I was discussing the approval of a new runway at Heathrow with an old friend yesterday. We agreed that even if this runway were built, we would never go down it because the likelihood that we would still be fit to fly when it is completed is very low.
Then we agreed that the chance that it will be built is almost as low as the probability that we might ever use it.
So, what do you think?
Will Heathrow's third runway ever be built?
- No (43%, 157 Votes)
- Not in my lifetime (42%, 152 Votes)
- Yes (9%, 33 Votes)
- I don't care (6%, 21 Votes)
Total Voters: 363
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The antiquated New Labour spin-doctor John McTernon, a spinner of guff, from a ‘profession’ that talks confidently about subjects it knows nothing about; was on BBC Radio Scotland GMS this morning defending the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Even he didn’t sound as if he believed the drivel he was spouting; including that Heathrow is best for Scotland, because Britain “is a small country”, and Heathrow is a “global hub”. So nothing ever changes. Yesterday, whisky and salmon from Scotland being exported via Heathrow was part of Rachel Reeves justification for the 3rd runway.
Whisky and salmon produce around a £6.5Bn trade surplus, to offset the huge British trade deficit; this is the benefit they receive for actually producing a real economic benefit for the UK; waste their time and money diverting to London to ensure it can bleed us all dry, as usual. How else can they make a buck? Is this Government-by-drivel never going to end?
Not whilst Labour is around, John. Definitely not.
BBC GMS have now had Kirsty McNeil MP (Scottish Office) has now doubled down on Heathrow. Apparently salmon exports through Heathrow, because “we have a highly integrated economy in the UK”. Translation: we have a highly centralised economy in the UK that is controlled in an managed for London and the south-East. And however much benefit you produce in Scotland for the UK, the only significant ‘trickle-down’ will be for London.
The appalling, poor level of intellectually obtuse, deaf, loud, abrasive, assertive and dogmatic politicians in the Labour Party is quite shocking.I struggle to conceive of the the words ‘debate’ or ‘consensus’, and ‘Kirsty McNeil’ in the same sentence. Or the same Parliament. Indeed Kirsty McNeil made it clear the Scottish Labour MPS need not share the same objectives, or believe in the same policies as Anas Sarwar. That is how the Labour Party works. Their problem is; that is not how voters think, or expect theit politicians to behave; especially Labour voters on matters like children’s poverty. Kirsty McNeil has a big, big problem; and clearly doesn’t even see it.
Did nobody ask, if the justification of airport investment is export of whisky and salmon, why the new runway isn’t being proposed for Glasgow or Edinburgh?
As it happens, Glasgow is also closer than London to both New York and Tokyo.
If it is built it will be money well spent, like the Imperial Airship Scheme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Airship_Scheme
Equivalent to £170,700,000 in 2023
I wonder how 10,000 residents around and on the site, currently affected by planning blight feel about it?
As I understand it those who oppose planning permission, in particular with government backed schemes, will be classified as extremist.
Very likely
The logistics around building a third runway at Heathrow are utterly insane. A whole village will be demolished and the M25 I think tunneled as the runway will go over it. The existing site is already really tight and the transport links poor for a major airport. As for the millions of people affected by increased noise and air pollution it just doesn’t make sense. And even if you through out all the planning requirements it would take at least 10 years by which time the cost of commercial flying will force a reduction in flights even for those not climate aware.
There will be no growth in this parliament or the next and Rachel Reeves is literally clutching at straws. Heathrow has always been in the wrong place for a major airport and expanding it won’t improve this. Thankfully market forces will see it ISA pointless investment and I don’t believe it will ever happen. But as someone who grew up close to Heathrow I feel for those who are stuck in homes they can’t sell and fear the impact.
Agreed
@Hazel Murphy
“Heathrow has always been in the wrong place for a major airport and expanding it won’t improve this.”
Which is why Denver’s Stapleton Airport was built out in the middle of nowhere at the time. Being in the middle of nowhere allowed for controlled growth around the Airport.
I totally agree. I believe it was originally a military air field and was chosen because it was a large expanse of flat land. It was never intended to be the major transport hub it now is. Gatwick is a much better location being closer to the edge of the country and avoiding the need for so many low flying aircraft traveling over densely populated areas. However the locals to Gatwick have managed to resist expansion.
However we do not need more airport capacity and should be taxing aviation more fairly so alternative transport is cost effective.
A third runway at Heathrow will require private investment. Both the business case is getting weaker by the year. Case for UK plc. is arguable. The environmental issue of air travel will have I be dealt with a some point.
The supposed economic benefit of increased air travel trumpeted by the aviation sector and Government are not supported by the figures. Analysis shows the boom in air travel since 2015 has failed to increase UK productivity or GDP growth, while business use of air travel – a key argument for expansion – has declined by 50% since 2013 . The overall downward trend has accelerated post pandamic whilst low value leisure travel has increased. We should worry more than air travellers spend £32 billion more abroad than foreign travellers spend when visiting the UK
The large balance of payments deficit over many years is one of the biggest structural weaknesses in the British economy.
The sector’s record on job creation is also poor.
https://www.aef.org.uk/2023/07/17/why-increasing-levels-of-air-travel-wont-lead-to-growth-in-uk-productivity-or-gdp/
The good news is that ULEZ has apparently decreased the number of harmful particulates in the London air…..seems a bit pointless if that can be undone by an A380 using the new 3rd runway.
It won’t happen.
Presumably the owners of the airport will demand a healthy bung from government.
Reeves needed a flagship iconic scheme (cf ‘aircraft carriers’) to get the headlines.
The paucity of her ideas and lack of imaginationg embodied in her ‘growth’ mantra is astounding – but no longer a surprise.
Funding universities properly – a countrywide network of community owned renewable energy schemes and investment in public services apparently not sexy enough.
But she/they seem just stupid stupid stupid.
The land will be razed and construction will be started. Then it will get about half way complete, late, over budget, and a future government will cancel it.
I’m sure the acronym for this new “Heathrow Strip 3” doesn’t bode any ill omens.
The UK is very bad at large projects. The houses will be knocked down but then it will be canceled.
Interesting article here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/30/labour-environmental-vandalism-rivers-wildlife-air-government-gdp
In particular
An alternative would be to build hospitals now. As they are huge employers and help people return to work, they would appear more likely than airports to generate growth, as well as meeting our urgent needs
Spot on
I think Lon and Ben above are correct. The destructive work will be pushed as a ‘big willy’ brandishing effort, to die halfway done and leave a scar across the environment. I’m in the correct place to witness such folly – Lichfield, where the HS2 will terminate.
Thank you to John S, above.
If McNeil is not the embodiment of colonial cringe or a sell out, what is?
Someone should keep that receipt and, in the event of Scotland becoming independent and no one owning up to being a unionist, then this should be produced.
I completely agree that the airport expansion is utter nonsense for all the reasons discussed.
In all the commentary I have seen elsewhere no mention is made of
1) the fact that Heathrow in particular can’t handle the passengers that it already has. Security and Passport Control is a nightmare. Finding somewhere to sit and have a cup of tea whilst waiting for your flight is traumatic. So are they going to build more terminal capacity as well and staff it properly?
2) The Construction Industry has a massive skills shortage which is forecast to get worse, so who is going to do the construction and what will be the knock on effect to their commitment to build 1.5M social homes?
Re 1) I presume so
2) My big issue – how can we build schools, hospitals, houses, energy infrastructure and more if everyone is at Heathrow?
Thank you and well said, both.
I was at the Treasury, representing banks around 2010, when the skills and labour shortage was explained by the Bank of England representative to the Treasury and BERR / BIS officials.
Yesterday evening, I learnt that the Silicon Valley proposals go back to 2006.
The leader of Bucks CC is good at killing this stuff.
https://www.grammarly.com please.
Just turn off the AI bit.
Thanks.
I use it