Heathrow's third runway is a costly, delay-prone white elephant that should be replaced by expanding Gatwick and Stansted
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/simonjenkins. "Heathrow’s third runway is a bottomless money pit. Stop it now | Simon Jenkins | The Guardian." October 9, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Jenkins argues that the Heathrow third runway will cost enormous sums, take decades, and mostly enrich its foreign owners without delivering the economic growth promised. He says Gatwick and Stansted could absorb extra demand much more cheaply, and the money would be better spent on hospitals and schools.
Conclusion
The government should stop the Heathrow third runway project and instead expand Gatwick and Stansted, because the runway is an extremely expensive, slow, growth-poor project that mainly benefits foreign private owners and diverts money from more worthwhile public priorities.
Premises
- The third runway's official cost is £49bn, total expansion and operating costs could exceed £100bn, and an unknown share will fall on taxpayers.
- The project has been repeatedly delayed (2035 to 2039, possibly later), and similar megaprojects (HS2, Hinkley Point) show a pattern of consultancy-driven cost inflation and criticism from the National Audit Office.
- Claims that the runway will boost business and growth are weak: fewer than 15% of air travellers are on business, video conferencing reduces business travel needs, and the cargo claim is inflated by gold bullion that makes up about 60% of cargo value.
- The main beneficiaries are Heathrow's foreign private owners, while passengers face the highest surcharges in Europe and airlines are sceptical.
- Viable alternatives exist: Gatwick has empty land and Stansted has underused capacity, and the original planning intent was for a new airport elsewhere rather than expanding Heathrow in crowded west London.
- The same money could fund much more valuable public goods (a general hospital costs about £1bn, rebuilding 50 secondary schools about £1bn), and the focus on glamorous infrastructure reflects a bias in political decision-making.
Assumptions
- Cost estimates and delays for Heathrow will follow the pattern of HS2 and Hinkley Point, so the higher cost range is realistic.
- A significant portion of the cost will ultimately fall on taxpayers rather than on airlines and passengers.
- Demand for air travel is mainly tourism and can be satisfied adequately and as efficiently at Gatwick and Stansted.
- Heathrow's hub status and connectivity offer no special economic value that Gatwick or Stansted cannot replicate.
- Public money saved by cancelling the runway would actually be redirected to higher-value uses such as hospitals and schools.
- Environmental, noise, and local disruption costs of expanding Heathrow outweigh any benefits.