I don't know what constitutes a "neutral position" in this context, but it's perfectly possible to be simultaneously pro the continued operation of the airport and anti its expansion. For example, that's the standpoint of pretty well all the local authorities surrounding the airport, as well as the main campaign groups.
You appear to have been taken in by the "whoever is not with me is against me" fallacy (or "expand or die", as the airport rather disingenuously puts it).
It’s not quite as simple as that, but also not that difficult a concept to understand. There is no
"neutral position" in this context because supporting the status quo
is anti-Heathrow, because the status quo is highly unsatisfactory.
Back in the 1970s, when the government declared Heathrow "full", it was obsessed with two things.
First, a third (sic) London airport. The government faffed around looking for a site, but the best site, open land adjacent to Heathrow north of the A4 trunk road wasn’t even considered.
Second, successive governments wanted to build up Gatwick as a hub airport with a privately owned UK carrier hubbed there. Unfortunately, successive carriers taking on this role all went bust. Only Virgin survived because it shifted its hub to Heathrow.
So Heathrow wasn’t expanded when it should have been, the penny did not even drop when a four rwy airport was opened in Paris in 1974.
Teresa Villiers, a former transport minister, coined a cute but ultimately meaningless slogan "make Heathrow better not bigger" a few years ago. Unfortunately as Heathrow is now running at 100% capacity, it is impossible to make it better
without making it bigger.
How is the status quo, with extra pollution and noise caused by the routine delays and congestion, be considered to be pro-Heathrow?
Heathrow is already losing out to its competitor airports, they all have more destinations than Heathrow. Without expansion, and with Tokyo-Haneda and Chicago snapping at its heals, how can Heathrow maintain its status as the world‘s third busiest airport? How long will it be until Dubai overtakes Heathrow as the world‘s busiest airport for international pax?
Heathrow is falling behind the rest of its peer group and must expand to keep up, just like they have. The UK has traditionally had a huge advantage with its aviation industry, but, unfortunately, governments seem intent on throwing it away.
This is why a
"neutral position" in this context or support for the status quo is every bit an anti-Heathrow position as that of the green lobbies, that of the vocal nimby minority who live miles away from Heathrow, or that of the Boris Island fantasists.
Hope this helps.
Even better: have both rwys at LHR and no maglev. Billions cheaper, more effective and preferred by pax and carriers.