Tag: heathrow

• Having your cake and eating it

  It’s not been a great week for plans to expand Heathrow airport and now we have the head of a major airline group claiming he can’t afford a top-of-the-range Mercedes.

  The FT reports that Theo Panagiotoulias, chief executive of Star Alliance, has warned that the new runway and terminal risks pricing out airlines.

  The head of a major airline alliance that includes Lufthansa and United has likened Heathrow’s third runway plans to an unaffordable luxury car as he urged the airport to cut back some parts of the “eye-watering” project.
  …
  “I’d love to have a fully specced Mercedes-Benz that’s top of the line. I don’t know if I can necessarily afford it, but I’d like it,” he said. “It’s the same parallel.”
  
  “I’ve seen some numbers thrown around and they’re eye-watering. We’ve got to be able to have conversations to determine what’s the ‘nice to have’ and what are the things we must have,” he told the Aviation Club in London.

  

  According to the FT, Star Alliance’s 26 members account for one in six planes that take off from Heathrow and the FT points out that Panagiotoulias’ intervention is the latest in a “chorus of airlines” warning about the potential cost of building a third runway.

  But he still wants it to go ahead in some form so he can pay for that Merc.

  The newspaper gives the cost of the project as £33bn, but it could be way higher than that. As I noted here, the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned an independent report that showed the true cost of the scheme is in the range of £33bn-£52bn, excluding public transport improvements.

  (more…)

  2026.06.29

• Heathrow: are ministers being doubly disingenuous?

  I’m not saying the government’s latest consultation on Heathrow is a stitch-up but ministers are very clearly signalling where it is going.

  third runway at Heathrow moves a step closer as government launches public consultation on the framework for future planning decisions

  

  Alongside bullshit claims about “over £40 billion of benefits to the UK” – over what period? – there are clear signals that the facts will be made to fit the policy:

  This marks another key milestone in delivering a final planning decision in 2029, making sure it meets key tests on noise, air quality, climate and economic growth.

  It’s not exactly subtle: those key tests will be met. So are they really tests?

  And there is a hint of menace for the meddling Climate Change Committee:

  The independent Climate Change Committee is being formally consulted to advise on how expansion can be consistent with the net zero framework.

  The answer is that expansion can be consistent with the net zero framework. The answer that the committee has to give is how.

  But these are definitely tests, right? With the possibility that they might not be met and the new runway won’t be built?

  It remains possible of course that ministers are being disingenuous in another way and are just going along with it all in the expectation that it will never happen – they just don’t want to be seen to be pulling the plug.

  2026.06.18

• Greenwashing the improbable

  The government has continued to signal its determination to expand aviation in a climate emergency, even as another analysis casts doubt on plans to expand Heathrow airport.

  The Times reports:

  Heathrow’s plan for a third runway is impossible to deliver on time, and the project is likely to run into complications including the relocation of several angling lakes, ministers have been told.
  
  A report by the American construction firm Bechtel…
  
  … concluded that Heathrow’s third runway would be possible at the earliest by 2040 — five years after the intended delivery date.

  

  The problem is the scale of works to be done even before construction can begin:

  (more…)

  2026.06.16

• Are Heathrow owners jumping ship over third runway?

  It looks as if plans to expand Heathrow Airport in a climate emergency may be a dead duck – especially if their main backer in government – chancellor Rachel Reeves – is ousted.

  The FT reports that:

  A Chinese sovereign wealth fund is considering a sale of its stake in Heathrow airport partly over concerns about the rising cost of developing a third runway at the London hub.
  
  The Chinese Investment Corporation, which is backed by Beijing, has put its 10 per cent stake in Heathrow on “active watch” and is mulling a sale, two people with knowledge of its thinking said.

  The FT adds that CIC is concerned that commercial aspects of the airport, including the steep costs, undermine the business case for expanding the airport and that airlines have raised similar concerns, warning that the costs could be off-putting to carriers and that the total bill for the project, which includes moving part of the M25, may be far higher than currently forecast.

  

  In response, a Heathrow spokesperson said:

  The costs for expanding the airport have been reviewed by the CAA and their independent experts have determined they are credible.

  However, writing on LinkedIn, Alex Chapman of the New Economics Foundation noted that the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) had recently commissioned an independent report that showed the true cost of the scheme is in the range of £33bn-£52bn, excluding public transport improvements.
  
  He wrote:

  that’s a very big caveat. Years ago, TFL estimated the public transport improvements required to support the scheme would run to several billions. Uprate that to today’s money and the scheme costs are *beyond HS2 levels*.

  The government has clearly stated that any such costs must come “at no cost to the taxpayer”. So the net private cost of the scheme is even higher than the stated range.

  (more…)

  2026.04.29