Heathrow expansion: the key questions answered

'Doing nothing is not an option,' was the view on airport expansion from the then-transport secretary Alistair Darling in 2003

Now departing: British Airways Boeing 747 passes Heathrow Terminal 2 (Simon Calder)

What problem is the government solving?

London is the world capital of aviation, measured by passenger numbers. The city’s six airports handle more than 150 million passengers a year, well ahead of New York and Tokyo. But the two biggest airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are working at way beyond their design limits, and are respectively the busiest two-runway and single-runway airports in Europe.

Aviation is growing at a compound rate of 5 per cent per year. Even with Stansted, Luton, London City and Southend having room to grow, southeast England has a dramatic lack of capacity compared with any other world city.

So sought-after are slots for taking off and landing at Europe’s busiest airport that they change hands for tens of millions of pounds – reflecting the premium that passengers are prepared to pay to fly in and out of LHR.

So what is the government proposing?

A third runway at Heathrow, to the northwest of the existing two runways, which will allow an increase from 480,000 takeoffs and landings each year to around 740,000. The airport says it can be ready by 2026.

The Department for Transport says the expansion will bring more jobs and greater economic growth along with more flights: “A new runway at Heathrow would provide benefits of up to £74bn to passengers and the wider economy and create tens of thousands of local jobs.

“It will better connect the UK to the rest of world with an extra 16 million long-haul seats available by 2040.”

The government has published a national policy statement for airports, backing an extra runway “delivered in a cost-efficient and sustainable way, with a comprehensive package of measures to support affected communities and protect the environment”.

Chris Grayling, a keen Brexiteer as well as transport secretary, says: “As we leave the EU, the UK must remain one of the world’s best-connected and outward-looking countries and a third runway at Heathrow is the best option to deliver this.”

Wasn’t this all decided years ago?

Almost three years ago, on 1 July 2015, the Davies Commission unanimously recommended a third runway at Heathrow. The commission had been set up by David Cameron, the prime minister who had said “No ifs, no buts, no third runway,” with a brief not to deliver until after the 2015 election.

On the day Sir Howard Davies reported, Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways’ parent IAG, said: “Without political vision and leadership, it will end up on the shelf gathering dust like its predecessors.”

Since then the government has been conducting its own research and consultations on expansion, while the legislative process has been caught up in the current parliamentary turmoil.

Are the other candidates dead in the water?

“Boris Island”, the Thames Estuary airport proposed by Boris Johnson when he was mayor of London, was flatly rejected by the Davies Commission.

The two short-listed alternatives to Heathrow’s third runway were an extended northern runway (known as Heathrow Hub) and a second runway at Gatwick. Each is continuing to lobby, and has its firm supporters.

The Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says the Heathrow Hub scheme “has lower costs, is faster and has lower landing charges”. Some Labour MPs with constituencies that would be affected are urging expansion at Gatwick.

​Other voices, notably Ryanair’s boss Michael O’Leary, insist new runways are needed at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Only by such bold expansion, they argue, will competition flourish and passenger demand be adequately met.

What about the environment?

The key challenges are both global – meeting targets on carbon emissions – and local, specifically on air quality and noise. Heathrow airport and the Department for Transport believe that emissions targets can be met with technological advances. The government says that, even though the third runway delivers more CO2 than the two other short-listed options, "the scheme is the right choice on economic and strategic grounds regardless of the future regime to deal with emissions from international aviation".

But many environmental groups dispute that assertion. Caroline Lucas MP, the Green Party co-leader, says: “This disastrous decision by the Government flies in the face of common sense and climate science. The fact that Chris Grayling didn't even mention climate change in his statement is an absolute disgrace.

"We know that expansion at Heathrow will make meeting our carbon emission targets near impossible, and that local people will suffer as a result."

On the local impact, the government is promising “a world-class package of compensation and mitigation measures to support those affected by the expansion, with up to £2.6bn for compensation, noise insulation and community amenities, which could include improvements to parks and leisure facilities.”

It will also extend the current restrictions on night flights to impose a six-and-a-half-hour scheduled night flight ban. So the present early arrivals from Asia and Australia will need to be rescheduled.

Why not simply expand elsewhere in the UK?

In total, Britain has far more runways than its needs. The problem is that airlines expand where they perceive demand to be, and that is in the Southeast.

Time and again, attempts to establish long-haul flights from regional airports have foundered. At the same time as the cabinet was approving expansion at Heathrow, Birmingham airport revealed that its transatlantic scheduled services will end on 21 June after Primera Air failed to get its expected new planes, though some say low demand meant the links to New York and Toronto were not viable.

The Department for Transport says: “The benefits of expanding Heathrow will be felt across the country as there will be more flights around the UK, better connecting Scotland, Northern Ireland, the North and the Southwest to new global markets via London.”

But Willie Walsh of IAG told an airports conference in 2016: “We’re not interested in these artificial routes. We’ll go where there’s demand. The aspirations people have on domestic links are very difficult to understand.”

At least more capacity should create increased resilience; at present, when operations are disrupted at Heathrow, domestic services are often the first to be cancelled.

How much will it cost, and who will pay for an expanded Heathrow?

The planned cost is around £14bn, and the government insists: “Heathrow will be privately financed and costs will not fall on the taxpayer.” Ultimately the passenger will pay, through charges levied by the airport which in turn are passed on by the airlines.

The airlines are demanding that passenger fees should remain the same, while Heathrow and the transport secretary say only that charges will be as close as possible to present levels.

There is also controversy about who will pay for the necessary surface infrastructure, such as burying the M25 in a tunnel. The former transport secretary Justine Greening claims the taxpayer will need to stump up £15bn.

Are there other solutions to increasing capacity?

Yes, Heathrow could grown substantially without pouring any more concrete. The quickest fix is to open 24 hours a day, as recommended by Paul Griffiths, chief executive of Dubai Airports. He told The Independent Heathrow should simply abandon the noise curfew.

Another low-cost but high-impact technique: “mixed mode”. This means both existing runways at Heathrow handling departures and arrivals simultaneously. It would increase capacity conservatively by 15 per cent.

Less controversially, incentivising airlines to use bigger aircraft, and to fill them with more passengers, will meet some of the demand between now and 2026.

Should we have sorted this out a little sooner?

The question has been hotly debated since the late 1970s, but has always proved too difficult politically.

Fifteen years ago, the then-transport secretary Alistair Darling said in the context of airport expansion: “Doing nothing is not an option.” Since then, his successors have done nothing, until today’s announcement.

But with the prospect of yet more consultations, judicial reviews and changes in government ahead, a ribbon-cutting ceremony in eight years is far from certain.