Thomas Woldbye, Heathrow’s chief executive, warned that scrapping a third runway would be a “huge missed opportunity” for the UK. The government still hasn’t said whether it backs the project. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Woldbye said it would be “good to know” where ministers stand after Prime Minister Andy Burnham declined to say whether he supports expansion.
The Investment Argument
Woldbye framed the choice around where private capital goes. If the airport’s owners can’t invest in a third runway, he said, the money “will be invested somewhere else in the world.” He suggested ministers would decide the issue in the new year. “It’s not about allocating this money elsewhere. It’s private money. It’s not public money. So hence, it will not go into the UK,” he said. Heathrow belongs to a consortium led by French private equity firm Ardian, its largest investor, alongside the Qatar Investment Authority, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and the China Investment Corporation.
The Department for Transport said it was reviewing consultation responses and “considering the appropriate next steps.” A spokesperson said the government backs airport expansion “across the country where this can contribute to growth and opportunity, while meeting the tests on the environment,” and said Heathrow’s expansion had the “potential to deliver around £40 billion in economic benefits across the country.” The Airports National Policy Statement, which underpins any decision on a new runway, last received an update in 2018, eight years ago. Ministers are still finalising it.
Who Pays the Price
The project’s scale is considerable. A third runway would mean demolishing hundreds of homes, diverting rivers and rerouting the M25 between junctions 14 and 15 through a tunnel beneath the new runway. Its estimated cost is £33bn. Heathrow serves more than 80 million travellers a year. Annual flights, now capped at 480,000, could rise to 720,000, or nearly 2,000 a day on average.
Opposition has lasted for decades. Local residents, politicians and climate campaigners have challenged the plan throughout. Woldbye argued that noise has fallen “starkly” over the past 40 years and said the “trend will continue.” Households facing demolition and communities under the flight paths will judge that claim against their own experience.
A Prime Minister Who Once Opposed It
Burnham opposed the scheme as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Now, he says the matter is “for London and Londoners.” Speaking to the BBC last month, he said: “I think we ought to hear the voice of people there first. It’s not right for me to just jump straight in on the back of the consultation.” Last year, then-chancellor Rachel Reeves announced government-backed expansion, saying “a third runway is badly needed” and that the government could not “duck the decision any longer.”
Woldbye said he hoped the prime minister would “come along,” noting that unions back the project. Downing Street declined to comment. He said the benefits would reach well beyond the capital: “Benefits will be felt all over the country because our supply chain reaches all the way from the north all the way to the south of the UK,” adding that a third runway was “not just for Londoners.”
What Comes Next
The original target called for an opening by 2035, subject to plans being submitted and approved. Heathrow now says planning and regulatory issues could push that date back four years, to 2039. Woldbye said Heathrow is preparing a planning application for submission in the next couple of years, though the government’s national policy statement will guide any decision. He said he hadn’t yet met Chancellor John Healey, but would tell him the airport “contributes dramatically to the economy” and “we are now full.” “My biggest concern is actually the years of uncertainty,” he said.
Why This Matters: Heathrow’s expansion tests whether a government can weigh jobs and growth against the costs residents and the climate bear. Hundreds of homes, rivers and a stretch of the M25 hang in the balance, while the airport’s owners say the investment could leave the UK entirely. Unions back the project; local communities and campaigners have opposed it for decades. From a social-democratic standpoint, years of drift serve no one: workers need clarity on jobs, residents need honest answers about noise and displacement, and the environmental tests the government itself cites must be met in full. A public decision that hears people on the flight paths first would serve the public better than continued silence.