In January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves asked Heathrow Airport to submit plans for a third runway.
She is also backing projects to expand capacity in other London airports, starting with Gatwick and Luton. Reeves said this was part of a ‘vision’ to “make Britain the world’s best connected place to do business.”
Behind this professional government announcement is a may-day attempt to turbo-charge economic growth, of which there has been barely any since Labour has come to power.
This decades-old plan, first raised in May 2003, illustrates there are no good options for the British ruling class, or anyone trying to pilot British capitalism.
Far from solving their problems, the Heathrow project promises turbulence to sharpen all the contradictions of this so-called ‘Labour’ government.
What would a third runway mean?
The projected expansion would make Heathrow the busiest airport in the world. Heathrow would increase its capacity by 85 percent compared to the total number of travellers in 2023.
In the surrounding areas, the increased air traffic would not only worsen air and noise pollution for those already affected, but also expose 12,000 to 28,000 more people to chronic noise impacts exceeding 70 decibels, which are known to have negative impacts on sleep and mental health.
Local residents quoted in various media outlets were either strongly against the plans, or rightfully sceptical that they would even be completed. One resident interviewed by the Evening Standard fumed:
“These politicians don’t live in the area, they don’t understand what it is like. They themselves are sorted, they don’t give a toss about us.”
Heathrow’s expansion would also lead to 300,000 people experiencing being flown over by aircraft for the first time, and involve the demolition of at least 800 homes, a primary school, and a power station.
Finally, it would mean an extra 4.4 million extra tonnes of CO2 per year – an eye-watering amount, that shows the hollowness of Labour’s “Net zero by 2050” commitment.
Reeves has tried to argue that higher emissions could be avoided, with a vague appeal to the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).
But the truth is that – as The Times reported – the availability of such fuel is about to “dry up” in Britain. China currently produces 90 percent of the SAF used in Britain and is preparing to impose sustainability requirements on its own airlines.
This highlights the blatant contradiction of trying to solve a global problem like climate change through the action of competing nations.
It’s also unlikely that infrastructure around London would be ready to welcome extra passengers at arrivals. On the national scale, airport expansion represents yet another example of how skewed the British economy has become.
Former industrial areas like South Wales and the North of England have been left out on the tarmac since the 1970s onwards, whilst enormous concentrations of capital are landed into the remaining profitable areas of the country, primarily London and the South East.
This was already highlighted by the 2023 decision to abandon the crucial Birmingham-Manchester section of HS2.
Both the Tories and Labour have talked about ‘levelling up’, but this lift off is impossible under capitalism, which inherently circles enormous amounts of capital into only the most profitable fields of investment, leading to grotesque social and geographical inequality.
Air travel for who?
Increasing airport capacity will not necessarily lower prices. According to the Treasury, to help pay for sustainable fuels, airfares are planned to increase by a blanket cost of £37.80 per ticket by 2040. This will disproportionately affect economy and budget flyers, i.e. ordinary people.
A huge proportion of air travel today is carried out by the rich and ultra-rich – especially at an international hub like Heathrow.
A UK-based campaigning group calculated that nationally, 50 percent of flights are taken by 10 percent of people. In fact only one percent of the world population emits half of all aviation emissions.
The impact per capita of the richest frequent flyers is infinitely higher, due to the use of chartered flights, lavish on-flight accommodation and services. That is not to mention private jets, which accounted for 17.2 million tons of CO2 in 2023.
Meaning local residents are facing diktats about their livelihoods in which they have no say, for the benefit of a small minority of flyers, and the political survival of Starmer and co.
Turbulence in Labour
As soon as Reeves’ announcement was published, splits emerged amongst the Labour Party leadership.
Mayor Sadiq Khan and several London councillors opposed the measure, to appeal to voters in the capital.
Energy secretary Ed Miliband also snubbed the announcement, and has refused to say whether he supports it, in order to bolster his image as the climate-defending frontbencher.
Meanwhile, Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is opposing the plan on the grounds that London already gets enough investment. Again, this is just to shore up his credentials as the ‘King of the North’.
But none of these people have any real backbone to stand up to these plans, nor any alternative plans for improving Britain’s infrastructure. They’re all just taking potshots at the government’s decision to try and recover their dwindling support bases.
The hypocrisy of the Labour Party leaders is clear to everyone. In 2018, Starmer himself voted against a third runway when the Tory-majority Parliament previously granted the airport permission to submit a plan.
Congratulations to the climate campaigners.
There is no more important challenge than the climate emergency. That is why I voted against Heathrow expansion.https://t.co/AgoQChESns
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) February 27, 2020
Now, the PM’s U-turn on the Heathrow expansion is merely the latest in a long list of betrayals from this supposedly ‘socialist’ and ‘green’ human rights lawyer.
In any case, it remains to be seen whether this plan will take off. The attempts to build high speed rail in this country offer a picture of what might be in store: mismanagement, delays, and corruption.
For rational development
Under capitalism, it is simply impossible to develop infrastructure in a way that is harmonious with the needs of communities and the preservation of the environment.
A consequential decision like expanding the biggest airport in the country can be backed by the government, but is ultimately in the hands of foreign-owned private equity firms and petrol-state wealth funds.
Heathrow is 20 percent owned by the Qatar Investment Authority, 10 percent owned by the China Investment Corporation, and over 11 percent by the Australian Retirement Trust. These are the real bodies – beyond any of our control – which make the decisions over all of our lives.
As the saying goes, you can’t plan what you don’t control, and you can’t control what you don’t own. We need to nationalise the means of transportation under the control of the working class.
As Communists, we are in favour of large-scale infrastructure projects, including airports, built in conjunction with other forms of travel.
But this must be alongside the harmonious development of the economy as a whole, to satisfy the needs of working people and the environment, rather than anarchically and for the profit of a tiny minority.
As an example, flights from Bristol to Newcastle take just over an hour, whilst rail travel currently takes over five hours and costs around £260!
An upgrading of the entire rail network, to provide cheap, reliable high-speed rail could quickly clear the runway of unnecessary short-haul flights.
Large-scale infrastructure projects would also be a priority for a workers’ government, as we begin to rebuild Britain’s hollowed-out industrial base.
Instead of being subject to the whims of politicians and investors, every decision could be fitted into a rational, democratic plan of production, with real representation and power from local residents, passengers, and transport workers across the country.
Developments in aviation would fit into a wider national or European plan, for the benefit of all, not just those in first class.
The bosses, bankers and their servants in Westminster are in a tailspin, and have no skin in the game when it comes to developing a transport system that works for ordinary people. It’s time for the working class to sit in the flight deck!
