'We need a third runway and a fourth' says Heathrow boss

Expansion: John Holland-Kaye has not ruled out a fourth runway. Picture: Heathrow Airports Ltd.

Expansion: John Holland-Kaye has not ruled out a fourth runway. Picture: Heathrow Airports Ltd.

First published in News Richmond and Twickenham Times: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

Heathrow’s boss said a third runway could be just the start of an expansion programme at the airport and the country may need a fourth.

The airport’s new CEO John Holland-Kaye also told the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) this week that the hub airport would not decline if expansion did not go ahead.

A Heathrow spokesman said: "We believe that a third runway provides sufficient capacity until at least 2040, allowing the UK to compete with other European hubs.

"It is impossible to accurately predict beyond 2040 as to whether a fourth runway would definitely be required, as long term demand forecasts are inherently uncertain."

The APPG, chaired by Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith, is designed scrutinise the arguments for and against Heathrow expansion and includes members who support the third runway, including Lord Soley and Gerald Howarth.

A Heathrow spokesman said failure to expand the airport would spark job losses and the decline of the UK’s aviation hub status.

Mr Holland-Kaye said that if Heathrow did not expand “Britain will not take advantage of the emerging markets that it should be able to”.

Mr Goldsmith said: "We should be in no doubt at all that the debate today isn’t about whether or not there will be a third runway, it is about whether or not Heathrow will have a fourth runway.

"After months of being told that Heathrow will fade away if a third runway is not built, the CEO has admitted that this is not the case.

"In truth, this has always been a straw man argument, put up to frighten people into accepting expansion."

He said Heathrow’s claim an additional 300,000 flights would result in fewer people being disturbed "defies all logic".

He said the Government would be crazy to "cobble together the old monopoly" on one edge of the city at expense to the taxpayer.

Do you support Heathrow expansion? Leave a comment below.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:08pm Thu 17 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

The reason for the 3rd. runway is not for a demand it's so they can pinch trade off other hub airports.
They want to make our lives a misery all for their own greed and to deprive other airports of trade.
Remove the vessel Montgomery, build in the estuary and if you can't afford to, except the free market concept, if you can afford it OK, if not tough.
The reason for the 3rd. runway is not for a demand it's so they can pinch trade off other hub airports. They want to make our lives a misery all for their own greed and to deprive other airports of trade. Remove the vessel Montgomery, build in the estuary and if you can't afford to, except the free market concept, if you can afford it OK, if not tough. dellboy twick.
  • Score: 8

12:09pm Fri 18 Jul 14

alphabeti says...

We don't need ever larger hubs. Let transit passenger go to Schippol, CDG or Frankfurt. It's no skin off my nose. London is already well connected.
We don't need ever larger hubs. Let transit passenger go to Schippol, CDG or Frankfurt. It's no skin off my nose. London is already well connected. alphabeti
  • Score: 6

4:12pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Foo Bear says...

I am not sure what this effort is inteneded to achieve: having Zac Goldsmith as chair one wonders if the outcome will be biased towards the no camp.

There is substantial support for Heathrow from those that work there and those that must transit the airport as part of thier business. It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd. Heathrow has been there long before many in Richmond joined the green crowd; I suggest if they do not like the idea of Heathrow being expanded, they should move elsewhere.
I am not sure what this effort is inteneded to achieve: having Zac Goldsmith as chair one wonders if the outcome will be biased towards the no camp. There is substantial support for Heathrow from those that work there and those that must transit the airport as part of thier business. It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd. Heathrow has been there long before many in Richmond joined the green crowd; I suggest if they do not like the idea of Heathrow being expanded, they should move elsewhere. Foo Bear
  • Score: -9

5:22pm Fri 18 Jul 14

terrycollmann says...

Foo Bear wrote:
I am not sure what this effort is inteneded to achieve: having Zac Goldsmith as chair one wonders if the outcome will be biased towards the no camp.

There is substantial support for Heathrow from those that work there and those that must transit the airport as part of thier business. It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd. Heathrow has been there long before many in Richmond joined the green crowd; I suggest if they do not like the idea of Heathrow being expanded, they should move elsewhere.
"It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd."

Hey, Foo Bear, you love Heathrow so much, come and sit in my garden in Teddington on a warm summer's evening at 11pm, when huge jets are roaring over every minute or so, drowning conversation. I'm no toff, and nor are any of the people who live around here, but we're hacked off at being mightily disturbed by aircraft noise, and we recognise that there comes a time when, no matter how much money Heathrow Airport might make out of expansion, the extra disturbance it causes to other people means we have to say that enough is enough. Oh, and most of the houses now blighted by noise from Heathrow were built 50 or 100 years or more before Heathrow opened.
[quote][p][bold]Foo Bear[/bold] wrote: I am not sure what this effort is inteneded to achieve: having Zac Goldsmith as chair one wonders if the outcome will be biased towards the no camp. There is substantial support for Heathrow from those that work there and those that must transit the airport as part of thier business. It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd. Heathrow has been there long before many in Richmond joined the green crowd; I suggest if they do not like the idea of Heathrow being expanded, they should move elsewhere.[/p][/quote]"It is extremely unfortunate for all of us that the discussion is so distorted by the Richmond toffs crowd." Hey, Foo Bear, you love Heathrow so much, come and sit in my garden in Teddington on a warm summer's evening at 11pm, when huge jets are roaring over every minute or so, drowning conversation. I'm no toff, and nor are any of the people who live around here, but we're hacked off at being mightily disturbed by aircraft noise, and we recognise that there comes a time when, no matter how much money Heathrow Airport might make out of expansion, the extra disturbance it causes to other people means we have to say that enough is enough. Oh, and most of the houses now blighted by noise from Heathrow were built 50 or 100 years or more before Heathrow opened. terrycollmann
  • Score: 14

1:08pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Sanity99 says...

Use the straight bits of the M25!
Use the straight bits of the M25! Sanity99
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree