the global economy. With strict environmental safeguards, it would demonstrate that by growing our economy responsibly we can ensure our commitments to future generations are delivered. 

“This is the bold, responsible vision the UK needs to thrive in the 21st century, and I thank the Government and Chancellor for their leadership. It has given us the confidence to confirm our continued support for expanding Heathrow.

“Successfully delivering the project at pace requires policy change – particularly around necessary airspace modernisation and making the regulatory model fit for purpose. We will now work with the Government on the expected planning reform and support Ministers to deliver the changes which will set us on track to securing planning permission before the end of this Parliament.”

Heathrow expansion responses

IAG, owner of British Airways, did the same:

“We welcome the Government’s support for airport expansion and recognition of the key role it plays in driving growth, and we agree with the Chancellor that expansion must be affordable and sustainable. We also need to change the current regulatory model that has allowed Heathrow to become the most expensive airport in the world and we look forward to working with the Government, the CAA and Heathrow on fixing this for consumers.”

This isn’t surprising, of course. As the holder of 51% of Heathrow slots, the cost of building the third runway would be disproportionately passed to BA under the current funding model, even though there is no guarantee it would receive additional slots.

Shai Weiss, CEO of Virgin Atlantic, agreed:

“Heathrow is our home and the UK’s only hub airport, so I took great interest in today’s update from Chancellor Rachel Reeves on London airports expansion.

“A thriving aviation sector is crucial to the success of the Chancellor’s growth agenda and all of us in the UK. Heathrow is critical national infrastructure, enabling connectivity and trade to global markets, yet it remains the world’s most expensive airport with a service that falls short.

We are supportive of growth and expansion at Heathrow, if, and only if, there is fundamental reform to the flawed regulatory model to ensure value for money for consumers, affordability for UK plc and which supports a competitive and thriving UK aviation industry.

“As UK Government supports growth across London airports it’s imperative that HMG takes action to create a thriving UK Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) industry, one of the main levers we have to decarbonise long-haul aviation, as our historic Flight100 proved. We should not be in a position where there is a choice between growth or sustainability. For the UK this is a question of “and” not “or”. A pathway to Net Zero 2050 exists and our industry is committed to achieving it.”

Weiss has previously suggested that the price of Virgin Atlantic’s support would be the completion of the extended Terminal 2, specifically designed to accommodate the airline.

Heathrow expansion responses

Manchester Airports Group backed the third runway and highlighted its own investments across airports in the UK:

MAG welcomes the Chancellor’s recognition of the pivotal role airports have to play in kick-starting the economy and raising living standards across the UK. Her positive approach to planning is good news and reflects the urgency of her growth mission. 

“As an island trading nation, we need ever better connections with the world and thriving airports in all parts of the country. That means backing our aviation sector while helping it achieve its net zero targets. 

“We can start by maximising the potential of existing runways across the UK.  At MAG, we plan to invest £2.5bn in Manchester, London Stansted and East Midlands over the next five years – the largest private investment in transport infrastructure outside the M25. That will create jobs, drive trade and attract immediate inward investment in the North, South and Midlands.

“A prime example is our partnership with Prologis at East Midlands Airport. It will unlock £1bn of further investment and attract global advanced manufacturing and logistics businesses to the region, creating up to 2,000 jobs.

We need a policy environment that encourages private investment in airports and will work with Government to ensure we all maximise the contribution aviation makes to its economic vision for everyone in the UK.”

Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair, said he could deliver passenger growth in the UK “immediately” if the Government scrapped Air Passenger Duty:

“Ryanair could be growing more rapidly to/from the UK, but Rachel Reeves bizarre decision to raise APD taxes by £2 per passenger damages the growth prospects of the UK, and in particular regional UK airports. Rachel Reeves is trying to distract people by floating a 3rd runway at Heathrow (or a 2nd at Gatwick), which even if approved, won’t arrive for 10 or 20 years, long after the life of this Labour Govt.

If she is serious about delivering growth, then she should abolish the penal and damaging APD tax, which makes the UK uncompetitive when EU countries like Sweden, Hungary, Ireland, and regions in Italy are abolishing aviation taxes, and winning dramatic traffic, tourism, and jobs growth from the UK.

“If Rachel Reeves is serious about growth, then stop wasting time talking about a 3rd runway at Heathrow (which won’t deliver till 2030 or 2040), and instead do something useful to drive growth during the life of the current Labour Govt and abolish APD.

This would deliver dramatic investment and growth in air travel, tourism, and economic activity, not just in London but across the UK regions. Sadly to date, the Labour Govt has raised taxes while it rewarded train drivers and junior doctors, but damages economic activity and growth with this APD tax hike.”

Kenton Jarvis, CEO of easyJet, said it would present a unique opportunity for easyJet:

“I welcome the Government’s pro-growth agenda and their recognition of the importance of aviation and the crucial role it plays as an enabler of economic growth. As an island nation, this industry provides much-needed connectivity as well as creating many skilled jobs which contribute to the wider prosperity of the country.  

“Expansion at Heathrow will provide consumer and economic benefits and represents a unique opportunity for easyJet to operate from the airport at scale for the first time and bring with it lower fares for consumers.”

What is abundantly clear is that neither Heathrow, nor its two biggest customers, are happy with the way the airport is funded under the current ‘regulatory model’ in which the Civil Aviation Authority mediates a per passenger fee based on airline and airport input. The problem is that there is no agreement on an alternative, such as breaking up the airport by selling individual terminals to the highest bidder.

I didn’t see any response from London Gatwick. In theory Gatwick will receive permission to build a second runway next month and can complete the work by 2030. No extra land is required and all it involves is moving the current spare runway 12 metres to the north to allow parallel operation. Will it proceed if virtually all of its customers are committed to moving to an expanded Heathrow in the 2040s?

Comments (213)

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

  • Domo1915 says:

    It needs to happen but adds to the nothing exists outside the M25 economic policy mantra. How successive governments screw this up is beyond me. Manchester needs to be expanded with some actual train connectivity East to West.

    • TimM says:

      Agreed.

      A huge amount of money was spent arranging the expanded MAN T2 for the new HS2 connection. It was the suicidal act of a dying Conservative government to cancel HS2 north of Birmingham and sell off the land at a huge loss to ensure that the incoming Labour government could not viably reverse the decision. The knock-on effects for East to West connections are considerable.

      Manchester has the same issue as Gatwick regarding runways. Manchester has two runways, both in use but cannot be used at the same time due to current regulations that did not exist at the time of building the second runway.. If the regulations were relaxed that would be a huge boost to MAN at practically zero cost.

      • Nick says:

        Excuse me? Manchester’s second runway can ONLY be used at the same time as the first. It was built to expand capacity at peak times, so the restrictions are on operating hours not procedures.

        • PeteM says:

          The safeguarded HS2 land wasn’t sold, The Blob didn’t allow it, thankfully.

        • TimM says:

          Two planes may not use both runways at the same time. One can be taxied and waiting to take off on one runway after another has landed on the other but simultaneous landings and takeoffs are not permitted – they are too close together under current regulations.

    • Alan says:

      Well sort of wrong as the 3rd runway will go over the M25 and hence be partly outside the M25!

  • Dev says:

    Like the doomsday clock, I’ve adjusted my outlook on when my descendants may see it operating …. I’ve upgraded from great-grandkids to grandkids!

  • Dominic says:

    About time.. hopefully it actually happens this time.

    The UK has a stagnated economy, and our reluctance to do anything against the green agenda is laughable. I do believe in the green agenda as a whole.. but when the rest of the world is continuing with such expansion, we cannot just be left behind. The two can (and must) work together.

  • Phillip says:

    I think it’s telling how, airports like Changi, the moment Covid struck, saw the opportunity to speed up expansion, construction of new terminals and runways. Similarly, HKG got a new runway built in record time during Covid. In the U.K. we packed everything away! Of course circumstances are different in different parts of the world, but the ambition is certainly lacking in the U.K.

    • Dubious says:

      Point taken, but just to fact check on this.
      At Changi they actually stopped work on the construction (although it was mostly planning and contracting work rather than anything physical at the time) of the new terminal 5 during COVID-19. Ground works associated with the runway continued but were not speed-up. This was actually helpful in giving an opportunity to take a step-back and re-evaluate whether new requirements could be incorporated into the design of the terminal structure (e.g. future pandemics, new technologies).

      What they did do during COVID-19 was to use the quiet period to close Terminal 2 and implement a refresh of that Terminal. I believe this was on the cards already so some planning work was already in the bag and instead of upgrading during operations, they could close the whole terminal instead. Later on they implemented a refresh of some parts of Terminal 1 as well, but this terminal remained in use during COVID-19.

      The new runway at HKIA had been under development prior to COVID-19 for several years, but a lot of that was during the planning stage.

      I agree that there is a greater drive to deliver infrastructure in both locations compared to the UK. Different models and cultures, as well as access to different sources of labour I suppose. It does help to focus minds when your economy is heavily dependent on the efficiency and resilience of a single airport hub (unlike the UK where there are multiple airports all competing for attention).

    • JDB says:

      @Phillip – an airport like Changi has the advantage of being owned and operated by government entities also responsible regulatory approvals etc. That government is also fairly small, nimble and doesn’t need to pay much attention to what anyone else thinks. At LHR, even relatively minor maintenance/replacement type works get bogged down in the regulatory system which unfortunately doesn’t really seem to work for properly for anyone – airport, airlines, regulator or passengers.

      • BJ says:

        I never thought I’d ever see you claim state ownership was an advantage 🙂

        • JDB says:

          @BJ – haha, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen the caveats. We don’t have a small, nimble government and we have a regulatory and judicial system that allows everyone to be heard. In countries like Singapore, France, China if the government decides to do something it can be made to happen without being endlessly blocked. Governments have shown themselves to be hopeless at running companies.

      • Dubious says:

        One advantage of land reclamation from the sea to expand an airport and build additional runways further away from residential areas, is that there are fewer residents getting upset at the immediate airport noise. There can still be some impact from aircraft flightpaths (even at Changi and Hong Kong) but nothing like the noise challenges that would arise at Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.

        One thing the UK misses is having a joined-up masterplan for it’s urban development and accompanying transportation infrastructure. Building an airport and then allowing urban sprawl to encompass it happens in a lot of places but really needs to be sorted out. Time that airports should get their own ‘green belts’ to enable future adaptability.

        • Cranzle says:

          The UK lacks strong leadership. Civil Service malaise needs to be removed as does red tape. This won’t happen anytime soon.

  • BJ says:

    A third runway at LHR is unnecessary. Efforts would be better spent on reducing demand for connections there as passengers passing through have little benefit to the UK/London other than the airport itself, even airlines prefer point to point passengers over connecting passengers. Penalties are needed to discourage LHR connections along with incentives to encourage growth of point to point travel to/from other major UK airport. My guess is that any serious effort to do both would create create extra capacity and a decent amount of passenger growth at LHR that would actually benefit London and the SE using the existing runways. If that still wasn’t enough then other measures could be used such as strong incentives to use more larger aircraft at the airport. There are many regulatory and financial tools available to make LHR and air travel across the UK as a whole work better. I’m unconvinced the answer is this never-ending saga of will we won’t we throw extra capacity at LHR. It’s an old fashioned shambles of an airport anyway, forever upgrading it is never going to render it fit for purpose. Best solution would be to tear it down and build a few hundred thousand social houses and build a new modern airport elsewhere.

    • Dubious says:

      I seem to recall from the second half of the Airports Commission Study (remember that)…that if Heathrow got a second runway it would lead to move short-haul flights at the airport, and potential for more long-haul to short-haul connectivity. I am not entirely convinced given the distance that Terminal 6 would be from all the existing ones though.

      One of the other scenarios the Commission published showed that without a second runway at Heathrow, you would get more growth at regional airports.

      That was all back in the day when Flybe was still around. I am curious if the same conclusions would be reached if the same assumptions were used in today’s environment. Especially given Easyjet’s statement above. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I can’t see them acting as a feeder to other airlines (i.e. longhaul), but instead growing more of their services; which basically suggests more competition, but not much in the way of new connectivity.

      • Dubious says:

        *Typo,
        “lead to move short-haul flights” should say “lead to more short-haul flights”

      • BJ says:

        I think a big question is what is aircraft like the A321XLR, its future variants and its competitors going to do to the shape of air travel in the future, particularly hub and spoke operations. I think it has the potential to do so massively but only time will tell. I can see it being either just another variant of the A320 series or the most significant aircraft of the 21st C.

    • JDB says:

      @BJ – I’m afraid that’s a rather provincial view. As for finding a suitable alternative location in the SE, where might that be?

      • BJ says:

        @JDB Isn’t that part and parcel of the debate going on regards planning proceses? LHR, LGW and the plethora of so-called London airports are all provincial themselves, that’s part of the problem that has held back development. Let’s be honest about it, none of the ‘green land’ South of Milton Keynes is anything special or worth protecting anyway so you could build it anyplace you liked if pthe planning process was changed.

      • Paul says:

        Why the southeast? What’s wrong with the midlands, anywhere else. Calling Wales and Scotland provincial is always a winning line!

        • BJ says:

          Close LHR and LGW, develop in Birminham and have Londoners use HS? to get there.

          • Andy says:

            Not enough space and too much wind at BHX

            When expansion was last discussed a new airport between the M40 and M1 always seemed like best idea to me

          • captaindave says:

            You missed the “G”
            Apologies if it’s just a typo but f*****g annoying when it’s pronounced like that…

          • Alan says:

            No thanks I cannot take a ,local bus there!

  • Steve says:

    Sounds like only O’Leary didn’t use chatgpt to write his reply.

    • BJ says:

      Who uses ChatGPT now?

      • Steve says:

        It appears that, among all the individuals who formulated and submitted responses, the sole exception—the only one who seemingly relied entirely on their own intellect, reasoning, and personal writing capabilities rather than leveraging the assistance of an advanced artificial intelligence language model such as ChatGPT—was none other than O’Leary himself.

        Now it sounds more like CEO wrote it.

        • BJ says:

          Admittedly I’m lost on all this other than what I read in the news this week. I’m torn between whether it is a good thing or not, and dipping my toe in the water or not.

        • Danny says:

          More likely a PR agency supplied their quotes.

      • Alex G says:

        “Who uses ChatGPT now?”

        Students use it to write their assignments. Lecturers use it to write the feedback on the assignments!

      • Dominic says:

        Why wouldn’t you? Anyone not utilizing AI tools for their work in the services economy will be massively left behind

    • Can2 says:

      You mean DeepSeek :))

  • RC says:

    As usual, and perhaps expectedly, lots of narrow minded self interest from the industry.
    Perhaps IAG and Ryanair being the worst.
    Ryanair because expansion elsewhere means Stansted is less well-placed, and that’s where Ryanair have bet on expansion. (they’re also wrong about Gatwick timeframe)..
    IAG because let’s face it: BA charges monopoly prices from Heathrow for a low quality product and that’s where Ryanair has.a major problem as new capacity goes to new entrants first. BA in its present form of high fare/low quality would be toast.

  • Mountainmike says:

    ‘As the holder of 51% of Heathrow slots, the cost of building the third runway would be disproportionately passed to BA under the current funding model, even though there is no guarantee it would receive additional slots’

    Surely you mean the costs of funding would be passed on proportionately if you’re suggesting around half the costs to Airlines would fall to BA as they have around half the slots?

    • JDB says:

      @Mike – there is no real cost to the airlines, it falls almost entirely on the passengers and HAL. Airlines are a bit disingenuous about this when the passenger service charge is quite low relative to airline surcharges and APD.

      The government keeps a low profile about both the cost of expansion and additionally a third runway because it’s putting up almost no money and also absolutely all the costs of the airport (as charged in the PSC) are loaded onto the passenger whereas in other countries the government provides services like police , fire, security plus airports in other countries get relief from land taxes/rates and many other effective subsidies.

      • BBbetter says:

        Not 100% can be transferred to passengers. Their margins will come under pressure as they to compete with other airlines AND fill the planes.
        I agree that they are being disingenuous about it.

    • BJ says:

      Most major airports are fominated by one carrier, while not ideal I cannot see it ever changing much. I suspect Lufty, AF and KLM may have even greater dominance at FRA, CDG and AMS than BA at LHR.

    • Alan says:

      It doesn’t seem fair for BA to have to pay half the costs if they don’t have some sort of benefit in the form of additional slots, even if only a smaller proportion of any new slots.

      Maybe a solution would be they ben given 51 of the slots but told you can only keep x but sell the remainder within x period of time. So they could recoup some of the money spent on the expansion.

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.