Heathrow says need for expansion ‘clear’ as it loses title of Europe’s busiest airport
Heathrow has lost its long-held title of Europe's busiest airport to Istanbul, prompting the west London hub to renew its argument that a third runway is urgently needed. The airport said the shift underlines that it is "operating at capacity" and that expansion is essential for the UK to remain competitive, deliver economic growth and stay Europe's leading aviation hub.
Heathrow handled 7.86 million passengers in July, down 1.5% year on year, while Istanbul recorded 8.15 million, a 2.3% rise, according to Airports Council International figures. Heathrow had held the top spot since 1996, aside from a pandemic-related dip from 2020 to 2023, and its July decline was partly driven by a 20.2% drop in Middle East route traffic amid the US-Israel war on Iran. The airport, which recorded 84.46 million passengers in 2025, is seeking government approval for a third runway that would raise capacity to 150 million a year; transport secretary Heidi Alexander opened a consultation in June, though the plan has faced criticism, including from Andy Burnham, over diverting investment away from northern England.
- Heathrow overtaken by Istanbul as Europe's busiest airport in July.
- Heathrow cites this to push for a third runway.
- Third runway targeted for completion by 2035, amid political pushback.
New here? Start with this
Heathrow has been the busiest airport in Europe by passenger numbers since 1996, apart from a dip during the Covid pandemic. That title has now passed to Istanbul, whose traffic has grown while Heathrow's has recently fallen slightly, partly due to disruption to Middle East flight routes. Heathrow's operator argues this shows the airport is running at full capacity and needs to expand to keep up.
The airport has long wanted to build a third runway, which would allow it to handle far more passengers each year than it currently does. This is a contentious idea that has been debated for years on environmental and cost grounds, but the government has recently opened a formal consultation on the proposal, with the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, overseeing the process.
The issue matters because Heathrow is one of the UK's main gateways for international trade and travel, so decisions about its size affect the wider economy, regional investment and the environment. Critics, including senior political figures such as Andy Burnham, have raised concerns that focusing money and resources on Heathrow could come at the expense of other parts of the country, particularly the north of England.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of expansion argue that Heathrow's slip behind Istanbul is a warning sign that Britain's principal gateway is being outbuilt by rivals investing in capacity, threatening the UK's status as a global trade and travel hub. They contend that a third runway would boost connectivity, attract investment, create jobs in construction and aviation, and allow London to compete with expanding hubs across Europe, the Gulf and Asia rather than lose long-haul routes and transfer traffic to them. For this camp, constrained capacity is not a neutral fact but a self-inflicted drag on growth that government approval could readily fix.
The case against
Opponents argue that expanding Heathrow would lock in higher carbon emissions and noise and air pollution for west London communities at precisely the moment the UK is meant to be cutting aviation's climate impact, and that demand for flights should be managed rather than continually accommodated. Critics such as Andy Burnham add that channelling billions into a third runway diverts scarce infrastructure investment and political attention away from other English regions, including the north, reinforcing London-centric growth rather than the more balanced UK development that levelling-up policy was meant to deliver. They believe the sensible response to a temporary dip in rankings is not a costly, decades-long expansion but better use of existing capacity and investment elsewhere.