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...?

 

Meanwhile on Fletchers social media post about the airport, which in fairness is quite rightly asking for transparency, comments regarding the MAI involvement which appear to have been quiting an article that was not put out by MAI themselves but a random ‘airport news’ website that may not have English as its first language.

MAI themselves have posted the following on LinkedIn:



So that’s it, from the horses mouth, they link back to the CDC website announcement. The airport operator is FlyDoncaster and MAI will provide ‘operational and management services’. They are a consultancy with an operational and management arm that looks after 4 airports globally and all of them much larger and successful. They presumably provide ‘operational and management services’ to many more but these don’t appear to be listed. FP Airports are, as we have already discussed, a bunch of nobodies as far as aviation is concerned. Plymouth Airport is being built on so they weren’t even successful in their core mission. What they’ll bring to this I have no idea but it just adds fuel to the fire of the rumour regarding the less favourable outcomes of the consultants tasked with assessing viability for the council.

And nether of them are inputting any capital into this project…..why would they given the significant commercial risk??
Meanwhile you have the owners of LBA investing £200m with WYCA at last getting moving with the rail link adding potentially up to another £63m, MAN in the middle and of a £1.3bn investment programme and EMA about to embark on massive investment and expansion of it cargo and logistics operation.
Meanwhile DSA will, if it doesn’t manage to reopen, be standing still with no meaningful investment and lagging even more behind its competitors.
100% public ownership of airport in the U.K. just doesn’t work, DSA supporters are keen to point out MAG as a public sector success conveniently forgetting the fact that ver. 35% of the airport is owned by IFM Global Infrastructure Fund who significantly help in the supply of investment collateral….

 

And nether of them are inputting any capital into this project…..why would they given the significant commercial risk??
Meanwhile you have the owners of LBA investing £200m with WYCA at last getting moving with the rail link adding potentially up to another £63m, MAN in the middle and of a £1.3bn investment programme and EMA about to embark on massive investment and expansion of it cargo and logistics operation.
Meanwhile DSA will, if it doesn’t manage to reopen, be standing still with no meaningful investment and lagging even more behind its competitors.
100% public ownership of airport in the U.K. just doesn’t work, DSA supporters are keen to point out MAG as a public sector success conveniently forgetting the fact that ver. 35% of the airport is owned by IFM Global Infrastructure Fund who significantly help in the supply of investment collateral….

MAG is incomparable. They own strategic assets worth £billions combined, it’s just not the same as trying to reopen a small regional airport. But when you actually believe it’s going to be massive then you can see why they might try to draw parallels.

 

Forgive me if I’m missing something, but where has the (widespread) idea that MAI will be the airport operator come from? It’s very clear that the operator will be FlyDoncaster. From what I can see, MAI and FP (who?) are providing consultancy services, and the only timescale mentioned by MAI is until the airport opens.

I’m not stupid, I see why CDC are happy to let everyone think MAI are the operator. But the gradual stepping down of the promises is noticeable.

First, some private entity was going to buy the airport.

Then, CDC would rent the site, but there was going to be international private investment in the airport.

Then, a variety of (unnamed) companies were competing to operate the airport on behalf of FlyDoncaster.

Then, MAI was going to be the operator… except it isn’t. FlyDoncaster, a body set up and wholly owned by CDC because there was no private sector interest, is the operator.

Sorry, the above was meant as a reply to @pug post #2240

 

Forgive me if I’m missing something, but where has the (widespread) idea that MAI will be the airport operator come from? It’s very clear that the operator will be FlyDoncaster. From what I can see, MAI and FP (who?) are providing consultancy services, and the only timescale mentioned by MAI is until the airport opens.

I’m not stupid, I see why CDC are happy to let everyone think MAI are the operator. But the gradual stepping down of the promises is noticeable.

First, some private entity was going to buy the airport.

Then, CDC would rent the site, but there was going to be international private investment in the airport.

Then, a variety of (unnamed) companies were competing to operate the airport on behalf of FlyDoncaster.

Then, MAI was going to be the operator… except it isn’t. FlyDoncaster, a body set up and wholly owned by CDC because there was no private sector interest, is the operator.

Sorry, the above was meant as a reply to @pug post #2240

It’s come from Ros Jones announcing the operator, so everyone thinks it’s THE operator. It’s subtle language that is either purposefully or inadvertently misleading. The Councils own statement that I posted a couple of pages back was this:

BREAKING NEWS…International airport expertise has been secured to reopen Doncaster’s airport

Today Mayor Ros Jones confirms that one of Europe’s most successful airport operator’s subsidiary will strategically partner the reopening of the former Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

Germany-based Munich Airport International GmbH (MAI) will provide operational and management services to FlyDoncaster, the airport’s operator – a wholly owned City of Doncaster Council (CDC) company - along with FP Airports Ltd, aviation sector specialists in the UK, to progress the airport’s reopening.

So even though that’s supposed to be clear it’s actually ambiguous in its wording. But if MAI were the operator it would say MAI are going to operate the airport!

Paying them to act as SME or consultants is fine, and understandable given their pedigree. But they are not putting anything in financially, and they have no experience in the U.K. which is already hyper competitive.

I’m more interested in FP airports, their stated skill set (which apparently is unsuccessfully trying to reopen Plymouth Airport for 14 years) and why the council have seen fit to involve them when there are far more credible and capable sector specialists in the U.K. from which to choose.

Something tells me the significant delays during the procurement phase were as a result of any consultancy and ‘sector specialist’ backing out of the project because they couldn’t match the councils vision… These aviation companies probably have involvement with other successful airports in the U.K., some of which submitted evidence and statements to the SAU!

There’s a lot that needs unpacking here, yet they won’t let is touch it. I can see it now what will happen if they fail to secure funding. The people of Doncaster will forever mention the time that Munich wanted to turn the airport into a major hub but were scuppered by public sector incompetence and Peel greed.

 

It’s come from Ros Jones announcing the operator, so everyone thinks it’s THE operator. It’s subtle language that is either purposefully or inadvertently misleading. The Councils own statement that I posted a couple of pages back was this:


So even though that’s supposed to be clear it’s actually ambiguous in its wording. But if MAI were the operator it would say MAI are going to operate the airport!

Paying them to act as SME or consultants is fine, and understandable given their pedigree. But they are not putting anything in financially, and they have no experience in the U.K. which is already hyper competitive.

I’m more interested in FP airports, their stated skill set (which apparently is unsuccessfully trying to reopen Plymouth Airport for 14 years) and why the council have seen fit to involve them when there are far more credible and capable sector specialists in the U.K. from which to choose.

Something tells me the significant delays during the procurement phase were as a result of any consultancy and ‘sector specialist’ backing out of the project because they couldn’t match the councils vision… These aviation companies probably have involvement with other successful airports in the U.K., some of which submitted evidence and statements to the SAU!

There’s a lot that needs unpacking here, yet they won’t let is touch it. I can see it now what will happen if they fail to secure funding. The people of Doncaster will forever mention the time that Munich wanted to turn the airport into a major hub but were scuppered by public sector incompetence and Peel greed.

Perhaps FP airports are a trade-off between cost and experience. It does seem they have no practical experience at all in the realities of obtaining a CAT airfield license or operating an airport but are perhaps the cheapest option. MAI would seem the most appropriate of the two to do the lot - although still no UK experience- but I would imagine very expensive.

 

the hotel is at the bawtry golf complex , the other side of the runway

There are more holes in the Airport Business Case/Plan than there are on the golf course!

 

there is quite a big article in the daily mail, about DSA. and all the locals are for it, but complain about parking problems.

 

there is quite a big article in the daily mail, about DSA. and all the locals are for it, but complain about parking problems.

I read it. What a load of tosh too. The headline suggests locals are divided but the only opposition mentioned relates to folk dumping their cars in nearby housing areas to avoid parking charges. Oh, and playing loud music! (???). We get the usual anti LBA c**p too. " We dont like using Leeds as the runway is too short". They're obsessed with their runway! The usual references to the LBA weather and overcrowded terminal with (of course) no mention of the £200m development underway.

It was typical pro DSA anti LBA nonsense. Someone is clearly desperate to get as much positive spin as possible to heap the pressure on O.C.

 

there is quite a big article in the daily mail, about DSA. and all the locals are for it, but complain about parking problems.

Well I’m a local who isn’t for it. I think it will fail to produce the jobs, added value and will be a gigantic financial flop. £138m of gainshare funds can be put to much better use than to support a few hundred selfish socialists who think they shouldn’t have to drive an hour down the road to East Midlands for their annual trip to Europe.

 

Well I’m a local who isn’t for it. I think it will fail to produce the jobs, added value and will be a gigantic financial flop. £138m of gainshare funds can be put to much better use than to support a few hundred selfish socialists who think they shouldn’t have to drive an hour down the road to East Midlands for their annual trip to Europe.

im going to make my mind up when the full project is released.
i think peel made a mistake in not letting CDC pay for their losses while keeping the airport open.
peels other mistake was not buying the land sat either side of great yorkshire way before the closed the airport.
peel have about 60 football pitches in size with planning consent at gateway east.
if someone else buys the land, which is about 700 football pitches, and the airport does not open
their land becomes less valueable
thats why i think peel , will be a lot more helpful now.

what i would like to hear from CDC what are these avation companys these (advanced manufacturing engineering and creating a sustainable aviation hub) they are hoping to attract?

 

im going to make my mind up when the full project is released.
i think peel made a mistake in not letting CDC pay for their losses while keeping the airport open.
peels other mistake was not buying the land sat either side of great yorkshire way before the closed the airport.
peel have about 60 football pitches in size with planning consent at gateway east.
if someone else buys the land, which is about 700 football pitches, and the airport does not open
their land becomes less valueable
thats why i think peel , will be a lot more helpful now.

what i would like to hear from CDC what are these avation companys these (advanced manufacturing engineering and creating a sustainable aviation hub) they are hoping to attract?

Why did they make a mistake not letting CDC/SYMCA cover their losses? It was a desperate move by SYMCA who had already been made aware well in advance that the airport was struggling financially and probably wouldn’t survive, they knew this when they rejected the loan/equity request earlier in the year after finding it a high risk investment. As part of the strategic review, Peel will have put the feelers out about recouping their investment in a sale of the airport so concluded that accepting further public money was only going to delay the inevitable.

So why were they wrong to not do that?

Why would Peels land become less valuable if the airport doesn’t reopen? The council have now accepted that if it doesn’t reopen the land will be used for something else.

They don’t know who they’re hoping to attract. They’ve made stuff up about sustainable aviation just to ensure it ticks the green box. It’ll probably just be filled with identikit warehouses whether it reopens as an airport or not.

 

im going to make my mind up when the full project is released.

Good luck with that. I think CDC have no idea what the ' full project' is. It seems they are making it up as they go along or in aviation terms, flying (not) by the seat of their pants. You may have a long wait and personally I wouldn't believe whatever they say anyway.

It's easy to make outlandish claims about the future to get the funding, but somehow, I think that delivery of those claims won't happen. Still, they who make the promises will probably be long gone by then so can leave the debts to others to sort out.

 

I am eager to look through the Business Case/ Plan as well.

Am I hopeful of it getting published before Coppard looks at it, think I have more chance of winning the lottery.

Having had the chance up on Teesside to be able to look at the Business Case beforehand, I was able to write a strong document in support and sent it to my Council Leader for him to vote on the decision. Even though in the main the Business Case ran with the most optimistic scenario, it also contained details of the medium and low scenario outcomes. So was able to understand all the options and able to have vast amounts of details.

I am not expecting CDC to come out with anything of anywhere near the detail and expanse that was put in the TVCA Teesside Airport Business Case was.

Teesside on current performance mainly thanks due to the covid outbreak and subsequent issues affecting global aviation industry is pared back a bit running between the medium to high scenario set out in the business case. If covid hadn't hit, then the original tranche of regional routes that was announced after take over. Would have got under way and bedded in, thus passenger numbers would be on a significantly increased path to what they are currently.

With major airports of Newcastle, Leeds Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and East Midlands all in two hour window of Doncaster.
Teesside & Humberside within the 90 minute bracket that are growing and have carved a niche in the aviation market.

I am just wondering what role Doncaster can carve a niche in that could help sustain it as an operational airfield.

As others have stated what is there in the Doncaster area that can bring inbound traffic. There isn't any big industries that generate business traffic.

Teesside & Humberside have significant Steel & Chemical processing sectors on their doorsteps plus other industries close by, so there is demand for business travel to draw upon. But that industrial element is missing in Doncaster's case.

I have a real soft spot for Finningley, as that is the first airbase as a young child that I have fond memories of, so I really want it to remain as an operational airfield. But the costs involved would prohibit that from happening.

Only hope I see for it to be an active airfield is for the airport site to be purchased. So with that cost involved it would have to be an all round operation.

I think CDC missed the boat with not putting a purchase offer to Peel. If they had, then I would think they would have had more success in attracting an investor on board.

So is the Business Case going to see the light of day for the public to review to put their responses to the SYMCA to put pressure to release the funds.

 

The BBC visited Teesside today for Look North ,drawing parallels between what happened there with what's now happening at DSA. The CEO of Teesside expressed the view that DSA would need to attract wider aviation related industries and could not rely on the provision of passenger services. He didnt say so, but he seemed to be suggesting that DSA will struggle if it cant attract the businesses that MME has.

The problem for DSA is, that companies that maintain aircraft or aircraft engines or paint aircraft, are already established now at other aiirports such as MME, EMA, and NWI. Why would they also go to the expense of setting up another operation or moving to DSA? They probably wouldn't unless they were so busy they needed to expand. And where would the skilled labour come from? South Yorkshire isn't a hotbed of aviation engineering is it?

 

The BBC visited Teesside today for Look North ,drawing parallels between what happened there with what's now happening at DSA. The CEO of Teesside expressed the view that DSA would need to attract wider aviation related industries and could not rely on the provision of passenger services. He didnt say so, but he seemed to be suggesting that DSA will struggle if it cant attract the businesses that MME has.

The problem for DSA is, that companies that maintain aircraft or aircraft engines or paint aircraft, are already established now at other aiirports such as MME, EMA, and NWI. Why would they also go to the expense of setting up another operation or moving to DSA? They probably wouldn't unless they were so busy they needed to expand. And where would the skilled labour come from? South Yorkshire isn't a hotbed of aviation engineering is it?

It’s not just the expense of setting up shop there, if it results in the hypothetical paint shop or MRO facility moving in from elsewhere it’s not going to go down too well with the airport and/or region from which it was poached, particularly if it’s done so under public sector funding to help things along. Not only that but the current infrastructure isn’t great for the MRO or paint contracts on anything large as I believe the vacant hangars aren’t capable of this (could be wrong) so I’m assuming it would require investment from the airport to set up.

Let’s not forget the biz jet MRO that pulled out, not to mention the BAe Systems academy that had a purpose built facility created at HUY, it’s huge for anyone who hasn’t seen it!

There’s been a history of failure at the airport, from not being able to fill flights to not being able to retain and grow ancillary aviation business and to not being able to attract the frequent freight traffic to develop a proper hub.

But it’s ok cos the council know better and they’ve even got an airport consultancy firm on the books to mislead people into believing they’ve secured foreign investment.

 

This is the agenda for this afternoons SYMCA board meeting relating to DSA;

https://governance.southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/documents/s17689/10.%20South%20Yorkshire%20Airport%20Report.pdf

 

This is the agenda for this afternoons SYMCA board meeting relating to DSA;

https://governance.southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/documents/s17689/10.%20South%20Yorkshire%20Airport%20Report.pdf

So as was said many months ago no commercial investor will touch the airport whilst paying out on a lease to Peel….why would they when there are currently many far more investable opportunities in UK airports at the moment which don’t incur significant commercial risk.
The involvement of MIA is still unclear - looks like they are just overseeing recruitment and setup and not day to day operations- why are CDC not clear on the ongoing operating model - surely this must be now defined, or may be not.
Reading this agenda pack it’s hardly glowing endorsement and the risks look to have increased significantly since it was went up for funding……

 

So as was said many months ago no commercial investor will touch the airport whilst paying out on a lease to Peel….why would they when there are currently many far more investable opportunities in UK airports at the moment which don’t incur significant commercial risk.
The involvement of MIA is still unclear - looks like they are just overseeing recruitment and setup and not day to day operations- why are CDC not clear on the ongoing operating model - surely this must be now defined, or may be not.
Reading this agenda pack it’s hardly glowing endorsement and the risks look to have increased significantly since it was went up for funding……

And the financial benefits have gone down to £6.6 bn. Really? They're having a laugh aren't they? So a reopened DSA that they themselves forecast will achieve 2m passengers annually after 10 years (2036) and which will take years to be profitable (if ever) and which will swallow up well over £145m just to start up (taking into account lease charges), is going to generate £6.6 billion towards the region, whilst up the road at LBA, they estimate 7m passengers per year by 2030 will generate £940m towards the local economy.

Where on Earth to Doncaster Council get their figures from? So they expect 6 times the figure expected by LBA with less than 30% of the passenger throughput.

I hope the SY Mayor is asking them to justify such an outrageous claim.

 

im going to make my mind up when the full project is released.
i think peel made a mistake in not letting CDC pay for their losses while keeping the airport open.
peels other mistake was not buying the land sat either side of great yorkshire way before the closed the airport.
peel have about 60 football pitches in size with planning consent at gateway east.
if someone else buys the land, which is about 700 football pitches, and the airport does not open
their land becomes less valueable
thats why i think peel , will be a lot more helpful now.

what i would like to hear from CDC what are these avation companys these (advanced manufacturing engineering and creating a sustainable aviation hub) they are hoping to attract?

The FBC is being hidden from public scrutiny for a reason. I guess there would have to be some re-writing after the SAU report to ensure the funding proposal complies with the Subsidy Control Act and perhaps other juggling to counter negatives that have arisen in the media. I suspect that we may have along wait!!!
In terms of advanced engineering, they did list Boeing as one of their 'suggestions' but they are currently located on Mr Coppard's patch in Sheffield - so I doubt he would be pleased if they were able to persuade them to move to Doncaster

 

And the financial benefits have gone down to £6.6 bn. Really? They're having a laugh aren't they? So a reopened DSA that they themselves forecast will achieve 2m passengers annually after 10 years (2036) and which will take years to be profitable (if ever) and which will swallow up well over £145m just to start up (taking into account lease charges), is going to generate £6.6 billion towards the region, whilst up the road at LBA, they estimate 7m passengers per year by 2030 will generate £940m towards the local economy.

Where on Earth to Doncaster Council get their figures from? So they expect 6 times the figure expected by LBA with less than 30% of the passenger throughput.

I hope the SY Mayor is asking them to justify such an outrageous claim.

i think the financail benefits are for gateway east, not just the airport, and also the other project that was annouced yesterday at junction 5 , they have started work there, it is bigger than gateway east'.