I suspect that not only is the FR announcement making a virtue out of the necessity of reducing capacity during the winter, it is associated with the convoluted economics of the second STN runway.
Back in the days of the Airports White Paper, in 2003, BAA managed to get all non-BAA projects for additional London airport capacity kicked into touch, partly by having 25+ staff "seconded" into the DoT, partly by getting NATS to make outrageous and untrue assertions about airspace management, and partly by stating unequivocally that Stansted's second runway would be in operation by 2011, and that yes, they had the finance for it.
Neither was remotely true, neither could have been, but those who pointed this out did so in vain. The Dept for Transport had made its mind up before the consultation started.
Now, if a consent is ever granted for the second runway (a big "if"), BAA then have to finance it. But the low cost airlines which dominate STN, led by FR with over 50% of movements (when I last counted, a year or three ago) have made it clear that they had no intention of paying for it, especially in advance, through increased landing charges. LHR users made it clear that they had no intention of paying for a STN runway through X-subsidy, and the CAA backed them. And the banks made it clear that unless (a) charges were increased substantially and (b) airlines were willing to pay those charges, the project is a non-starter.
FR is simply demonstrating to BAA, at a convenient moment, that it meant what it said, ie
"You raise the charges, and we'll be off. Our business model does not include financing new runways".
This will confirm to the banks, and to the new owners of BAA, that the project is a financial non-starter.
What's the Spanish for..........
"
me, we've got a problem. Let's get the British Government to bale us out with their taxpayers' money. They can guarantee the loans, the guarantees will be called when we can't pay the loans back, and we'll sell out in another coupla years and retire. That lot are stupid enough to do it, and they've got to support their White Paper conclusions, no matter how daft they were".
Perhaps some of the rejected projects for London airport capacity should be dusted off. One or two were viable and sensible. But they were not BAA-owned, and that did for them. But without one of them at least. there will be no new London runway capacity until 2024 at the earliest..remember that LTN was going to increase its capacity, but now will not be doing that.