Airport expansions

[Tetchytyke]

The fact that they don’t use Southend or other airports in the London area proves the point Im making.

Airlines don't use Southend because they don't want to use Southend. That's a perfectly reasonable commercial decision for them to make.

But if there's loads of unused capacity at Southend then it rather undermines the argument that there isn't enough capacity in metropolitan London and that we need to concrete over another 20 square miles of west London. If demand for London was exceeding supply then market forces would be pushing airlines towards Southend- airlines which can't afford Heathrow would go to Gatwick or Stansted, and airlines which can't afford those would go to Southend.

It's worth remembering that, for all the talk of interconnection, the two biggest airlines by passenger numbers in the UK are EasyJet and Ryanair. Both airlines operate a single-leg pricing model and don't offer connections.

There has to be a bit of a problem when the U.K. regions rely on AMS as their hub and not LHR.

That's more of a complex situation.

Many regions are served by BA connecting through Heathrow already, as well as KLM through Schiphol and Air France through CDG. BA already serve Inverness, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, and Manchester. It tends to be the regions closer to London which only have KLM/AF as the airline with international connections.

But that proximity to London is why, even with Heathrow expansion, BA (or whoever) still isn't going to serve those areas. BA aren't going to fly from Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, or Birmingham to Heathrow and, from an environmental perspective, that's really for the best. BA cancelled Leeds to Heathrow during Covid and there's an LNER-shaped reason why it hasn't come back.

If we want to sort out regional connectivity then allowing through ticketing from the train to the plane would be the best option, in my opinion. A through ticket with guaranteed protection from Cardiff to The World via GWR and BA would be far better than more very short flights.

 

[pug1]

Airlines don't use Southend because they don't want to use Southend. That's a perfectly reasonable commercial decision for them to make.

But if there's loads of unused capacity at Southend then it rather undermines the argument that there isn't enough capacity in metropolitan London and that we need to concrete over another 20 square miles of west London. If demand for London was exceeding supply then market forces would be pushing airlines towards Southend- airlines which can't afford Heathrow would go to Gatwick or Stansted, and airlines which can't afford those would go to Southend.

It's worth remembering that, for all the talk of interconnection, the two biggest airlines by passenger numbers in the UK are EasyJet and Ryanair. Both airlines operate a single-leg pricing model and don't offer connections.


That's more of a complex situation.

Many regions are served by BA connecting through Heathrow already, as well as KLM through Schiphol and Air France through CDG. BA already serve Inverness, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, and Manchester. It tends to be the regions closer to London which only have KLM/AF as the airline with international connections.

But that proximity to London is why, even with Heathrow expansion, BA (or whoever) still isn't going to serve those areas. BA aren't going to fly from Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, or Birmingham to Heathrow and, from an environmental perspective, that's really for the best. BA cancelled Leeds to Heathrow during Covid and there's an LNER-shaped reason why it hasn't come back.

If we want to sort out regional connectivity then allowing through ticketing from the train to the plane would be the best option, in my opinion. A through ticket with guaranteed protection from Cardiff to The World via GWR and BA would be far better than more very short flights.

Again that proves the point I’m arguing. Airlines do not want to fly from what they consider to be peripheral airports. So that capacity just gets allocated to other countries if they can’t access LHR. For what it’s worth I suspect a lot of the increased capacity would be used to relieve flight paths over certain time periods. Do I agree with 20 square miles of West London being paved over? Not necessarily. However I’m making the point that if they are to expand airport capacity in London it’s no use trying to suggest that Southend, Luton or even Gatwick and Stansted can do so to the same effect as they simply can’t because growth is airline led. Politicians thinking they can is the exact reason you get things like a reopened DSA!

easyJet and Ryanair operate in a different environment. However should capacity increase significantly then I could almost guarantee some movement by easyjet into LHR.

As for KLM, absolutely nothing against them. I think their services from regions like my local at HUY are exceptionally good and I use them as a preference over travelling to LHR which I have not flown from in over ten years. However it’s probably a rather unique situation in that I can get into central Amsterdam or be on a connecting flight to anywhere in the world when using HUY-AMS than I could using LHR as a U.K. mainland resident. This is part of the reasoning I understand in the thinking behind expanding LHR.

 

[TravelDream]

The airport in its current guise was there first, yes. If you buy a house on Myrtle Avenue you can't really moan about the noise.

But the expanded Heathrow wasn't there first. That's the problem. The people who live in Colnbrook and Harmondsworth were there first.

I note you don't mention which airport it is that you live near (and I don't expect you to say) but there are no other airports in the UK which have the same level of movements as Heathrow and have them over such a densely packed urban population.

There's always the possibility that an airport will get busier and that flight paths and infrastructure might change.

Heathrow, until recently, had three active runways. Those under the old 23 arrival and departure routes have seen a big noise reduction as that runway has closed.

And what some people seem to forget is a third runway will reduce total noise, not increase it. Planes will hold less and wait for departures on taxiways less.

I live near one of Britain's busiest airports and it's open 24/7 unlike Heathrow.

A 10dB reduction in aircraft noise in 50 years isn't anything to brag about.

It's a significant reduction in percentage terms and that's at the aircraft. The sound profile reduction on approach and departure is significantly reduced.

If you ever than the chance, listen to an A320 and A320 NEO or Boeing 737 and 737 MAX taking off / landing. The noise difference between the two to the observer is significantly less.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again that proves the point I’m arguing. Airlines do not want to fly from what they consider to be peripheral airports. So that capacity just gets allocated to other countries if they can’t access LHR.

I think we're saying very similar things. Airlines absolutely want to be at Heathrow, certainly for long-haul airlines they perceive that there's a certain prestige in serving Heathrow that they perceive they don't get at Gatwick or Stansted.

But airlines wanting to be there doesn't, in my opinion, provide sufficient justification for expanding Heathrow. Particularly as it is really the airlines who have been relegated to Gatwick because they can't/won't pay Heathrow slot fees who are pushing for the expansion; BA are ambivalent at best about it. Those airlines relegated to Gatwick are already serving London, though, and moving to Heathrow is just about ego.

If passenger demand for London was outstripping supply then you'd see more airlines moving down the chain. Airlines who desperately want extra flights as they have loads of people wanting to pay top dollar but can't get Heathrow slots would try Gatwick, if they can't get Gatwick slots they'd try Luton or Stansted, if they can't get Stansted slots they'd try Southend. My suspicion is that demand isn't exceeding supply and all that would really happen is that airlines would move flights up the chain if more slots at Heathrow appeared.

Now this would be very good for the growth of Heathrow's revenue as they'd be stealing customers from the other airports. But growth for the country? I'm more sceptical. Airlines simply moving their operations from Gatwick or Stansted to Heathrow isn't growth. As you say, I could see EasyJet being tempted to move some operations from Gatwick and/or Luton to Heathrow (assuming Clearlake haven't bankrupted them by 2040!) but I'm not convinced this wouldn't just be accompanied by a reduction in operations at Gatwick and/or Luton.

Politicians thinking they can is the exact reason you get things like a reopened DSA!

DSA is the same flawed logic that we're seeing at Heathrow, in my opinion. Construction is growth, build it and they will come. Hmm, maybe not.

However it’s probably a rather unique situation in that I can get into central Amsterdam or be on a connecting flight to anywhere in the world when using HUY-AMS than I could using LHR as a U.K. mainland resident. This is part of the reasoning I understand in the thinking behind expanding LHR.

It's certainly in Heathrow's promotional bumpf that it will improve regional connectivity. Again, I'm sceptical.

BA have leased out some of their slots which are restricted to domestic use only to Loganair. I think that says all we need to know about how interested BA are in the domestic air market and how they see it going. I don't see a world in which BA, or anyone else, are going to be flying from places like Bristol or Cardiff to Heathrow. The reason why the Leeds-Heathrow route didn't re-appear after Covid was commercial and not slot-related; in my view, the primary reason has been the improvements in the rail service under LNER.

 

[kevin_roche]

I saw this document and thought it might be of interest to members on this thread:

A Strategic Vision for Transport to an Expanded Heathrow Airport

It has a section on Rail Services to Heathrow which contains the following:
4.4 Rail and Underground services will play a central role in achieving the public transport mode share targets set out in the draft Heathrow Expansion NPS. A credible surface access strategy must, demonstrate how rail provision will support a step-change in the way passengers and staff access the airport, reducing reliance on car travel and minimising pressure on the surrounding road network.
4.5 The Government considers that expansion should enable direct, convenient and reliable journeys from a wide range of origins, rather than requiring passengers and staff, having to travel to and from central London as the default option. It is considered that to achieve the mode share targets associated with expansion enhanced connectivity from the west and/or south of the airport, enabling through-running services via Heathrow, is likely to be required.
4.6 Therefore, at a high level, we would expect a surface access strategy to set out how rail services would:
• Enable through-running via Heathrow, reducing the need for interchange in central London;
• Improve coverage for passenger and staff catchments currently poorly served by direct rail links; and
• Provide sufficient capacity and resilience to accommodate phased growth.
4.7 Our approach provides flexibility to allow promoters to identify and bring forward strategies that demonstrate credible promoter-led or promoter-financed rail enhancements capable of delivering these outcomes. It does not tie the hands of promoters by prescribing specific schemes.
4.8 These proposals should support direct and through-running services from the west and/or south where appropriate. Importantly, as stated in the draft Heathrow Expansion NPS, we are not requiring surface access schemes to be brought forward as part of the expansion DCO itself; rather, it requires there to be a credible plan for new rail links to be delivered ahead of airport capacity reaching 130 million or more passengers per annum.
4.9 As a guide, there are two options that have been previously discussed. There is a proposed link, westward from Terminal 5, via a tunnel to a junction east of Langley Station allowing trains to run to and from destinations in the West: Slough, Reading and beyond. There is also a Southern scheme building new rail infrastructure, linking Heathrow Terminal 5 with Chertsey or Virginia Water, enabling direct trains to run from Basingstoke, Woking and Guildford to Heathrow Airport Stations. This would also create a new link to the airport from London Waterloo via Clapham Junction. These options are not the only ones that could be brought forward. For example, there are different configurations for a southern link that could be feasible.
4.10 The network around Heathrow is already highly constrained, and any new services, if not correctly managed, will have a detrimental impact on non-airport passengers and freight. The introduction of Great British Railways (GBR), with its emphasis and focus on integration of track and train, passengers, reliability and efficiency and economic growth will have an important role to play in integrating any new services.
4.11 By choosing to take a non-prescriptive approach to rail schemes, we are ensuring that promoters have the flexibility and space to consider a range of different
schemes. No matter what proposals are brought forward, close and sustained partnership working is essential. This is because it is crucial that any proposals are designed to support the delivery of the public transport mode share targets without detrimentally impacting the existing rail network.
Promoters should demonstrate early and ongoing engagement with Network Rail and, as appropriate, DfT Operator (DFTO), Great British Railways, Transport for London (in relation to potential underground improvements) and other relevant bodies, and show how stakeholder input, such as that provided by the Airport Transport Forum, has informed the development of rail proposals over time.
4.12 This collaborative approach should not only consider the deliverability and feasibility of any rail schemes, it should also ensure that any proposals are proportionate and do not end up having significant societal costs that outweigh the benefits of expansion.

 

[gabrielhj07]

The reason why the Leeds-Heathrow route didn't re-appear after Covid was commercial and not slot-related; in my view, the primary reason has been the improvements in the rail service under LNER.

I think you are giving LNER more credit than is due. BA probably found something more productive for that aeroplane to do, and directed LBA-International passengers to MAN.

Very few connecting passengers from the North will be keen to drag themselves and their luggage to the Piccadilly Line.

 

[pug1]

I think we're saying very similar things. Airlines absolutely want to be at Heathrow, certainly for long-haul airlines they perceive that there's a certain prestige in serving Heathrow that they perceive they don't get at Gatwick or Stansted.

But airlines wanting to be there doesn't, in my opinion, provide sufficient justification for expanding Heathrow. Particularly as it is really the airlines who have been relegated to Gatwick because they can't/won't pay Heathrow slot fees who are pushing for the expansion; BA are ambivalent at best about it. Those airlines relegated to Gatwick are already serving London, though, and moving to Heathrow is just about ego.

If passenger demand for London was outstripping supply then you'd see more airlines moving down the chain. Airlines who desperately want extra flights as they have loads of people wanting to pay top dollar but can't get Heathrow slots would try Gatwick, if they can't get Gatwick slots they'd try Luton or Stansted, if they can't get Stansted slots they'd try Southend. My suspicion is that demand isn't exceeding supply and all that would really happen is that airlines would move flights up the chain if more slots at Heathrow appeared.

Now this would be very good for the growth of Heathrow's revenue as they'd be stealing customers from the other airports. But growth for the country? I'm more sceptical. Airlines simply moving their operations from Gatwick or Stansted to Heathrow isn't growth. As you say, I could see EasyJet being tempted to move some operations from Gatwick and/or Luton to Heathrow (assuming Clearlake haven't bankrupted them by 2040!) but I'm not convinced this wouldn't just be accompanied by a reduction in operations at Gatwick and/or Luton.


DSA is the same flawed logic that we're seeing at Heathrow, in my opinion. Construction is growth, build it and they will come. Hmm, maybe not.


It's certainly in Heathrow's promotional bumpf that it will improve regional connectivity. Again, I'm sceptical.

BA have leased out some of their slots which are restricted to domestic use only to Loganair. I think that says all we need to know about how interested BA are in the domestic air market and how they see it going. I don't see a world in which BA, or anyone else, are going to be flying from places like Bristol or Cardiff to Heathrow. The reason why the Leeds-Heathrow route didn't re-appear after Covid was commercial and not slot-related; in my view, the primary reason has been the improvements in the rail service under LNER.

Whether growth at Heathrow offers benefit to the U.K. or not is a hansterwheel that nobody is ever going to agree on. Ultimately airlines that serve Heathrow do so because it’s a hub and that then enables not only passenger choice but also the ability to ship goods into the U.K. rapidly at an extremely high frequency from all corners if the world, even the otherwise thin routes that would never take hold at any other airport even Gatwick. It’s not just about passengers.

As for LBA, the slots are a premium and as such the resources have to be allocated efficiently. It is for this reason that LBA was pulled in favour of other routes, not because LBA performed poorly. BA are still looking at it, they just cannot justify using an A320 on the route and it’s open to discussion with a third party to take it on.

You can’t compare LHR with DSA. LHR is a popular airport that is, to all intents and purposes, full. DSA closed because no demand from airlines to use it existed. Politicians who think spreading the flights out to other uk airports instead of expanding LHR are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge airline demand. Hence my comparison with DSA in that aspect.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think you are giving LNER more credit than is due. BA probably found something more productive for that aeroplane to do, and directed LBA-International passengers to MAN.

Very few connecting passengers from the North will be keen to drag themselves and their luggage to the Piccadilly Line.

I wonder if a key improvement for passengers wanting Heathrow from the catchment area of LBA (Leads-Bradford Airport) would be the LNER services connecting via Farringdon with the Elizabeth line. It is an extra change BUT quicker than the Piccadilly Line. Also it means there are two rail routes out of central London to Heathrow so one or other is a backup of course, so an extra positive.

---

I figured out DSA must be Doncaster-Sheffield Airport ?.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I wonder if a key improvement for passengers wanting Heathrow from the catchment area of LBA (Leads-Bradford Airport) would be the LNER services connecting via Farringdon with the Elizabeth line. It is an extra change BUT quicker than the Piccadilly Line. Also it means there are two rail routes out of central London to Heathrow so one or other is a backup of course, so an extra positive.

Would that really come into play for long haul passengers in the LBA area? I doubt it very much. 2 changes = twice as much hassle.

I figured out DSA must be Doncaster-Sheffield Airport ?.

Yes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2026 ==

railwaydata.co.uk for 2024/2025

Originating Leeds:
T2&3: 600
T4: 155
T5: 358

Bradford FS: 5, 1, & 2
Bradford Int: 15, 4, & 7

So not exactly vast numbers of people using the railway as a replacement for connecting flights. Obviously doesn't include journeys made from smaller nearby stations but you get the idea.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As for LBA, the slots are a premium and as such the resources have to be allocated efficiently. It is for this reason that LBA was pulled in favour of other routes, not because LBA performed poorly. BA are still looking at it, they just cannot justify using an A320 on the route and it’s open to discussion with a third party to take it on.

The slots themselves are not at a premium, there are a number of slot pairs at Heathrow which are reserved solely for domestic flights. Ones that BA aren't using are leased to Loganair.

BA simply don't see the commercial value in flying an A319 or A320 to Leeds, so they don't. Even if Heathrow expands, I can't see that changing.

I think you are giving LNER more credit than is due. BA probably found something more productive for that aeroplane to do, and directed LBA-International passengers to MAN.

It's all cumulative. The better trains reduces the number of domestic passengers on these routes, we've seen something similar from Newcastle and even Edinburgh to London.

As you say, international passengers will increasingly use Manchester, and not on BA: going east, you've the choice of Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, and Cathay Pacific and, quite frankly, you'd be mad to choose to connect through Heathrow on BA over those.

 

[pug1]

The slots themselves are not at a premium, there are a number of slot pairs at Heathrow which are reserved solely for domestic flights. Ones that BA aren't using are leased to Loganair.

BA simply don't see the commercial value in flying an A319 or A320 to Leeds, so they don't. Even if Heathrow expands, I can't see that changing.


It's all cumulative. The better trains reduces the number of domestic passengers on these routes, we've seen something similar from Newcastle and even Edinburgh to London.

As you say, international passengers will increasingly use Manchester, and not on BA: going east, you've the choice of Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, and Cathay Pacific and, quite frankly, you'd be mad to choose to connect through Heathrow on BA over those.

We're talking about two different eras. Right now, yes, BA doesn't see the value because slots are severely restricted and they’d rather use their limited resources on high-yield international flights.

But more capacity at Heathrow changes the entire economic model. A third runway unlocks a massive amount of new slot pairs, making it possible to heavily expand ring-fenced domestic slots.

Heathrow's own data literally proves my original point: they've explicitly named LBA as one of the top five regional routes that would be reinstated because the new capacity removes the bottleneck that squeezed it out in the first place.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But more capacity at Heathrow changes the entire economic model. A third runway unlocks a massive amount of new slot pairs, making it possible to heavily expand ring-fenced domestic slots.

We have to question if those are really viable then - if they can't pay what Heathrow demands with the current confines of a 2 runway system, then maybe they just don't make sense economically.
We already have a domestic airport for London at LCY - the only value in connecting places like LBA is connections, but as already mentioned, they have nearby alternative airports like NCL or MAN to use

 

[Tetchytyke]

ight now, yes, BA doesn't see the value because slots are severely restricted and they’d rather use their limited resources on high-yield international flights.

You misunderstand my point. There are a number of slot pairs at Heathrow which can only be used for domestic flights. BA (or whoever) can't use the restricted slot pairs for international flights, they're not allowed to.

But even under the current system BA aren't using all these restricted slot pairs, they have leased a number of them to Loganair. BA only ended up with some of these restricted slot pairs after Virgin had tried- and failed- to make a go of domestic flights.

So the reason why BA aren't flying more domestic flights isn't due to Heathrow's capacity. The reason why BA aren't flying more domestic flights is because they don't make enough money from them. They have the slot pairs to bring back the Leeds/Bradford flights tomorrow, the issue is not capacity, the issue is that they'd rather send the jet somewhere else because it will make more money there.

I don't see how this would change even with loads of extra capacity at Heathrow.

 

[pug1]

You misunderstand my point. There are a number of slot pairs at Heathrow which can only be used for domestic flights. BA (or whoever) can't use the restricted slot pairs for international flights, they're not allowed to.

But even under the current system BA aren't using all these restricted slot pairs, they have leased a number of them to Loganair. BA only ended up with some of these restricted slot pairs after Virgin had tried- and failed- to make a go of domestic flights.

So the reason why BA aren't flying more domestic flights isn't due to Heathrow's capacity. The reason why BA aren't flying more domestic flights is because they don't make enough money from them. They have the slot pairs to bring back the Leeds/Bradford flights tomorrow, the issue is not capacity, the issue is that they'd rather send the jet somewhere else because it will make more money there.

I don't see how this would change even with loads of extra capacity at Heathrow.

You're missing how basic supply and demand economics changes when you add a third runway.

Right now, yes, BA chooses to lease those slots to Loganair or send their jets elsewhere because Heathrow is at 99% capacity. When slots are a strictly finite, ultra-scarce resource, the landing charges and operating fees at Heathrow are sky-high. BA has to pass those massive costs onto passengers, which makes short hops like LBA commercially unviable for them unless they charge ridiculous fares.

A third runway completely breaks that bottleneck. It floods the market with a massive wave of new capacity, which drives down slot values and forces the airport to lower regional access fees. It also gives the government the room to legally enforce much stricter, subsidised Public Service Obligations (PSOs) or regional connectivity funds to guarantee domestic routes.

This isn't just my guess—Heathrow's own expansion reports released by Frontier Economics explicitly name Leeds Bradford as one of the top five regional routes that would be restored precisely because the extra capacity makes the route financially viable again. You can't judge what is profitable in an expanded airport based on the broken economics of a congested one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jul 2026 ==

We have to question if those are really viable then - if they can't pay what Heathrow demands with the current confines of a 2 runway system, then maybe they just don't make sense economically.
We already have a domestic airport for London at LCY - the only value in connecting places like LBA is connections, but as already mentioned, they have nearby alternative airports like NCL or MAN to use

Treating Heathrow like a standard retail shop where the highest bidder wins completely misses its role as critical national infrastructure.

The reason domestic links like LBA don't work under a two-runway system isn't because there's no demand; it's because the artificial bottleneck makes Heathrow one of the most expensive airports in the world to land a plane. That high cost structure penalises domestic regional access in favour of global mega-hubs.

Also, telling people in Yorkshire to just 'use Manchester or Newcastle' completely misses the point. LBA isn't trying to compete with London City (LCY) for point-to-point business travelers. The entire value of an LBA-Heathrow route is providing seamless, one-ticket international connections to the global economy for a massive region of the UK. When Heathrow expands, driving down regional landing fees and opening up slots, it unlocks the exact economic sense that a congested airport currently blocks

 

[Tetchytyke]

When slots are a strictly finite, ultra-scarce resource, the landing charges and operating fees at Heathrow are sky-high.

The landing charges and operating fees are set by the regulator based on Heathrow's asset register, not based on the scarcity (or otherwise) of the slots. In its most recent determination the CAA actually slightly reduced the fees that Heathrow can charge. The CAA determine the fees precisely because Heathrow has such a monopolistic position. The fees are set per passenger.

The fees for buying a slot pair from the secondary slot market are very very high, but that's a different matter altogether. From memory, BA acquired the domestic-only slots from Virgin simply to stop anyone else having them. That's also why they've leased them to Loganair, as it is a case of use them or lose them.

BA and Virgin are ambivalent at best about the expansion. BA have more than half of all the slots at Heathrow, and Virgin are next at about 5%. Both BA and Virgin are worried that the fees they're charged by Heathrow will increase to pay for the expansion but that any new slots generated by that expansion will largely end up going to their rivals.

I don't see any world in which Heathrow expansion would change the overall trajectory of the domestic air travel market, which is shrinking.

 

[pug1]

The landing charges and operating fees are set by the regulator based on Heathrow's asset register, not based on the scarcity (or otherwise) of the slots. In its most recent determination the CAA actually slightly reduced the fees that Heathrow can charge. The CAA determine the fees precisely because Heathrow has such a monopolistic position. The fees are set per passenger.

The fees for buying a slot pair from the secondary slot market are very very high, but that's a different matter altogether. From memory, BA acquired the domestic-only slots from Virgin simply to stop anyone else having them. That's also why they've leased them to Loganair, as it is a case of use them or lose them.

BA and Virgin are ambivalent at best about the expansion. BA have more than half of all the slots at Heathrow, and Virgin are next at about 5%. Both BA and Virgin are worried that the fees they're charged by Heathrow will increase to pay for the expansion but that any new slots generated by that expansion will largely end up going to their rivals.

I don't see any world in which Heathrow expansion would change the overall trajectory of the domestic air travel market, which is shrinking.

The CAA's per-passenger fee is an average calculated by dividing the airport's revenue targets by its total passenger volume. Yes, expansion increases the asset base, but it also triggers a massive influx of tens of millions of new passengers. When you spread the airport's massive fixed overheads across a vastly larger pool of travelers, the cost per individual seat changes. We’ve already seen the CAA strictly reject Heathrow’s requests for aggressive fee hikes, capping charges close to current rates precisely to protect consumers.

As for the domestic market 'shrinking'—it’s shrinking because the current two-runway system forces a zero-sum choice. When slots are severely bottlenecked, airlines naturally prioritise long-haul cash cows over regional feed.

A colleague of mine used to work for Air Yuk (remember them?). They had a quite extensive regional U.K.-Heathrow network. They were pushed out when it became as expensive to fly a Shorts 360 into Heathrow as a 747. I’m sure I don’t need to explain the economics of that one.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Treating Heathrow like a standard retail shop where the highest bidder wins completely misses its role as critical national infrastructure.

The reason domestic links like LBA don't work under a two-runway system isn't because there's no demand; it's because the artificial bottleneck makes Heathrow one of the most expensive airports in the world to land a plane. That high cost structure penalises domestic regional access in favour of global mega-hubs.

Also, telling people in Yorkshire to just 'use Manchester or Newcastle' completely misses the point. LBA isn't trying to compete with London City (LCY) for point-to-point business travelers. The entire value of an LBA-Heathrow route is providing seamless, one-ticket international connections to the global economy for a massive region of the UK. When Heathrow expands, driving down regional landing fees and opening up slots, it unlocks the exact economic sense that a congested airport currently blocks

Perhaps we need to realise that domestic regional access from everywhere in the UK to Heathrow isn't viable, especially because Heathrow Airport Holdings has no compelling reason to drop landing fees and charges to a level where domestic services from smaller airports are viable.
London is a destination with a hell of a lot of suppressed demand from higher value international destination, so there's no incentive to build domestic traffic with a differential set of very favourable landing charges for domestic routes.

I agree that connections through Heathrow to all the different destinations it serves are useful, but an expansion on the existing Heathrow site doesn't guarantee that LBA, Liverpool, Dundee, Newquay or other underserved/unserved British domestic airports will get a connection.
A new 4 runway site with room for further expansion would.
Now, that may not be Foulness or the Hoo peninsula, but a site in the wider South East can and must be found if we want to build a future for British aviation.

 

[pug1]

Perhaps we need to realise that domestic regional access from everywhere in the UK to Heathrow isn't viable, especially because Heathrow Airport Holdings has no compelling reason to drop landing fees and charges to a level where domestic services from smaller airports are viable.
London is a destination with a hell of a lot of suppressed demand from higher value international destination, so there's no incentive to build domestic traffic with a differential set of very favourable landing charges for domestic routes.

I agree that connections through Heathrow to all the different destinations it serves are useful, but an expansion on the existing Heathrow site doesn't guarantee that LBA, Liverpool, Dundee, Newquay or other underserved/unserved British domestic airports will get a connection.
A new 4 runway site with room for further expansion would.
Now, that may not be Foulness or the Hoo peninsula, but a site in the wider South East can and must be found if we want to build a future for British aviation.

Heathrow expansion isn't just about pouring more concrete; it is about rewriting the regulatory rules. The actual expansion framework includes mandated regional slot protections and a 50% discount on domestic passenger charges to prevent the exact market failure you are describing. By expanding the existing site, we get the capacity needed to lower the cost barrier, finally connecting places like LBA, Liverpool, Newquay (and potentially numerous others) to the global network.

Were never going to get a new airport, so it’s important to maximise the capacity at the existing one which happens to be Heathrow.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Heathrow expansion isn't just about pouring more concrete; it is about rewriting the regulatory rules. The actual expansion framework includes mandated regional slot protections and a 50% discount on domestic passenger charges to prevent the exact market failure you are describing. By expanding the existing site, we get the capacity needed to lower the cost barrier, finally connecting places like LBA, Liverpool, Newquay (and potentially numerous others) to the global network.

How can we enforce these rules? Will it just be fines, or are there going to be actual legal consequences?

Were never going to get a new airport, so it’s important to maximise the capacity at the existing one which happens to be Heathrow.

We need to push harder for a new airport then

 

[Peter Sarf]

Did I get this wrong but way back I thought the extra runway for Heathrow was more about improving resilience rather than just capacity.

It does seem ironic that in this day and age we are considering domestic flights when really we should be encouraging domestic travel by other means. For business travellers (probably mainly Heathrow) I would assume rail but for other travellers (package holidays so probably mainly not Heathrow) I would assume rail or coach.

On the whole I believe Heathrow should not be replaced but I agree it should be improved (expanded) to make it work better. I would hope that unnecessary flights can be replaced by land travel (primarily rail or coach). Generally anything across the seas should be what is left to be served by air. This makes me wonder where HS2 might have fitted in with the aspiration to reduce domestic air travel.

 

[BazingaTribe]

I've lived under the Heathrow flight path on and off for 30+ years. It has become notably quieter in that time despite the increase in passenger numbers. An A380 carrying 500 passengers is quieter than a 737-200 carrying 120.

I think one of the big noise reduction factors has got to have been the end of Concorde. I was about 12 when I was in someone's loft on the outskirts of Slough and heard an enormous bang which I thought was going to topple the entire house (about four storeys, posh house party IIRC). I do have GAD (now medicated), but the sonic boom was one of the many reasons Concorde wasn't widely adopted, although not why it ultimately went out of service.

I'm not necessarily knowledgeable enough to be for or against expansion but ISTM, like a lot of the time, logistics are overlooked. I work in property management and it's difficult to articulate how complicated things are to people who say 'why don't you just...' do something or other.

From a humble punter's point of view, the money should go into renovating the airports themselves and keeping them spotless. I flew back from Orlando -- spotless, shining, not necessarily well used in terms of retail estate but with enough to spend an hour or two waiting for my flight home. Granted it was early in the morning halfway through January, but Gatwick was depressing -- dirty floors, tatty benches, no reliable pick up spot that wasn't inside a grotty tunnel. It wasn't a great first impression for people coming in to the UK at all -- and that's I guess my facilities and estates hat on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2026 ==

On the whole I believe Heathrow should not be replaced but I agree it should be improved (expanded) to make it work better. I would hope that unnecessary flights can be replaced by land travel (primarily rail or coach). Generally anything across the seas should be what is left to be served by air. This makes me wonder where HS2 might have fitted in with the aspiration to reduce domestic air travel.

Someone upthread mentioned border controls stymieing expansion of rail services to the continent. It will probably be better once Brussels finishes working on the renovation of its Eurostar terminal, but the difficulty is probably not the infrastructure but the bottleneck that customs and immigration imposes on the human factor, made worse by the inability of the government to make decent deals with European colleagues.

 

[pug1]

How can we enforce these rules? Will it just be fines, or are there going to be actual legal consequences?

We need to push harder for a new airport then

The rules are already enforced, hence a limited number of slots ringfenced for domestic routes on smaller aircraft. The point is though that because LHR is at capacity the airlines must focus on what makes the big money to service the payments they must make to the airport. Flying 50-100 seater aircraft in is only inefficient because slots are scarce and expensive.

I get the argument for improved surface access to Heathrow, but it’s really not the same. Unless HS2 went ahead and linked all major cities up directly to LHR then surface access will always be inefficient. It does however give KLM a boost and I personally cannot fault the service I get using KLM from my local, nor can I fault the experience in AMS which is much nicer than LHR!

We won’t get a new airport. It’s just never going to happen. Because the other London airports are simply not attractive on the same level as LHR, it’s LHR or none. I don’t like it, but it’s how it is.

 

[H F Stephens]

The rules are already enforced, hence a limited number of slots ringfenced for domestic routes on smaller aircraft. The point is though that because LHR is at capacity the airlines must focus on what makes the big money to service the payments they must make to the airport. Flying 50-100 seater aircraft in is only inefficient because slots are scarce and expensive.

I get the argument for improved surface access to Heathrow, but it’s really not the same. Unless HS2 went ahead and linked all major cities up directly to LHR then surface access will always be inefficient. It does however give KLM a boost and I personally cannot fault the service I get using KLM from my local, nor can I fault the experience in AMS which is much nicer than LHR!

We won’t get a new airport. It’s just never going to happen. Because the other London airports are simply not attractive on the same level as LHR, it’s LHR or none. I don’t like it, but it’s how it is.

And, once again, Heathrow is not at capacity.

Not by any metric other than air traffic movement capacity at specific times of day that are particularly profitable to private companies operating air services.

The Civil Aviation Authority knows this, the former National Air Traffic Services (now NATS Holdings) knows this, British Airways knows this and, if we’re being absolutely honest, Virgin Atlantic knows this.

And, especially with the Seoul noose round their neck, they know that their only chance of survival as a distinct entity is to offload or transfer their slots well before there’s any possibility of a third runway, and retreat to Gatwick, where the Holidays operation stands a vague chance of maintaining viability.

Even Alaska Airlines knew that the Virgin America brand was pointless and, at some point, Delta will put the KoolAid down, too.

And increased domestic connectivity as some kind of justification for the third runway is a completely specious lobbying position.

However, it’s also very difficult for any government to ignore the short term allure of Qatari concrete being poured all over Hounslow, and the jobs it’ll temporarily bring.

So, at the highest level, no-one tells the truth.

 

[Ediswan]

I think one of the big noise reduction factors has got to have been the end of Concorde. I was about 12 when I was in someone's loft on the outskirts of Slough and heard an enormous bang which I thought was going to topple the entire house (about four storeys, posh house party IIRC). I do have GAD (now medicated), but the sonic boom was one of the many reasons Concorde wasn't widely adopted, although not why it ultimately went out of service.

Concorde was indeed very noisy, but it was not allowed to go supersonic over Slough.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think one of the big noise reduction factors has got to have been the end of Concorde. I was about 12 when I was in someone's loft on the outskirts of Slough and heard an enormous bang which I thought was going to topple the entire house (about four storeys, posh house party IIRC). I do have GAD (now medicated), but the sonic boom was one of the many reasons Concorde wasn't widely adopted, although not why it ultimately went out of service.

Concorde was indeed very noisy, but it was not allowed to go supersonic over Slough.

Yep, what you heard was either something non-Concorde (if a bang), or Concorde (if a roar). But IIRC for most of its service life it operated from LHR twice daily to New York, a few (3?) times a week to Washington/ Miami, and Saturdays to Barbados. All in day time. Whilst the peak noise was quite something, its affect average noise would have been trivial.

Getting shot of 727s, 757s, A300s and 747s will have been much more useful for noise reduction.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think one of the big noise reduction factors has got to have been the end of Concorde. I was about 12 when I was in someone's loft on the outskirts of Slough and heard an enormous bang which I thought was going to topple the entire house (about four storeys, posh house party IIRC). I do have GAD (now medicated), but the sonic boom was one of the many reasons Concorde wasn't widely adopted, although not why it ultimately went out of service.

There were very few flights operated by Concorde so it would not have affected the statistics much at all. But it was never a sonic boom anyway.

Concorde (or any other aircraft) are not allowed to fly fast enough over the UK (and possibly any other country) to reach let alone exceed the sound barrier. So it is most likely not a sonic boom you heard.

It is the long stretch over the Atlantic ocean that was where the high speed was used. The main killer of Concorde was that it was not invented in
America and its market dried up as the price of aviation fuel rocketed. Concorde was still noisy when sub sonic but no load bang.

I think the only exception regarding the sonic boom has been air force jets scrambled to very urgently meet a suspected threat.

I'm not necessarily knowledgeable enough to be for or against expansion but ISTM, like a lot of the time, logistics are overlooked. I work in property management and it's difficult to articulate how complicated things are to people who say 'why don't you just...' do something or other.

One thing is logistics take up space. Increased customs etc operations require more space. But I think the Heathrow expansion was more about extra runways than extra terminal facilities.

From a humble punter's point of view, the money should go into renovating the airports themselves and keeping them spotless. I flew back from Orlando -- spotless, shining, not necessarily well used in terms of retail estate but with enough to spend an hour or two waiting for my flight home. Granted it was early in the morning halfway through January, but Gatwick was depressing -- dirty floors, tatty benches, no reliable pick up spot that wasn't inside a grotty tunnel. It wasn't a great first impression for people coming in to the UK at all -- and that's I guess my facilities and estates hat on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2026 ==

Sadly there is no point making an airport cleaner and more attractive if it cannot handle more passengers. It just adds cost. It is operational capacity that seems to be deficient.

I will say Heathrow Terminal five seems nice and clean.

Someone upthread mentioned border controls stymieing expansion of rail services to the continent. It will probably be better once Brussels finishes working on the renovation of its Eurostar terminal, but the difficulty is probably not the infrastructure but the bottleneck that customs and immigration imposes on the human factor, made worse by the inability of the government to make decent deals with European colleagues.

It is when you generally need border controls at both ends that Heathrow (or St Pancras for HS1) needs space. Each country is responsible for handling who comes INTO their country not really with who leaves - that is the job for the receiving country at the other end. So I am not sure what space could be saved at St Pancras.

We (well not me) voted to leave Europe so we have to adapt to not being part of Europe. There are still changes being made all these years later as the Europeans did give us time to get ready. It has even adversely affected imports to the UK that come via Europe from outside Europe.

As for rail my main hope for HS2 was that it would take domestic travel away from air thus reducing the amount of flights required. It would not affect custome much at all of course.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The rules are already enforced, hence a limited number of slots ringfenced for domestic routes on smaller aircraft. The point is though that because LHR is at capacity the airlines must focus on what makes the big money to service the payments they must make to the airport. Flying 50-100 seater aircraft in is only inefficient because slots are scarce and expensive.

OK - so they mainly send these aircraft to Manchester/Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow when the 3rd runway opens and places like LBA still lose out?

I get the argument for improved surface access to Heathrow, but it’s really not the same. Unless HS2 went ahead and linked all major cities up directly to LHR then surface access will always be inefficient. It does however give KLM a boost and I personally cannot fault the service I get using KLM from my local, nor can I fault the experience in AMS which is much nicer than LHR!

Perhaps we should require that Heathrow fund a HSR spur from HS2 branching off after the end of the Chilterns viaduct and roughly following the M25/A4 to new Heathrow T123 rail/tube station and back round to Old Oak Common in tunnel.
That would be one way to boost domestic connectivity and for Heathrow to genuinely provide a wider benefit that is in keeping with the level of disruption and damage the third runway will cause to nearby communities.
Funding Western/Southern Rail Access to Heathrow and small road upgrades just won't cut it.

We won’t get a new airport. It’s just never going to happen. Because the other London airports are simply not attractive on the same level as LHR, it’s LHR or none. I don’t like it, but it’s how it is.

I agree if we were looking at expanding existing airport sites, but arguably we should be looking at replacing at least Heathrow and City with one larger airport and releasing those sites for more suitable uses. LHR is only so attractive to expand because it is the existing hub, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[BazingaTribe]

There were very few flights operated by Concorde so it would not have affected the statistics much at all. But it was never a sonic boom anyway.

Concorde (or any other aircraft) are not allowed to fly fast enough over the UK (and possibly any other country) to reach let alone exceed the sound barrier. So it is most likely not a sonic boom you heard.

It is the long stretch over the Atlantic ocean that was where the high speed was used. The main killer of Concorde was that it was not invented in
America and its market dried up as the price of aviation fuel rocketed. Concorde was still noisy when sub sonic but no load bang.

I think the only exception regarding the sonic boom has been air force jets scrambled to very urgently meet a suspected threat.

One thing is logistics take up space. Increased customs etc operations require more space. But I think the Heathrow expansion was more about extra runways than extra terminal facilities.

Sadly there is no point making an airport cleaner and more attractive if it cannot handle more passengers. It just adds cost. It is operational capacity that seems to be deficient.

I will say Heathrow Terminal five seems nice and clean.

It is when you generally need border controls at both ends that Heathrow (or St Pancras for HS1) needs space. Each country is responsible for handling who comes INTO their country not really with who leaves - that is the job for the receiving country at the other end. So I am not sure what space could be saved at St Pancras.

We (well not me) voted to leave Europe so we have to adapt to not being part of Europe. There are still changes being made all these years later as the Europeans did give us time to get ready. It has even adversely affected imports to the UK that come via Europe from outside Europe.

As for rail my main hope for HS2 was that it would take domestic travel away from air thus reducing the amount of flights required. It would not affect custome much at all of course.

Thanks Peter -- very interesting reading and perspectives. Lots to chew on and nothing I can argue with. As I said, I'm a layperson -- I'm happy to be corrected by people who know their stuff. We all assumed the bang that day was Concorde but perhaps it wasn't -- that was what the hosts said it was, but it was 1992, so chances are I may not be remembering clearly.

Yes, T5 is very nice. As is the St Pancras Eurostar terninus -- it's just Brussels that was a tight squeeze, but there did seem to be a bit of work going on. I travelled on Saturday in both directions (a week apart) so to be honest, because I don't do well in crowded places thanka to being autistic, I now try and travel at other times. (Also Sunday as a first day in many places, particularly Germany, can be rather dull. There was only so long I could sit in Starbucks and so travelling on that day now seems more comfortable all round.)

But yeah, not gonna quibble with anything here. Thanks for filling in some details on my perception.

 

[daodao]

I agree if we were looking at expanding existing airport sites, but arguably we should be looking at replacing at least Heathrow and City with one larger airport and releasing those sites for more suitable uses. LHR is only so attractive to expand because it is the existing hub, but it doesn't have to be.

It is completely unrealistic to consider closing Heathrow and replacing it with a new airport much further away from Central London. Alternatives such as Cublington and Foulness were evaluated over 50 years ago and deemed impractical and unaffordable even then, since when Heathrow has been developed significantly. The only realistic question is to what extent and how Heathrow should be developed further, given the constraints in doing so.

IMO, the main priority should be developing Heathrow's capability to handle large aircraft serving major intercontinental routes and providing links to major European cities to encourage its function as a hub airport. Domestic routes are of minor importance and not really needed other than to Belfast and Scotland, given Great Britain's compactness.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Concorde was indeed very noisy, but it was not allowed to go supersonic over Slough.

Thanks for putting me right. Slough is bad enough already without it. (It is, however, one of the best towns for employment opportunities because of Heathrow and I suspect the mess it is in comes from that industriousness. (Plus about a third of the world's data is held there so Betjeman's friendly bombs would destroy much more than buildings.)

As I said to Peter, we were told that was what the massive bang was, but it was a bang not a roar and so I defer to superior wisdom.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2026 ==

It is completely unrealistic to consider closing Heathrow and replacing it with a new airport much further away from Central London. Alternatives such as Cublington and Foulness were evaluated over 50 years ago and deemed impractical and unaffordable even then, since when Heathrow has been developed significantly. The only realistic question is to what extent and how Heathrow should be developed further, given the constraints in doing so.

IMO, the main priority should be developing Heathrow's capability to handle large aircraft serving major intercontinental routes and providing links to major European cities to encourage its function as a hub airport. Domestic routes are of minor importance and not really needed other than to Belfast and Scotland, given Great Britain's compactness.

Agreed. I generally go to Plymouth for a convention and the train journey can be a bit of a slog at times (I'd use the Night Riviera but I'd not be saving anything since I'd get in way too early to check in to the hotel, and since it's a sci fi con with a lot of costuming involved, I usually have a lot of luggage as well). I idly looked into flying to Exeter and discovered the only way to get there was via Amsterdam (NB it's been a while so I might not be correct there).

And if I'm going to Belfast, then Southampton is also there and more accessible to me than Heathrow.