However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do.
It’s a sticky wicket.
> located five miles from Reagan National Airport.
That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths:
> To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood.
Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.
The core problem is when you build an airport you decrease the value of all nearby property. If people building airports directly compensated people say 50,000$ each property they would build airports in the middle of nowhere and opposition would likely be minimal. Instead people suddenly hate where their living but can’t afford to move.
Dulles airport was built 30 miles from DC in what was the middle of nowhere at the time even though DC already had an airport. "In 1965 Dulles averaged 89 airline operations a day while National Airport (now Reagan) averaged 600 despite not allowing jets." Dulles still does not have a subway link to DC, and it's not the closest airport yet it still sees 21 million passengers a year.
As a counterexample, Narita, is too far compared to Haneda.
So, sure expanding existing airports is an option to consider, but doing so has a real and measurable negative impact on property values.
PS: I am not trying to promote a new airport further from London just saying such a thing is an option for London and most other major cities.