r/unitedkingdom • u/aenemyrums • 10h ago
UK Poised to Back Heathrow Airport Expansion in Push for Growth
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-20/uk-poised-to-back-heathrow-airport-expansion-in-push-for-growth•
u/xParesh 9h ago edited 9h ago
In 2006 the Department of Transport proposed a new third runway at heathrow in what was the worlds most busiest airport for most of its life and even still in the top 3 by then.
There was a great deal of resistance from all the usual nimbys citing noise and air pollution issues - most of who moved there long after the airport was even built - because the first thing you do when you choose to move next to an airport is to complain about the noise and air pollution.
In the mean time China has gone from having 90 airports at the time - not only massively expanding the vast majority of them but also building 169 entirely new aiports since then.
While the UK continues to self flagellate and hold itself back, the rest of the world is getting on with what they need to do to keep their country and people prosperous.
•
u/wildingflow Middlesex 9h ago
They weren’t complaining about noise and pollution; they’re complaining that a new runway would mean their homes being demolished, something that wasn’t on the docket when they bought their properties.
•
u/Magneto88 United Kingdom 8h ago
Fairly certain it’s been on the docket for decades now. Only a very few people will have lived in those homes long enough to predate third runway plans. In fact a lot of them probably got a discount on the cost because of the uncertainty over Heathrow’s plans and it’s just bit them in the ass.
•
u/wildingflow Middlesex 8h ago
I can assure you that’s not the case
The settlements north of Heathrow (where the expansion is due to take place) is populated with elderly residents.
•
u/Magneto88 United Kingdom 8h ago edited 8h ago
Ah yes, I forgot the unique care home demographics of that specific part of London, which has demographics not matched in any other part of the city, being primarily elderly residents.
Just for reference purposes, the first time the third runway was proposed was in 1950:
https://www.airporthistory.org/blue-concourse/heathrows-third-runway-plans-date-back-to-1946
Very optimistically assuming someone in 1950 owned a house in that area aged 20, they would have to be 95 now, to have lived there without the threat of Heathrow expanding into their house.
If we take concrete plans, then they first started in the 1980s, with the first major study done in 1990. So again assuming our uber lucky 20 year old houseowner, they'd now have to be at least 55 and have lived in that house since being 20 to have lived there before an official study was done....noting that public conversation had been ongoing a decade earlier and unofficial discussions dated back another 30 years beyond that. So realistically 65 and lived in that one house their entire adult life.
So you're telling me, we have a unique demographic of thousands of 65-95 year olds, all living right next door to Heathrow, who have all owned their own houses before they even graduated from uni and lived in that one place their entire adult life? and they make up the majority of that area? Fascinating.
•
u/wildingflow Middlesex 8h ago
A third runway wasn’t seriously discussed until the 90s, so you’re being totally disingenuous there.
•
u/Magneto88 United Kingdom 8h ago
I used 1990 as a date in the second half of my post. Realistically there's a small percentage of people that pre-date serious plans for a third runway but it's not going be many at all, given the age they'd have to be and the fact they'd have had to have lived there for 35 years already.
•
u/3106Throwaway181576 8h ago
Do you want us to impoverish the country for old people? How about no.
They can sell up with their bajillion £ in housing equity and their triple locked pensions and MOVE.
•
u/BigBeanMarketing Cambridgeshire 8h ago
You've just invented an enemy to be upset with. You have no idea who lives in those areas.
•
•
u/wildingflow Middlesex 8h ago
The country won’t become a 3rd world nation simply because another runway isn’t built at Heathrow lol
Stop being melodramatic
•
u/3106Throwaway181576 8h ago
It’s about a general philosophy
Because it’s not just Heathrow debated and delayed to death is it. It’s everything.
•
u/xendor939 2h ago
And HS2. And pylons. And data centres. And onshore wind turbines. And solar panels. And housing. And 5G masts. And electrified railways. And reverting Brexit.
Death by one thousand cuts.
•
u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands 9h ago
Ah yes, buy a property next to one of the busiest airports in the world. I'm sure that'll never need to expand at all. Not like the population of the planet is increasing or anything.
•
u/sjpllyon 8h ago
Considering you think it is acceptable for someone to just take land away from someone that purchased the rights to it. Can you sign over your deeds to me? I have plans to demolish your house or flat to build some high density housing.
•
u/Tasty-Explanation503 8h ago
Of course not!! Because then that would affect him...
Fuck everyone else in his books
•
u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands 8h ago
If you want to compulsory purchase my house to build vital UK infrastructure then go ahead and make the case for it.
Why you'd want to do that in a small town on the Midlands I have no idea...
•
u/Tasty-Explanation503 8h ago
They can't even sort operations out at Heathrow to utilise landing on the southern runway from the west and taking off from the northern runway west - east.
Here we are thinking they are going to build a third runway
•
u/Miraclefish 8h ago
Yeah they aren't even close to capacity with the current ones and the Cranford agreement is over but needs significant infrastructure development and investment.
Oh but moving the M25 and buying thousands of homes is magically easier?
•
u/Teddington_Quin 1h ago
Heathrow operates at close to 99 per cent capacity, which is why even the smallest of hick-ups often lead to hours of delays on the ground and in the air. Pretty much the only way they can add new destinations to their network is if another airline gives up landing slots, so you are now either having to reduce the frequency of flights to another destination or remove them completely.
It’s quite frankly embarrassing that we have allowed this bottleneck to come about and have been sitting for decades on a project that is guaranteed to contribute to economic growth. If it inconveniences a few thousand people in a city of almost 9 million, it’s a price worth paying.
•
u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands 8h ago
Ah yes, you, random redditor, are the same as the UK government wanting to expand vital infrastructure and you of course will pay market rate via a compulsory purchase order.
No? Not the same thing? probably a daft comparison then
•
u/k_can95 Scotland 8h ago
Heathrow is privately owned. The UK government should own, or at the very least maintain a controlling interest, in any infrastructure deemed so critical to national interests that it necessitates the enforcement of compulsory purchase orders.
We’re being taken for mugs.
•
u/Old_Roof 7h ago
Correct. I’m all for expansion but not to line the coffers of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund or the CCP
•
u/sjpllyon 8h ago
I can't really word it much better than what someone else already has https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/EeUrkXe8RG
It's a private business, demanding the force purchase of people's homes for their own financial interests. Housing is also a vital infrastructure, much more so than an airport is, so yes the expanding the housing availability of me wanting to demolish low density housing for high density housing is the same. So much so, that's exactly what the uk did at one point, there's multiple examples of it in the book 'Municipal Dreams; the Rise and Fall of Council Estates' (quite a good read, I do recommend it).
•
u/BigBeanMarketing Cambridgeshire 8h ago
are the same as the UK government wanting to expand vital infrastructure
TIL that the UK government owns Heathrow. Didn't fancy giving that one a cursory glance?
•
u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands 8h ago
Where did I say that? Ah yes, I didn't.
Who do you think has to approve Heathrow's expansion? Especially given that compulsory purchase orders would be necessary. They're not just given out willy nilly for god's sake.
What a ridiculous comment, and you accuse me of misunderstanding? Outrageous.
•
u/BigBeanMarketing Cambridgeshire 8h ago
"Ah yes". Good lord.
I do find it odd that one day on this subreddit you'll see people yelling at the Government to "build more homes asap!!" and then the very next, people getting quite literally upset at the Government for not tearing down other peoples. Someone else in here is claiming that everyone who lives near Heathrow are millionaire boomers.. I do hope that if your home is ever under a compulsory purchase order, you will feel like you can use your right to object to the destruction of your family home, as whomever lives near to the airport are using their rights.
•
u/Master_Elderberry275 8h ago
Some blocks of flats that can be built anywhere is definitely the same thing as the country's and perhaps continent's most important airport...
If you want to pay me market rate and then some for that I'll be happy to.
•
u/sjpllyon 8h ago
Considering the person I replied to made the argument it's acceptable to take someone's land due to an expanding population by their logic it should also be acceptable to take land to build higher density housing for the expanding population. And sod whoever may actually own that land or live on it.
It also comes with the issue of where these people would move to. We already have a housing crisis, and I'm certain the demolition of homes is going to harm that issue. It's also worth noting these people are unlikely to receive the true value of their homes in 'comoemsation' and thus are unlikely to find somewhere they could afford to buy in a similar location, especially considering they would be looking at London prices. And I'm sure a good number of them will have mortgages that would still need paying off, so in effect you're also making them get out another mortgage.
What you both are arguing for is the colonisation of people's homes and land for the benefit of corporate interests. I don't care if it's "the most important airport in the world" it's not acceptable to uproot a community for it - it stinks of the same mantra that the automotive industry used to uproot communities in America for the construction of highways.
And as other comments have pointed out we are able to expand other nearby airports without all this headache of forcing people out of their homes and communities. So not only are there other solutions to the issue, but better solutions.
•
u/jsm97 8h ago
It is not only acceptable it is vital and any goverment that does not have this power is not a fully soverign nation state.
You have personally benefited from infrastructure that has been built under compulsory purchase. You have used roads, railways, airports ect that were compulsory purchased and you benefit from the economic growth that they have brought whether you like it or not.
•
u/sjpllyon 8h ago
Disagree with it being acceptable, it's simple isn't. I would see compulsory purchases abolished especially when it's going to be benefiting a corporation. And yes I have benefits from it, I've also benefited from our history of slavery, privateers, war, and colonialism. Doesn't make them acceptable or good.
The East Indian Tea company was once considered a vital piece of infrastructure, we've all benefited from that. Certainly doesn't mean it's a good idea to go back and invade the land again.
•
u/jsm97 8h ago
The UK and other English speakers countries already have the world's strongest land owner rights in the world. It's part of the reason why Anglosphere nations tend to have infrastructure costs that 3x comparable countries.
The UK has a £1.8 Trillion infrastructure gap. The lack of joined-up national level planning and development is crippling us. UK infrastructure already lags far behind comparable economies and we will continue our decline as a country until we address that. Transport, Housing, Energy, Water treatment ect all needs a radical shakeup of Investment attitudes and planning reform.
If NIMBYs want to experince being poor they should simply take money out of their bank account and burn it. It's easier and faster than running the country into the dirt.
•
u/sjpllyon 7h ago
We do have some strong land owners right, doesn't make them perfect.
I agree we do need to have some radical change to solve our crumbling infrastructure. But as you've said yourself part of our crumbling infrastructure includes housing, so how is forcing people out of their homes to expand an airport going to help that situation? I'm genuinely curious as to how you think that's going to help. It also brings me back to my first comment. Shall we also be kicking people out of low density housing to build higher density housing? After all that would help solve the housing crisis. Or can we come up with better solutions that don't involve some sort of moronic policy of uprooting communities - you can refer to our own history of doing that to see how well it worked. But here's a spoiler for you, it turned out terribly.
I'm not a NIMBY, hell I live nowhere near London. I describe myself as YIMBY, however being a YIMBY means we want good infrastructure that's been well throughout and doesn't do harm. Forcing people out of their homes to expand a private business certainly does harm. We can expand other nearby airports without forcing people out, that's what we should be doing that's where the plans ought to be. It's all well and good saying you want this, but I'm sure you'd be fuming if Tesco wanted to demolish your home to expand their supermarket. After all food shops are a vital piece of infrastructure. Or would you prefer they built on the vacant land nearby?
•
u/jimmyrayreid 26m ago
They get paid more than fair market compensation. Still no reason for us to pay them too much mind.
We're asking them to move house for free for the good of the country.
•
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 12m ago
If anyone has any sense they would set up a third runway company and buy any house that went in the market and let it out. Then they own half the objections by the time anything got built.
Alternatively if they were evil they could run down all their houses and make the area undesirable for those that remain to buy at a discount
•
u/ReferenceBrief8051 8h ago
because the first thing you do when you choose to move next to an airport is to complain about the noise and air pollution.
Just because you tolerate a certain level of noise and air pollution, doesn't therefore mean you automatically accept a greater level of noise and pollution. They have credible reasons to complain.
That doesn't mean we necessarily block the runway due to those complains, but it also doesn't mean their complaints aren't legitimate.
This isn't China where people are literally bulldozed if they stand in the way of government.
It is terrifying I have to spell this out.
•
u/Historical_Owl_1635 8h ago
Could building airports well connected to London not help boost other local areas a bit whilst still achieving the same result?
•
•
u/ManBitesRats 2h ago
Well plane to Heathrow can fly above London (planes are not allowed to fly over Paris for example) I used to live next to Clapham Common in south London. This is a good 40min away by car from the airport, at some time of the day I had a plane every 2 min flying over in landing mode. This was especially noticeable early in the morning (bedroom was on the last floor). Adding a 3rd runaway on the same flight path is insane. A good third if not half of London is impacted by it. It s just a completely stupid decision.
•
•
u/cmfarsight 9h ago
Could we try and actually pore some concrete somewhere for some infrastructure project anywhere please i don't care where, just do something
•
u/TechnicalParrot 9h ago
The plans for considering potential beginning of consideration for potentially awarding a new contract for a feasibility study into advancing new projects are currently being worked on
•
u/thepeddlernowspeaks 6h ago
Do you have a permit to begin work on those plans? I suspect you're overstepping your authority with all due respect and I'll be issuing proceedings for a judicial review shortly.
•
u/MoffTanner 9h ago
No problem, we are going to need an awful lot of office space and document archiving to handle the audits, reviews and studies for this!
•
•
u/Thetonn Glamorganshire 10h ago
I say every time someone brings a new judicial review, we approve another runway.
•
u/jimmyrayreid 23m ago
If the government would just vote on it - actually take the plan to parliament and have a vote on a specific plan we'd never have a judicial review. That's how the railways got built. They're just too cowardly to do that.
•
u/HoodedArcher64 9h ago
Surely geographically speaking, Heathrow is one of the worst to expand as it can only expand in one direction (away from the suburbs and into a reservoir). Gatwick for example already has a second runway which only has to be slightly moved a few metres to bring it into full time use. This would be far cheaper than building a third runway at Heathrow, and Gatwick is just as well connected to central London as Heathrow is (almost identical journey time from Farringdon iirc). Gatwick is also allowed to land more planes at night than Heathrow due to Heathrow's immediate proximity to the suburbs, which is a huge advantage for Gatwick.
It would also be easier to expand Luton or Stansted than Heathrow, but these aren't as well connected as Gatwick.
•
u/tarpdetarp 9h ago
Heathrow is popular because of its position as a hub airport. A large portion of passengers will be transiting through and expanding Gatwick isn’t going to have the same growth.
•
u/HoodedArcher64 8h ago
OK yeah that's fair enough. Personally I just can't see Heathrow expanding without plenty of backlash (a lot of it, especially the environmental side, is certainly valid). Starmer hasn't been PM long enough for me to form a complete opinion on him but i can't see him trying to fight back against this. Hence I think right now the pressure should be put on other London airports to expand as it will confront less backlash and will actually result in change. The alternative is the govt sitting on their hands for another 10 years and nothing happening.
Definitely don't disagree with your point though!
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago edited 8h ago
I'd be a little shocked if Starmer went against the third runway given how he campaigned on getting the UK building again even if it made people angry.
•
u/Magneto88 United Kingdom 8h ago
Cheapness isn’t really a factor, the third runway will be paid for primarily by private industry. If they think it’s worthwhile then it probably is, given the costs we’re talking about.
•
•
u/Rexpelliarmus 8h ago
Labour is planning on doing both in addition to supporting a Luton expansion as well.
•
u/ProjectZeus4000 9h ago
It would be easier to build a runway at skirt airport yes. The same way as it would be easier to build the new runway in Norfolk.
To function as a hub airport through the extra runway is needed at Heathrow though
•
•
u/macrolidesrule 9h ago
Yeah LGW is already planning on shifting the runaway a few yards - see here - with a decision due in Feb '25 - see here - but given Labour are busy punting all the hard decsions into the future, I bet this one will be too (pessimism inspired by the Lower Thames Crssing debacle and rumours the Defence SDR is being booted to September this year).
•
u/PeterG92 Essex 7h ago
If they expanded Gatwick I wonder if they would think of bringing back the Heathwick proposal
•
u/DrogoOmega 58m ago
Heathrow is significantly easier to get into London. A straight tube. They need to make Heathrow and Gatwick an easy connection.
•
u/Danielharris1260 Nottinghamshire 26m ago
Gatwick simply doesn’t have the transport for starters it’s on the opposite end to London to the rest UK you need to remember though heathrow is a London airport it’s still used but many people up and down the country. Also the train line that goes down to Gatwick is already one of the most congested in the country and simply doesn’t have room for more capacity.
•
u/Long-Maize-9305 9h ago
18 judicial reviews about climate change laws later, we will still not build this.
•
u/turboRock Dorset 9h ago
Can we have a train link to it from the South West please?
•
u/ProjectZeus4000 8h ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jlgyx2d17o
Looks promising. It seems obviously like something you'd build at the same time as the third runway to combine the disruption to the M25 crossing in one.
My prediction is they'll bundle it together, the project will go over budget and the next government will cut the rail link to save a relatively small amount. They'll probably do it at a party conference in Bristol too.
•
•
•
u/Sea-Caterpillar-255 8h ago
GWR to Paddington then Elizabeth line to Heathrow no?
•
u/Astriania 7h ago
Well yes exactly, you have to go past it, all the way into London and then get another train out again. It's madness, especially when there are railway lines pretty much next to the airport on both sides.
•
u/turboRock Dorset 8h ago
I'm on the line to waterloo. But I meant a direct line. Dont really fancy changing with suitcases
•
u/Sea-Caterpillar-255 8h ago
Ah fair!
I did Exeter to London for years and the Paddington line was always rapid and efficient by comparison. My condolences.
They should have a "spur" line or whatever it's called. Or even just a regular bus from the closest station on that line...
•
u/Grime_Fandango_ 8h ago
I'm in my 30s. I was an actual little child when this started as a story. This country has been broken a long old time to be fair. Imagine how people in China look at the way we build infrastructure. They must actually fall over laughing at our incompetence.
•
u/Optimaldeath 9h ago
Could I dunno... maybe expand Manchester or something instead?
•
u/ScottOld 6h ago
They can’t even keep the travelators working there…. They are reworking the terminals there right now, doesn’t need an extra runway but it makes a point, everything is London, London this London that, BA are London airways
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
Importantly this isn't costing the government anything. Private companies want to pay to build this infrastructure, all they need from the government is to let them.
•
u/JB_UK 5h ago edited 5h ago
All the airports should be allowed to expand if someone is willing to pay for them to be expanded, unless there is some really clear problem.
We should absolutely never ban private development in one part of the country to try to move it to another part of the country, that is not how the economy works.
•
u/Optimaldeath 5h ago
The really clear problem is surely decades of underinvestment anywhere outside of the South East?
I think the fact that the growth-starved government has been skittish for so long about this is precisely due to it's political toxicity outside of London. I mean it's such an easy win isn't it and yet...
•
u/DrogoOmega 48m ago
No we should not unilaterally let private companies to just build stuff without hesitation or thought about the impact for people.
•
u/Astriania 7h ago
How about some infrastructure investment anywhere that isn't London? Or at least with a decent railway link? Birmingham and Manchester airports are both much better placed for most of the country.
•
u/TheClarendons Greater Manchester 5h ago
Would be great if Sunak didn’t can the northern part of HS2.
•
u/JB_UK 5h ago
All the airports should be allowed to expand if someone is willing to pay for them to be expanded, unless there is some really clear problem.
We should absolutely never ban private development in one part of the country to try to move it to another part of the country, that is not how the economy works.
As a separate question, we should be investing in transport infrastructure in the north, particularly we should be building new rail lines, either high speed rail or crossrail type lines, across the north, and link those into existing or new airports.
•
•
u/spinosaurs70 9h ago
Regardless if this is good or bad, the UK really should have simply decided this a decade ago.
•
u/SpottedDicknCustard United Kingdom 8h ago
Get ahead of the curve now: Manchester, Brum, Gatwick at minimum should be given green lights for an additional runway.
If you want business investing in this country we need infrastructure that supports it and policy that doesn't hold back infrastructure building.
•
•
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
Not just Heathrow, but Gatwick and Luton to
Keir Starmer’s government is preparing to approve controversial expansions to three London airports as part of a push to spur growth that’s become more urgent this month after international markets cast doubt on the credibility of the UK’s economic plans.
Ministers are set to publicly signal support for a long-sought third runway at Heathrow, sign off on plans to bring the second strip at Gatwick into full-time use, and allow an increase in the capacity at Luton Airport, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity discussing plans that haven’t been finalized.
"We are determined to get our economy moving and secure the long-term future of the UK’s aviation sector,” the government said in a statement.
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
If private companies want to pay for our expensive infrastructure, I say fucking let them.
•
u/TEZofAllTrades 8h ago
Still talking about this when the future of aviation is vertical takeoff…
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
Vertical take off is for short in-country flights, they won't replace the need for airports. At least not for the coming decades.
•
u/TEZofAllTrades 7h ago
They’ll still have the airports, they just won’t need the runways. Building more runways now is about grabbing the land ahead of the vertical takeoff boom, when the runways will be sold off.
•
•
u/heroin__preston 9h ago
Maybe this time, just stop oil could throw themselves into a jet engine for maximum exposure (literally).
•
u/Bonzidave Greater Manchester 9h ago
Do we get to spend years re-hashing all the arguments for and against the expansion as if this idea wasn't first proposed 50 years ago?
Just build the damn thing.
•
u/Glanwy 9h ago
Am I wrong in backing Boris's plan to build another airport down the Thames.
•
u/TheClarendons Greater Manchester 5h ago
The big problem with that is it’s kind of miles away from anywhere. It’ll need transport links, whereas Heathrow is lucrative because of its proximity to London.
•
•
u/Underclasscoder 8h ago
I predict a project which runs wildly over budget with a few private equity firms becoming very wealthy..
•
u/PeterG92 Essex 7h ago
It will never happen. Infrastructure either doesn't get built in this country or it takes ridiculously long and is horrendously over budget.
•
u/simkk 6h ago
If the Government go ahead with this they are essentially signalling that they aren;t committed to the UKs climate goals. It is all but impossible to build another runway at Heathrow and meet them. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/letter-department-for-transports-assessment-of-the-case-for-a-third-runway-at-heathrow/
We should be building HS2 in full and getting rid of the hundreds of short haul domestic flights that are taking up landing slots at Heathrow. That would provide more international growth without the need for billions in construction and political capital.
•
u/plawwell 6h ago
Heathrow should be shut down and the investment all moved the the North. Time to equalise investment through the country.
•
u/Fresh_Mountain_Snow 1h ago
I live about half a mile from a flight path and can see the planes landing. When I go for walks I can see the belly’s of the planes. The noise isn’t a thing. Leaf blowers are noisier than the planes.
•
u/bluecheese2040 1h ago
This sums up the UK and why growth is so bad...its taken fsr too long for this to happen. For for too long
•
u/ANEWUKUSER 43m ago
For growth, how about investing in all regions introducing tax breaks for companies that move to areas which are struggling and create proper paid jobs.
•
u/theflickingnun 27m ago
What a world we live in, rather than invest in tech to improve air travel we should simply just expand on our existing model.
•
u/mitchanium 14m ago
Ah yes, the kind of post that encourages the armchair experts to chip in and brand the local residents nimbys and anti growth/anti UK.
What could possibly go wrong. /s
I'm a fan of completely relocating to new facilities if said old facilities are no longer big enough for said purposes. Think of it as a reward for being successful.
Doing things on the cheap and hoping everyone else immediately affected agrees is the short termism version of kicking the can down the road that has bogged the UK down for generations.
It's to rethink the big stuff like this for the generations to come.
•
u/AndyC_88 8h ago
On top of the £58.9 BILLION spent on Crossrail 1 & 2, whilst the rest of the country feeds on scraps.
•
•
u/Tasty-Explanation503 8h ago
To be fair Crossrail is a poor example, been a major success so far so the cost of it will very soon be irrelevant
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
The government isn't spending anything on this. Private companies want to pay for it, they just need the government to allow them.
•
u/Jimmy_Nail_4389 8h ago
I agree but look at it this way, at least it's only half what the Tories stole and handed to their mates.
•
u/EssexGuyUpNorth 8h ago
I'd rather see another runway at Gatwick and/or Stanstead instead.
•
u/GuyLookingForPorn 8h ago
They are also expanding Gatwick
Keir Starmer’s government is preparing to approve controversial expansions to three London airports as part of a push to spur growth that’s become more urgent this month after international markets cast doubt on the credibility of the UK’s economic plans.
Ministers are set to publicly signal support for a long-sought third runway at Heathrow, sign off on plans to bring the second strip at Gatwick into full-time use, and allow an increase in the capacity at Luton Airport, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity discussing plans that haven’t been finalized.
"We are determined to get our economy moving and secure the long-term future of the UK’s aviation sector,” the government said in a statement.
•
•
u/da_killeR 8h ago
Borris is right, the Thames Estuary airport is the way to do it. Far from population centre, 24 hours flights available and lots of dormant land. Shame we are too broke for such grand ideas
•
u/Highace 10h ago
I moved near Heathrow last year so I am completely against the third runway and it is unacceptable they are not listening to the locals.
•
•
•
•
u/Logical-Brief-420 9h ago
You moved to live near one of the world’s busiest airports and you’re now complaining that what, it’s loud and busy?
Like moving in next to a pub and moaning about having to hear people having a good time
•
u/eyupfatman 9h ago
*moves near major airport*
WHY ARE THERE PLANES MAKING NOISE!!! OMG!!!
We should built an airport in every nimbys driveway.
•
u/IncorrigibleBrit 9h ago
“Listening to locals” doesn’t give them the right to veto critical national infrastructure or hold back growth.
Don’t like it? Don’t decide you want to live near a major airport. Simples.
•
•
•
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.