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.

  • Paul says:

    Will never happen, should never happen!

    Like our national carrier, Labour continue a London centric economic policy that will do nothing to reduce poverty. Indeed growth by itself will simply make the rich richer and do nothing to reduce poverty.

    Like a stopped watch Johnson was at least right about the need for a new super hub and that is what should have been designed and built. A national hub connected to high speed rail genuinely serving the whole of the U.K.

    The idea that an expanded Heathrow will benefit exporters in Scotland is for the birds. Today, most cargo departing from LHR and originating in the U.K. arrives at Heathrow by road. KLM and Emirates alone provide more cargo capacity outside of London than BA.

    I am afraid Rachel from accounts, along with the supine Starmer are proving to be a huge disappointment. The massive opportunity provided by their colossal majority is being spaffed on the wall of timidity and fear. Far from country before party their focus is a second term and I fear they may be very disappointed. That alone is very worrying given the paucity of talent elsewhere

    • BBbetter says:

      You need to speak to the SNP if you want growth in Scotland mate.

    • r* says:

      Whats the point of building a new airport in the middle of nowhere so its near no one when the current one is already linked to the largest population center?

      The one thing they should do is decouple it from sadiq khan having any control over access to it, he should never have been allowed to include it in his car tax area considering its importance to people outside of london.

  • paul says:

    London and the South East yet again. OK a few token scraps have been thrown out to the rest of the Country.

    Bristol Airport is trying to expand so why not rubber stamp that. In fact why not approve more than they’re asking for.

    The nearest mainline station is under 4 miles away – connect the two so the South West and Wales can easily access a true international long haul option. Those that really want to go to London can still do so.

    Build “silly-con valley” between Bristol and the proposed Gravity site at Bridgwater to bring lower cost but highly paid jobs to the area.

    AND all of the above could apply to any number of other locations in the Regions.

    If successive Governments want to improve productivity they need people to feel involved – and constantly throwing money to London and the South East will never do that.

    • JDB says:

      It’s OK @Paul, Nigel teamed up with the Tories will be along to clear up the mess soon enough or maybe the IMF will need to sort us out.

    • JDB says:

      @Paul – when the previous third runway was proposed, it was well supported by the regions, NI, Scotland and Wales on the basis of more domestic connections. While there can be more capacity elsewhere as well, and more point to point services, they all recognise the enormous value (to them as well as the SE) of a master hub airport and that can only be LHR.

      • BJ says:

        Yes, how dumb can they (nations and regions) get!

      • paul says:

        @JDB – Perhaps they are FORCED to accept the value of Heathrow because other more favourable options have never been made available to them?

    • Rhys says:

      Which other regional airports are constrained by runway capacity?

      • BJ says:

        Don’t know but Edinburgh isn’t one of them. They have the land and I think there has already been discussions on whether to press ahead with a second runway now or wait until greater need. The political will seems to be there but the land in question is a major nesting ground or on the migratory pathway or something for birds…

        • paul says:

          Newts & Nimbys don’t count any longer according to Rachel (accounts junior).

      • will says:

        Exactly this, if regional airports were better connected (by rail) then you might see some really interesting things happening on this small Island.
        For example HS2 bumf claims birminham airport to central london will be 38 minutes.

        A high speed rail line from LHR to LGW and another runway at LGW would seem to be something well worth consideration in my opinion.

        I’mm not for these expensive projects which involve destroying existing infrastructure, its a huge waste if there is an alternative and very disruptive.

        Unfortunately Bristol Airport was developed in a really stupid place and absent any more transport infrastructure should not be allowed to expand. Filton was the place for it and it would have connected to Cardiff, London and Birmingham by road and rail from there with absolute ease.

        • Rhys says:

          A high speed rail line between Heathrow and Gatwick is surely just as expensive as a third runway!

          • BJ says:

            Does LHR really need a third if LGW gets a second and restrictions at LCY are relaxed? Didn’I read something about further development at STN too, new terminal or something?

          • Rhys says:

            According to the Airports Commission, yes. Heathrow’s third runway was the best of three options (another option studied was a full length second runway at Gatwick.)

        • r* says:

          The main problem there is the cost of the train ticket would end up being more than the flight.

    • Maples says:

      Would these smaller airports help increase local demand or international demand?

    • Richard G says:

      Funnily enough, I’m from Cardiff and more likely to travel from Heathrow as both Cardiff and Bristol are a pain to get to via train (both involving buses for the final stage).

      • Nate1309 says:

        +1

      • courtster says:

        I live north of Bristol and can get to T5 short-stay quicker than the joke that is BRS. Fingers crossed the plans for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow are brought back too.

  • Peter says:

    For those of us who spend too much of their lives sitting on tarmac at Heathrow or circling above Heathrow, the third runway was desperately needed 25 years ago.

    I will be astonished if it gets off the ground (so to speak) because we have an inate ability as a country to put obstacles in the way of any large project.

    But if it does happen, here is an opportunity to open up Heathrow to full competition to BA, by not allocating BA any new slots, which might just shake them out out of their arrogant monopolistic behaviour as shown by the recent Exec Club changes.

    One can dream…

    • BBbetter says:

      Or force BA to operate more domestic connections. There’s so much the government can do but they won’t.

      Frankly I thought the comments section would be full of NIMBYs, but looks like there are more bitter northerners and they are more vocal. They don’t realise we can have growth in both north and south and north get are not mutually exclusive.

      • JDB says:

        Part of the package last time was to have slots guaranteed for domestic slots and some sorts of measures for affordability. It’s probably not possible to force BA to operate them if they don’t want to or they might need some incentives.

      • BJ says:

        It is not bitter Northerners, it’s common sense to try and make LHR better for London and the South East by using financial and regulatory tools instead of wasting billions on politically, socially and environmentally devisive infrastructure. Other airports across the UK can and should be part of these solutions. It is not us versus them, it is win win for everybody.

        • JDB says:

          @BJ – the proposals for Heathrow expansion (which will happen anyway) and maybe a third runway are not intended to exclude expansion elsewhere BUT we still need a proper hub airport which won’t/can’t be anywhere other than LHR because that’s where the business is.

          • BJ says:

            It can be at a brand new airport that’s fit for purpose. If the political will was there it would happen.

          • paul says:

            ah just imagine if London-based Government departments were moved out of London and along the M4 corridor or up the M1

            There is no rule book which states business must be in London – and once one significant chunk moves out perhaps others may follow?

    • BJ says:

      That’s why they need a Plan B to fix the whole of the UK air travel market instead repeatedly trying and failing to fix an artificial problem at LHR by throwing extra capacity at it.

      • BBbetter says:

        It is not an artificial problem. It is slot constrained.

        • BJ says:

          The artificia problem is the perceived need for new infrastructure to add extra capacity at LHR. They can more easily realise extra capacity for pax that will actually benefit London and the SE by reducing demand for connecting pax at LHR. If London is the magnet then the goal should be to stop pax using LHR merely as an ‘interchange bus stop’.

          • Rhys says:

            Except that airlines can and do use connecting passengers in order to fill planes on routes that would otherwise not be viable. That increases the route network from London and is a benefit, as it means more direct flights to niche destinations that would otherwise require connections.

          • BJ says:

            LCC have been enormously successful in providing point to point connections betwern noth major and niche airports. If the lijes of BA cannot fill planes without vonnecting pax then perhaps they should change their model or be replaced.

          • will says:

            Grow the economy by telling connecting passengers you dont want them to spend money in your country and instead send them to another country which still incurs all of the carbon emissions anyway?

            As surprised as I am that people are willing to endure connections at LHR I certainly would not be preventing them from doing so.

            High speed rail to Gatwick point to point and encourage MORE connections cross airport would be my suggestion.

          • BJ says:

            @Will replacing a vonnecting passenger with one that actually passes the nkrder, pops into London and stays a while is always goibg to be better.

    • Michael says:

      Surely allocating slots in perpetuity isn’t the best way to share a scarce resource. Why not have an annual auction (a hard landing in loyalty terms), with a certain number preserved for domestic and a certain number restricted to short haul? This would prevent slot sitting and put the emphasis onto P2P, though large carriers might want to leverage a network effect by operating some short haul to feed their network where it is profitable.

      I think the most important issue around the new capacity is not to allocate all of it, so that weather and other disruption can be better handled.

      • Rhys says:

        How do you expect airlines to be able to make any sort of capital planning and purchase aircraft that cost hundreds of millions of pounds and fly for 20+ years if they don’t know where they will be flying a year from now? You do need some level of stability and certainty. Airlines can’t just trade their aircraft on an annual basis according to the slots they are awarded.

  • Ken says:

    Anyone else think this announcement is just a little performative and nothing likely to happen for 3 years by which time is election mode again.
    The idea that flights going to be taking off in 10 years seems unlikely.

    It gives the promise of investment without much government funding.
    The risk becomes it damages alternative investment that could be up and running within 6 years (Gatwick).
    The hub and spoke model worked for 60 years but can’t see anyone making a 380 of 747 again so no guarantee that model works in future.

    • BBbetter says:

      At the least it is helpful in changing the narrative that government is anti-growth.
      GDP growth doesn’t wait for the first flight to takeoff from the new terminal. Every single activity in the construction contributes.

    • BJ says:

      It doesn’t just seem unlikely, it’s a pipe dream. The current government (all talk and no action ) knows it, the next government knows it, and we all know it too. Even if it foes fly this time, 20-30 years is probably a more realistic timescale.

  • Nico says:

    Can’t imagine what heathrow airport charges would become. Don’t think it will ever happen.
    Also can’t disagree with Ryanair CEO increasing taxes is hardly helping growth as shown with the NI.

    • JDB says:

      It might add £10-£15 per pax on a temporary basis. That’s pretty small beer compared to other (sur)charges by airlines and actual taxes.

      • Harry Holden says:

        Wasn’t the toll for the QE2 bridge taking the clockwise M25 over the Thames meant to be “temporary”, just until the construction cost has been covered?

        • JDB says:

          Even if it were permanent, it really is a small extra cost. Alternatively, how else will it all be paid for??

          • Nico says:

            Agreed no other way really, with 100 millions passengers growing to say 150 millions, 10-15£ per person would raise £2bns, given cost it would need to be much more. It is hard to sew the maths work.

        • John says:

          Wasn’t income tax supposed to be temporary too

        • ken says:

          There are 2 elements to any construction project.
          The building & the finance.
          In the early years any tolls are mainly servicing the finance.

          I don’t see what the fuss about tolls are – even though the closest to me, the Mersey Tunnel ones, have been charging for 90 years.

          The new Runcorn bridge is great, as is the M6 toll road.

          Just get stuff built and charge the user.

      • Rhys says:

        Heathrow currently charges £25 per passenger. An increase of £10-£15 would be an increase of 40% – 60%.

        • JDB says:

          @Rhys – you are currently paying nearer £50 PSC for long haul. The short haul / long haul split is quite complicated with a lot of inter airline arguments. It’s also not currently class of travel based..

      • Rob says:

        Very rough calculation: current passenger numbers 84m, total with third runway 125m?, total cost £30 billion, allowed return 8%, return per annum £2,400,000,000, cost per passenger £19.

        Current Heathrow charge is around £30 per passenger so it rises to £50.

        • Nico says:

          Is 8% return acceptable? Also can’t believe it’d stay within budget.

          • Rob says:

            The return on capex is currently set at 6.5%. I am assuming it is increased.

            You also miss the point about budgets. Heathrow is MEANT to exceed the budget. The more it spends, the more it can earn 8% on until the end of time (as long as it convinces the regulator that the spending was ‘necessary’). There would be diamond encrusted taps in the loos if they thought the CAA would count it as ‘necessary’.

  • john says:

    If you are going to increase flights at Heathrow, you also need some redundancy capacity elsewhere incase things go wrong, so it seems obvious that you would also have to allow Gatwick to bring their second runway in to full use also.

    • Nico says:

      Gatwick expansion makes more sense as more land there, if you ignore big issue inter connectivity issue then between airports.

  • Matthew says:

    The Chinese spent 5 years building their magnificent Daxing Airport. We need 10 years (conservatively speaking) building a runway…

    • BBbetter says:

      They don’t care about individual rights. We care too much about them.

    • JDB says:

      They don’t have a lot of issues with regulators, judicial review, airlines residents or politician objecting or planning inquiries. Makes life a bit easier.

      • Nico says:

        Exactly, red tape much lighter and maybe china might have more land to build

    • Callum says:

      I suggest the people extolling the virtues of second and third world dictatorships spend a little time living there before bemoaning not having the same system in the UK…

      Perhaps you’ll be one of the “in-group” (and not care about the treatment of all those who aren’t), but not all of us would be…

      • Rob says:

        You clearly didn’t get the memo about ‘third world’ no longer being an acceptable phrase ….

      • Cranzle says:

        Which world do you think the ‘second and third’ worlds learnt from?

  • Malcolm says:

    “Bitter Northerners”. Fascinating observation by someone.
    Looking at all the proposals announced yesterday – not a single one was north of Manchester – so you really shouldn’t wonder why anyone up here complains!

    As for runway 3… O’Leary is right – if it’s built before 2050 – it’d be a miracle. Seems barking mad to me when you think of the expansion opportunities available at Gatwick, Manchester and Edinburgh.

    Labour are wonderfully good at saying one thing while doing something completely different – look at that “Budget for Growth”!

    • Rhys says:

      Gatwick is pressing ahead with its second runway, MAG says it is investing billions in Manchester and other airports, Edinburgh has new owners who also recently said they are investing. It’s not as if nothing is happening outside of Heathrow.

      • Malcolm says:

        True Rhys. The Government remains very South east focused though!

        • Red Flyer says:

          I remember Osborne in Manchester 11 years ago promising Northern Powerhouse Rail. If anything, train performance today is worse than it was then and no tangible evidence on the route network that they have done anything or spent a penny since.

      • ken says:

        The argument is that public investment has been targeted at the South East for decades, not where private investment should take place.

        People moan about the M25 – the M62 is worse.

        People in the South have no idea just how sh**ty public transport is in the midlands & the north – other of course than trains to London…

        • Rhys says:

          Sure, but the third runway is private, not public, investment.

          • Rob says:

            Except for the estimated £10bn cost of the road, tube, HEx and Eliz Line upgrades!

          • Rhys says:

            Wasn’t that to be footed by LHR too?

          • Mike Fish says:

            The last estimate, I saw, from TfL had them on the hook for £18b of new costs if Heathrow built a third runway (and that estimate is over 1/2 decade old). More capacity at Heathrow would require upgraded public transport etc.

      • Phillip says:

        Exactly! This is what I don’t understand about people saying other airports should expand instead or that it’s all London/SE centric. If the demand is in all these other non London/SE locations then things will happen. How do people expect things to happen if demand is clearly not there? Also, the idea of a new airport entirely, who would fund that? A genuine question; would love to hear who would pay for it from those in the know. HAL?

        • Jon says:

          How is it possible to gauge demand? I’d be very happy to fly Cardiff to the Carribean, but I can’t so I’m off to Gatwick.
          The number crunchers look at the figures and see that demand for the Carribean from LGW is high – let’s do more of that.
          Demand is high because that’s the only option available, not because that’s the option I want.

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.