As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.

I will put a few pounds down that runway #3 never happens.

No, no, and some time in the 23rd century.

It is the one at Gatwick.

Noshow wrote:

It is the one at Gatwick.

Which one?

Worth drawing the distinction between ‘3rd runway’ and ‘Expansion’ - as the latter can happen to a degree without the former. Increasing the ATM cap, replacing T3, airspace change, et al are all still achievable and will allow for growth - just not the wholesale sort you’d see with a whole new runway, which at the moment, has a number of things stacked against it.

Around March 2020 HAL had passed the ‘M5’ CAA gateway, which meant a frozen masterplan and the ability to begin acquiring / preparing land - the judicial review halted further progress at that point, although was later overturned. Combined with the onset of COVID, most of the Expansion team left the business, or were reabsorbed into the existing structure.

Point being: getting that expertise, but even more critically, momentum back would take time and considerable will - not to mention public and airline community support.

All of those elements aren’t in abundant supply just now. Not to say they couldn’t be rebuilt, but expansion in the vein of a 3rd runway would be significantly more challenging to start now, than it was 4-5 years back - the other elements may be more achievable for now (although not without their own challenges).

With John Holland-Kaye leaving the business, there’s a reasonable chance his successor could be Emma Gilthorpe (who was Exec Director of Expansion, currently COO) - who would be an ideal candidate to lead any such agenda. She’s well respected by airlines / politicians and an extremely capable, no-nonsense leader, who is adept at navigating the political and commercial landscape necessary to unlock expansion - be it full-throated, or in degrees.

Never gonna happen. Keep dreaming.

Which one?

Main or northern doesn't matter as they are too close together for comfort anyway.

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.

1) They own a considerable number of houses in the area but they don't own all of the actual land.

2) No and there aren't any really.

3) If they started construction today around 2025. But that's a massive if and it honestly may never happen.

Arion640 wrote:

The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.

I can see the Gatwick op becoming reality sooner than a 3rd LHR.

https://www.gatwickairport.com/business ... rn-runway/

Well, the removal of T1 to build the remaining of T2 main terminal is going so slowly at this moment, what to do with T3 is years away to be finalised (what happened to the rumoured plan of satellite terminal near the control tower and only the 4/5 gates where Emirates gates/lounge is to be kept??). I don't see 3rd runway in at least 10 years time (I would put 20 really but I thought to be safe).

Not only that, in 5-10 years time T4 would be so out of date something needs to happen even if there is no further refurbishment plan in 50 years (kind of jokingly here). Not to mention T5 main building exterior and interior needs some care as well soon (there are some new paint needed for the steel structure and cleaning of the outside walls, very visible if you know how to look).

There will be so many small projects to keep the airport terminals up to date, and so many medium term planning needed for the current terminals that need to be completed according to original plan or to be rebuilt, I highly doubt Heathrow now has the resource and ability to start the process of 3rd runway.

And in another 10-20 years, it might be cheaper to build a new airport (just saying! Don't shoot me) in Kent (again, jokingly).

Oh yes, before I forget, what happened to the plan for a dedicated pre-clearance terminal??

Finally, I think the planned T6 opposite the current T5 could happen in 10 years time but not the third runway!

It's cleared the highest court in the land. Unless explicitly decide to legislate against the policy? Is that a manifesto commitment?
Funding is now the main issue IMHO.

Arion640 wrote:

The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.

That's a rounding error in the grand scheme of London airport capacity!

skipness1E wrote:

It's cleared the highest court in the land. Unless explicitly decide to legislate against the policy? Is that a manifesto commitment?
Funding is now the main issue IMHO.

Not quite sure if you’re being facetious there (and no offence intended if you’re not! - just how I read it! ) - but in the simplest terms, that’s sort of right… but the machinery to make this grinding into action has a lot of cogs, especially at local government level, which proved extremely challenging to work through last time - can’t blow past them waving a high court approval in their general direction, basically. The infrastructure to manage that type of stakeholder at that scale effectively no longer exists within HAL, as I understand it. Raising capital is comparatively easy - but again, it itself governed by regulation - anything HAL adds to its regulatory asset base by way of construction, cost allocation, et al indirectly requires local stakeholder support.

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.

It just seems London doesn't want any visitors that might inconvenience them. This has gone on for far too long. I'm very happy we finally built a third runway here at SEA. Although I need to do a dive into how much it's sped up arrivals and departures, because the vids I've watched at SEA don't seem to have shorter departure lines, but it may just be a rush hour effect.

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.

Can we try to be at least vaguely realistic in our discussion please ?

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.

Please do not spread misinformation. The third runway is not approved.

The proposed third runway to the north of the current airport was adopted as Government policy back in 2016.

In February 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled government's decision to proceed with building the third runway was unlawful, due to incompatibility of the decision with Government environment policy, and with the Paris Agreement. That meant no further progress (i.e. making planning applications) could proceed. Heathrow Airports Limited (HAL) appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.

In December 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HAL and lifted the ban on the third runway, meaning HAL can now proceed with obtaining the needed various planning application consents. But the pandemic stalled progress.

It is, therefore, not “approved”, as there are the various planning applications to be obtained before any construction can begin. That planning approval process will take further years to obtain.

If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.

Noshow wrote:

If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.

If airlines want to fly up north... there is plenty of runway capacity. Doncaster Sheffield has a long runway and a relatively unused terminal in northern England, along with being fairly close to good rail and road connections... but has significantly struggled with demand

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Could you possibly suggest/explain where a 4th runway would even possibly be located?????

bols59 wrote:

It just seems London doesn't want any visitors that might inconvenience them.

I'm not understanding what you are meaning. Could you possibly explain, or enlarge, please?

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.

Completely incorrect. It is not approved, and never has been.

Vicenza wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Could you possibly suggest/explain where a 4th runway would even possibly be located?????

just like Heathrow Hub proposal, build a 6.5km+ runway to allow takeoff and landing simultaneously.

I transited through LHR's T5 last Tuesday. It was clearly a terminal designed for half the movement I saw there. It was definitely the worst airport experience I've had in many years. There's no way this airport can accommodate more traffic from a new runway.

If there is a will, there is a way. A law was passed recently in France to accelerate the building of new nuclear reactors, reducing the number of appeals, commissions, environmental studies, etc. (environmental studies are a moot point as the reactors will be built at existing sites).

There is no will in the UK for this third runway, hence it won't happen.

Noshow wrote:

If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.

Please read some of the previous threads. There are many.

Vicenza wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.

Could you possibly suggest/explain where a 4th runway would even possibly be located?????

The Stanwell southwest runway proposal which was a part of the airports commision as a third runway option.

Technically feasible but as politically difficult as the north west runway.


Source Heathrow Airport Limited

Then there's the slightly bonkers close parallel to the north option.

George VII will inaugurate the third Heathrow runway.

vhtje wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.

Please do not spread misinformation. The third runway is not approved.

The proposed third runway to the north of the current airport was adopted as Government policy back in 2016.

In February 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled government's decision to proceed with building the third runway was unlawful, due to incompatibility of the decision with Government environment policy, and with the Paris Agreement. That meant no further progress (i.e. making planning applications) could proceed. Heathrow Airports Limited (HAL) appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.

In December 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HAL and lifted the ban on the third runway, meaning HAL can now proceed with obtaining the needed various planning application consents. But the pandemic stalled progress.

It is, therefore, not “approved”, as there are the various planning applications to be obtained before any construction can begin. That planning approval process will take further years to obtain.

Thank you and very well explained I might add! Separate question, when will Heathrow's slot coordinator release "final" slot allocation for summer 2023? Right now, only initial slot allocation is depicted on their web site and this makes no sense to me given that the summer season is to start on March 26, which is next week!!!

Noshow wrote:

If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.

Fast rail? Like the the much-delayed, now-truncated and vastly-overbudget HS2?

scbriml wrote:

Noshow wrote:

If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.

Fast rail? Like the the much-delayed, now-truncated and vastly-overbudget HS2?

Looks at the incomplete and over budget motorway

I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to build a new airport east of Gravesend. Yeah its swampy area and there are a few little towns, but on the other side half of your noise pollution will be over the north sea and you can build 4 runways from the get go.

FluidFlow wrote:

I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to build a new airport east of Gravesend. Yeah its swampy area and there are a few little towns, but on the other side half of your noise pollution will be over the north sea and you can build 4 runways from the get go.

They would need to deal with the wreck of the Richard Montgomery first.

For those who don't know, this ship sank during WW2 and still contains 1,500 tons of (probably unstable) high explosives.

To date, nobody has touched this hot potato.

When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)

Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.

European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)

We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).

We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)

Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.

So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .

If anything the best value remains a fully functional second runways at Gatwick and even that isn’t going to be cheap or easy with the terrain between Ifieldwood and Charlewood.

rutankrd wrote:

When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)

Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.

European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)

We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).

We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)

Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.

So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .

All excellent points, very well made. However, one point you forgot is how popular London is as a destination in its own right. It’s in the top 3 visited cities worldwide.

https://www.mastercard.com/news/insights/2019/global-destination-cities-index-2019/

rutankrd wrote:

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

Personally, I can't see the small financial and time cost of filling in a form once every few years as having any noticeable impact on travel.

scbriml wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

Personally, I can't see the small financial and time cost of filling in a form once every few years as having any noticeable impact on travel.

One factor with the ESTA is that it is only available if you have not previously visited certain countries.

Given the uncertainty in Russia/Belarus and the Middle East it would not surprise me if more countries were added to that list, possibly even China.

vhtje wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.

Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)

Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.

European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)

We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).

We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)

Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.

So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .

All excellent points, very well made. However, one point you forgot is how popular London is as a destination in its own right. It’s in the top 3 visited cities worldwide.

https://www.mastercard.com/news/insights/2019/global-destination-cities-index-2019/

Was going to say and don’t dispute the fact that London as point to point destination is one of the top 10 on the planet and indeed the % of point of entry traffic ( not transits) is increasing compared to competitors across the channel .

Said to be close to 40% are terminating at Heathrow and that’s explicitly recognised above .

That’s the question for statistical analysis; as the % of transits decline and then if London point of entry (growth ) can still be accommodated within the existing infrastructure and if so for how long .

One thing for sure margins on A TO B (especially in London) is always a sight more than A-B-C for the carriers bottom lines .

B-C generates revenue and seat occupancy rather more than profitability.

Now does that have an impact on spread and range of potentially viable destinations yes sure and the one carrier that knows this dynamic well enough is British Airways

It also has an impact of the grey area slot trading markets) . Both these forces almost certainly play to the IAG ( Walsh in particular) lack of enthusiasm for the project compounded by the eye watering costs .

scbriml wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .

Personally, I can't see the small financial and time cost of filling in a form once every few years as having any noticeable impact on travel.

I’d invite you to discuss this in another forum none rev (don’t want to be banned through the points raised are important to the extent of changes peoples own liberties ) It’s far from a flippant oh it’s just a form , collated evidence to justify your travel ( the permission over right) data collection and population monitoring.

BTW it does as potentially it impacts the very immediacy of travel for millions .

No longer will millions be able to say on Thursday let’s go to Brussels for the day .

Remember most people aren’t actually regular travellers even today.

Their passport maybe be in a box in the bedroom , not checked for several years and suddenly they want to travel , find it’s less than six moths from expiry, and that they now need to fill even more personal information and documentation.

The spontaneous nature and excitement for those millions has gone out the window.

Another scenario a call from a distant relative potentially terminally ill and you haven’t checked your passport for years . Your permission to travel is now effecting you is a very personal and indeed emotional way.

So no it’s not just a few forms .

Oh God, the hamster wheel spins again...
If you're typing that you think there is some open area of land that could replace Heathrow then you haven't read any of the other threads on this. Please stop. There isn't. Heathrow won't be closing, that would lay waste to the local economy all the way to Bristol via the M4. Hence as LHR won't be closing, there's no case for a new build. Every single review has come to the same conclusion.

The key notion was Hub Capacity for the 21st century, not replicating the folly of Mirabel. Just read the previous threads.
The key weakness here IMHO is that a key component of UK PLC is in private hands, when as a key part of national infrastructure, it needs to be Public/Private in partnership.

rutankrd wrote:

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

Except for the small detail that the US carriers are going to have their biggest summer ever at LHR this year, United have been growing LHR not at the expense of FRA which his a fortress STAR Alliance hub but feeding US domestic traffic to London via their hubs. London is a bigger station than the FRA hub for United.
And American funnel the full weight of their domestic network to Europe via LHR with BA. That's not showing evidence of decline, indeed BA continue to add smaller and smaller US niche destinations on their own. The strength of the dollar means there's not been a better time to visit the UK in recent years.

I tend to agree that expanding runaway capacity at LHR at this point is not worth the cost - financial, social, environmental. The runway expansion should have happened years ago. The cleverer approach now is to utilize the other existing airports around London by connecting them easily, incentivize airlines to use higher capacity airplanes and reduce redundant frequencies.

Would someone please send me an email in 10 years time to remind me to start a new thread on the third Heathrow runway, thanks

Metchalus wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.

1) They own a considerable number of houses in the area but they don't own all of the actual land.

2) No and there aren't any really.

3) If they started construction today around 2025. But that's a massive if and it honestly may never happen.

2025? How on earth could they do the amount of work required in 2 years? More like 12 ...

skipness1E wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.

Except for the small detail that the US carriers are going to have their biggest summer ever at LHR this year, United have been growing LHR not at the expense of FRA which his a fortress STAR Alliance hub but feeding US domestic traffic to London via their hubs. London is a bigger station than the FRA hub for United.
And American funnel the full weight of their domestic network to Europe via LHR with BA. That's not showing evidence of decline, indeed BA continue to add smaller and smaller US niche destinations on their own. The strength of the dollar means there's not been a better time to visit the UK in recent years.

Short term view Skip ( not the longer view) and did I not caveat American ( quite deliberately!) and the every increasing point of entry % for London as a termination rather than connecting hub .

What you have demonstrated is that very phenomenon in practice !

As to the current significant dollar advantage (also temporarily benefitting a place somewhere further north inbound ) those tides swing to wider economic forces as you well know.

Whilst BA continue to repurpose some of the slots ( particularly those off peak) traditionally used for African , and Asian services ( many still cancelled or significantly reduced) I am rather less convinced that is indicative of where BA want to be medium term.

Many of those routes to Greek isles will dissolve soon enough, just as always happens.

The African network has never recovered from Ebola yet profitability remains high for other carriers operating into the region none the less Delta ! and Asia is simply weak with their historically prime route Hong King having its own issues.

We all acknowledge the US remains the prime market sure , however again Paris in particular is making a march on this and as are IAGs own carriers within the neighbouring domain.

I agree a white paper development brings far more problems than a continual sicking plaster approach for a country such as the UK where short term Anglo Saxon economic models dominate .

Question ?
Should Heathrow have remained publicly owned I’d waver to probably, and should the third runway have been delivered by the end of nineties- yes imho however that’s no longer my opinion.

Now someone mentioned the likelihood of delivery being further reduced if a Labour administration were to be formed - Actually I think the opposite is true .
Many many Labour MPs and potential MPs are very much in favour of completing large infrastructure projects (it was Cameron that cancelled the previous proposals )

Remember it was Cameron and his cronies that cancelled to far more workable , shorter runway that HAD approval in 2010 a scheme that could have delivered the increases in feed and particularly regional connectivity and the desired inspiration for the runway in the first place.

Imho and final statement I do believe the project will be delivered during the next decade , I probably won’t be around to see it ( or the completion of HS2 for that matter) however the question will remain value for money, the environmental damage.
Changes taking place now and those in the pipelines politically , economically and on a wider global scale do not alter my earlier comment and believe that it’s life expired and far better uses of resources for the UK exit and/ or will exist than building this strip of concrete.