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...?

 

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?

Just watched the Look North bit about comparisons between Teesside and DSA. It has drawn some very hostile comments about LBA (!!) which other than showing the clip of MOL who I believed mentioned it once, was never mentioned elsewhere! Biased reporting from Spencer Stokes they claim - the irony!!! Most of the comments section has been turned into an anti-LBA tirade when in fact the piece has nothing to do with LBA. I thought the piece was reasonably balanced although I don't think it mentions Teesside was still loss making.

There is disappointment/anger at the delay to the funding decision on the 'main' campaign page. Mr Chadwick reveals that he had written to OC two weeks ago in complaint but has not had a reply. The sentiment of the letter as he reports is why the need for delay when funding (now £16.1m assuming todays £10m is approved) continues to be given? I agree with him on this one - the continuing funding allocation might lead one to believe that the project will be funded regardless! If not, then what a reckless waste of £16m. If it is funded then of course the jury is out as to whether the £145m is an even more reckless waste of public money! Granted it seems clear that CDC have more work to do on the 'anonymous' FBC which will cause delay. I did note that this £10m would be reclaimable against Gainshare - so that's around 2 years worth?

 

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'.

Then they should make thar clear, by breaking down where they they see the money coming from into the local economy. Clearly, the majority will NOT come from DSA itself.

They should also make clear why Gateway East is dependent upon a reopened airport because they haven't a clue who would locate there or whether the airport, which is at best going to be predominantly a bucket snd spade airport, will necessarily influence them to go there. They talk about the airport enabling access to the global markets, but that is just a pipedream. They won't get many scheduled carriers, if any.

Everything I ever read from CDC is based on huge risk and even bigger assumptions which may never happen. At least today's agenda now highlights that this project carries with it significant risk - the risk of losing all £145m, plus the £16m given in advance, plus the cost of leasing the airport land until the first lease break. There is also the unseen risk of many people relocating to take up jobs at DSA only to find themselves out of work again further down the line with potentially severe consequences domestically.

Talk about gambling! It's like Russian Roulette with not only public money, but also people's lives.

Just watched the Look North bit about comparisons between Teesside and DSA. It has drawn some very hostile comments about LBA (!!) which other than showing the clip of MOL who I believed mentioned it once, was never mentioned elsewhere! Biased reporting from Spencer Stokes they claim - the irony!!! Most of the comments section has been turned into an anti-LBA tirade when in fact the piece has nothing to do with LBA. I thought the piece was reasonably balanced although I don't think it mentions Teesside was still loss making.

There is disappointment/anger at the delay to the funding decision on the 'main' campaign page. Mr Chadwick reveals that he had written to OC two weeks ago in complaint but has not had a reply. The sentiment of the letter as he reports is why the need for delay when funding (now £16.1m assuming todays £10m is approved) continues to be given? I agree with him on this one - the continuing funding allocation might lead one to believe that the project will be funded regardless! If not, then what a reckless waste of £16m. If it is funded then of course the jury is out as to whether the £145m is an even more reckless waste of public money! Granted it seems clear that CDC have more work to do on the 'anonymous' FBC which will cause delay. I did note that this £10m would be reclaimable against Gainshare - so that's around 2 years worth?

The pro DSA campaign clearly see LBA as the airport that can badly damage their dreams for DSA, and they seem really rattled that LBA will soon have a far bigger and effectively new terminal which will remove some of their anti LBA propagsnda. The delay in funding by OC prevents DSA opening before the works at LBA are complete. Another blow to their plans.

It's a reasonable assumption meanwhile, that ahead of terminal completion in 2026, LBA will be looking to tie down airline partners with new contracts, and secure new operators too, and each one of those is probably one less that DSA would be able to attract.

It's quite pathetic really that the Mechanic snd his chums turned this into an anti LBA dialogue but I have no doubt they know that they are losing ground rapidly. Its MAN they need to worry about most, not LBA, but of course they know that they are wasting their time relative to anything to do with MAG, so LBA, with its various faults is an easy target. The fact that several of those faults are being rectified must really worry and upset them. Even so, they behave like spoiled kids.

 

They’ve approved the £10million ‘to progress stuff’. Coppard was quite positive about it, reiterating the GVA projections, and surprise surprise their now consultant MAI are ‘confident they’ll be able to attain the projected passenger figures’, whatever they are.

Didn’t mention who will be scrutinise the plans, but once again reiterated the commercially sensitive nature of providing so any people wishing to ask questions were urged to exercise caution.

Lots said of the support from Central Gvt. No mention of any financial commitment, Coppard seems to think it’s open ended but I can’t imagine Reeves will want to allocate any national funding to the project.

Can’t see how they’ll have enough to maintain the operation in the midst of the costs associated with reopening, I suspect there will be more requests for funding as things progress, particularly if MAI haven’t yet for their feet under the table yet. They certainly have no experience in the U.K. and it’s not the same as the German market, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter as VAS found to their cost!

 

Can’t believe what this is becoming it’s unbelievable these politicians are determined to get this unviable airport open at any cost do they read all the reports, and media outlets or articles and history there must be quite a few doubters, but you don’t seem to here from them where all the anti airport’s groups or are we going to see what happens next in the summer I just feel this is such a a waste of public money but unfortunately the majority of the public who have no interest in aviation probably don’t care

 

Just watched the Look North bit about comparisons between Teesside and DSA. It has drawn some very hostile comments about LBA (!!) which other than showing the clip of MOL who I believed mentioned it once, was never mentioned elsewhere! Biased reporting from Spencer Stokes they claim - the irony!!! Most of the comments section has been turned into an anti-LBA tirade when in fact the piece has nothing to do with LBA. I thought the piece was reasonably balanced although I don't think it mentions Teesside was still loss making.

There is disappointment/anger at the delay to the funding decision on the 'main' campaign page. Mr Chadwick reveals that he had written to OC two weeks ago in complaint but has not had a reply. The sentiment of the letter as he reports is why the need for delay when funding (now £16.1m assuming todays £10m is approved) continues to be given? I agree with him on this one - the continuing funding allocation might lead one to believe that the project will be funded regardless! If not, then what a reckless waste of £16m. If it is funded then of course the jury is out as to whether the £145m is an even more reckless waste of public money! Granted it seems clear that CDC have more work to do on the 'anonymous' FBC which will cause delay. I did note that this £10m would be reclaimable against Gainshare - so that's around 2 years worth?

Mostly stems from jealousy and the usual small town/big city animosity syndrome…They best get used to it as LBA will be pushing the button on a lot of marketing material over the next few months as they launch their first phase of development….I wonder how they’d react if LBA invite Rachel Reeves to cut the ribbon on the extension???

They’ve approved the £10million ‘to progress stuff’. Coppard was quite positive about it, reiterating the GVA projections, and surprise surprise their now consultant MAI are ‘confident they’ll be able to attain the projected passenger figures’, whatever they are.

Didn’t mention who will be scrutinise the plans, but once again reiterated the commercially sensitive nature of providing so any people wishing to ask questions were urged to exercise caution.

Lots said of the support from Central Gvt. No mention of any financial commitment, Coppard seems to think it’s open ended but I can’t imagine Reeves will want to allocate any national funding to the project.

Can’t see how they’ll have enough to maintain the operation in the midst of the costs associated with reopening, I suspect there will be more requests for funding as things progress, particularly if MAI haven’t yet for their feet under the table yet. They certainly have no experience in the U.K. and it’s not the same as the German market, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter as VAS found to their cost!

Very much doubt £10m will go far and will be nowhere near enough to maintain a cash burn to achieve a reopening to passenger traffic in 12 months time…..Still have not worked out the operating model….

 

The hostility being directed towards the LBA community from certain DSA quarters is very disappointing. It seems like every opportunity is taken to rubbish Leeds Bradford when there is positive news there and drawbacks and warnings at DSA. I shudder to think of the vitriol if Doncaster closes a second time, or even fails to reopen at all.

 

The hostility being directed towards the LBA community from certain DSA quarters is very disappointing. It seems like every opportunity is taken to rubbish Leeds Bradford when there is positive news there and drawbacks and warnings there. I shudder to think of the vitriol if Doncaster closes a second time, or even fails to reopen at all.

Let's hope LBA management use the vitriol from pro DSA as an incentive to go out there snd secure new contracts and well and truly put them in their place.

Anyone notice that LBA marketing are back to referring to LBA as Yorkshire's largest airport again, rather than just Yorkshire's airport . That suggests an acceptance and respect for DSA (unless they're thinking of Leeds East)!

Shame that lot dont know what respect is.

 

Mostly stems from jealousy and the usual small town/big city animosity syndrome…They best get used to it as LBA will be pushing the button on a lot of marketing material over the next few months as they launch their first phase of development….I wonder how they’d react if LBA invite Rachel Reeves to cut the ribbon on the extension???


Very much doubt £10m will go far and will be nowhere near enough to maintain a cash burn to achieve a reopening to passenger traffic in 12 months time…..Still have not worked out the operating model….

Should say it will actually be £20m as CDC are also approving a further £10m tomorrow apparently…..

 

Should say it will actually be £20m as CDC are also approving a further £10m tomorrow apparently…..

This would account for the estimated total of £145million as of last week. They’re sneaking funds in here and there and I think there will be more as things become clearer.

It’s quite clear Coppard is expecting the government to step up with some funding too. Be interesting to see if anything materialises there. Meanwhile I hope the other airports are watching very closely and ready with their legal people.

 

What gets me is if I have heard/ read it correctly that this extra £20m to get things up and running is being run on CDC books and not onto the Fly Doncaster books, thus not to burden extra interest costs on the Fly Doncaster books.

This seems so wrong. Have I read that correctly.

 

This would account for the estimated total of £145million as of last week. They’re sneaking funds in here and there and I think there will be more as things become clearer.

It’s quite clear Coppard is expecting the government to step up with some funding too. Be interesting to see if anything materialises there. Meanwhile I hope the other airports are watching very closely and ready with their legal people.

Government funding?? Now that will open the can of worms!!!

What gets me is if I have heard/ read it correctly that this extra £20m to get things up and running is being run on CDC books and not onto the Fly Doncaster books, thus not to burden extra interest costs on the Fly Doncaster books.

This seems so wrong. Have I read that correctly.

Not in the public domain as to what is going on - but it does seem that is the plan!! Tell 'em nowt! It looks like a fait accompli - but that's democracy and politics!!

 

just to make clear they are making projections for 2050

The FBC highlights the scale of economic growth potential should the opportunity be realised: over 5,000 gross direct jobs by 2050; GVA uplift of £5bn (cumulatively by 2050); gross welfare benefits (cumulatively by 2050) of £2bn; a project benefit cost ratio of 9:1; and a region in the vanguard of the next technological revolution, building on core regional capabilities, and reconnected by air to global markets.

 

just to make clear they are making projections for 2050

The FBC highlights the scale of economic growth potential should the opportunity be realised: over 5,000 gross direct jobs by 2050; GVA uplift of £5bn (cumulatively by 2050); gross welfare benefits (cumulatively by 2050) of £2bn; a project benefit cost ratio of 9:1; and a region in the vanguard of the next technological revolution, building on core regional capabilities, and reconnected by air to global markets.

Who came up with those projections . 5,000 jobs and a project cost benefit of 9:1 sorry but these numbers should be subjected to independent scrutiny as they are the stuff of pipe dreams and fabrication. Typical public sector…..
Lastly the region is already connected to global markets via Manchester airport….

 

just to make clear they are making projections for 2050

The FBC highlights the scale of economic growth potential should the opportunity be realised: over 5,000 gross direct jobs by 2050; GVA uplift of £5bn (cumulatively by 2050); gross welfare benefits (cumulatively by 2050) of £2bn; a project benefit cost ratio of 9:1; and a region in the vanguard of the next technological revolution, building on core regional capabilities, and reconnected by air to global markets.

Sorry but they're in dreamland. Delusional. And no chance of connection to global markets from DSA. What airlines? What routes? We've already seen airlines will not dilute their business development at MAN. If DSA cant attract low cost carriers on leisure routes it'll be dead and buried.

 

just to make clear they are making projections for 2050

The FBC highlights the scale of economic growth potential should the opportunity be realised: over 5,000 gross direct jobs by 2050; GVA uplift of £5bn (cumulatively by 2050); gross welfare benefits (cumulatively by 2050) of £2bn; a project benefit cost ratio of 9:1; and a region in the vanguard of the next technological revolution, building on core regional capabilities, and reconnected by air to global markets.

What do those words actually mean though? Seems they’re designed to fluff and nothing more.

How many of those projected 5000 jobs and the estimated £5bn cumulative uplift is predicated on an airport being there and how much is based around Gateway East that will happen anyway?

Best case scenario the airport secure at least one based airline (possibly Jet2) and maybe even manage to get KLM in somehow. That’s not going to generate the airport dependant employment to the scale that the council are projecting. The SAU asked for clarity on this, so I assume the council will be consulting someone to come up with a suitable answer because so far none have been forthcoming.

The airport under Peel employed something like 170 people directly. If MAI are to have serious hands on involvement I don’t envisage a business as usual approach. Something will have to change compared to how things were before, at least initially.

On a return of 9:1 that would assume that £1.3bn will be generated over the period of the investment based on £145million. Do the sums add up? Don’t seem to.

I can only conclude that CDC believe the airport will be a major hub and a contender with the major London airports based on those cumulative projections. But the likelihood of that ever being realised aside. the sums still don’t add up..

They mention the 130,000 strong petition. Can’t argue with that, but how many of those people put their name to something thinking that there was serious private sector interest in it and may have changed their minds? Who is to say the airlines that may have expressed an interest actually agree to terms when they’re on offer? What happens when the next downturn occurs? Things are great now, but they won’t always be!

 

What do those words actually mean though? Seems they’re designed to fluff and nothing more.

How many of those projected 5000 jobs and the estimated £5bn cumulative uplift is predicated on an airport being there and how much is based around Gateway East that will happen anyway?

Best case scenario the airport secure at least one based airline (possibly Jet2) and maybe even manage to get KLM in somehow. That’s not going to generate the airport dependant employment to the scale that the council are projecting. The SAU asked for clarity on this, so I assume the council will be consulting someone to come up with a suitable answer because so far none have been forthcoming.

The airport under Peel employed something like 170 people directly. On a return of 9:1 that would assume that £1.3bn will be generated over the period of the investment based on £145million. Do the sums add up? Don’t seem to.

I can only conclude that CDC believe the airport will be a major hub and a contender with the major London airports based on those cumulative projections. But the sums still don’t add up..

KLM have crewing and fleet issues, along with potential caps coming in future years at AMS. It’s also taken EXT nearly 10 years to secure them. There is very little to zero chance you will see them at DSA diluting their HUY operations.

 

KLM have crewing and fleet issues, along with potential caps coming in future years at AMS. It’s also taken EXT nearly 10 years to secure them. There is very little to zero chance you will see them at DSA diluting their HUY operations.

They’d pull out of HUY, they wouldn’t run both concurrently. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess, but I can imagine it wouldn’t go down too well if it did. I have no doubt that CDC haven’t considered the wider impact of a competitive commercial concern propped up by only public subsidy will have on surrounding private sector owned airports.

 

I’m not sure where even a suggestion of KLM has come from but with the Eastern contract HUY it’s a convenient and better choice, in terms of maintenance crewing and engineering. Switching the Eastern fleet through HUY as and when. Also don’t think it would go down well at all with HUY/Eastern if they did that... They’ve had 17 years to go to DSA and never did once.

A full service carrier has never been successful at DSA. (LCC have even struggled clearly)

Ironically the DSA supporters are adamant LH are going to be in because of MIA.. right..

Can’t see both Jet2 and TUI hashing out a small base / small market there. Diluting EMA/LBA.

Most likely a TUI return if they can source extra AC. Even then.. doubtful.

Ryanair ain’t even arsed.. says it all really, like they would turn down an opportunity to make ££

 

We know that in the past, Peel offered hefty incentives to get airlines into DSA, yet still they mostly failed to generate enough passengers to be a success. Only TUi were genuinely happy. My understanding is that Wizz weren't making much profit. There was some behind the scenes talk of them leaving even before the closure of DSA was announced.

So next time, what can DSA management offer airlines that hasn't been offered before? Airlines will need some convincing that next time the passengers will suddenly appear in sufficient numbers. Ryanair clearly dont think they will. It's hard to see any committing sufficiently given DSAs past record. I mean, why would they? It's an expensive business setting up at an airport and airlines really don't need to if they already fly from surrounding airports. They aren't going to go to DSA because they want to be charitable. Nor because of the incentives. Clearly those didn't work before so why would they this time?

Then of course, incentives mean the airport will be earning very little revenue, if any. So how long can they continue using public money to prop up a loss making business, particularly in an industry that we all know gobbles up money at an alarming rate simply to keep an airport operational. Where will the money come from to extend the terminal when they attract multiple national carriers as well as Jet2 and Virgin (I jest) or when the runway needs resurfacing, or Governnent legislation brings about change which is compulsory and expensive .

The whole thing is reckless. And now the useless NIMBY Chancellor has waded in, not because she knows anything about aviation but simply to try snd keep herself in a job .

I seriously hope that the Clowncil have taken the time to do a long term project cost plan, but there again, how can they when they have no idea which airlines, if any, will sign up?

 

I think we’ve talked a lot about how it struggles with attracting and retaining traffic of all forms lots over the years. I’m wondering why the council are so confident that all is well that they would grant £10 million and SYMCA also £10 million if they haven’t even decided whether to allocate Gainshare to it or not yet. It’s a bizarre decision as anyone would think, with that sort of money, that it was a dead cert to reopen. If Coppard is truly committing to independent scrutiny then why is funding not being put in hold until this scrutiny has taken place? Are they trying to appease people ahead of the local elections?

It’s dodgy as hell, and they’re doing it in broad daylight in the name of public support. Just look at how the mechanic reacted only days ago to that YA and YEP report. Call that public support?