Another BBC article about Heathrow expansion frames the issue in the terms chosen by the business promoting it, with the only mention of the climate, in true BBC style, being a reference to “climate campaigners”.
Not building a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be a “huge missed opportunity” for the UK, the boss of the country’s busiest airport has warned.
Thomas Woldbye told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it would be “good to know” the government’s position on the project, after Prime Minister Andy Burnham refused to say whether he backed expansion.
The airport’s chief executive said if its owners could not invest in a third runway, the money “will be invested somewhere else in the world”, suggesting a decision would be made in the new year.
It’s not clear why the BBC has given the CEO of a private business a platform to lobby the government in support of its business interests – except that it provides a good news story.
The BBC then completely forgets any idea of balance, going into he said, she said mode instead and mentioning
potential to deliver around £40 billion in economic benefits across the country
from the Department for Transport, without mentioning that these are projected to be cancelled out by disbenefits.
Still on the subject of Heidi Alexander’s speech to the Labour conference, it has been pointed out to me that she also made no reference to any of the major road schemes that the government is officially taking forward, such as the A66 scheme or the Lower Thames Crossing.
Has the government gone cold on road building?
Here are the transport secretary’s references to roads in a speech that had a lot to say about the railways:
Roads riddled with potholes
Record investment in roads maintenance, Conference. The first Road Safety Strategy in over a decade.
Our newest Minister, Justin Madders, who is gripping the problem of driving test wait times and overseeing our investment in roads.
Given that the first reference to investment in roads is specifically to maintenance, it might be reasonable to assume that the second one is also and that the absence of reference to road building suggests that ministers are less keen on it than they were.
…Alexander told the News Agents podcast that Heathrow’s expansion was a “very significant infrastructure project” that should be weighed up against the country’s climate obligations and its impact on locals.
The comments represent a striking departure from the full-throated support that the Keir Starmer government gave the runway, which former Chancellor Rachel Reeves singled out as a key pillar in her bid to boost economic growth.
Having said that, the Independent reports Treasury minister James Murray as giving the scheme full-throated support, in spite of Andy Burnham’s refusal to do so:
But I think we recognise that having that third runway is really important for jobs, it’s really important to get that investment into Heathrow and it’s actually really important for the whole country because that investment in making Heathrow stronger, making our country stronger, making sure that we boost trade and making sure we get more jobs right across the country is really important for our future.
Heidi Alexander’s speech to the Labour conference yesterday included an interesting new policy on rail, an old policy on rail, and a few opportunities to read between the lines in other areas.
Of course, her department stepped in with two public announcements to back her up.
In 2024, franchised train operators spent over £4 billion leasing and maintaining trains they didn’t own. £4 billion. That around a third of the total day-to-day running cost of operating railway services Every ROSCO contract includes financing and transaction costs and investment returns – costs which are ultimately borne by taxpayers and passengers.
So, as we set up Great British Railways, we will explore whether the state can directly own the new trains we order. Because, I say again, Conference, who should the railways serve? If GBR owning trains would best serve taxpayers and passengers then we should do it.
Many people would agree with this – and that with ROSCOs owning the trains, what is being delivered so far is not true nationalisation.
Andy Burnham has plunged the plan for a third runway at Heathrow into doubt by privately telling MPs he has always opposed the project, and the new prime minister is said to be “open minded” about whether it should go ahead.
One Labour MP is quoted (anonymously) as saying:
He’s indicated that in the past he has never supported Heathrow’s expansion . . . I get the impression that he’s now waiting for a report into the third runway by the transport committee before saying more on this.
This is a reference to the Transport Select Committee’s scrutiny of the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which the Department for Transport published for consultation in June.
My impression is that the committee, or at least its chair, Ruth Cadbury, is very sceptical and the evidence I have seen to the committee’s inquiry is unlikely to have persuaded anyone that the plan is a good one.
Interesting journalistic takes on the latest advice on Heathrow expansion from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which appears to rule the whole thing out, barring some major fudge or magical thinking from the government, which of course we can expect.
Heathrow expansion incompatible with climate goals, UK government advisers warn
Expanding Heathrow would add as much carbon to the atmosphere as the city of Birmingham and is incompatible with the UK meeting its legally binding climate targets, the independent Climate Change Committee has warned.
But here’s the rub:
“There is no credible pathway for Heathrow airport expansion within the UK’s climate commitments under current policies,” the committee said in a report.
The CCC appears to have left the door open for the government to bring in new policies – or pretend to do so.
In fact, the Guardian has a different take on the story:
Heathrow airport should be allowed to expand only if airlines pay for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the government’s climate advisers have said. … The “only way” to manage such expansion within the UK’s climate commitments was for the aviation industry to become more efficient, use an increasing proportion of “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF) in place of fossil fuels, and pay for the permanent removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere.
This has led to some people smelling a rat:
But campaigners rejected the CCC’s plan of relying on nascent technologies to wipe out the impact of an expansion that would commit the UK to much higher emissions for decades, and called on ministers to halt all airport expansion.
Tony Bosworth, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, accused the CCC of “pulling its punches”, pointing to recent research by the Tyndall Centre that found SAF and carbon removals were unproven and unlikely to ramp up in time to the extent needed to justify airport expansion.
The airlines are unhappy and say the costs would price a lot of people out of flying. The FT says:
The CCC forecast that the costs borne by the industry lowering emissions, which would run into the billions in total, would add about £150 to flights to Alicante in Spain and roughly £400 to the price of a ticket to New York.
Of course, if that were to happen, you probably wouldn’t have the demand to justify the new runway, which still seems to be predicated on helping people make these types of flight en masse in a climate emergency.
In fact, putting the costs onto the airlines, and therefore the passengers, is a matter of equity. The FT says:
Half of UK residents did not fly abroad, and a third of all international flights were taken by the top 5 per cent of travellers, classed as anyone who takes more than five round-trip flights a year, the CCC said.
On the subject of magical thinking, Carbon Brief reported last week:
The UK government has slashed its hopes for electric planes and “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAFs), ahead of giving the green light to a third runway at Heathrow.
An “ambitious” rollout of new technologies and efficiency upgrades will only cut flight emissions by a quarter over the next two decades, according to forecasts quietly released in June.
This would leave aviation emissions in 2050 nearly 50% higher than expected under the “jet-zero” strategy, launched by the previous Conservative government in 2022.
This appears to be already factored in to the CCC report. So what will the government try next?
MyLondon has an excellent write-up of the submission from the city’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, to the Commons Transport Committee on the subject of Heathrow expansion, which argues that the additional flights – and traffic – risk wiping out the progress that Khan has made to improve air quality.
The government’s case to move forward with expanding Heathrow Airport has not been “sufficiently made” and heavily relies on outdated evidence from 2015, the Mayor of London has said.
The Department for Transport published the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS) in June to “provide the basis for decision making on any development consent application” for a new runway.
But City Hall has said that there is a “significant gap between the strategic narrative and the evidence presented”, adding: “Many of the benefits underpinning the government’s argument are uncertain, only partially quantified, outside the core appraisal framework, or require complementary policies beyond airport expansion which are not assessed.”
That gap between narrative and evidence is very much the DfT’s stock in trade, but Khan also argues that ministers plan to take advantage of environmental improvements unrelated to airport expansion, i.e. to capitalise on the “headroom” created through policies such as the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
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.
About Us management photo – Theo Panagiotoulias_Star Alliance CEO
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
