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.

  • captaindave says:

    Will the IMF allow this to go ahead ? Maybe they will be nice and just add it onto the bill.

    • RC says:

      This isn’t X or Twitter. Perhaps a little fact checking before comment would go a long way?

      Additionally, the ‘Rachel from Accounts’ is both patronising and chauvinistic in the worst way, and reflects badly on the (probably middle aged men) using it here. For the Clarkson types, remember 2/3 of the country didn’t vote Tory and in present polls wouldn’t do so if offered the chance to do so again, so a little more thought and fact checking would go a long long way.

      • captaindave says:

        Isn’t it Rachel from Complaints ?

        Sorry for not slavishly following the guardian play book…

        • RC says:

          Not following good taste or manners either.
          You’re aware Dinosaurs went as extinct as Monarch Air?

      • BSI1978 says:

        +1 on the Rachel Reeves comment. So tiresome and unnecessary.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          Indeed

          As if Kemi from the IT Help Desk or Mel from Events would be doing a better job.

      • Joe says:

        80% of the country didn’t vote Labour last year….

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          And?

          People do that sort of sum after every election and it means absolutly nothing.

          • Alex G says:

            It was the perfect response to “2/3 of the country didn’t vote Tory”.

            And it means a lot. It means many people on the Electoral Register think that all politicians are equally bad, and not worth voting for. And that is a real problem. It is why “populists” like Trump get elected.

            Labour were only elected because the Conservatives had given up, and Labour were the default alternative. Labour do not really have a strong mandate to do anything, which is probably as well, as they don’t seem to be attempting to do anything.

            Say what you like about Rachel Reeves, there is not much she can do without breaking the stupid manifesto commitments that are tying her hands.

            Most people want better public services, more Police on the streets etc, but we always want someone else to pay for it.

        • David Starkie says:

          Joe; It is about 80% of the electorate didn’t vote Labour. (Circa 60% turnout and 33.7% Labour vote).

      • StanTheMan says:

        Not really the worst way surely….. I bet you can come up with a comment that is more patronising and chauvinistic. Try !

  • Alex G says:

    Michael O’Leary’s press conference was amusing.

    I didn’t realise what a foul mouthed oik he is.

    He constantly referred to RR as Rachel Rubbish.

    Some of his comments were mixed up and consequently may be confusing to some people. Talking about Gatwick expansion involving building over the M25, and a second runway at Heathrow (when replying to journalists around 18 minutes in).

    His predictions that EasyJet will be bought out by AF or IAG are, I think, delusional and based on envy.

    His praise heaped on Boeing was amusing. The 737 Max is a cheap second-rate aircraft IMO, perfect for a cheap second-rate airline.

    His claim that if APD is scrapped, RyanAir would add to UK growth by carrying an additional 30 million passengers is either delusional or disingenuous. Most of those (my guess) extra passengers are likely going to be Brits going abroad to spend their cash supporting foreign businesses and governments, and this will not help the UK economy.

    He did say one interesting thing about Heathrow; that he wouldn’t operate from there even if it was free because of the inefficiency resulting from time wasted taxiing and waiting to land.

    Much as I dislike O’Leary and RyanAir, I have to confess that his is a brilliant businessman. It is sad that most people prefer cheap prices to high quality, but that is the world we live in.

    The PC is available at https://www.youtube.com/live/OGkZ4ikmDOw?si=trCgqnOanNQU1Erx

    • RC says:

      lol. O’Leary clearly had the red mist and facts got lost. Amusing but his shareholders aren’t happy with that performance.

      737 max is a base design almost 60 years old.
      Can you imagine Uber saying they’re operating a fleet of state of the art Austin 1100 and VW Beatles?

    • Rob says:

      I’ve been to a couple of non-filmed O’Leary press conferences. The man knows more about aviation and aircraft than Doyle, Weiss and Jarvis (EZ) put together. It’s basically an MBA in Aviation Management in 30 minutes.

      • Alex G says:

        @Rob, what did you think about his comments that EasyJet will not survive? Struck me as jealousy. I can’t really see BA wanting to buy EasyJet, although who knows what BA might do. They don’t seem to have a long term vision as to what they want to be.

        • Rhys says:

          He’s a showman. He’s playing to a crowd and knows that if he says outrageous things he’ll get coverage. But he’s not stupid.

    • Sam says:

      I also prefer cheap prices to high quality, but like many others, I don’t always have the resources for it

    • Anouj says:

      There’s hardly any difference to the onboard experience between ryanair and BA Economy. Ryanair fly from local airports instead of forcing me to go all the way to London and for a fraction of the cost usually.

  • Alex G says:

    Personally, I hope the second runway at Gatwick gets the go ahead, and opens quickly.

    I would love to see some of the major airlines move back there.

    Heathrow needs to improve connectivity, both between the terminals and to the regions. Opening T5D and linking it to T3 would benefit OW alliance airlines, and T5D could perhaps house USA pre clearance.

    We also needs more direct long haul flights from the regions.

    • gumshoe says:

      I can see preclearance becoming obsolete once Mobile Passport Control is fully rolled out.

      • Mike Fish says:

        Having used Mobile Passport Control, it isn’t some miracle app, you get to go to a shorter queue before waiting for an agent. It’s not a game changer like Global Entry is for a traveller.

    • Maples says:

      That second runway in Gatwick is a waste of money and is worse since it’s further south of Inverness. Perhaps the money should be spent on Luton or Heathrow should be moved to Yorkshire so that it’s more central.

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

        So the owners of Gatwick should spend their money on Luton which they don’t own.

        Not sure how that would work out.

    • BSI1978 says:

      Whilst the idea of expanding LGW appeals, does it have the necessary infrastructure to cope with many more people?

      • memesweeper says:

        Not yet. It will.

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

        Yes. The expansion isn’t just to create a 2nd runway.

        It includes terminal space as well.

      • Ade says:

        Exactly. I’ve flown from there with BA three times in the last year and every time check in has been a total shambles. Over an hour in the club queue. I’m not sure if it’s lack of staff or lack of space but it really puts me off flying from there.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          That’s more of a BA issue than an LGW issue though.

        • Rui N. says:

          There’s plenty of space for Club check-in at LGW. Airport is not at fault for BA only staffing 2 out of 10 desks.

      • Dubious says:

        The last couple of times I have been through Gatwick, it makes me think it would have a nicer all round experience if they tried to adjust the focus of terminal so that one was aimed more at leisure travellers and the other at business travellers – perhaps by making one of the Terminals for Budget and Charter Carriers, and the other Terminal for ‘Full Service’ Carriers.

        I know there isn’t enough space to do that today, but the mix today makes the overall experience poor. For example, it is not helped by many of the ‘full service’ airlines outsourcing their staff to agents that just don’t seem to have any personality or enthusiasm for their customer-facing roles.

        • Dubious says:

          *what I mean by “any personality or enthusiasm for their customer-facing roles.” – is that the experience is very robotic and sometimes depressing.

  • TimM says:

    Alex G >> “We also needs more direct long haul flights from the regions.

    Absolutely!

    The entire purpose of the ‘Dreamliner’ and subsequently the A321 XLR is to provide point-to-point connections, economically by avoiding the hub and spoke model. It is simply not efficient to run a hub where passengers just land and takeoff again, nor at all pleasant this day and age.

    Besides, the usefulness and practicality of Heathrow for UK passengers has been reduced due to the degradation of the rail service – if there is a daily flight from Heathrow there is practically zero chance of being able to reach the outward flight and return from the inbound flight by rail without one or two over-priced and inconvenient hotel stays anymore.

    I would like to see BA invest in strategic rail services to meet their flights, much as the ocean liner companies did for their ‘boat train’ services.

    • PGR says:

      +1 on rail connections, especially for the millions of us who live to the west. When is the eminently sensible “missing link” for direct connections to Heathrow, avoiding Paddington, finally going to happen?

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      I thought BA had a deal with GWR for integrated rail-train tickets or at least some sort of offer which included protection to cover missing a flight because of a delayed train and vice vera?

      As to the Dreamliner there still needs to be demand from regional airports to make it work. And sometimes despite all the shouting that demand just isn’t there.

      • CJD says:

        I don’t believe there wouldn’t be demand for Edinburgh and Glasgow from the US and Canada. Edinburgh gets massive tourist volumes and Glasgow airport is incredibly convenient to get away to the Western Highlands.

        • Duncan says:

          There is. It’s served by US and Canadian airlines though.

          • Dubious says:

            Presumably because those North American airlines can funnel passengers through their respective hubs on their side of the Atlantic…

      • Duncan says:

        Eurostar has CIV tickets that are similar. How well known are they, and are they any cheaper than an Advance Purchase ticket?

      • Dubious says:

        I believe the integration is provided by the “AccesRail Partnership”
        https://www.accesrail.com/gds-distribution/

        BA is listed on their website as having through-ticketing capability.
        I cannot find details of the passenger protections in place, but Malaysia Airlines use the same service and their website says:

        “What happens in the event of “No Show” for MHrail passengers?
        For flight: Subject to base fare rules
        For train: Passenger to take the next train available subject to Accesrail ticket terms and conditions.”

        It’s not very clear if this refers to missing the connection or a failure to do the necessary check-in, because it also says:
        “If you miss your scheduled train because of a delayed flight. The Airlines will assist you and print you a new ticket for the next available train.”

        “If you miss your connecting flight due to a train delay, please notify the airline ticket office at the airport to receive a new airline ticket and to be automatically rebooked on the next available flight.”

        “In the event of a flight disruption, Malaysia Airlines will reaccommodate passengers according to the next flight and train availability.”

    • Richie says:

      Iberia will sell you a ticket LON-MAD-Leon where Nadrid to Leon is by Alsa bus.

  • memesweeper says:

    Unbelievable number of comments from people saying “expand XXX in the regions instead!”. London has TWO slot maxed out airports. If you think there’s demand for a long haul operation from Newcastle or Belfast or Cardiff please take your delusion to a finance house and get started on building runways and buying planes! Meanwhile stop whining about London’s success and let Gatwick and others crack on.

    • Richie says:

      Emirates is flying a B77W from DXB-NCL today, eemand is there.

      • Smithers says:

        For that specific route sure, because the average denizen of Newcastle thinks a holiday in DXB is the height of glamour and sophistication. But there’s no demand from the regions for the serious business travel volume routes, which is where the real money is.

      • Navara says:

        There are 3 A380’s per day from Manchester

        • Dubious says:

          What barriers are current blocking additional flights from Newcastle, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester and what are you suggesting needs to be done to overcome these?

    • Throwawayname says:

      That’s my point about LTN, it can add capacity to both London and the regions at least as far North as Sheffield and West as Birmingham.

      • memesweeper says:

        But there’s no *demand* for that. Luton could expand right now, and start running long haul to wherever, it is not slot constrained. I’d suggest you read the Airports Commission report, it is pretty dismissive of Luton.

        • Throwawayname says:

          I’ll look at the report, but the demand argument doesn’t convince me- airport facility provision isn’t a free market. LTN can, and does, serve the London market.

          The government could wake up tomorrow and turn LHR into a large-scale Linate by banning widebodies (XLRs and the like could still run). Such a move would shift demand to LTN and make it look super popular. Not saying that they will, or even that they should, take that sort of step- my point is that one can’t resolve systemic challenges unless they at least explore the possibility of making radical departures from the status quo.

          • memesweeper says:

            It would not shift demand, it would further choke supply.

            The new goal is growth, remember? that would be the exact opposite.

  • Pat says:

    I’m worried what measures will be forced onto the non-flying public to continue to combat the undisputed science of the anthropogenic climate and ecological emergency (of which we all must take sacrifices to reduce global emissions and which disproportionately affects people of colour) so that the wealthy can continue to fly on mostly unnecessary trips. Scrap your old car to save the climate, but frequent flyer programmes designed to encourage more flying are just lovely. It really doesn’t feel very socialist. Add in increasing migration, causing more carbons.
    Aviation emissions have increased enormously in the past decades and it seems to have no chance of abating.

    • Richie says:

      BA has just killed it’s frequent flyer programme, it seems the loveliness has been already murdered by its capitalist managers.

    • Throwawayname says:

      Is there anything more socialist than importing virtually bloody everything from a People’s Republic whose carbon emissions continue to increase by ca. 7% per year?

      • ken says:

        China’s carbon emmissions increased by 1% last year.

        A third of all solar generation in 2023 was in China & the amount of wind and solar power under construction in China is now roughly twice as much as the rest of the world.

        Most people thinks their carbon emmisions have or will in 2025 have peaked.

    • memesweeper says:

      “I’m worried what measures will be forced onto the non-flying public to continue to combat the undisputed science of the anthropogenic climate and ecological emergency”

      rightfully? none. We need a concrete plan for eliminating net carbon emissions from aviation, as with every other sector. I’m yet to see that plan, sadly. Will be on the “too hard” pile in a government office somewhere.

      • Colin MacKinnon says:

        Is “concrete” plan the correct adjective!

        My airfield is about to be net zero – apart from the aircraft, of course.

        And if they all used bio-fuel it wouldn’t really be net-zero because we’d just be using stuff that could go in cars or trucks instead!

  • Fennec says:

    As long as the users of LHR are paying, I see very little downside to people outside the South-East.

    Having lived in West London, the only nice part round there is a village on the Thames, the rest is like Hounslow ect which would probably be improved as a tarmacked runway.

    I personally avoid LHR as I fly to mainland Europe direct, North America direct or via DUB/KEF. Most places further afield are via DBX or DOH.

    • Throwawayname says:

      That’s a big assumption though, and it hinges on the accounting being willing and able to capture all the externalities (from noise pollution to small businesses in the affected localities closing down).

  • Alan says:

    If BA have to foot 51% of the costs but have no guarantee of getting any extra slots and hence ability to benefit from the expansion (unless the expansion makes operations better) maybe there could be another solution.

    How about they are given 51% of the additional slots but told a certain % of these have to be so,d off to other non IAG airlines within x period of time or they are lost. This way they coup recoup some of the cost. Or Heathrow sells the slots and gives money back to BA.

    As for O’Leary saying get rid of APD and he’ll add 50% in passenger numbers. He might do some but if he can sell a ticket fees included for £50 he still will, he is a businessman.

    • Rui N. says:

      They only have to foot half the costs if they retain half the passengers. Also, they don’t pay anything, passengers do.

      • Alan says:

        Sure, it as a passenger do you look at the total cost or the base price. I look at the total, I don’t really care if the airline has to pay 1p or 99% of the ticket to somebody else.

      • Rob says:

        No, because as it stands the asset base would go up as work was done – it has to or investors get no return for 15 years – and BA would pay half.

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.