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...?

 

Not easy to see where Peel stand in this 're-negotiation'. On one hand, I am sure they would want the lease to continue for a while as it is clearly a good source of income but I wonder whether they would be flexible on the 20% payment of revenue? The performance targets - maybe?? I guess it's down to their ulterior motive for the site. It seems that this was perhaps the source of Grant Thornton's warning to CDC all that time ago which was ignored. I was really surprised to see this 20% figure emerge and cannot understand why any rational Council officer would sign up to it knowing the difficulties that the re-start would face. It does seem that the Mayor's philosophy was to open at any cost and explains why the Lease details (and indeed where is the Business Plan) were hidden.
As it seems there has been no changes to date in the lease terms especially one assumes after 3 or 4 months re-negotiation (progressing at pace) this, at very best, will surely delay things event further.
Still shocked at the 'cavalier' attitude of the Mayor with such s large amount of public money - even potentially worse - what did the MPs gang know of this??

 

Not easy to see where Peel stand in this 're-negotiation'. On one hand, I am sure they would want the lease to continue for a while as it is clearly a good source of income but I wonder whether they would be flexible on the 20% payment of revenue? The performance targets - maybe?? I guess it's down to their ulterior motive for the site. It seems that this was perhaps the source of Grant Thornton's warning to CDC all that time ago which was ignored. I was really surprised to see this 20% figure emerge and cannot understand why any rational Council officer would sign up to it knowing the difficulties that the re-start would face. It does seem that the Mayor's philosophy was to open at any cost and explains why the Lease details (and indeed where is the Business Plan) were hidden.
As it seems there has been no changes to date in the lease terms especially one assumes after 3 or 4 months re-negotiation (progressing at pace) this, at very best, will surely delay things event further.
Still shocked at the 'cavalier' attitude of the Mayor with such s large amount of public money - even potentially worse - what did the MPs gang know of this??

I understand that a 20% on turnover on top of rent is standard practice for things like shopping malls and other commercial entities so it’s not abnormal. It does however add significantly to the overheads when compared to DSA 1.0. As we know, they’ve been steadfast is ‘saving the day’ that they are willing to push it through no matter what. Either Peel sell the freehold to an experienced operator or just fold up the project because it’s only going to end one way!

 

I was really surprised to see this 20% figure emerge and cannot understand why any rational Council officer would sign up to it knowing the difficulties that the re-start would face

Yes this, I also cannot get my head around. Nobody in their right mind would take this on. I can only think that Having invested so much political capital in “reopening the airport”, it feels as though challenging the assumptions has become impossible, even when the numbers simply don’t stack up. They appear to be stuck in a self reinforcing feedback loop.

 

I understand that a 20% on turnover on top of rent is standard practice for things like shopping malls and other commercial entities so it’s not abnormal. It does however add significantly to the overheads when compared to DSA 1.0. As we know, they’ve been steadfast is ‘saving the day’ that they are willing to push it through no matter what. Either Peel sell the freehold to an experienced operator or just fold up the project because it’s only going to end one way!

Very much doubt Peel will ever sell up on that site..The more development that goes on around it the more it’s value goes up - it’s prime development land!

 

For Peel there is no reason to renegotiate on anything in the lease. The lease has been signed sealed and delivered fully agreed to by the Mayor and her team. A deal that the Mayor was happy to sign off on.

It is down to CDC how they are going to deal with it and find a way to make it work.

Annual Lease Rent. (Peel unlikely to change)
20% of Turnover. (Peel unlikely to change)
6 month Termination Notice. (Peel unlikely to change)

Passenger numbers trigger (Possibly, but not by much)

How can Airlines plan with that sort of noose hanging in the air.
Airlines could have summer season seats on sale and in February Peel tell CDC they have 6 months to vacate.

That 6 months deadline means everything has to be removed and left in as was condition when first took lease on. So reality is that Airlines only have 4-5 months tops, but they will most likely pull the plug on their schedules in the March timetable change and then put in compensation bid to CDC for costs incurred.

The Mayor and team have well and truly made it unworkable.

The revelations that have been made public this past week are astonishing. Wonder if Private Eye has got wind of this saga. It would be a field day for them.

SYMCA Mayor is just sitting back and watching it all pan out. As we all know that Sheffield Council had banned all Aviation adverts on any of their buildings or materials. He can just say it wasn't his fault it didn't work out as he gave the funding go ahead as long as terms/ conditions were changed.

 

Very much doubt Peel will ever sell up on that site..The more development that goes on around it the more it’s value goes up - it’s prime development land!

Well it would have been valuable to them as a successful airport, they clearly know this is never going to happen so they need the compensation for being held to ransom by the council. I wonder what their other plans are for Gateway East as so far all we’ve seen is housing and some local amenities. Not aviation related industrial units!

For Peel there is no reason to renegotiate on anything in the lease. The lease has been signed sealed and delivered fully agreed to by the Mayor and her team. A deal that the Mayor was happy to sign off on.

It is down to CDC how they are going to deal with it and find a way to make it work.

Annual Lease Rent. (Peel unlikely to change)
20% of Turnover. (Peel unlikely to change)
6 month Termination Notice. (Peel unlikely to change)

Passenger numbers trigger (Possibly, but not by much)

How can Airlines plan with that sort of noose hanging in the air.
Airlines could have summer season seats on sale and in February Peel tell CDC they have 6 months to vacate.

That 6 months deadline means everything has to be removed and left in as was condition when first took lease on. So reality is that Airlines only have 4-5 months tops, but they will most likely pull the plug on their schedules in the March timetable change and then put in compensation bid to CDC for costs incurred.

The Mayor and team have well and truly made it unworkable.

The revelations that have been made public this past week are astonishing. Wonder if Private Eye has got wind of this saga. It would be a field day for them.

SYMCA Mayor is just sitting back and watching it all pan out. As we all know that Sheffield Council had banned all Aviation adverts on any of their buildings or materials. He can just say it wasn't his fault it didn't work out as he gave the funding go ahead as long as terms/ conditions were changed.

You’re probably spot on in your observations. The test will be whether the subsidy is registered, if it isn’t then I think it basically seals the fate of the airport. There’s just too much at stake here, although I guarantee it will drag on for a couple more years whilst the people they’ve recruited so far are told business as usual and continue ‘apace’. Airlines will not like this uncertainty one bit, that’s for sure.

The mechanic appears to have responded to one of his group members questioning the leaked document and how that impacts the reopening. Mechanic doesn’t know the details but suggests it’s ‘old news’ and that the YP is ‘just trying to sell papers’. He’s confident the lease is being renegotiated, hence the old news. I’ve done some research and the findings are that there are unlikely to be significant changes to the terms of the lease as they’ve been negotiated and agreed upon previously. Need to see if this is the case I guess.

 

Well it would have been valuable to them as a successful airport, they clearly know this is never going to happen so they need the compensation for being held to ransom by the council. I wonder what their other plans are for Gateway East as so far all we’ve seen is housing and some local amenities. Not aviation related industrial units!


You’re probably spot on in your observations. The test will be whether the subsidy is registered, if it isn’t then I think it basically seals the fate of the airport. There’s just too much at stake here, although I guarantee it will drag on for a couple more years whilst the people they’ve recruited so far are told business as usual and continue ‘apace’. Airlines will not like this uncertainty one bit, that’s for sure.

The mechanic appears to have responded to one of his group members questioning the leaked document and how that impacts the reopening. Mechanic doesn’t know the details but suggests it’s ‘old news’ and that the YP is ‘just trying to sell papers’. He’s confident the lease is being renegotiated, hence the old news. I’ve done some research and the findings are that there are unlikely to be significant changes to the terms of the lease as they’ve been negotiated and agreed upon previously. Need to see if this is the case I guess.

Makes interesting reading when you revisit the Council papers presented when the approval was given to sign the lease. Virtually all the risks detailed in the “Risk Implications” section have since the meeting crystallised particularly those in respect to potential bidders. https://doncaster.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s43811/685SYACLeaseAgreementMar24 Redacted_Redacted.pdf

 

Makes interesting reading when you revisit the Council papers presented when the approval was given to sign the lease. Virtually all the risks detailed in the “Risk Implications” section have since the meeting crystallised particularly those in respect to potential bidders. https://doncaster.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s43811/685SYACLeaseAgreementMar24 Redacted_Redacted.pdf

Yes and the lease was agreed with Peel under the premise that the risk would be shared with the private sector. As FlyDoncaster was established in November 2024 the council have effectively had almost 15 months to renegotiate the contentious terms of the lease owing to the change in ownership model of the business. So when did the discussions to renegotiate the lease with Peel actually start? There are people now suggesting a CPO should be back on the agenda, there’s no way this is possible now as they agreed terms with Peel to lease the site, they can’t suddenly decide to try force a purchase now that they’ve decided the details previously agreed (and presumably subject to due diligence) are now not acceptable. Not only that but as we already know they’d have a tough job challenging Peel given the overwhelming evidence Peel will have to prove aviation on the site is not viable, not least because it’s sat mostly empty for 4 years and it’s a brownfield site ripe for job creation.

 

Still hiring people and ordering equipment (as stated by Ros) is actually crazy, who is going to put a stop to it all, peoples livelihoods are now relaying on this. I for one would looking to jump ship.

 

Still hiring people and ordering equipment (as stated by Ros) is actually crazy, who is going to put a stop to it all, peoples livelihoods are now relaying on this. I for one would looking to jump ship.

It’s politically too far on to just put the brakes on now. What we need to find out is whether the CFO at SYMCA is prepared to sign off on the funding. I doubt we’ll hear any specifics of the lease being amended to more acceptable levels, but the risk of Peel triggering the break clause will currently be deemed far too high to sign off on I would have thought. Particularly when it’s solely public money being pumped into it!

Meanwhile it seems Ros Jones has decided to completely remove the ability to comment on any of her posts relating to the airport on her Facebook page. Wonder why

 

And now it appears that an internal investigation revealed councillors missed the link to the lease afterbinvedtigating hyperlinks for a mole

 

I had a closing date for applications to become ATC at DSA of 23rd January in my head for some reason. Have I gotten wires crossed? Just I see that a recruiter is sharing on LinkedIn that FlyDoncaster are still on the lookout for experienced air traffic controllers. Those 35 or so applications clearly weren’t all that..?

 

I had a closing date for applications to become ATC at DSA of 23rd January in my head for some reason. Have I gotten wires crossed? Just I see that a recruiter is sharing on LinkedIn that FlyDoncaster are still on the lookout for experienced air traffic controllers. Those 35 or so applications clearly weren’t all that..?

Maybe those candidates for cold feet given recent events, wouldn’t blame them if they were leaving secure roles……..

 

I had a closing date for applications to become ATC at DSA of 23rd January in my head for some reason. Have I gotten wires crossed? Just I see that a recruiter is sharing on LinkedIn that FlyDoncaster are still on the lookout for experienced air traffic controllers. Those 35 or so applications clearly weren’t all that..?

As I predicted when the advert came out, they obviously got nowhere near the response they needed and it’s because of the poor T&Cs and the risk of the venture failing.

The salary has now increased by £20k. As a controller who resides in the North of England and who is, presumably, part of their target market, it’s still not enough. The T&Cs are still not competitive, and the risk of failure has only increased based on recent news.

If you want a substantial number of experienced, capable, radar-qualified controllers to leave secure employment and come to work at an airport that has already failed once (making their predecessors redundant), you need to be offering more than the current local market.

 

Councillors slam 'gag order' requirements to access Doncaster Sheffield Airport lease

Councillors in Doncaster will have to sign an agreement vowing never to share or comment on the Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) lease, in what opposition councillors have called a “gag order”.

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

I get that these things need to be subject to NDAs, but there’s something that seems to me to be inherently unethical about the councils response to the leak of the documents to the YP, which as the article states is in effect a gagging order whereby nobody ca openly discuss the concerns they have with the lease.

Just because it’s a legally tight agreement, with overview from their own legal advisors, does not mean it’s a good deal for the tax payer! It is inherently not a good deal at all, the only beneficiary is Peel and, for a time, the Mayors who have been able to use it for political capital.

Unsure whether Peel will agree to suitable changes in the lease, but even if they do we won’t know now whether they are or not because nobody will be allowed to discuss it openly. I guess the real test will be whether SYMCA agree to sign off on the funding because there was a full board meeting on the 27th and zero mention of DSA..

As I predicted when the advert came out, they obviously got nowhere near the response they needed and it’s because of the poor T&Cs and the risk of the venture failing.

The salary has now increased by £20k. As a controller who resides in the North of England and who is, presumably, part of their target market, it’s still not enough. The T&Cs are still not competitive, and the risk of failure has only increased based on recent news.

If you want a substantial number of experienced, capable, radar-qualified controllers to leave secure employment and come to work at an airport that has already failed once (making their predecessors redundant), you need to be offering more than the current local market.

As suspected. Thanks for your insight from the tower!

It’s somewhat a catch 22 situation. I think they have been relying on simply playing on the proximity value, somewhere for people to go because it’s closer to home and there may be some attractive public sector benefits attached. However, if the airport is still looking uncertain then as you say, why would anyone leave secure employment for a far less secure position that’s paying less money? Seems far too risky to me, and these leaks that are happening will not be helping matters I don’t imagine!

 

There seems to be a lot of posts on social media with the Doncaster free press asking peoples opinions on the airport, lets just say its absolutely not as Rosey as the mechanic likes to keep the narrative on the Facebook page. As I have said previously, has the penny dropped..? It seems to way, looks more uncertain then ever at the moment.

Just to confirm does anybody know which jobs have been filled? I believe Head of Cargo.. (wouldn't mind myself getting paid whilst not doing anything at all)!

 

There seems to be a lot of posts on social media with the Doncaster free press asking peoples opinions on the airport, lets just say its absolutely not as Rosey as the mechanic likes to keep the narrative on the Facebook page. As I have said previously, has the penny dropped..? It seems to way, looks more uncertain then ever at the moment.
Just to confirm does anybody know which jobs have been filled? I believe Head of Cargo.. (wouldn't mind myself getting paid whilst not doing anything at all)!

I think they’ve filled the usual potholder positions like Ops Director/Head of Ops, similarly for Security and Cargo. They were recently advertising for someone who is tasked with aviation development. They’re recruiting ATC, or at least attempting to. I think some were continuously employed to look after the site but not sure how many.

You’re right though, the public good will seems to be diminishing, the mechanic won’t publicise this though.

 

They don’t seem to have recruited a Head of Air Traffic Services, yet they are trying to recruit controllers! That is what a HoATS should be doing for them - building the team that they are going to lead.

It’s a challenging business to get the balanced composition of qualifications and experience levels that are required, and to verify that everyone is what they say they are in their CV. I sincerely hope they have someone experienced, who understands this stuff, doing it for them.

 

They don’t seem to have recruited a Head of Air Traffic Services, yet they are trying to recruit controllers! That is what a HoATS should be doing for them - building the team that they are going to lead.

It’s a challenging business to get the balanced composition of qualifications and experience levels that are required, and to verify that everyone is what they say they are in their CV. I sincerely hope they have someone experienced, who understands this stuff, doing it for them.

Think they’ve contracted it out to a third party is my understanding. Could be wrong.

 

Doncaster Sheffield Airport - the good news and the bad news...

In the wake of this newspaper obtaining a copy of a hitherto highly confidential lease agreement between Doncaster City Council and Peel Holdings, the owners of the Doncaster Sheffield Airport site, further serious questions have been asked, again, by this newspaper, as to the likely viability...

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

If I was being cynical I’d say the writer of this is being sarcastic, though I’m sure it’s just trying to offer some balance. ‘Well done Coppard and Jones for finding money that’s already available to you’. The M18 jct3 improvements need doing airport or no airport, I’ve spent too much time in the slip road in years gone by.