Seven facts about Heathrow airport that need to be better known

The plaintive wails of BAA about the need for expansion at Heathrow are growing in intensity. This is understandable; Heathrow is a commercial airport, run for the profit of its Spanish owners and a bigger airport will make more money. In its astute lobbying, BAA paints a sad picture of an unusually constrained airport holding back the trading efforts of UK business because of a crying lack of capacity and inadequate connections to the growing countries of the east. These stories have gained currency in the press and elsewhere. They are wholly wrong. There may possibly be an argument for a new London airport, sited to minimise the nuisance caused by noise, but there is no compelling reason for Heathrow expansion.

1, Heathrow is predominantly a leisure airport, not one mostly serving business needs.

The 2011 passenger survey shows that over two thirds (69%) of passengers are travelling for leisure. 31% are on business.

Source:  (Table 2.1)

2, Business travellers are more likely to be going to an internal company meeting that visiting customers. Many of those using Heathrow could easily use other forms of communication.

The survey suggests that 10% of all Heathrow travellers are on their way to a company event. Fewer –  9% of passengers –  are travelling to see customers.

Source:  (Table 18.4)

3, Business travel from Heathrow is falling, not increasing.

The number of business passengers using Heathrow (including transfer passengers) was 24.3 million in 2000 but 21.5 million in 2011. The number of business travellers terminating at Heathrow was 18.5 million in 2000, falling to 15.1m in 2011.

Sources: (Table 4 and Table 5) and (Table 2.4 and Table 3.4)

4, Almost all users are happy with their experience at Heathrow. The airport infrastructure delivers user satisfaction.

In a 2012 survey, 87% had a positive view of their airport experience. Only 3% had negative views. (These numbers are very similar to Gatwick and slightly less good than Stansted). 74% had no criticisms at all of Heathrow. 45% could think of no improvements that might be useful. The average perceived queuing time for inbound passengers was 11 minutes, far less than passengers considered a reasonable maximum.


5, The airport is not operating at capacity.

Heathrow remains very busy, but the total number of flights in the year to June 2013 was down 2% from the previous year. This fall was slightly sharper than UK airports as a whole.


6, Delays at Heathrow are only slightly worse than at other airports. Its terminals and its runways are coping with the demands placed upon them.

The most recent CAA data shows that 75% of flights departing from or arriving at Heathrow were punctual (defined as operating to within 15 minutes of the scheduled time) for the year to March 2013. The average for ten largest UK airports was 79%. The average delay was 14.0 minutes at Heathrow compared to 12.6 minutes for all the airports. Heathrow’s average delay was less than Gatwick or Manchester.

Source: (Section 7)

7, The number of cities connected to Heathrow by long haul flights is greater than any other European hub airport. The total number of seats on these flights is far more than Heathrow’s nearest competitor. The airlines using Heathrow are becoming more oriented towards shorter flights, not travel to the fast growing countries of the east and south.

A 2011 study commissioned by BAA, the owners of Heathrow, said that Heathrow had daily long haul connections to 82 cities around the world. Its nearest competitor, Paris Charles de Gaulle, had 78. But the number of seats on these flights was 25.2m in the case of Heathrow and 14.0m for Paris CDG.

Importantly, the airlines using Heathrow have chosen to move away from long haul flights, cutting seats by about 10% since 2005 while increasing short haul capacity by similar percentage. The air travel market appears to be indicating that it has no shortage of long haul flights from Heathrow.

Source :  (Table 5)


Many of us oppose Heathrow expansion because of its likely impact on carbon emissions. But we can also be confident that there is no current financial case for a third runway, except in the eyes of the airport’s owners and its multitude of lobbyists.

  1. Roddy Campbell’s avatar

    Chris – couple of points.

    Firstly a general point has been made that having a Heathrow that is ‘beating’ its direct competitors in Paris and Amsterdam is good for UK GDP, versus increasing traffic going to them. Good for UK economically. The French and Dutch expanded those airports for commercial reason.

    Second the ‘businessmen need routes to China’ I am sure we agree is bollocks, given the number of LHR slots used solely for leisure.

    Thirdly, why do you think that blocking a third runway would be good for UK/EU emissions? To argue that you need to believe that a) LHR is at or near capacity, and b) that flights will not fly because LHR is at capacity, which is far-fetched, as they will use other London airports or CdG/Schiphol.

    Fourthly – you may wish travellers to use other forms of communication, but again, to think that opposing a 3rd runway will help achieve that is optimistic?

    ‘No financial case except for the owners’ – that might be a tough sell to the x00,000 who work there, the extra people who would work there if they expanded, the construction industry, and so on.

    I can’t see your emission argument, or your financial one, as argued here.

  2. Michael Knowles’s avatar

    Except of course for the people who live near these two airports, enlarging Gatwick and Stanstead makes much more sense as they have more rural space . They have good road & rail communications into and around London.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>