London Heathrow's Proposed Third Runway: What Are The Latest Developments?

The expansion of London´s airports, both Heathrow and Gatwick, has been a topic for many years now, so its turn to be regurgitated is obviously here.

Firstly I would like to present the news stories on the subject matter as presented by some well known media. Quite honestly it is not surprising that none of them had anything new to add to the ideas which have been on and off the table for a very long time. This is how we started this year......

1--"Heathrow third runway plans 'catastrophic'," BBC News, 21-1-25.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jgxy6l33no

2--"Gatwick still beats Heathrow hands-down if we must have another runway," The Guardian, 21-1-25

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/21/gatwick-still-beats-heathrow-hands-down-if-we-must-have-another-runway

3--"Reeves to back third runway at Heathrow in battle to grow economy," ITV News, 21-1-25

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-01-21/reeves-to-back-third-runway-at-heathrow-in-battle-to-grow-economy

4--"What the expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton means for passengers," The Independent, 21-1-25

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-gatwick-luton-airport-expansion-b2683319.html

22-1-25 .......and the reaction

5-"EasyJet Backs Heathrow Expansion, Gatwick Second Runway," Aviation Week, 22-1-25

6-"UK Government Formally Backs Third Heathrow Runway", Aviation Week - Routes 29-1-25

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/uk-government-formally-backs-third-heathrow-runway

I must emphasise that I think the focus on this problem is wrong, so a satisfactory solution will be difficult to find. Of course, nobody wants an airport next day to his house, nor an increase in activity to make things more difficult than at present. Of course, nobody likes the noise nor kerosene fumes which are prevalent when living close to an airport. On the other hand, flying is an activity which suits businessmen, tourists and casual fliers and is not going to go away. In fact, the tendency is for people to fly more and more. Witness the traffic through London Heathrow in 2024. It is at its highest level ever and shows no sign of diminishing at 89.4 million persons. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, it is not the prohibition of flying that needs to be promoted but ameliorating the negative effects of flying in some way.

Pollution

There are two ways to achieve this aim, negative and positive - to prohibit and to promote. The negative aspects concern unwanted and dangerous smoke, gases and damaging fumes, together with excessive, unbearable and damaging noise. They are produced both by aircraft, and vehicles on the ground. Aircraft produce noise by the designs of the engines and the design of the airframe. The way to reduce these, is to put (reasonable) limits on noise produced by different aircraft which are increased over time such that they can be defined as acceptable. Each generation of airplanes has been quieter than the previous one, over the years. The same can be said for the engines as they become more and more efficient, together with the possible introduction of other fuel sources, such as electricity or hydrogen. Thus, limits on the production of polluting gases can be introduced to minimise their effect on the populace and the environment.

However, restrictive measures should not be limited to aircraft. In an airport, a lot of different vehicles work airside (where the planes are). These can be for loading luggage, to provide meals and other supplies, refuelling trucks, push/pull trucks to manoeuvre planes across the apron, and many more. Any polluting vehicle should be replaced in a reasonable time period (3 years), with no exceptions and no intruders from outside. Landside is the area of an airport where the passengers arrive /depart by public and private transport together with transport delivery services. This area should also be "cleaned" up with all polluting vehicles given a short time period to be expelled from the airport. 5 years might be enough. The aim should be that that ALL land vehicles must conform to the environmental goals of the airport or be withdrawn from use within its boundaries. This will obviously affect private cars but these should not be permitted when they pollute. That way also we can promote the use of public transport. It should be remembered that private cars are tremendously polluting vehicles so should not be given any favours. The aim would be to try to reduce both noise and polluting gases to zero within the airport complex, both landside and airside. Zero will be unobtainable but the closer the better. Obviously, we cannot refrain from others supplying parking space outside the airport precincts, but that is on their conscience and the local authorities who permit their building so does not concern us.

The reduction of noise and fume pollution is a more difficult objective for aircraft. One thing is to have the introduction of new planes complying with the limitations achieving the objectives. But that does not happen immediately. We have to accommodate the use of older aircraft by airlines until they have run, or nearly run, their cycle. That means a gradual change but a change nonetheless.The question that crops up is over what period do we permit the change to happen? And what would be the polluting limits at each stage, to achieve what end limit? The experts would be the ones to work those questions out.

A lot can be achieved with what I have explained, but many more things can be done. One is the use of the airport. Many aircraft use the existing northern runway at Heathrow. That is quite normal when they come from terminals 2, 3 and 5. However, those that use terminal 4 and the cargo terminal should only use the southern runway. For these aircraft to trek across the airport to the north is an utter waste of time and fuel, which also cause queues and thus more waste. A thorough rethink of the airport´s use must be made. This would most likely come up with the idea of bimodel operation on the southern runway, which means it is used for both landings and take-offs during the whole day, just as Gatwick uses its solitary runway.

Heathrow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heathrow_Airport_map_with_third_runway.svg

Since I am totally in favour of the provision of three runways at Heathrow I will explain from that viewpoint. A completely new runway of 3500 mts.. is built between the actual northern runway and the M4 motorway, and parallel to them. In the modified Heathrow airport expansion plan of 2019 (https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/about/expansion/Heathrow-Expansion-Consultation-June-2019.pdf) the original idea of a parallel runway just north of the actual northern runway was changed and moved west to expand over the M25. I would drop that idea and maintain the new runway as first planned. That way there would be no need for the expense of putting the M25 in a tunnel. It would also cross the entrance road into the airport from the A4 road. That way access roads to the terminal can be built from the present access roads without crossing each other.Thus eliminating the need for excessive road building. By doing this the terminal can also be built so as to cross the rail lines which enter at that point, which is of paramount importance. Thus a new station is built for access to the terminal. Since the Terminal 1 no longer exists, I would therefore, name the new terminal number 1. That way we could have terminals 1,2,3,4 and 5 as before. From this numbering you can come to the conclusion that terminal 3 would not be eliminated, as in the plan, but would be rebuilt and continue.

For what markets would T1 be built?

What the new runway must NOT be built for,is to supply more slots for aircraft in a haphazard fashion. This runway must use the applied reasoning i.e. to provide sufficient slots for all out of the way places, and other countries as indicated. That way the airport becomes a true hub for Britain. Any extension is not for the benefit of profits for any airline but access for Britons (and Irish) as well as interconnecting passengers from Continental Europe and other continents. It thus becomes the airport of choice.

Heathrow, as Britain´s premier airport, needs to provide a service to the populace in all the regions of the country. Many flights, some years ago, were pushed off the list available because they could only be provided by propeller driven aircraft (too slow against the jets), and/or the numbers of passengers flown were not as profitable as other routes to more lucrative destinations. If LHR is Britain's airport then any airline should be able to set up services to any destination it wants in the whole British Isles (including all Ireland). Then you might well see flights go (return) to The Isles of Scotland, Dundee, Prestwick, Carlisle, Teeside, Blackpool, Liverpool, Anglesey, Leeds, Humberside, Doncaster, Norwich, Plymouth, Exeter, Newquay, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney(?). Even so the number of flights would not fill the capacity of the new runway so we can include other destinations like Iceland, Faroe Isles, Malta, Cyprus, plus the three Benelux countries, and Gibraltar. Even Israeli airlines, as well as all flights to Israel, might be included to simplify security measures for airlines to/from that country. British Airways would pass its domestic and flights to the mentioned destinations to the new T1. Aer Lingus together with KLM and Brussels airlines would pass all their flights to T1 plus the airlines of the other mentioned places.Thus all three airline alliances are affected. That would leave T3 for all "oneworld" flights by other airlines, T2 for all "Star Alliance" and "Skyteam" airlines while T4 would be for unaligned airlines. T5 would remain the BA base (plus fellow IAG airlines Iberia and Vueling).

The capacity freed up from certain flights being transfered to T1 would be used by those airlines from other countries that wish to fly into Heathrow. Any remaining slots can be allocated to interested parties on a basis to be decided(not by the airlines). I would say that the slots do not become the property of the airlines but are leased to them by the airport ("use them or loose them!").

To avoid aircraft from unnecessarily taxiing round the airport and crossing runways, all three runways should be converted to mixed mode. That way the aircraft can be given the shortest possible route, by the controllers, to their departure points on the relevant runway, or on arrival, from that point to their correct terminal. The surrounding neighbours gain from that move as many aircraft will not affect them but others for the take-offs and landings. It works out that there is a lot less fuel burnt, fumes issued, meters taxied, stress suffered.

Gatwick: The indications are that Gatwick will get its second runway as it wants.

The original idea for a second runway at Gatwick was to build a completely new complex to the south of the present runway.This illustrated in this animated film on YouTube published in 2015 by the New Civil Engineer.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/video-gatwick-expansion-plans-01-04-2015/

The idea is very good and should be given permission as it will solve the capacity problem for the foreseeable future. The time to act is now because then the work can progress as the airport owners decide without the added pressures of having to rush the job. The runway can even be built before the new terminal since the capacity might well be absorbed by the existing terminals before that additional capacity is needed. This would be in addition to the proposed new northern runway.

The present plans of the airport owners are to use the present taxiway just to the north of the runway, extend it a further 12 meters north and use it as an additional runway just for take-offs. It cannot be used at the same time as the present runway since they are too close together. However, its use can complement the present runway in busy times, and provide some sort of alternative in case of emergency, or temporary blockage of the main runway. This would help reduce interruptions and delays thus increasing the efficiency of the airport. The cost is much less than a complete new runway with taxiways, and the work can be implimented immediately. This would bring the new runway on stream in a (relatively)short time (5 years?). This idea should be put into effect as soon as possible. The traffic through Gatwick in 2024 was 67 million persons while this improvement work will increase that total to about 75 million persons after it opens in 2030. That is far too many for just one runway!!

Gatwick: The existing runway with the new southern runway. In this illustration the proposed new runway 12m to the north of the existing runway is not shown, only the taxiway that will be used.

The limitations imposed on Heathrow will also be applied to Gatwick. That means a limitation on aircraft noise both on the ground and in the air at different distances from the airports. The gases emitted by the aircraft are to be strictly controlled taking into consideration the new developments available in new technology. Both airside and landside(within airport limits), land vehicles, lorries, buses, vans, cars, etc, must be free of carbon emissions by a set date which could be 2030.

If these suggestions are followed then we can have a programme for the rest of the century to satisfy demand. These new runways would come online progressively. The first would be the new northern runway at Gatwick in about 2030. The third runway at Heathrow could come online sometime between 2035 and 2040 The third (southern) runway could be up and running before 2050.The sooner the better ,I say

What I have not mentioned are the prospects for Luton, Stansted, Southend and City airports which also have room for growth but no need for new runways. They would provide a cushion in case of need.

Trans-trax

07 June 2025

Expansion at London´s airports.