London's Heathrow Airport announces complete shutdown due to power outage

2025-03-213:31245248www.cnn.com

London’s Heathrow Airport, one of the world’s busiest, announced a complete shutdown all day Friday due to a “significant power outage” as a result of a large fire nearby and warned that “significant…

London’s Heathrow Airport announced a complete shutdown all day Friday due to a “significant power outage” due to a large fire nearby, causing massive disruption to one of the world’s busiest travel hubs as flights were forced to turn back midair or divert to other locations.

“Due to a fire at an electrical substation supplying the airport, Heathrow is experiencing a significant power outage,” Heathrow Airport said in a statement on X. “To maintain the safety of our passengers and colleagues, Heathrow will be closed until 23h59 on 21 March.”

“We expect significant disruption over the coming days and passengers should not travel to the airport under any circumstances until the airport reopens,” the airport said in a statement to CNN, adding that they “do not have clarity on when power may be reliable restored.”

A transformer at an electrical substation in Hayes, a London suburb located just a few miles from the airport, caught fire Thursday night, according to the London Fire Brigade. The cause is not yet known.

Dozens of firefighters were on the scene overnight, with 150 people evacuated. More than 16,000 homes have lost power, according to utility supplier Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks.

Videos shared on social media showed huge flames and smoke rising into the air early Friday.

“As we head into the morning, disruption is expected to increase, and we urge people to avoid the area wherever possible,” Assistant Commissioner Pat Goulbourne said in the fire brigade’s statement.

In its statement to CNN, the airport said: “We know this will be disappointing for passengers and we want to reassure that we are working as hard as possible to resolve the situation.”

Heathrow Airport appeared largely dark amid the power outage, according to videos shared on social media.

The shutdown could affect hundreds of thousands of travelers. Heathrow was the world’s fourth-busiest airport in 2023, according to the most recent data, with a record-breaking 83.9 million passengers passing through last year.

Spread across five terminals and located 14 miles west of central London, it usually runs at 99% capacity, with every major airline passing through, meaning it’s always very busy.

“Heathrow handles about a quarter of a million passengers a day. It does that with about 1,300 flights a day,” aviation analyst Geoffrey Thomas told CNN on Friday. “We’ve got literally hundreds of flights coming in from the United States, from Southeast Asia, the Middle East — they’re all in the air at the moment.”

By early Friday, the airport’s website showed multiple scheduled arrivals diverted or canceled, though others are still listed as “expected” arrivals.

British passenger Christine told CNN on Friday that she and her fellow passengers were about to take off from New York’s JFK airport when they heard the news.

Christine, who declined to give her last name but showed proof of travel, said her British Airways flight had been ready to depart when the pilot announced they’d been asked to hold for a while. Half an hour later, passengers were told Heathrow was closed and that another flight which had already taxied to the runway had turned back — leaving them stuck on the tarmac.

“The mood is fairly relaxed on the plane, surprisingly. They’ve just come around to feed us,” she said, but with a wedding in the UK to attend Saturday: “I really hope we’re not stuck until then!”

According to flight tracking website FlightRadar24, more than 1,350 flights going in or out of Heathrow on Friday will be affected. It also said 120 flights were in the air when the announcement came. They had to be diverted to other airports or turned back to their original location.

Thomas added that while shorter domestic flights might be able to turn back, that’s not an option for long-haul international flights. There are several other airports near London, including Gatwick Airport and Stansted Airport, but those are likely “at capacity,” meaning diverted flights have to go further to find an alternative place to land — like in Glasgow or Edinburgh, he said.

And that could pose another problem. Those other airports, some of them smaller and lower-cost than Heathrow, aren’t equipped to handle the sheer number of diverted passengers coming their way, he said.

As authorities race to contain the fire and navigate the fallout, they’ll also face tough questions, Thomas said, including why such a crucial travel and economic hub wasn’t able to tap into a backup power source.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

CNN’s Martin Goillandeau and Juliana Liu contributed to this report.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By joshuanapoli 2025-03-2117:202 reply

    It's not the first time a major airport is down because of power failure, and other airports are working to address this type of vulnerability.

    > The power vulnerability for airports was never made more obvious and painful than in Atlanta seven years ago. An underground electrical system fire in late 2017 damaged two substations and caused a complete outage lasting nearly 12 hours at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport

    https://www.microgridknowledge.com/microgrids/article/551275...

    • By sss111 2025-03-2118:547 reply

      Heathrow's power outage is much worse than Atlanta's, this is really bad. Allow me to make my point:

      1. UK’s has one major airport to get out of the country—Heathrow. Gatwick and that lot don’t carry the same weight. When Heathrow goes down, you’re proper stuck. Atlanta has DC, Miami right there.

      2. UK allows transit visas, so half the people transiting can’t even step out the terminal, what do they do when the airport is closed?

      The US doesn’t allow that, everyone clears customs/passport control, so no ‘no man’s land’ limbo for stranded passengers.

      3. Heathrow's outage is going to take 24 hours as of right now. That's twice Atlanta

      • By dmurray 2025-03-2120:061 reply

        This is laughably poor geography.

        Both Gatwick [0] and Stansted are busier than either Washington airport [1], and if you're considering Miami as an alternative to Atlanta then why not similarly ridiculous options like Paris, Amsterdam, Dublin for passengers stuck in Heathrow?

        Miami and DC aren't even close to the nearest major airport cities to Atlanta. Charlotte and Orlando are many hours closer and busier [1] in terms of commercial passengers (though still not as convenient as the UK's comparable airports).

        Only about a quarter of Heathrow passengers are transiting [2] and a significant portion of those are citizens of the US, EU, UK and other countries who don't need a visa. Maybe 10% of passengers are stuck in limbo, not half of them.

        [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_in_...

        [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports...

        [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/303939/flight-transfers-...

        • By dang 2025-03-2321:401 reply

          I'm late to this thread, but can you please edit out swipes from your HN comments? Your comment would be excellent without that first bit.

          This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

          • By crossroadsguy 2025-03-243:111 reply

            Hi dang, did you extend their comments' "editability" or is it already a feature I have been missing all along? I mean ability to edit/delete after a certain time (I guess it's a few hours right now?).

            • By pvg 2025-03-245:04

              It's an aspirational 'edit out'. As in, 'don't include them in the future'.

      • By margalabargala 2025-03-2118:574 reply

        > When Heathrow goes down, you’re proper stuck. Atlanta has DC, Miami right there

        "right there"

        It is a ten hour drive from Atlanta to DC. It is a nine hour drive from Atlanta to Miami.

        It is a six hour drive from Heathrow to Paris.

        • By MathMonkeyMan 2025-03-227:16

          Florida is very long.

        • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2119:062 reply

          [flagged]

          • By margalabargala 2025-03-2119:091 reply

            No, but it does include the time to get yourself and your vehicle on to and off of the train that carries vehicles through the Channel Tunnel.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeShuttle

            • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2119:142 reply

              Ye, I've been travelling on it since the first week it opened. But if you were redirected and had to fend for yourself you would need to book ahead on a tunnel or boat, hire a car to drive from France to Coquelles - find somewhere to drop the car, hire another car in the UK. All assuming you land in Paris in the morning early enough to do all this.

              • By margalabargala 2025-03-2119:401 reply

                Yes, all of which could be done in hours less time than it would take to get from Atlanta to any comparable airport.

                Consider the amount of train/ferry transit between London and Paris. That doesn't exist in the US. Rental car companies don't keep that much extra stock on hand, and really do not love renting cars for inter-state one-way journeys.

                I categorically reject that getting from Atlanta to London with ATL nonoperational would be either faster or easier than getting from London to Atlanta with LHR nonoperational.

                • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2119:451 reply

                  Fair enough if you categorically reject it. That's good enough for me.

                  • By oefnak 2025-03-225:251 reply

                    Thanks for admitting he's right.

                    • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-229:04

                      Well given what they (you know it's a he?) actually wrote...

              • By Symbiote 2025-03-2119:171 reply

                Then your comment about rowing across the sea is idiotic.

                The airlines that redirected flights to Paris arranged buses to London.

                • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2119:272 reply

                  Having thought about it you're correct. Even if you over inflate your tyres it won't provide enough buoyancy even for the smallest Euro-car.

                  An alternative reading to it 'being idiotic' is that it was clearly an exaggeration to prompt some critical thinking about the original claim.

                  • By wqaatwt 2025-03-2216:251 reply

                    What critical thinking? The train from London to Paris is barely above 2 hours. Why on earth would you drive if you’re in hurry?

                    • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2217:381 reply

                      I was replying to "It is a six hour drive from Heathrow to Paris"

                      • By wqaatwt 2025-03-2313:45

                        Well yes, but I’m just curious in what way was the original comment supposed to promote critical thinking

                  • By oefnak 2025-03-225:261 reply

                    There's a train between the UK and France. It carries cars.

                    • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-229:02

                      That I use regularly to actually drive from no-too-far from LHR to Paris and back. It's a thing I actually do.

                      And I can tell you, it might be theoretically in Google Maps land to do the journey in 6 hours, but IRL in this scenario it won't happen. Actual empirical evidence.

          • By t0mas88 2025-03-2119:132 reply

            The Eurostar train from London to Paris takes only 2.5 hours. Much faster than driving.

            • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2119:381 reply

              In theory yes, but we were specifically talking about driving. And whilst 6 hours CDG to LHR is possible in theory (and I've done it a number of times), it does depend on a whole load of other factors that are not present compared to hiring a car at US airport 1 and driving to US airport 2.

              Unless you're in the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

              • By margalabargala 2025-03-2119:471 reply

                I brought up driving to illustrate the incorrectness of the original claim, the person I replied to did not mention driving. The person you replied to is correct to bring up the EuroStar option.

                By the way, the snide remarks you add to the end to each of your comments may be better suited for a place like Reddit or TruthSocial. The community standards guidelines for HN can be found at the bottom of the page.

                • By 4ndrewl 2025-03-2120:23

                  I was replying to "It is a six hour drive from Heathrow to Paris."

                  I live close enough to LHR to notice the replacement of Boeing/Airbus with Cessna/Pipers from local airfields in the sky today. I also regularly drive to and/from Paris.

                  It is a six hour drive. But ONLY if you have your car ready, have booked a crossing ahead of time (otherwise you might want to slap another half day on those times), make no stops, you don't end up in a queue at UK customs (1 hour+ not infrequent occurrance). Don't happen to have your car sitting at CDG waiting for you? You'll have to hire one, but you'll be unlikely to be able to take that to the UK so you're then finding somewhere to drop that off and somehow cross as a foot passenger which you can't do on Le Shuttle...

                  Point being, cross-border travel throws up all of these hurdles which you simply don't have in the US example.

            • By maest 2025-03-2120:45

              It's also less agro

        • By epolanski 2025-03-221:202 reply

          It's still "right there" overall, you can take a local flight that takes one hour.

          Most importantly, you're in the same country whereas in the case of LHR closing the number of airports able to handle widebody long haulers...are essentially all in countries with different customs and visas.

          • By chrisandchris 2025-03-226:071 reply

            > It's still "right there" overall, you can take a local flight that takes one hour.

            From which airport? The one that is closed because there's no power?

            • By oyashirochama 2025-03-2415:05

              The US has dozens of smaller commercial and even private airports, same for London honestly so this isn't the greatest arguement except it doesn't need to deal with customs.

          • By netsharc 2025-03-223:58

            At least Ireland and the UK are in one visa regime, outside of Schengen. And because there are plenty of flights between Ireland and Schengen countries, all commercial Irish airports should have passport control.

            But Dublin airport has about 1/2 the gates of Heathrow...

      • By Symbiote 2025-03-2119:16

        1: It's clearly not been as disruptive as you're suggesting. Flights have been diverted to airports within a few hour's journey by bus or train, others have been cancelled, just like would happen with Atlanta.

        2: I don't know if they've done it, but the UK can grant entry for a few days to affected passengers. This will be part of a contingency plan.

        3: The airport reopened for some flights already.

      • By thebruce87m 2025-03-2121:20

        > UK’s has one major airport to get out of the country—Heathrow.

        I’ve been using Edinburgh airport and Glasgow airport for 40 years to “get out of the country”.

      • By MisterSandman 2025-03-227:48

        I like how US’s lack of automatic transit visas is being described as a good thing here. It is an absolutely nightmare in practice.

      • By gizajob 2025-03-2310:43

        Hahahaha what. The UK has multitude of airports that get you out of the country, even long-haul. Manchester, for example.

      • By anticensor 2025-03-225:35

        > 2. UK allows transit visas, so half the people transiting can’t even step out the terminal, what do they do when the airport is closed?

        Airside to airside bus shuttle?

        > The US doesn’t allow that, everyone clears customs/passport control, so no ‘no man’s land’ limbo for stranded passengers.

        Anchorage International Airport, amongst few (less than a handful really) other US airports, have separate international section with sterilised transit.

    • By traceroute66 2025-03-2117:531 reply

      > It's not the first time a major airport is down because of power failure, and other airports are working to address this type of vulnerability.

      To be fair, I'd probably be more interested to hear what major airports are doing to avoid a reoccurance of CrowdStrike-type scenarios. Which is perhaps a more likely re-occurence than loss of substation feeds.

  • By blindriver 2025-03-217:2412 reply

    Seems like a national security issue if there’s a single point of failure a few miles away that can take down one of Europe’s largest airports and global air travel.

    • By crazygringo 2025-03-2114:219 reply

      Why would it be a national security issue?

      Military airports are working fine. National security doesn't rely on civilian airports. And communications networks aren't disrupted or anything. This isn't enabling terrorism.

      It's absolutely a huge economic issue. Economic-political. But I'm not seeing a national security angle here.

      • By ziddoap 2025-03-2114:432 reply

        "[...] national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security."

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security

        Large-scale issues that impact the economy are typically under the "national security" umbrella. It's a term that uses the broad definition of "security".

        Whether this incident qualifies, I don't know, but "national security" is definitely not just about military stuff. Just like how "food security" isn't about physically protecting food from damage.

        • By paganel 2025-03-2115:161 reply

          While I agree with you, this is a huge issue with the term "security" and what it means to "provide security" as a government, because at some point almost everything can be labeled as a "national security threat" if it happens to be against the political desiderata of any one controlling said governments at a certain moment in time.

          I feel like this sort of "security reflex" only got worst after 9/11, it was already there before even before that point but starting with Bush jr. it cascading into lots and lots of non-military related areas.

          • By mhb 2025-03-2119:15

            Security, harm, aggression, violence, genocide. Redefine at your pleasure.

        • By idiotsecant 2025-03-221:521 reply

          I am not sure I am enthusiastic with the slow march toward 'national security issue' being synonymous with 'me personally being spooked by something'.

      • By robin_reala 2025-03-2116:09

        I think the phrase everyone is searching for is “critical national infrastructure”. That is a defined term in the UK, and includes digital things like GOV.UK: https://www.npsa.gov.uk/critical-national-infrastructure-0

      • By mcintyre1994 2025-03-2119:19

        Amusingly, some media outlets confused the Scandinavian SAS airline with Britain's SAS Special Forces unit, and reported that the special forces unit had cancelled its trips out of Heathrow :) https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2025/mar/21/hayes-s...

      • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-03-2114:28

        While I agree that saying this is a big national security issue is overstating it, if an adversary can cripple you economically because you have a few single points of failure, that is a national security issue

      • By WrongAssumption 2025-03-2114:54

        “National security, or national defence (national defense in American English), is the security and defence of a sovereign state, including its citizens, *economy*, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government.”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security

      • By vixen99 2025-03-2115:34

        Whether mere incompetence from those whose job it is to check such installations for failure or bad actors, other 'bad actors' will have gained a useful indication of how vulnerable Britain’s infrastructure is to attack. It's reckoned > 290K passengers have flights cancelled or diverted and ensuring chaos for days.

      • By dredmorbius 2025-03-2115:421 reply

        Most militarily-significant targets are themselves non-military.

        The Russian war of aggression on Ukraine is a prime example: power infrastructure, transportation, communications, commercial hubs, healthcare, and general civilian targets of opportunity are all targeted with high frequency by Russian forces.

        UK national security interests are spelled out in summary beginning on page 5 of this PDF, "Government Functional Standard: GovS 007: Security", notably

        Each organisation’s governance and management framework shall cover physical, personnel, cyber, incident management, technical and industry security

        <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/613a195bd3bf7...> (PDF)

        The US electric grid has also been of significant concern. Ted Koppel's book Lights Out (2015) addressed this specificly:

        <https://news.wttw.com/2015/11/09/ted-koppel-americas-vulnera...>

        As an example of non-military focus, the present US national security policy leads with ... tourist visas:

        To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.

        <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...> (20 Jan 2025)

        An earlier document from the Bush II White House leads with:

        People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor.

        <https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nssall.html> (2002)

        Wikipedia's National Security article notes:

        Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security.

        <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security>

        • By petertodd 2025-03-2116:381 reply

          > Most militarily-significant targets are themselves non-military.

          Indeed. Large scale war is extremely expensive. Russia's government is spending about 40% of total tax revenue on invading Ukraine. So anything it can do to harm the economies of the people fighting it helps. Equally, this is why Ukraine has been putting so much effort into blowing up oil and gas infrastructure in Russia, their #1 source of tax revenue.

          • By cozzyd 2025-03-2118:23

            perhaps they should blow up some airport substations as well...

      • By tarkin2 2025-03-2117:26

        Huge economic issues threaten national security.

        Economic and infrastructural sabotage isn't an unprecedented act in the last few years anyhow.

    • By evgen 2025-03-218:283 reply

      Few people actually include necessary infrastructure into their threat model and almost no one is willing to pay the cost of building effective redundancy into the system. I could probably shut down any airport in the world with a few late-night firebombs tossed into the right substation.

      And no, it is not a national security issue. There are three other airports in the London region, plus RAF Norholt and RAF Kenly inside the M25 ring.

      • By petercooper 2025-03-2114:241 reply

        I used to live next to RAF Kenley, it's not really usable in any valuable way - it's a relic. It's for gliders only with no powered flight allowed. It has no facilities and is very uneven/roughly paved, but could probably accept landings of small planes or fighters in extremis. Biggin Hill would be used instead if you needed an airport in that immediate area.

        • By tomhut 2025-03-2114:35

          Small world, I was gliding there yesterday. Agreed, given the state of the runway, Biggin Hill or Redhill would be a better alternative.

      • By smashah 2025-03-218:484 reply

        Heathrow is a significant part of the UK economy, what is with the dismissive attitude?

        I don't imagine an american being so dismissive about JFK being taken offline.

        • By traceroute66 2025-03-2111:063 reply

          > Heathrow is a significant part of the UK economy

          Is it, really ?

          From Heathrow's own website[1], so we can expect figures on the "generous" side:

          "Heathrow Airport is expected to contribute approximately £4.7bn to the UK economy "

          This incident started somewhere around midnight and is currently estimated to be resolved by 15:00. So let's round that up to "one day".

          £4.7bn divided by 365 is £12.8m

          Compared to say, the UK financial services sector which contributed £208.2bn to the UK economy in 2023[2] where an equivalent day out would cost £570m .... Heathrow's paltry £12m is equivalent to a 30 minute outage in the financial sector.

          Also, to put it further into perspective - Tesco, the UK's biggest supermarket operator - had revenues of £68bn last year...[3]

          [1]https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/doc... [2]https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06... [3] https://companiesmarketcap.com/gbp/tesco/revenue/

          • By megamix 2025-03-2115:171 reply

            Does that count only the actual airport? It doesn't count the potential business travellers contributing to the economy in different ways. Like if half of the financial sector were due to arrive at Heathrow, where would that be in the analysis?

            Just to downplay the importance of Heathrow through numbers is a bit absurd.

            • By bee_rider 2025-03-2117:131 reply

              If half the financial sector is in the plane somehow, and they decide “oh, the airport has a power outage, better crash into the ocean instead,” that might make a major difference. More likely they will go land at a different airport or delay their travel, depending on there they are in the process.

              It’s just delays, not destruction.

              • By Ozarkian 2025-03-2118:071 reply

                You missed the parent's point, which is that a significant fraction of people flying to London because they have business to do in London, and the value of their time is not zero. If their time is wasted, that has a real cost in terms of lost productivity.

                • By bee_rider 2025-03-2118:15

                  I don’t think I did miss their point. The loss is not the deletion of their productivity, it is the cost of shifting that productivity back by a day or so.

          • By pjmorris 2025-03-2115:041 reply

            I've flown through Heathrow a dozen or so times, and have spent maybe $200 in various shops and restaurants. Outside the airport, I spent months working on projects, and both I and the projects involved much more than $200. An analysis that includes only direct spending misses the overall impact.

            • By AnimalMuppet 2025-03-2115:431 reply

              All right, but if Heathrow was down for a day, what would you do? Cancel the trip, and never go at all? Or would you go a day later, or through a different airport, or fly to Manchester and take the train?

              • By seabass-labrax 2025-03-2116:042 reply

                Even if the airline let you, why would you travel to Manchester? That's half a day and a £100 train fare away from London. There's still Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in 'London', plus Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives.

                If money were no object even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!

                • By AnimalMuppet 2025-03-2116:322 reply

                  Hey, clueless American here. I confess I have no idea how far apart things are in the UK. "Closer than in the US" is all I've got.

                  • By seabass-labrax 2025-03-2117:242 reply

                    Ah, right! Here's an approximate comparison then, measuring from one of the terminus stations serving central London, according to railway timetable data:

                    0h 30m - Heathrow

                    1h 00m - Gatwick

                    1h 00m - Luton

                    1h 30m - Stansted

                    2h 30m - Manchester

                    3h 00m - Birmingham

                    3h 00m - Bristol

                    4h 00m - Cardiff

                    Plus Channel Tunnel trains:

                    2h 00m - Brussels

                    4h 00m - Amsterdam

                    Looks like I was wrong about Manchester being further than Cardiff though!!

                    • By masfuerte 2025-03-2118:17

                      Birmingham airport to London is 1h 10m though there are slower services.

                  • By Symbiote 2025-03-2116:57

                    It's very reasonable, and I wouldn't hesitate to do this if it was a business trip.

                    Many flights have been diverted to Manchester, partly because airlines with flights to Heathrow also have flights from Manchester, but are less likely to have flights from the other London airports.

                    Manchester Airport railway station is 2 minutes walk from the airport's main entrance, I think using a covered walkway, or maybe it was underground. Going to London takes 2¾ hours with one change, trains run every 20 minutes.

                    It would be more convenient to be diverted somewhere a bit closer, but on the scale of an intercontinental flight it's not a big deal.

                    > Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives ... even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!

                    Cardiff Airport to London takes 3 hours by train, Bristol Airport about 2½ hours, both are less frequent. Amsterdam is four hours by train, Brussels is around 3 hours.

                    Birmingham (BHX) and East Midlands (EMA) are the only airports closer to London in travel time than Manchester.

                • By leoedin 2025-03-2119:57

                  By what basis are Brussels or Amsterdam closer to London from Manchester? Manchester is a 2 hour train ride from London. Brussels is similar, but there’s at least an hour of mandatory security and waiting. Amsterdam is much further away.

          • By marliechiller 2025-03-2114:442 reply

            Thats not really a fair comparison. Youve compared an entire industry to one entity within an industry. Id be interested to see what the numbers would be if you shutdown all commercial UK airports for a day. Still smaller I'd imagine, but at least comparable

            • By traceroute66 2025-03-2114:57

              > Thats not really a fair comparison.

              If we're going to be pedantic about fair comparisons, then really you would need to, for example:

              Remove airport duty-free sales figures since that has a negligible effect on the UK economy, but does pad up their bottom line.

              Remove leisure passenger derived numbers. Because "passenger tourism contributes to the UK economy" type data are very much finger in the air subjective estimates prone to bias and massaging. For example, common scenario is relatives coming to stay. They stay at your house, you feed them at your house, their net contribution to the UK economy is effectively naff all apart from maybe a couple of museum and transport tickets.

            • By monkey_monkey 2025-03-2114:53

              Or they could compare it to an asteroid hitting the UK and wiping all all life within a 200 mile radius.

        • By evgen 2025-03-219:071 reply

          A significant part of the economy perhaps, but 'national security threat' is a somewhat higher bar IMHO. LHR has a role of convenience, but not necessity. If JFK was shut down for a day or two and had limited operations for another week it would be inconvenient but would barely register in the national economic stats. I am on a flight heading out of Heathrow on Sunday for work travel and have booked an alternative out of Gatwick just in case. Inconvenient, but not a massive problem.

          What will be telling here is how quickly things adapt to the disruption. I expect to feel more impact from the loss of power to businesses in the surrounding area that are involved in air shipment than in the flight disruptions (e.g. cold chain logistics and inventory management for just-in-time processes that warehouse near the airport.)

          • By traceroute66 2025-03-2110:562 reply

            > What will be telling here is how quickly things adapt to the disruption.

            Most people won't have to. The substation area covers 62,000 properties, but only 4,800 are actually without power as a result of the incident. In addition they are expecting restoration of power by 15:00 same-day.[1]

            [1] https://powertrack.ssen.co.uk/powertrack#QQ0573

            • By FartyMcFarter 2025-03-2113:172 reply

              That link isn't working currently, and when I checked it earlier it was referring to an outage which started late yesterday night. So I'm not sure it was relevant.

              • By traceroute66 2025-03-2114:251 reply

                > So I'm not sure it was relevant.

                It is.

                If you read the text on the link it very much describes the situation, e.g. talking about the substation.

                Second, the start time and other data (e.g. number of properties affected) correlates with that stated by the London Fire Brigade on their website[1]

                [1] https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/incidents/2025/march/fire-at-...

                • By FartyMcFarter 2025-03-2114:47

                  Oh, I see. My apologies, for some reason I thought the fire started in the early morning hours.

              • By Symbiote 2025-03-2114:251 reply

                According to the news reports, the fire started at roughly 23:30.

        • By monkey_monkey 2025-03-2114:17

          > Heathrow is a significant part of the UK economy

          You'll need to back up that assertion.

          I imagine any American who thought about it would have a similarly 'dismissive' attitude.

        • By d1sxeyes 2025-03-219:21

          I mean sure it's expensive, but economic harm (unless it's intentional and large-scale) is not really seen as a national security issue in the UK.

      • By benterix 2025-03-219:30

        > I could probably shut down any airport in the world with a few late-night firebombs tossed into the right substation.

        So basically this is what Putin is trying to do - find vulnerable points and attack them. For now, creating disruption without human casualties.

    • By traceroute66 2025-03-219:515 reply

      > Seems like a national security issue if there’s a single point of failure

      No. Its not.

      Its the fact that the decades of under-investment in power distribution infrastructure is coming home to roost.

      Its no secret there's little to no "fat" in the UK grid system. Hence it has difficulty coping with black-swan events such as this.

      Anyone who buys datacentre space in London knows the reason prices have gone through the roof in recent years. Its becasue the grid simply cannot get the extra capacity to where it is needed. And this is before energy prices started rising due to the UK's electricity being mostly dependent on gas (previous governments having sold off gas-storage facilities to build houses on the land instead).

      That's why its also a pain in the backside to build new banks of EV fast chargers anywhere in the UK. Getting the power there involves long, protracted, discussions with the grid followed by payments of large amounts of money and a written promise to the grid that you agree to load-shedding at any time if necessary.

      I suspect you will find its not a single point of failure either. Its just that Hayes is a high-demand area, so see above for lack of excess capacity .... if one site goes boom, the other will struggle to take on 100% load.

      • By implements 2025-03-2116:591 reply

        > I suspect you will find its not a single point of failure either. It’s just that Hayes is a high-demand area, so see above for lack of excess capacity .... if one site goes boom, the other will struggle to take on 100% load.

        Hayes (North Hyde) is a few miles NE of Heathrow, but Laleham (similar sized) is only a few miles South - I’d would have assumed both served as fully redundant supplies for the airport, given it’s critical national infrastructure.

        (The old BBC Television Centre in London had three independent supplies, I believe)

        • By ben_w 2025-03-2117:211 reply

          > (The old BBC Television Centre in London had three independent supplies, I believe)

          There's a story, possibly apocryphal, that the UK nuclear deterrent submarines used the continued broadcast of Radio 4 as a dead-man switch to determine if nuclear war had broken out and they needed to open the safe containing their orders.

          Which is to say: What counts as "critical national infrastructure" can be surprising.

          • By implements 2025-03-2117:49

            Radio 4 on long wave, I believe - which is only guaranteed until the end of June this year because the BBC’s stock of irreplaceable high power valves is running out. As well as triggering Armageddon the LW signal also switched older electricity meters (phew, back on topic!) between standard daytime and cheap overnight power.

      • By ChrisRR 2025-03-2111:26

        How do you say No it's not and then describe points of failure leading to national security issues?

      • By tonyedgecombe 2025-03-2117:50

        >And this is before energy prices started rising due to the UK's electricity being mostly dependent on gas ...

        Wind was the dominant source of energy in the UK last year:

        https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q4-2024/wind-becomes-...

      • By pjc50 2025-03-2115:084 reply

        So .. why are people trying to build new datacentre space in London rather than somewhere a bit further away and less expensive? Easier to put the datacentre near the power and run some fiber rather than the other way round, surely?

        The expense is unpleasant, but the money has to come from somewhere, and the user paying is easier to justify than all the other bill-payers collectively or the taxpayer.

        • By traceroute66 2025-03-2115:44

          > why are people trying to build new datacentre space in London rather than somewhere a bit further away and less expensive?

          Most likely some combination of:

              1. A chunk of the customer base (financial sector, hyperscalers etc.) that wants the low latency and who are price insensitive because of their deep pockets.
              2. If peering matters to you, then you're limited to where the IXP is, which is usually only at the major London sites.  LINX, for example, have LINX Wales, but that is not interconnected with LINX London, so you either need to get space in London or pay for fibre capacity back to London.
              3. Fibre coverage outside large conurbations in the UK has traditionally been shit and to varying degrees still is.
              4. The rural areas don't have substations ready-to-go and the NIMBY's come running if you propose building one or anything else in their backyards (see protests about new wind farms).
          
          Almost certainly many more things I've missed, those are just a few off the top of my head.

          There are various locations outside of Central London but within the M25 boundary. But YMMV when it comes to being any less expensive. I suspect you will find the Outer London market has "hardened" over the last few years.

          Verging into cynical territory, marketing might come into it a little bit. "Telehouse London" sounds cooler in the customer presentation "Telehouse near some village you've never heard of".

        • By everfrustrated 2025-03-2115:36

          The UK has a weird National Grid system whereby the cost of electricity is the same nationwide (except Scotland)

          So datacenters build in London as the connection/electricity price is same as building in rural areas and they'd obviously prefer being closer to users in London.

        • By Symbiote 2025-03-2117:10

          They build datacentres in/near London and also elsewhere in the country.

          Here's one example map: https://www.colo-x.com/data-centre-database-map/

        • By paganel 2025-03-2115:19

          Probably because of easier access to qualified workforce.

      • By apetresc 2025-03-2110:281 reply

        You keep saying “No it’s not” and then describing exactly what most people would call “a single point of failure” and “a national security issue” in a lot more words.

        • By traceroute66 2025-03-2110:414 reply

          > You keep saying “No it’s not” and then describing exactly what most people would call “a single point of failure” and “a national security issue” in a lot more words.

          What are you on about ?

          Its not a national security issue. Full stop. There are many other airports in the London area and elesewhere in the UK. Heathrow is a civilian airport, not a military one. 99% of air cargo to the UK does NOT come to Heathrow.

          Its not a single point of failure either. Sure, for those TEMPORARILY affected it might feel that way. But businesses with contingency plannign will simply invoke their DR plans and go elsewhere ... flights will divert, people will WFH instead of going the offices, people will have to travel to a supermarket a little bit further away.

          Also, regarding "single point of failure", see this website[1]... 62,000 customers affected but only 4,800 without power[1]. Not quite a SPOF then is it !

          Also, you want guaranteed N+1 resilience at grid level, who do you think is going to pay for that ?

          Most people would be happy with the grid sorting out its capacity issues at N level, one thing at a time my friend.

          [1] https://powertrack.ssen.co.uk/powertrack#QQ0573

          • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-03-2115:25

            "National security site" is not a synonym for "military installation."

            It means "critical infrastructure whose failure causes significant adverse effects."

            The UK's main airport is absolutely that.

            Your quote about 99% of air cargo not coming through Heathrow is made-up nonsense. The correct figure is closer to around 50% by volume and 70% by value.

            https://www.heathrow.com/company/cargo

            It's a major, major hub, not just for the UK but Europe, the US, and Rest of World.

          • By Closi 2025-03-2114:182 reply

            > 99% of air cargo to the UK does NOT come to Heathrow.

            Not even slightly true - Heathrow carries over 50% of air freight and is a major hub.

            (https://www.heathrow.com/company/cargo)

            • By traceroute66 2025-03-2114:391 reply

              > Heathrow carries over 50% of air freight and is a major hub.

              Not denying it, but it does depend on what you're sending.

              For example, if you send something by DHL, it has a significantly greater chance of going through East Midlands Airport than it does Heathrow.

              Same for UPS and others. The bulk of their recent investments have been away from Heathrow.

              The non-Heathrow sites have better road connections, and more importantly for air cargo, the noise abatement rules at non-Heathrow sites are more relaxed.

              The other problem with Heathrow is that BA have their finger in the pies and they have too many slots, so that limits any growth on the independent freight side.

              Heathrow has effectively hit its capacity limit. That may or may not change if they ever build the third runway.

              • By Closi 2025-03-2114:45

                > Not denying it

                Your original post did though!

                Heathrow undoubtedly does the most air cargo. Sure express often comes into EMA on dedicated flights, but lots of freight comes in the hold of passenger aircraft, and that’s where Heathrow is king. The lack of passenger traffic is undoubtedly a key reason why EMA only does 1/5th of Heathrow’s air cargo, as as you have noted it’s ideally located to serve a lot of the UK.

            • By richwater 2025-03-2114:35

              It's really quite incredible how people just make shit up, even in this board

          • By ziddoap 2025-03-2114:54

            >Heathrow is a civilian airport, not a military one.

            Not saying this incident is or isn't a national security issue, but this is not really pertinent to whether an incident is classified as a national security issue.

            National security encompasses much more than just military-related stuff. The "security" part of "national security" is using a broad definition of security (like "food security" isn't strictly about physically protecting food from damage).

          • By WrongAssumption 2025-03-2114:56

            National security definitively covers civilian infrastructure. In fact military defense primary purpose is protecting civilian restructure.

    • By rich_sasha 2025-03-217:431 reply

      This was my first thought.

      My second thought is, UK infra is crumbling so bad, this is really most likely just business as usual...

      • By gambiting 2025-03-218:172 reply

        It's all been privatized and they don't care about anything other than maintaing profits so of course we're seeing the effects now. It's also why every single water provider in the UK is dumping raw sewage into our rivers and when the government tries to make them fix it they cry about how that will eat into their profits and how it's unfair.

    • By belter 2025-03-2114:382 reply

      It's not looking good and the other alternative airports in the UK are at full capacity:

      "Heathrow Doesn't Know When Power Will Be Back, Days of Disruption Expected" - https://www.newsweek.com/heathrow-airport-fire-counterterror...

      If the entire transformer is lost, procuring replacement transformers for substations can take from several months to years. Insulation failures are relatively common in older power substations. It seems someone should have done a better job preparing disaster recovery scenarios for Heathrow.

      Edit:

      BBC reporting "some power" restored on a "interim basis" as the power company is now using a different substation. It would be curious if the increased effort on other substations would then cause further power failures...A bit like the postmortems of global cloud providers, where taking a node out, causes increased stress on other nodes...

      • By quickthrowman 2025-03-2114:45

        One would hope the utility would have a spare transformer or two sitting around, I guess that’s not guaranteed tho. MV and HV transformers have extremely long lead times like you said.

      • By blibble 2025-03-2115:031 reply

        the utility are expecting to go back on at 3pm...

        (edit: and are back)

    • By izacus 2025-03-219:572 reply

      Heathrow isn't the only airport near London so redundancy is already built

      • By SideburnsOfDoom 2025-03-2110:051 reply

        Yes and no. The vast majority of commercial flights what would have landed at Heathrow today won't be landing at a different London airport instead. There isn't spare, redundant capacity for that. Instead the flights will be cancelled.

        https://www.thelocal.dk/20250321/sas-cancels-flights-from-no...

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly6e24q8glo

        • By izacus 2025-03-2111:281 reply

          But that's not a national security concern. That's just an annoyance.

          For national security London and UK can scramble several other airports for important flights.

          • By SideburnsOfDoom 2025-03-2114:011 reply

            If by "national security issue" we mean "can the UK move military aircraft and important people" then no, Heathrow isn't key at all. There are other airbases and airports.

            If we mean that a long outage would have economic impact and is hard to find the capacity elsewhere, then yes. As per grandparent post "take down one of Europe’s largest airports and global air travel".

            • By izacus 2025-03-2114:241 reply

              Yeah well, not everything that annoys people and loses bussinesses money is a "national security issue", no matter how far the US overton window shifted on that matter.

              • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-03-2115:28

                A core goal of national security is protecting critical civilian infrastructure.

                Always has been, always will be.

      • By LatteLazy 2025-03-2111:281 reply

        The problem is they’re all maxed out. So if one closes unexpectedly the others can’t just pick up the slack because they have no room…

        • By windward 2025-03-2114:341 reply

          So the solution to avoiding a few days of a LHR-sized gap in airport throughput is to build a permanent LHR-sized surplus?

    • By belter 2025-03-2117:02

      JFK had similar issues and it's easy to see, still has the same single point of failures:

      "Power outage cancels, diverts flights at Kennedy Airport" - https://apnews.com/article/new-york-city-power-outages-eb883...

      https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105203.pdf

    • By andrewinardeer 2025-03-217:57

      This crossed my mind. Was it an adversarial foreign nation state undertaking sabatgoe a la French train network on the opening day of the Olympics?

    • By basisword 2025-03-2115:381 reply

      What would you suggest as a backup? Supposedly they have generators/redundancy but the place requires so much power that that can only maintain critical functions (I guess ensuring incoming flights can still land and taxi in the mins after the power loss).

      • By crote 2025-03-2115:571 reply

        One potential solution is to add a connection to a second substation. For example, Laleham is a few miles south of Heathrow, and can be fed without sharing any infrastructure with North Hyde.

        I doubt it's worth the additional expenses, though. Transformers exploding like this is extremely rare, and the main reason this one has such an impact is because the firefighting effort required the other two transformers to be shut down. Investing in better physical separation between the individual transformers is probably a way more effective investment.

        • By richardwhiuk 2025-03-2118:08

          There’s also the issue that if one trips, it’ll like cause havoc with the other one.

    • By graemep 2025-03-2118:53

      but its expensive to fix single points of failure so lets just hope for the best.

    • By oliwarner 2025-03-2112:082 reply

      Haven't they seen Die Hard 2?! /s

      Grid power is hard. Even with local generation failovers for air and ground safety systems, Heathrow is massive and uses a lot of power (1-2MWh/day). It's hard to route around that sort of demand.

      I don't disagree that this is something that shouldn't happen, but that's what we say for almost every preventable grid failure. I think this is a national inconvenience rather than a security issue though. There are short-term alternatives which will be used.

      • By speakeron 2025-03-2115:332 reply

        > Heathrow is massive and uses a lot of power (1-2MWh/day)

        It's 3 orders of magnitude more: 1-2GWh/day.

        https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/doc...

        • By oliwarner 2025-03-2116:56

          Yeah I munched the maths but yours is 10 years old!

          The 2022 version of that sustainability report puts their annual bought in electricity at 272,610 MWh, 747 MWh per day.

          My wonky maths aside, it's amazing how much energy they've saved. In your link, the switch to LEDs alone saw a 20% total power reduction. I'm sure I've seen electric vehicles there so I'm surprised this number is still apparently in freefall. Perhaps they're doing more local generation (eg) PV

        • By Eavolution 2025-03-2121:49

          While we're doing wacky units for energy instead of the joule, I'd personally prefer roughly 360 DeLorean's per day (assuming the 1.21 gigawatts are required for roughly 10 seconds)

      • By LargoLasskhyfv 2025-03-2113:092 reply

        > Heathrow is massive and uses a lot of power (1-2MWh/day).

        That number doesn't seem that high, compared to a single high-speed train running at about 300kph or above. Or lets say all of the London Tube/DLR.

        Seems like nothing, actually.

        • By oliwarner 2025-03-2117:45

          Yup I think I missed a comma when originally reading the sustainability report. They buy-in an average of 747 MWh a day (2022).

          The point I was stumbling to try and make was that Heathrow is dense. Just under a GWh a day delivered to a 1200ha site isn't going to get a natural diversity of supply, especially compared to a rail system does.

        • By p1mrx 2025-03-2114:561 reply

          Yeah, that can't be right. You can tow a 100 kW generator (2.4 MWh/day) with a pickup truck.

          • By zimpenfish 2025-03-2115:39

            [0] suggests (without a useful link and my searching has not found one) that Heathrow is doing 460GWh annually. Presumably[1] that equates to 1.25GWh daily (which could be where the 1-2MWh/day came from - a simple unit error)?

            [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-03-21/heathr...

            [1] I know precisely nothing about power consumption of large systems but dividing the annual figure by 365 seems plausible.

    • By hackerbeat 2025-03-219:052 reply

      [flagged]

      • By benterix 2025-03-219:322 reply

        It might well be, but you don't have any proof of that. In Lithuania it took months of investigations to catch the culprits, analyze all evidence and make that statement. I can imagine in the UK it can take even more.

        • By Calwestjobs 2025-03-2118:11

          Finishing investigation is not point in time when people knew it was Putnam.

        • By hackerbeat 2025-03-2111:041 reply

          [flagged]

          • By dylan604 2025-03-2114:26

            In the US, they use the tactic of electing a president. I'd rather have no power for a few hours

      • By Nextgrid 2025-03-2114:461 reply

        The UK is very good at sabotaging itself in order to enrich corporations/shareholders/politicians/oligarchs. No foreign influence necessary.

        • By Calwestjobs 2025-03-2118:171 reply

          For Brexit - facebook and cambridge analytica got fined.... that is not UK sabotaging itself. US tools are very successful in UK because UK uses same freaking language as US does.

          • By Nextgrid 2025-03-222:35

            I wasn't talking about that at all - I was talking about bending over backwards when it comes to corporations or any kind of moneyed interests. We've pissed away shit tons of public money into shareholder pockets and all we've got left is insolvent infrastructure companies (whether it's water or sewage or transport) we now have to bail out with even more public money.

  • By maest 2025-03-218:403 reply

    Is there going to be a replacement bus service for the flights?

    • By Crosseye_Jack 2025-03-2111:57

      I know your joking, but some flights have been diverted to Paris where the airlines are bussing passengers to London! So yeah, there kinda is a replacement bus service for some flights!

      > https://thewest.com.au/travel/perth-to-london-flight-diverte...

      > Perth Qantas customers who had their flights diverted from London to Paris after a massive power outage at Heathrow Airport will be put on buses to take them to take them to their final destination.

    • By FartyMcFarter 2025-03-219:31

      Yes, Airbus to be specific.

    • By teeray 2025-03-2117:15

      Boston can send the duck boats

HackerNews