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...?

 

I think there is a lot more going on in the world and government then them prioritising opening a dead duck airport.

Airlines worrying about fuel prices / ME war, nobody is looking to expand..

Never mind people’s disposable income shrinking rapidly.

Anyone taking this project seriously and trying to force it though, screams alterer motives.

It will fail. How long has it been now since it shut? How much are MIA getting paid for sweet f*** all?!!!

 

I think ardent supporters have forgotten in their outrage in respect of a potential change of mind by the majority of members of CDC that not only these Councillors are unsure, but also Mr Coppard who still has not yet released the Gain Share funds and apparently will not until the Lease is more to his liking. One would like to think that a 'cross party' recognition that the financial issues (with public money) are perhaps more important than entrenched politics and the unbalanced views of some on the support page simply wanting a local holiday departure at any public cost. (Other departure points are available )

 

I think ardent supporters have forgotten in their outrage in respect of a potential change of mind by the majority of members of CDC that not only these Councillors are unsure, but also Mr Coppard who still has not yet released the Gain Share funds and apparently will not until the Lease is more to his liking. One would like to think that a 'cross party' recognition that the financial issues (with public money) are perhaps more important than entrenched politics and the unbalanced views of some on the support page simply wanting a local holiday departure at any public cost. (Other departure points are available )

Yes wanting to save one to two hours of a journey to another airport once a year (twice if they’re lucky) to go on holiday is really not the justification for spending a now apparent £bns on reopening a failed venture. I suspect a lot of them know this hence they start talking jobs and investment.

Anyway I’m not sure if you’re also getting the vibe that perhaps the off-ramps are quietly being taken? Perhaps Regurge know this hence their pre-emptive strike, because of its already known amongst them that this is happening they can make some political capital by getting in there first? Palming the restricted viability off onto the Government would seem to be the case here by OC and RJ. ‘Not enough people will use it because there isn’t a frequent rail service to the doorstep’ is to my mind an acceptance, perhaps even a line on the sand by the CFO at SYMCA, that with the much reduced passenger forecasts the money cannot be signed off. The lease terms may therefore be a red herring now.

 

Government and rail industry had already threw out any idea of branch from the mainline to the airport, this is due to it requiring being tunnelled to get it to the airport terminal, also the make up of ground makes a tunnel build even harder. Making it uneconomically unviable.

So why is the Labour lot trotting out the railway station on new build mainline branch ambition once again. It is just deflection and smoke and mirrors.

The Government and rail industry have said the only way a station could be built is that it be on the Lincoln branch, it is that or nothing at all. Hence why the Government only allocated £30m to a station project for the Lincoln branch only.

 

Government and rail industry had already threw out any idea of branch from the mainline to the airport, this is due to it requiring being tunnelled to get it to the airport terminal, also the make up of ground makes a tunnel build even harder. Making it uneconomically unviable.

So why is the Labour lot trotting out the railway station on new build mainline branch ambition once again. It is just deflection and smoke and mirrors.

The Government and rail industry have said the only way a station could be built is that it be on the Lincoln branch, it is that or nothing at all. Hence why the Government only allocated £30m to a station project for the Lincoln branch only.

Lucky to have that. The number of passengers at DSA would never justify a rail station. Even at MAN only a small proportion of passengers use the train. Up the road at LBA, which is heading towards 5m passengers , with 7m the target by 2030, a rail link isn't viable. Instead they will have to use local devolved funding to build a parkway station 1 mile from the terminal, on the Leeds/Harrogate line and even then, it is only viable because it will also serve the planned NW Leeds employment hub AND act as a park and ride for local commuters.

It beggars belief how often South Yorkshire goes begging to the government for funding, whilst up in Leeds, what little is promised is usually withdrawn and never gets built.

DSA is already a ridiculous waste of public funds. Government funding for a rail link would be nuts. If DSA needs a rsil link to make it viable as an airport, then it shouldn't be an airport in the first place.

 

The mechanic has issued a statement on his page, aided perhaps by Chat GBT with probable input from the cabal.

Facts Not Slogans



The reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport has recently been labelled as “blank cheque” project for taxpayers.



It’s a strong phrase but it doesn’t match the reality.



A full business plan has already been submitted to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA),



Meaning the project is being reviewed and overseen properly.

Funding has been agreed at this stage, with some restrictions while the lease is being re negotiated,

Not left open-ended.



Work is also moving forward.

1. The lease is being renegotiated,

2. Staff have been hired,

3. Progress is being made within the current financial plans.

4. That’s not what an uncontrolled project looks like.

The real debate isn’t about whether a plan exists.



It’s about how confident people are in it long term. That’s a fair discussion. Big projects always carry some risk.



But calling this a “blank cheque” is misleading.



It suggests there are no limits or controls, when in reality there are.

This is a structured project with oversight, not open-ended spending.

It deserves proper scrutiny



When Reform voted on the Loan decision, they agreed to it with provisions in place

1. The lending is capped

2. The collective decision in november was to go out for private finance at the most opportune time

3. This is specifically to reduce risk to the public purse.

4. All documented on various media pages. here's the yorkshire post article. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...lors-approve-multi-million-pound-loan-5420923



• The loan

Is intended to fund early-stage investment in reopening the airport.
Repayment is planned through annual gainshare funding already agreed.

Not directly from council budgets.

• As for the 20% of the turnover goes to Peel,

That is a clause in the lease with Peel and Doncaster council 20% of any turnover above the agreed lease/rent,

The council’s expected income is limited to lease payments from Fly Doncaster.

So this clause may never be actioned.

• Essential infrastructure upgrades road and rail,

Are not the responsibility of Doncaster Council.
Central government has been approached regarding these.

• As for Cardiff airport does that really compare with DSA?

Cardiff airport is funded totally differently by the Welsh government, it's not a local authority with different governance / guidelines.



Again let's have Facts Not Slogans.



#saveDSA

 

The mechanic has issued a statement on his page, aided perhaps by Chat GBT with probable input from the cabal.

Laughable really.

A back street garage owner trying to talk like he has experience of multi million pound commercial agreements and property leases.

Looking at the comments, I’d say support is really dissolving away now. Plenty no longer believing the narrative he spins.

 

Laughable really.

A back street garage owner trying to talk like he has experience of multi million pound commercial agreements and property leases.

Looking at the comments, I’d say support is really dissolving away now. Plenty no longer believing the narrative he spins.

Yes, well he’s also been seen commenting about ‘what of all the staff and the investment that’s already been paid in, who is out of pocket for that if it’s wrapped up’? He’s walked straight into the sunk cost fallacy that Grant Thornton have warned about. The council have been told they must set off-ramps to avoid escalation of cost. I believe that’s what they might actually be doing now, hence the cucumber sandwiches at Buckingham Palace.. He claims a renewed business case was submitted to SYMCA on the basis that the ‘ownership model’ has changed. Well didn’t the council say that the terms of the lease were the problem when trying to attract private investors? So which is it? The SYMCA CFO we know isn’t keen on signing off on this as he has responsibilities and is accountable for reckless spending. Coppard and Jones have told the Yorkshire Post that they’re going to Government to request £1bn to build a rail link to the airport, is this now part of the business case to try strong arm it through with unmeetable targets based on a railway line that will never be built? Wouldn’t surprise me at this stage. Or maybe the Government are being set up to be the fall guy?

He’s also seen trying to debate people that the 20% turnover clause isn’t a problem ‘because the airport will never get to that point where it has to pay the 20%’. So I’m not exactly sure what he’s trying to say here, but to me it seems to be an acceptance that the airport will never make money. But he does mention turnover and not profit. Or are they that incompetent that they don’t believe the airport will actually have a turnover? Truly bizarre.

I understand the council officers have a week to set up the meeting to vote on the rescinding of the loan. If it drags beyond that the Reform led opposition can motion to revoke it anyway. So I suspect there’ll be lots of behind closed doors stuff going on to try to sway the 28, but it might be too late now.

 

The Council say there will be 200 employees on site by end of this year.
That is a wage costs of around £8m.

So with the rent that is £13m required, before getting onto other expenses.

So probably easy to say that expenses would be in region of £20-25m

That is £20m of additional income needed to be put in to keep it operating, so that means 20% = £4m additional to Peel. But then that means there is that £4m hole still required to keep it running.

So additional funds are required, but then that means higher slice sliced off for Peel's 20%. So now you are talking of about at least £35m of income a year required. Before you start getting somewhere close of balancing the books so to speak. So it would be safe to say £50m of income a year is going to be required just to cover the books. That is before expenditure on expansion/ improvements.

What was the most income during Peel about £12m. That is some considerable gap to fill.

 

The Council say there will be 200 employees on site by end of this year.
That is a wage costs of around £8m.

So with the rent that is £13m required, before getting onto other expenses.

So probably easy to say that expenses would be in region of £20-25m

That is £20m of additional income needed to be put in to keep it operating, so that means 20% = £4m additional to Peel. But then that means there is that £4m hole still required to keep it running.

So additional funds are required, but then that means higher slice sliced off for Peel's 20%. So now you are talking of about at least £35m of income a year required. Before you start getting somewhere close of balancing the books so to speak. So it would be safe to say £50m of income a year is going to be required just to cover the books. That is before expenditure on expansion/ improvements.

What was the most income during Peel about £12m. That is some considerable gap to fill.

In the last ‘good’ year of operations 1.2mppa with a revenue of £11.7million and operating loss of £10.6million.

 

The Council say there will be 200 employees on site by end of this year.
That is a wage costs of around £8m.

So with the rent that is £13m required, before getting onto other expenses.

So probably easy to say that expenses would be in region of £20-25m

That is £20m of additional income needed to be put in to keep it operating, so that means 20% = £4m additional to Peel. But then that means there is that £4m hole still required to keep it running.

So additional funds are required, but then that means higher slice sliced off for Peel's 20%. So now you are talking of about at least £35m of income a year required. Before you start getting somewhere close of balancing the books so to speak. So it would be safe to say £50m of income a year is going to be required just to cover the books. That is before expenditure on expansion/ improvements.

What was the most income during Peel about £12m. That is some considerable gap to fill.

More worryingly the costs are already piling up with zero income.

From what I’ve been told recently CDC are also using an external PR company for the airport project with the media. These sort of companies do not come cheap!

I see is now desperately calling on his group to pressure councillors. All seems very desperate when actually Reform are offering them an off ramp which in the current geopolitical world should be taken immediately!

 

More worryingly the costs are already piling up with zero income.

From what I’ve been told recently CDC are also using an external PR company for the airport project with the media. These sort of companies do not come cheap!

I see is now desperately calling on his group to pressure councillors. All seems very desperate when actually Reform are offering them an off ramp which in the current geopolitical world should be taken immediately!

Sorry, but can you clarify what is meant by off ramp in this context?

 

Sorry, but can you clarify what is meant by off ramp in this context?

I imagine he means an exit

 

Sorry, but can you clarify what is meant by off ramp in this context?

As @Egyptian King says, off-ramps in this context have been advised by the external auditors to the council. As other councils can attest, ignore this advice at your peril as some have gone bankrupt by doing just that!

The off-ramps in this case are to avoid escalation of cost. Once the £57million is drawn down upon it’s gone, Reform and other opposition councillors are currently suggesting they want to revoke their support before this happens. Clearly reform were bullied into voting in favour, the leader who did this then resigned a couple of days later. It was all a show piece.

 

Sorry, but can you clarify what is meant by off ramp in this context?

Will mean political escape goats in essence.

Jones & Coppard can say they were all for reopening and getting on with it at pace.

They will say:

The reason it hasn't opened is not because of us, it has been other people to cause it not to reopen.


So in other words they have engineered it so the blame doesn't fall on the CDC & SYMCA Labour teams, when in reality it is all because of the Labour CDC & SYMCA politicians in what they have agreed to.

 

I see Coppard and Jones have reverted to social media to attack Reform and the Conservatives over DSA….In the case of Coppard he does so whilst failing to acknowledge the fact that that his own administration are currently withholding funding!

 

You would think it would be the mechanic that is looking for an off-ramp!

 

Will mean political escape goats in essence.

Jones & Coppard can say they were all for reopening and getting on with it at pace.

They will say:

The reason it hasn't opened is not because of us, it has been other people to cause it not to reopen.


So in other words they have engineered it so the blame doesn't fall on the CDC & SYMCA Labour teams, when in reality it is all because of the Labour CDC & SYMCA politicians in what they have agreed to.

I think Coppard still genuinely supports the reopening. They’re actually aggressively releasing statements to the local news outlets blaming their opposition for trying to kill the project. If they were trying to scapegoat they’d probably go in a lot less direct. Indeed if they really wanted an out they’d wait until this vote takes place and then okay the blame game. This is overtly political, they’ve used it as their political pledge. For it to stall at this stage would be disastrous to both of them. I’m not sure how much of this fear tactic will impact on the councillors who have apparently formed a majority to revoke their support. Some may waver? But ultimately it’s becoming a game of political chicken and the tax payer is the one due to lose out.

 

Will mean political escape goats in essence.

Jones & Coppard can say they were all for reopening and getting on with it at pace.

They will say:

The reason it hasn't opened is not because of us, it has been other people to cause it not to reopen.


So in other words they have engineered it so the blame doesn't fall on the CDC & SYMCA Labour teams, when in reality it is all because of the Labour CDC & SYMCA politicians in what they have agreed to.

Exactly this.

As mentioned, Coppard and Jones have gone on the attack on social media, coincidently timed with the mechanics incoherent rants too. They really are reeling out anyone and everyone to create noise including the local chamber boss and some so called “transport expert” come glorified train spotter.

I guess in the next 24/48 hours the world could be a different place and reopening an airport will be low on everyone’s priorities

 

I think Coppard still genuinely supports the reopening. They’re actually aggressively releasing statements to the local news outlets blaming their opposition for trying to kill the project. If they were trying to scapegoat they’d probably go in a lot less direct. Indeed if they really wanted an out they’d wait until this vote takes place and then okay the blame game. This is overtly political, they’ve used it as their political pledge. For it to stall at this stage would be disastrous to both of them. I’m not sure how much of this fear tactic will impact on the councillors who have apparently formed a majority to revoke their support. Some may waver? But ultimately it’s becoming a game of political chicken and the tax payer is the one due to lose out.

It is probably they are likely to lose their leaders in Sheffield and Barnsley plus both councils in a month