Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

 

Heathrow Airport has unveiled ambitious plans to expand and modernise at a staggering cost of about £49 billion (approximately 2 trillion Thai baht). CEO Thomas Woldbye stressed the urgency, citing the airport's current capacity limits that hinder trade and connectivity. Backed by private finance, the expansion includes a new third runway with extensive infrastructure developments.

 

The government supports the plan, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves claims that it will enhance Britain's global business connectivity. However, strong opposition is coming from environmental groups, politicians, and local residents. London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, warns of severe environmental impacts, highlighting concerns about noise and pollution.

 

The proposed "North-Western Runway" would extend 3,500 metres, significantly boosting flight and passenger capacity. Additional developments involve a new terminal, enhanced public transport links, and rerouting the M25 motorway. Despite these benefits, environmental groups like Greenpeace argue that the expansion prioritises frequent fliers over ecological concerns.

 

Business leaders welcome the expansion plan, viewing it as a catalyst for economic growth and increased international connectivity. John Dickie of BusinessLDN believes the expansion aligns with targets for hosting more international visitors. Yet environmental critics remain sceptical, fearing unchecked emissions and dismissing sustainable aviation fuels as inadequate, according to the BBC.

 

Competing interests also include the Arora Group's alternative expansion proposal, omitting costly M25 alterations. Their plan suggests a shorter runway, challenging Heathrow's extensive layout. CEO Surinder Arora argues it delivers capacity without the hefty price, estimated under £25 billion (approximately 1 trillion Thai baht).

 

The plans highlight a longstanding contentious history, as previous expansion attempts have been thwarted by various governments. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander acknowledges the complexity, promising careful review of proposals. Political editor Karl Mercer notes past failures due to legal battles and pandemic setbacks, portraying delivery as the ultimate challenge.

 

The debate underscores a wider conflict between growth aspirations and environmental commitments. While Heathrow and business advocates emphasise economic gains, critics call for prioritising climate objectives. With both government and public scrutiny, the path forward for Heathrow remains turbulent and uncertain amid divided opinions.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-08-01

 

 

Oh for goodness sake get on and build the darn thing!   That said, how about putting a cap on emissions, say, at current levels, even with the additional runway?  

21 hours ago, webfact said:

Chancellor Rachel Reeves claims that it will enhance Britain's global business connectivity.

 

Let's hope she doesn't run away when it actually comes down to a vote.

Just tell all Londoners that they have to travel to Birmingham airport on HS2 so that they may go to Magaluf on holiday. They will soon change their minds

Just now, VocalNeal said:

Just tell all Londoners that they have to travel to Birmingham airport on HS2 so that they may go to Magaluf on holiday. They will soon change their minds

 

I think the government should buy all the properties to be badly affected by the new flight paths and sell them at a discount rate to the profoundly deaf.

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

I think the government should buy all the properties to be badly affected by the new flight paths and sell them at a discount rate to the profoundly deaf.

 

Or recent immigrants?

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Or recent immigrants?

 

NO!.....I'd qualify for one of these.....quite fancy a three bed detached, 1/2 acre......100k?

1 hour ago, Watawattana said:

Oh for goodness sake get on and build the darn thing!   That said, how about putting a cap on emissions, say, at current levels, even with the additional runway?  

Not needed.  Hellrow is already an awful airport.   I avoid it if I can.

One extra r/way for all that hassle legal cost for 49B? they always get these budgets wrong.

 

New airport on a new site with 4 runways is needed anyway. Of course it would be far from London but that would be the best use of HS2.

5 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

I think the government should buy all the properties to be badly affected by the new flight paths and sell them at a discount rate to the profoundly deaf.

 

I always thought it was amusing that there was a school for the blind next to Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong. 

However, the sign was a bit misleading as it was actually a training center for training guide dogs for blind people. 

19 minutes ago, Freddy42OZ said:

 

I always thought it was amusing that there was a school for the blind next to Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong. 

However, the sign was a bit misleading as it was actually a training center for training guide dogs for blind people. 

 

Flew into Kai Tak visiting my brother.....he lived Repulse Bay???.....got there, open my suitcase.....only half the clothes were mine, along with a stack of what transpired to be, love letters to someone in Peru!!!!

On 8/1/2025 at 3:39 PM, webfact said:

Despite these benefits, environmental groups like Greenpeace argue that the expansion prioritises frequent fliers over ecological concerns.

Demand is king, if Greenpeace don't like it they can travel by horse & cart.

We will all be dead and gone long before this is ever built, and it will cost at least £100 billion.

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

One extra r/way for all that hassle legal cost for 49B? they always get these budgets wrong.

 

New airport on a new site with 4 runways is needed anyway. Of course it would be far from London but that would be the best use of HS2.

Where? No one will agree to the loss of greenspace or farmland. An airport has to be close to a population center and have transportation links. LHR is maxed out and needs to expand. The only possible tempmoption is to try and limit LHR to the widebodies, and to try and move more traffic to Gatwick. Perhaps most of the LCC flights can be moved there, RyanAir, easy Jet, etc.   Luton and Stansted are not particularly popular and are in armpit  zones. London City could handle some more domestic and  EU traffic, but people complain now as it is.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Where? No one will agree to the loss of greenspace or farmland. An airport has to be close to a population center and have transportation links. LHR is maxed out and needs to expand. The only possible tempmoption is to try and limit LHR to the widebodies, and to try and move more traffic to Gatwick. Perhaps most of the LCC flights can be moved there, RyanAir, easy Jet, etc.   Luton and Stansted are not particularly popular and are in armpit  zones. London City could handle some more domestic and  EU traffic, but people complain now as it is.

 

I don't know, as I haven't studied the possibilities for new sites. However the present plan for just one single extra runway means wiping out existing communities, which will need to be rehoused at vast cost. Of course few will agree to any loss, in the first  instance.

 

I don't think that you have read/understood what I wrote. Obviously LHR is limited w.r.t. how much more it can be expanded. If you look at other new international airports, many are far distant from their nominal cities. 

 

And what the hell is a tempmoption anyway?

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

what the hell is a tempmoption anyway?

 

I think it's used as an adverb when attached to covfefe.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I don't know, as I haven't studied the possibilities for new sites. However the present plan for just one single extra runway means wiping out existing communities, which will need to be rehoused at vast cost. Of course few will agree to any loss, in the first  instance.

 

I don't think that you have read/understood what I wrote. Obviously LHR is limited w.r.t. how much more it can be expanded. If you look at other new international airports, many are far distant from their nominal cities. 

 

And what the hell is a tempmoption anyway?

temp. option.  I typed m instead of .

 

The communities are not being wiped out.  An airport has been there since 1929. Much of the development occurred in the 1960's and 1970's when Heathrow was already big and noisy. The  aircraft of that era were much louder than they are today. Expansion of the airport has been  public knowledge since the 1980's, so anyone purchasing after that period knew what was going to happen. They have had 40 years to sort themselves out. BAA started buying up land between 2005-2010, so it was very clear that there would be an expansion. The most recent expansion was announced in 2009 and people went to court to block it. The expansion cleared legal obstacles in 2020. The people who will need to be moved, were well aware of the expansion when they moved in. They accepted the  risk.

 

New international airports are no further away from the city core than Heathrow is. I have been  traveling the world  for work and know that long  travel to an airport just isn't viable. There are no suitable alternative locations within 50 km of London. The expense of having to travel more than an hour to an airport kills distant locations.

 

19 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

I think it's used as an adverb when attached to covfefe.

 

Poffibly.

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

temp. option.  I typed m instead of .

 

The communities are not being wiped out.  An airport has been there since 1929. Much of the development occurred in the 1960's and 1970's when Heathrow was already big and noisy. The  aircraft of that era were much louder than they are today. Expansion of the airport has been  public knowledge since the 1980's, so anyone purchasing after that period knew what was going to happen. They have had 40 years to sort themselves out. BAA started buying up land between 2005-2010, so it was very clear that there would be an expansion. The most recent expansion was announced in 2009 and people went to court to block it. The expansion cleared legal obstacles in 2020. The people who will need to be moved, were well aware of the expansion when they moved in. They accepted the  risk.

 

New international airports are no further away from the city core than Heathrow is. I have been  traveling the world  for work and know that long  travel to an airport just isn't viable. There are no suitable alternative locations within 50 km of London. The expense of having to travel more than an hour to an airport kills distant locations.

 

 

 

If communities are not being wiped out, how come at least 700 homes (and possibly up to 4000),  a church, a graveyard and eight Grade II-listed buildings would have to be demolished or abandoned in Sipson (total rite-off) and parts of Harmondsworth? 

 

Newer international airports in Asia are already further away from city cores than Heathrow is to London, now. Look at Narita (Tokyo) and Incheon (Seoul). As an international jet-setting guru, you don't seem aware of the reality of the geographic setting of recent major airport sites. Narita is 80km from central Tokyo but works thanks to an efficient and quick rail system. Hong Kong and Seoul had to build their newer main airports on the islands they were lucky to have. London doesn't have much available within 50km. In the UK and Europe the options are very restricted.

 

There may well be no suitable alternative locations within 50 km of London but so what? Forget the expense of having to travel more than an hour to an airport for the London area because it may become a necessity, if air travel continues to rise, using conventional jets at least. 

 

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

If communities are not being wiped out, how come at least 700 homes (and possibly up to 4000),  a church, a graveyard and eight Grade II-listed buildings would have to be demolished or abandoned in Sipson (total rite-off) and parts of Harmondsworth? 

 

Newer international airports in Asia are already further away from city cores than Heathrow is to London, now. Look at Narita (Tokyo) and Incheon (Seoul). As an international jet-setting guru, you don't seem aware of the reality of the geographic setting of recent major airport sites. Narita is 80km from central Tokyo but works thanks to an efficient and quick rail system. Hong Kong and Seoul had to build their newer main airports on the islands they were lucky to have. London doesn't have much available within 50km. In the UK and Europe the options are very restricted.

 

There may well be no suitable alternative locations within 50 km of London but so what? Forget the expense of having to travel more than an hour to an airport for the London area because it may become a necessity, if air travel continues to rise, using conventional jets at least. 

 

 

Narita is an unpopular airport. There are still protests to this day. It is Haneda that has been adding capacity, and people prefer to fly in and out of Haneda.  I know I do. It's a short monorail ride to the city. Incheon has a completely different origin and purpose than Heathrow, and has a shadow military dual purpose. Your position is not shared by the  overwhelming majority of users of the airport. It also ignores the cost of a distant airport.  The cost to commute both in time and in fuel and the inconveniences do not support a distant airport location. This is the general consensus of experts and users alike. The people who propose such notions are termed FOTG travellers (Flying off to Granny), infrequent fliers isolated from the costs and the hassles of  travel commutes.