Extended runway at Heathrow would slash carbon emissions -- claim

GROWING capacity at Heathrow by extending the northern runway would reduce carbon emissions from aircraft using the airport by 210,000 tonnes per annum, or over third of the total, according to the scheme’s promoters.

 The research commissioned by Heathrow Hub, the independent proposal to abandon the Third Runway and instead pursue piecemeal expansion via an extended runway comes in the week that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson launches his new 10-point plan to tackle climate change.

The scheme is promoted by a consortium led by ex-Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, who claims that increased capacity at the airport would reduce carbon emissions from aircraft by 37%, due to fewer delays, less stack holding and shorter taxiing and ground movement times. The fuel savings would also cut airline costs by £6 billion over 20 years, according to the research.

 The airport was running at full capacity before the pandemic, but has since seen an 82% drop in flights.

Heathrow is battling the government, which it feels is not doing enough to preserve a vital industry. After decades of dispute, it still thinks the third runway is vital to the nation’s interests. A Supreme Court hearing will rule after Christmas.

 The independent Heathrow Hub consortium contends that its extended runway is now the only viable option to put the struggling airport on a sustainable business footing.  

Extending the northern runway, put at £4.3bn for its first phase, seems plainly cheaper than a third runway and it is claimed it is not reliant on additional air traffic movements for funding. In the first instance, the additional capacity would make Heathrow more efficient and any new slots need not be released unless environmental targets are met.

 Mr Lowe said: “Reducing carbon emissions is now a legal duty for Heathrow and the airlines. Our proposal would help them deliver it.”

He added: “It has become increasingly clear that Heathrow’s 3rd runway will not go ahead. Whatever the result of the Supreme Court case, it is too expensive, too complicated and totally incompatible with the Government’s net zero emissions by 2050 target.”