Stansted

If 2008 went down in the history books as the year of airport expansion plans, then 2009 will be long feted as the year those plans crashed back down to earth. Confirming rumours we've been hearing for several month now, BAA have finally conceded defeat and asked the Government to delay the public inquiry into Stansted Airport's expansion. Although BAA won't admit it yet, this means that the inquiry, and proposed expansion, won't happen. Is that champagne corks tins of cider I hear opening?

There are a few reasons for this, all of them good news for environmentalists. Firstly, BAA has no money and can't afford the inquiry. They are inches from having their credit status downgraded, which would leave them unable to secure their enormous debts. In economics speak, this leaves them "proper fucked"; so fucked, in fact, that the Government has initiated plans to nationalise them should the receivers get called in.

Secondly, BAA has been ordered to sell Stansted by the Competition Commission. In a rising market, with more and more people flying each year, BAA would be aggressively seeking permision to expand, and able to charge a premium for having bullied local objectors out of the way. But in this market, with fewer passengers than before, no one will pay more for someone else's expansion plans. The market for airports has been decimated: BAA wanted £2b for Gatwick, but has only been offered £1.3-1.4b.

The other, more political reason, is the general election next year. The last remnants of the Labour party may remain dedicated to expansion, but short of the whole Tory front bench being exposed as peadogrants, the next Government will be more blue than red. The Tories claim they won't allow expansion at Stansted or Heathrow (although they also claimed they weren't fiddling their expenses). Assuming they aren't lying scumbags then even if the inquiry inspector supported expansion it should be overturned by whoever becomes the Minister for Airport Expansion.

So pity BAA, who flew too high and came unstuck. A lesson in hubris for us all. Oh, and to make matters worse, British Airways, BAA's main client and ruler of all things Heathrow, is also going down the pan. Last year they lost £401 million, and there are no signs that they won't lose the same amount (or more) this year. These losses are despite their having fired around 20,000 staff, but outspoken boss Willie Walsh plans to fire some more in a desperate attempt to keep making money. I'm sure that he'll be doing his bit by taking a big cut in bonus... stop laughing, I'm serious.

Strange things are afoot in Essex. Last week BAA announced that the proposed second runway at Stansted wouldn't be operational until 2017 because of falling demand; this week it's thrown up its hands and agreed not to challenge Stansted's forced sale.

This is a big news. At pre-inquiry meetings BAA's lawyers refused to put the public inquiry on hold until the sale had taken place. They were adamant that the new owners would want a second runway. But there's no evidence that this is the case: passenger numbers are in freefall, and BAA would charge a premium for obtaining planning permission. This is fine in an economic boom, but we're in recession; buyers are after a fire sale, not bells and whistles.

It's not just buyers hit by the credit crunch: Ferrovial is struggling to pay its debts and Basque sepratists ETA have launched a bombing campaign to stop it building a new high-speed rail line. Ferrovial and BAA need to raise money quickly, and if no one will pay extra for permission to expand, why push ahead with a costly and protracted public inquiry? It's too early to predict, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that BAA had issued a sheepish retraction and quietly sidelined its grandiose expansion plans.

The Government has given the go-ahead for the first expansion at Stansted, paving the way for 10% more flights each year. It's a decleration of war: on the climate, local communities and democracy.

Stop Stansted Expansion have fought long and hard against any expansion, citing noise, environmental destruction and climate change. The local council opposed expansion, so the Government overruled them and found in favour of the airline industry. That's not democracy - that's dictatorship.

The inquiry into a second runway will take place next year, but don’t expect a miracle. The Government has shown that it’s prepared to stamp on local democracy and bulldoze through the science if it keeps the aviation industry happy. Fine – all that does is galvanise residents and environmentalists who aren’t so prepared to roll over for a dinosaur industry. If the Government wants a fight, it’s going the right way about it…

Another day, another blow for BAA. After months of speculation, the Competition Commission has indicated that BAA might have to sell off Gatwick to break up their monopoly over London's airports. While the papers are taking great delight in kicking BAA while it's down, I'm getting worried. Could splitting up the monopoly lead to more airport expansion?

According to the Evening Standard, the Commission condemned "A 'short-term and reactive' approach to airport expansion. Major decisions about infrastructure have 'generally been too late to meet demand'." If that wasn't enough to worry you, try this accusation: "BAA managers have also too easily given commitments not to expand further at an airport and abdicated responsibility to government for strategic planning."