Heathrow Unveils GBP49 Bn Expansion Plan For Third Runway
The runway would cost GBP21 billion, with flights expected to take off within a decade, while the rest of the privately-funded investment will go toward expanding and modernising the airport.
Heathrow, Europe's busiest airport by passenger numbers, said the expansion would provide at least 30 new daily routes, more domestic connections and improved flight times.
The increased capacity would almost double the number of annual passengers from 84 million currently to up to 150 million passengers annually.
"It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow," said chief executive Thomas Woldbye.
"We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity," he added.
Despite fierce opposition from environmentalists and local residents, the London mayor Sadiq Khan and some Labour MPs, the Labour government backed the new runway in January in a bid to boost UK economic growth.
It would be a rare expansion in Europe, where countries are split between efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the needs of a strategic sector that has seen demand grow.
Heathrow has submitted its proposal for the 3,500 metre runway to the UK government, which has also invited a rival proposal.
Heathrow's proposal includes GBP12 billion to fund a new terminal and GBP15 billion for modernisation.
"A third runway and supporting infrastructure can be ready within a decade, and the full investment across all terminals would take place over the coming decades," Heathrow said in a statement.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is determined to deliver major infrastructure projects to revive the UK economy that has struggled to take off since the party came to power a year ago.
The government is expected to also back expansion at Gatwick airport, south of the capital, in October -- having recently approved upgrades to London's Stansted, Luton and City airports.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled at the end of 2020 that Heathrow could build the third runway, overturning a legal decision to block construction on environmental grounds.
Local residents "will see their lives put on hold for a few more years while more money and time is wasted on a doomed scheme," said Douglas Parr, policy director for Greenpeace UK.
He added the plans "export more tourism wealth out of the UK in the most polluting way possible."
Arora Group, one of Heathrow's largest landowners, on Thursday said it will submit a rival bid to build a shorter third runway, promising lower costs and less disruption to local residents and the environment.
"This is the first time the government has invited a competing proposal for Heathrow expansion," the UK-based property and hotel firm said in a statement.
Airport-owner Heathrow's latest investment proposal comes in addition to plans to invest GBP10 billion over the next five years in upgrades to boost passenger numbers, which would be largely funded by higher charges on airlines. Local residents have fought against a third runway at Heathrow, arguing their lives are already blighted by noise and pollution from Europe's busiest air hub in passenger numbers AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Bank Of England Set To Cut Rate As UK Economy Weakens
The Bank of England is widely expected to cut its key interest rate Thursday, with policymakers mindful of US tariffs and their potential risks to an already-struggling UK economy. With the BoE likely to trim borrowing costs by a quarter point to 4.0 percent, focus will be on potential changes to the central bank's economic growth and inflation outlooks. "There are clear signs of (UK) economic deterioration, particularly stemming from the labour market," Victoria Scholar, head of investment at Interactive Investor, noted ahead of the latest rate call. "Yet policymakers must weigh this up against the risk of inflationary pressures particularly with rising food prices and international uncertainty around (US President Donald) Trump's tariffs and volatility in energy markets." Against this backdrop, analysts expect splits within the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee. Some argue that while the majority of the nine policymakers, including governor Andrew Bailey, will vote for a quarter-point cut, some are likely to demand an even larger reduction and others no change. A quarter-point cut Thursday would be the BoE's fifth such reduction since starting a trimming cycle in August 2024, emphasising its "gradual" approach to reducing rates. The BoE's main task is to keep Britain's annual inflation rate at 2.0 percent but the latest official data showed it had jumped unexpectedly to an 18-month high in June. The Consumer Prices Index increased to 3.6 percent as motor fuel and food prices stayed high. Latest official figures also show that Britain's economy unexpectedly contracted for a second month running in May and UK unemployment is at a near four-year high of 4.7 percent. This is largely down to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government increasing a UK business tax from April, the same month that the country became subject to Trump's 10-percent baseline tariff on most goods. London and Washington reached an agreement in May to cut levies of more than 10 percent imposed by Trump on certain UK-made items imported by the United States, notably vehicles. Last month, the BoE warned in a report that tariff unpredictability and Middle East conflicts pose risks to UK financial stability. The US Federal Reserve last week kept interest rates unchanged, defying strong political pressure from Trump to slash borrowing costs in a bid to boost the world's biggest economy. Asked about US tariffs following the decision, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told a press conference: "We're still a ways away from seeing where things settle down." The European Central Bank is meanwhile widely expected to keep rates unchanged at its next meeting, with eurozone inflation around the ECB's two-percent target. But that could change, according to some economists, based on how Trump's tariffs affect the single-currency bloc.
Int'l Business Times
6 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Major Climate-GDP Study Under Review After Facing Challenge
A blockbuster study published in top science journal Nature last year warned that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by a staggering 62 percent by century's end, setting off alarm bells among financial institutions worldwide. But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released Wednesday, challenges that conclusion -- finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have "further information to share soon" -- a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors -- who have acknowledged errors -- and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology. "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science." Researchers AFP spoke to said the effects of heat on economies of countries near the tropics is magnified, like the riverbank dwellers carrying banana produce in northern Brazil AFP
DW
11 hours ago
- DW
Immigration: Germany seeks 'safe countries of origin' – DW – 08/06/2025
A verdict by the European Court of Justice is set to impact Germany's policies aiming to curb irregular immigration. It will stimy plans to determine 'safe countries of origin' for possible deportations. Safe countries of origin are those whose citizens do not have to fear state persecution, according to assessments by the German government or the European Union. Whether such assessments are accurate is a matter for debate that often ends up in court. Last week, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that EU countries are allowed to designate safe countries of origin to fast-track asylum procedures if authorities disclose the sources for their assessment. The court also found that for a country to be designated as safe, it must offer adequate protection to the entire population, including minorities. The Luxembourg-based court also said that while having a fast-track procedure does not violate EU law, the designation of safe countries must be subject to judicial scrutiny so migrants can challenge decisions made on their asylum claims. Germany has its own list of safe countries of origin. Asylum seekers from these countries hardly stand a chance of being granted asylum in Germany. Currently, eight European non-EU and two African countries are on this list. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The new German coalition government of center-right Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) had agreed to add more countries to the list. "We are continuously assessing whether more countries meet the requirements. In particular, a country will be classified as safe if fewer than 5% of asylum seekers from that country have been accepted over at least a five-year period." It remains to be seen whether these plans will be as easy to implement as it sounds in the coalition agreement following the ECJ ruling. A spokesperson for the interior ministry, which is responsible for asylum policy, said that the ruling will be reviewed. Yet the German government still intends to reform the process for determining whether a country of origin is safe. In the future, safe countries of origin are to be determined by decree. This would mean that neither the Bundestag nor the Bundesrat (the upper house of parliament representing the 16 federal states) would have a say in the matter. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The coalition has already submitted a draft bill on this issue, which is to be voted on after the parliament's summer recess. The first debate already took place last July. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt took that opportunity to criticize what he sees as an insufficient number of deportations of rejected asylum seekers: "Our goal now is to remove the obstacles to effectively limiting illegal migration," he said. One such obstacle that the CSU politician highlighted was the fact that, under current law, people who have been ordered to leave the country are entitled to legal representation before their planned deportation can be enforced. This is one of the regulations that is to be abolished. Dobrindt hopes that this will also speed up deportations to countries already listed as safe. Within the European Union, there are already discussions about setting up joint centers for the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers. The interior ministers of EU member states discussed this at their meeting in Copenhagen last July. This is an idea that Dobrindt is in favor of. He pointed out that it can be difficult for individual member states to reach deals with non-EU countries, while it could be more expedient when several EU countries work together. Several countries already have concrete plans in place. "I wouldn't rule this out for Germany either," said the German interior minister. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video In Dobrindt's view, many of the people who came to Germany in the past were not eligible for asylum. He hopes that the planned reform will send a clear message: "People who come from a safe country of origin should not make the journey. Those who cannot stay should not come in the first place." Some members of the political opposition in Germany hope that the European Court of Justice's ruling will force the federal government to change its course on asylum policy. "The ECJ ruling on safe countries of origin is a major success for human rights and the individual right to asylum in Europe," said Green Party MP Filiz Polat. She added that the plan to classify safe countries of origin by means of a legal directive without oversight by the Bundestag and Bundesrat is not possible. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Clara Bünger of the Left Party has also called on the governing coalition to carry out a comprehensive review of the list of safe countries of origin."Georgia and Moldova should be removed from this list immediately. The reason given was the precarious human rights situation in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Also, the EU member state Czechia considers only parts of Moldova as safe, while the Transnistria region is controlled by pro-Russian separatists and therefore considered unsafe. The ECJ ruling, according to Bünger, "also represents a clear repudiation of the federal government's plans to classify other countries, such as Tunisia and Algeria, as safe." Same-sex sexual relations are punishable by law in both Tunisia and Algeria. Classifying these countries as safe would conflict with a key criterion established by the European Court of Justice's ruling: countries deemed safe third countries must ensure the safety of their entire you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
