A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

Doncaster Sheffield Airport Strategic Review Announcement​

Forums4airports discusses the latest press release from Doncaster Sheffield airport where the airport questions the future of the airport. The owners of the airport, the Peel Group have announced they are looking at their options as the group has decided the airport is no longer viable as an operational airport. Here's the press release:

"The Board of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) has begun a review of strategic options for the Airport. This review follows lengthy deliberations by the Board of DSA which has reluctantly concluded that aviation activity on the site may no longer be commercially viable.

DSA’s owner, the Peel Group, as the Airport’s principal funder, has reviewed the conclusions of the Board of DSA and commissioned external independent advice in order to evaluate and test the conclusions drawn, which concurs with the Board’s initial findings.

Since the Peel Group acquired the Airport site in 1999 and converted it into an international commercial airport, which opened in 2005, significant amounts have been invested in the terminal, the airfield and its operations, both in relation to the original conversion and subsequently to improve the facilities and infrastructure on offer to create an award winning airport.

However, despite growth in passenger numbers, DSA has never achieved the critical mass required to become profitable and this fundamental issue of a shortfall in passenger numbers is exacerbated by the announcement on 10 June 2022 of the unilateral withdrawal of the Wizz Air based aircraft, leaving the Airport with only one base carrier, namely TUI.

This challenge has been increased by other changes in the aviation market, the well-publicised impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and increasingly important environmental considerations. It has therefore been concluded that aviation activity may no longer be the use for the site which delivers the maximum economic and environmental benefit to the region. Against this backdrop, DSA and the Peel Group, will initiate a consultation and engagement programme with stakeholders on the future of the site and how best to maximise and capitalise on future economic growth opportunities for Doncaster and the wider Sheffield City Region.

The wider Peel Group is already delivering significant development and business opportunities on its adjoining GatewayEast development including the recent deal for over 400,000 sq ft logistics and advanced manufacturing development on site, creating hundreds of new jobs and delivering further economic investment in the region.

Robert Hough, Chairman of Peel Airports Group, which includes Doncaster Sheffield Airport, said: “It is a critical time for aviation globally. Despite pandemic related travel restrictions slowly drawing to a close, we are still facing ongoing obstacles and dynamic long-term threats to the future of the aviation industry. The actions by Wizz to sacrifice its base at Doncaster to shore up its business opportunities at other bases in the South of England are a significant blow for the Airport.

Now is the right time to review how DSA can best create future growth opportunities for Doncaster and for South Yorkshire. The Peel Group remains committed to delivering economic growth, job opportunities and prosperity for Doncaster and the wider region.”

DSA and the Peel Group pride themselves on being forward-thinking whilst prioritising the welfare of staff and customers alike. As such, no further public comments will be made whilst they undertake this engagement period with all stakeholders.
During the Strategic Review, the Airport will operate as normal. Therefore passengers who are due to travel to the airport, please arrive and check in as normal. If there are any disruptions with your flight, you will be contacted by your airline in good time.
For all press enquiries, please contact Charlotte Leach at [email protected]."

"Not great news for DSA or the region"

Should the government or local council foot the bill and provide a financial subsidy to keep the airport open, thoughts...?

 

You are right. I did see it mentioned somewhere that they backed away after seeing it was not going to be sustainable and unable to show that it would become viable. Could it be somewhere on Bassetlaw or one in Nottinghamshire authority think had a real good write up.
I've said from the very start of this saga that the authorities knew/ were told that the airport was in a perilous position for a number of years before this review took place. So for them to tell/ lead on people constantly this past two years that they were unaware is absolutely disgusting and shocking beyond belief.

I think you’re right, was it Bassetlaw or Worksop? The problem with their local gov websites is their search function is appalling so you’d have to review every document for the entire year.

I do recall it mentioned sustainability and profitability and how the Peel Group were unable to provide a road map to either. It’s nothing to do with opening books as there were NDA’s, as there were with the findings of the strategic review so we are unlikely to see it in detail.

 

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/Data/Council/20050601/Agenda/$1-2-2%20Minutes%204th%20May.doc.pdf

Interesting review of the Sheffield City operation back in 2005 (the year DSA opened) and after a couple of years of SZD as it was known had been owned by Peel Holdings.

Note that even back then, the likelihood of demand for business oriented destinations was slim in Sheffield, and that actually Sheffield was well served outside of its immediate 30 minute market.

See how out of touch some local councillors are, suggesting that there could be a scheduled helicopter service from Sheffield City to DSA. Implication being that the Derby and Joan brigade will park at SZD and get a helicopter to DSA to catch their Thomson flight to Malaga?

I note one former member of the DSA Consultative Committee is championing DSA for a hub link like Eastern are running to CDG from EMA. Does he not realise that KLM could never be attracted before? They served SZD but it was the first casualty after the 9/11 downturn. That to me says the market wasn’t really there all along, why would you then start to serve an airport that’s even more remote to its target market?

 

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/Data/Council/20050601/Agenda/$1-2-2%20Minutes%204th%20May.doc.pdf

Interesting review of the Sheffield City operation back in 2005 (the year DSA opened) and after a couple of years of SZD as it was known had been owned by Peel Holdings.

Note that even back then, the likelihood of demand for business oriented destinations was slim in Sheffield, and that actually Sheffield was well served outside of its immediate 30 minute market.

See how out of touch some local councillors are, suggesting that there could be a scheduled helicopter service from Sheffield City to DSA. Implication being that the Derby and Joan brigade will park at SZD and get a helicopter to DSA to catch their Thomson flight to Malaga?

I note one former member of the DSA Consultative Committee is championing DSA for a hub link like Eastern are running to CDG from EMA. Does he not realise that KLM could never be attracted before? They served SZD but it was the first casualty after the 9/11 downturn. That to me says the market wasn’t really there all along, why would you then start to serve an airport that’s even more remote to its target market?

Why would Eastern want to serve DSA CDG when they do EMA? is EMA CDG/ORY really doing that well? one look at the CAA stats will provide your answer on that. DSA could never get KLM. says a lot. It's laughable. Ive seen the DSA supporters are pinning for Emirates to start up and when somebody with a brain cell questioned why would they want to, all the supporters jumped on them with the answer, well why not.. that's really not how it works. Have a quick look at the demographic / financial area / catchment area, and that's your answer, same with KLM. that's why DSA could only support holiday flights / Eastern Europe.. and nothing more.

 

Why would Eastern want to serve DSA CDG when they do EMA? is EMA CDG/ORY really doing that well? one look at the CAA stats will provide your answer on that. DSA could never get KLM. says a lot. It's laughable. Ive seen the DSA supporters are pinning for Emirates to start up and when somebody with a brain cell questioned why would they want to, all the supporters jumped on them with the answer, well why not.. that's really not how it works. Have a quick look at the demographic / financial area / catchment area, and that's your answer, same with KLM. that's why DSA could only support holiday flights / Eastern Europe.. and nothing more.

Yes the average load on EMA ORY was something like 10 passengers apparently, perhaps a slight uptick by moving to CDG but still not exactly a popular route. When KLM ran flights from EMA in recent years I seem to recall that didn’t last long either. I genuinely think most of the regional KLM routes like MME, NWI, HUY are geared up to established niche markets within those regions and they’re reasonably close to the east coast so not too much in flight time, and it’s something even EMA couldn’t replicate let alone DSA. When Aer Arran and later Stobart both attempted Aer Lingus feeders to DUB from DSA I don’t recall those loads being much more than double figures. I just fail to see what’s changed, the confidence is lost from the airlines so I hope whoever is going to run it has established relationships and more importantly a bottomless pit of money from which to draw on!

 

Been posted elsewhere by the usual suspects that a lease has now been agreed. Usual political slant with rumours of a possible delay in announcement due to election year.

Dont think any of us will be surprised about this, Peel have been keen to see something done with the land to stop it sitting idle haemorrhaging money. However, that is but one small hurdle. The next and most significant piece in the puzzle is who is going to run it, what are they going to run and how much is expected of them to be outlaid in the venture.

Of course, this will be another political victory, but it cannot be scrutinised until it has a FOBC released, which will presumably be when they’ve signed the lease in principle and appointed a preferred bidder. This really will have to be watertight given the sheer amount of public (and by the looks of it private) sector finance at stake.

 

Been posted elsewhere by the usual suspects that a lease has now been agreed. Usual political slant with rumours of a possible delay in announcement due to election year.

Dont think any of us will be surprised about this, Peel have been keen to see something done with the land to stop it sitting idle haemorrhaging money. However, that is but one small hurdle. The next and most significant piece in the puzzle is who is going to run it, what are they going to run and how much is expected of them to be outlaid in the venture.

Of course, this will be another political victory, but it cannot be scrutinised until it has a FOBC released, which will presumably be when they’ve signed the lease in principle and appointed a preferred bidder. This really will have to be watertight given the sheer amount of public (and by the looks of it private) sector finance at stake.

Good business sense from Peel. By agreeing to a lease deal they keep revenue coming in whilst letting another investor and the tax payer take all the risk. When the airport fails again (which undoubtedly it will) they then have further independent proof of the lack of viability of the airport, fend of any potential compulsory purchase order, regain control of the land and build houses in it.

Of course the ones that lose out will be the tax payer whose cash will have been squandered on a vanity project!

 

Good business sense from Peel. By agreeing to a lease deal they keep revenue coming in whilst letting another investor and the tax payer take all the risk. When the airport fails again (which undoubtedly it will) they then have further independent proof of the lack of viability of the airport, fend of any potential compulsory purchase order, regain control of the land and build houses in it.

Of course the ones that lose out will be the tax payer whose cash will have been squandered on a vanity project!

I also read 'elsewhere' from a usually reliable source that any capex/improvements to fixed infrastructure would be at the expense of the operator/investor but that they would not own anything at the end of the lease. Personally cannot get my head around which 'investor/operator' would be interested in that scenario with what would seem a limited opportunity to pay back any investment through profit. We shall see!

 

Good business sense from Peel. By agreeing to a lease deal they keep revenue coming in whilst letting another investor and the tax payer take all the risk. When the airport fails again (which undoubtedly it will) they then have further independent proof of the lack of viability of the airport, fend of any potential compulsory purchase order, regain control of the land and build houses in it.

Of course the ones that lose out will be the tax payer whose cash will have been squandered on a vanity project!

It’s probably also providing leverage for their Gateway East development, but I’m certain there will be a hell of a lot of legal scrutiny applied by any private sector bidder to ensure they aren’t going to get rinsed, it’s inevitably going to fall in favour of such an operator and not the local authorities. Note that one regional councillor has already questioned the validity of the argument to reopen it.

One thing is for sure, Peel won’t care now. Either way they are getting money to stem any ongoing losses of owning the site, so it’s by no means a surprise that the lease has been agreed (if it has!), it’s the next steps that will determine how the airport will look should it reopen.

 

Been posted elsewhere by the usual suspects that a lease has now been agreed. Usual political slant with rumours of a possible delay in announcement due to election year.

Dont think any of us will be surprised about this, Peel have been keen to see something done with the land to stop it sitting idle haemorrhaging money. However, that is but one small hurdle. The next and most significant piece in the puzzle is who is going to run it, what are they going to run and how much is expected of them to be outlaid in the venture.

Of course, this will be another political victory, but it cannot be scrutinised until it has a FOBC released, which will presumably be when they’ve signed the lease in principle and appointed a preferred bidder. This really will have to be watertight given the sheer amount of public (and by the looks of it private) sector finance at stake.

If there is going to be a delay to the announcement because of the election, then we are looking at Oct/Nov this year. This means nothing (infrastructure wise) will be done before the end of the year so we are looking at January 2026 before it will be open - three and half years since closure.

 

If there is going to be a delay to the announcement because of the election, then we are looking at Oct/Nov this year. This means nothing (infrastructure wise) will be done before the end of the year so we are looking at January 2026 before it will be open - three and half years since closure.

I think the election bit is just rubbish mischief making. I expect Peel are keen on agreeing a leasehold with the Council to stem the losses they are apparently making on having it sat empty. I think the agreement will be signed in principle but I don’t think they will be able to draw down on the funding until an FOBC is submitted and approved, and that will rely on the agreeing of the terms of the lease (costs) and the appointment of the preferred operator.

Would expect it’ll be summer before the FOBC is submitted. I think too much is being made of the lease and not enough about the technicalities of getting an operator on board. They ain’t going to do it for free and will want a return on their investment.

 

If there is going to be a delay to the announcement because of the election, then we are looking at Oct/Nov this year. This means nothing (infrastructure wise) will be done before the end of the year so we are looking at January 2026 before it will be open - three and half years since closure.

Given the need to recruit & train staff, procure equipment, get contracts in place with suppliers and operators, attract airlines, regain certifications etc etc. none of which can be done before contracts have been signed with an airport operator I suspect Jan 2026 is optimistic!

 

I wasn't being optimistic, I was being realistic or so I thought.
I do think it is a shame that a supporter of DSA is not prepared to come and debate this.

 

I wasn't being optimistic, I was being realistic or so I thought.
I do think it is a shame that a supporter of DSA is not prepared to come and debate this.

Provided they do so without making ridiculous statements about other airports, particularly LBA, or silly claims about the likes of Jet2 moving their entire home base from LBA to DSA.

So far, I've seen little in the way of common sense from the pro DSA fraternity, though in my view that's because most know that there is an acute shortage of reasons to support it's reopening. So they adopt an 'us and them' stance, blaming LBA for DSAs failures when they run out of accusations to level at Peel .

 

Provided they do so without making ridiculous statements about other airports, particularly LBA, or silly claims about the likes of Jet2 moving their entire home base from LBA to DSA.

So far, I've seen little in the way of common sense from the pro DSA fraternity, though in my view that's because most know that there is an acute shortage of reasons to support it's reopening. So they adopt an 'us and them' stance, blaming LBA for DSAs failures when they run out of accusations to level at Peel .

There are those that genuinely want to see it reopen because they used to work there and you cannot argue with that, you have those that used to like being able to fly from an airport nearby but these people tend not to really know all that much about it other than it takes them on holiday. You then have the ones that maybe know a little bit but it’s more of the political mechanisms for getting the funding and they do not appear to understand the way the airlines work.

This is why there is so much focus on LBA, because like you say, it’s quite clear that the two cannot co-exist.

 

I think we could see operations start but passenger operations wouldn't be immediate. So could be case of Summer Timetable 2026 for Passengers. I'd think to start with would be MRO, Flight Schools, Cargo, Private/ FBO operations. With Public operations coming down the line. As the need to get enough staff fully trained up to cater for Public operations.

 

I think we could see operations start but passenger operations wouldn't be immediate. So could be case of Summer Timetable 2026 for Passengers. I'd think to start with would be MRO, Flight Schools, Cargo, Private/ FBO operations. With Public operations coming down the line. As the need to get enough staff fully trained up to cater for Public operations.

But would that make money for the operators? And which flying schools? Those there before have relocated. It costs money to do that, messes staff and customers about, and relocating back to DSA may not be on their agenda. DSA can't just assume that everyone that left when it closed are going to bust a gut to go back. They too will have doubts about it's long term viability and the last thing they will want is to move back then end up back in the same situation a few years down the line.

I dont see that there will be enough of such activity to even cover the cost of running an airfield. They'll be in debt long before they get the first passenger flights and let's not forget that before they can even get a limited passenger throughput, they will need huge investment in the necessary infrastructure and equipment. Unless they can tie an airline down to a long term and lucrative operational contract (unlikely), it's a huge and many would say very rash gamble.

 

There are those that genuinely want to see it reopen because they used to work there and you cannot argue with that, you have those that used to like being able to fly from an airport nearby but these people tend not to really know all that much about it other than it takes them on holiday. You then have the ones that maybe know a little bit but it’s more of the political mechanisms for getting the funding and they do not appear to understand the way the airlines work.

This is why there is so much focus on LBA, because like you say, it’s quite clear that the two cannot co-exist.

Whilst I agree, should DSA reopen it is to be hoped that the report produced by Ernst & Young was based upon DSA co-existing alongside LBA. I presume it was as it indicated DSA would only achieve 50% of the annual passenger numbers LBA currently supports and that after 10 years of operations!

The reality is Leeds is a significant European city and its city region has one of the largest regional economies in the U.K. If anything LBA is currently significantly under achieving and I’d argue the potential there is far greater then DSA especially once the redevelopment completes.

The other key fact is that I know from people involved in the travel trade very few people from the Leeds and Bradford area chose DSA over MAN in respect of TUI when DSA was in operation. MAN was always the airport of choice due to its better transport links and airport hotels etc. in reality when having to travel 40 miles from Leeds and Bradford areas to DSA the extra few miles to MAN makes very little difference and MAN always won out.

 

Things would have to be done on a totally different scale than previously. Could there be enough with current accommodation. I think not possible.
It will need more hangars and more apron/ stands space. But then that comes down to pays for it, who owns it and what happens if the airport project fails.
Could it be a case that Peel agree to build it and then rent it out to the operator. Then if project fails it is only rent payments and could be easily converted to other uses after airfield closure.

Could it be found that non public passenger activity is enough to sustain the airfield operations, but public passenger activity makes it a substantial loss. A case of the Council tying itself in strings here pushing passenger operations. If everything else works apart from public operations. Could the Council lease terminated and a new lease be agreed for non public passenger operations to continue with reduced land footprint. Like terminal buildings car parks to be turned to other uses.

Whatever way Peel are the winners.

 

Things would have to be done on a totally different scale than previously. Could there be enough with current accommodation. I think not possible.
It will need more hangars and more apron/ stands space. But then that comes down to pays for it, who owns it and what happens if the airport project fails.
Could it be a case that Peel agree to build it and then rent it out to the operator. Then if project fails it is only rent payments and could be easily converted to other uses after airfield closure.

Could it be found that non public passenger activity is enough to sustain the airfield operations, but public passenger activity makes it a substantial loss. A case of the Council tying itself in strings here pushing passenger operations. If everything else works apart from public operations. Could the Council lease terminated and a new lease be agreed for non public passenger operations to continue with reduced land footprint. Like terminal buildings car parks to be turned to other uses.

Whatever way Peel are the winners.

Ros Jones has commented that one of the key contractual obligations on the winning bidder will be that they have to deliver growth in passenger services. I don’t think there is much appetite for increased hangar space unless there are firm commitments from companies to use them - for instance NPAS built a new hangar on site when they moved in. Of course you could expect 2Excel to return but NPAS have permanently moved to EMA now.

Peel had warned about the speculative building of facilities such as freight integrator hubs, particularly with EMA being close by. They’re expensive places to build, equip and staff, and like the passenger operation would need critical mass in the form of a number of different operators (with perhaps one anchor tenant) to be viable.

Still have no idea how this is going to look from an organisational point of view, it seems at the moment that the airport bit will be operated with an experienced operator and the land will be developed by the Council/Peel. This I feel leaves the airport wide open for closure again and this is why I believe at this moment that if it does reopen it will be closed again by 2035 - perhaps the Council have accepted this, I.e let us try something ourselves and if that doesn’t work out you can have your land back to redevelop. Fair enough I guess, but they are ignoring specialists at their peril.

 

Ros Jones has commented that one of the key contractual obligations on the winning bidder will be that they have to deliver growth in passenger services. I don’t think there is much appetite for increased hangar space unless there are firm commitments from companies to use them - for instance NPAS built a new hangar on site when they moved in. Of course you could expect 2Excel to return but NPAS have permanently moved to EMA now.

Peel had warned about the speculative building of facilities such as freight integrator hubs, particularly with EMA being close by. They’re expensive places to build, equip and staff, and like the passenger operation would need critical mass in the form of a number of different operators (with perhaps one anchor tenant) to be viable.

Still have no idea how this is going to look from an organisational point of view, it seems at the moment that the airport bit will be operated with an experienced operator and the land will be developed by the Council/Peel. This I feel leaves the airport wide open for closure again and this is why I believe at this moment that if it does reopen it will be closed again by 2035 - perhaps the Council have accepted this, I.e let us try something ourselves and if that doesn’t work out you can have your land back to redevelop. Fair enough I guess, but they are ignoring specialists at their peril.

If the Council had accepted that the airport will probably fail, then blowing the huge cost on reopening it is bordering on criminal. It's public money, better spent on other things rather than frittered away on a vanity project .

Frankly, the two Mayor's need to give themselves a good shake .