Scroll back to 2003 or thereabouts.......
"Future of Air Transport" consultation.
BAA (under old ownership) doing everything in its armoury, including outright lies, to ensure that ONLY the development of BAA's airports around London would be "supported" in the White Paper.
Those who proposed alternatives were told that Stansted with its second runway would be ready for operations by 2013, yes 2013. When this assertion was met with disbelief by all, BAA insisted that this was doable from the construction AND planning angles, as well as completely bankable, meaning that they could always finance it.
As soon as the White Paper was put to bed, the date started slipping back, as everyone knew it would, because BAA had neither the planning consent nor the money.
They still have NEITHER of these things.
Ryanair has consistently said that they, as the largest operator at Stansted, are not the slightest bit interested in funding its future development from present fees and charges. And they are absolutely right. Airports find finance, loan or equity, in capital markets, and service that finance from the revenue generated by the investment. It is crazy to do it any other way.
The problem is that development of Stansted is not bankable, especially when the income depends so largely on one customer, Ryanair. So the banks won't touch it with a barge-pole, which leaves BAA either doing it from its owners' cash reserves, or from increases now in landing fees in real terms to finance the development, or not at all.
The Spaniards will never put their own money into Stansted, so that's out.
That leaves user charges as the source of finance, and my money is on Ryanair winning that battle, because it's got all the aces. We will never see a second runway at STN, as we all knew 5 years ago.