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...?

 

with regards airlines ,TUI and Wizz ( or another eastern europe ) and unlike Peel they do not have to make a profit, a small lose would be ok.

why would MAG mount a legal challenge , when they got freeport status awarded at EMA , ( without that there would be no £1 billion investment from prologis)

west yorkshire allocated £419 million of their gainshare to transport infrastruture . ( no much different to SYC, just a liitle more money )

So that would be displacement of Wizz from LBA using tax payer money?

TUI may return but I certainly wouldn’t expect the same volumes as before. For a start the long haul market to Florida and the Caribbean is struggling badly for TUI and there seems to be an increasing reliance on third party airlines, some of which have publicly indicated they aren’t interested in DSA (Ryanair for example).

As for it being ok to turn a small loss, would you be ok with your business making a small loss? I guess you’d be ok with the taxpayer funding losses indefinitely at the detriment to other public services?

What do you believe @rabbitfoot CDC/SYMCA would do differently to Peel to make it a success?

 

i sure the people of south yorkshire would be fine with a small loss.
there is an interesting article in the local paper tonight..
The withdrawal of Wizz Airlines due to later delivery of aircraft from Airbus “threw everything off track” and Peel’s board lost confidence.
DSA 2.0 would be different due to it being an aviation cluster “in all its forms” set to include university involvement, maintenance and repair, dismantling, training, aviation businesses and cargo.The rail link is really important to complement the great road connections. It needs to be progressed. Car parking and retail is a big source of revenue for any airport The airport was seen as crucial to South Yorkshire’s fortunes .passenger flying is important. It pays some of the overheads but is certainly not everything.
i think they just have to make it work this time and throw everthing they can atit. let companies build warehouses, factorys, etc there . there is no bigger space , with planning avaialble in the north of england.

 

@rabbitfoot the withdrawal of Wizzair UK had nothing to do with a late delivery of aircraft to Wizzairs Hungarian AOC. The board lost confidence when Wizzair UK and DSA had reached a significant base agreement that failed to materialise, in fact I recall feeling as though that was the single biggest airline announcement at DSA since the airport opened with Thonsonfly as their anchor tenant. However in the event it never came to pass because they couldn’t get sustainable year round loads to support the planned aircraft allocation hence the reason they withdrew from DSA and CWL. It’s pretty clear to see that both airports offered financial incentives to get Wizzair in and both ended up losing out. They both suffered the same with FlyBe a couple of years previously.

As for the University, it seems that ship sailed when SYMCA encouraged them to instead invest in Runway Park at the former Sheffield City Airport. This has been confirmed by one of the people involved in AMR in South Yorkshire and for the avoidance of doubt I will post what was said again below;

What must Oliver Coppard have thought when The University of Sheffield recently decided to launch Runway Park on the site of the old Sheffield Airport, closed by Peel in 2008, at the same time as he grapples with the challenge of how to re-open Doncaster Sheffield Airport as the centrepiece of a ‘sustainable aviation hub’ on Gateway East, following its closure by Peel in 2022?

Coppard will recall the university signed a deal with DSA back in 2021 to help develop the Gateway East site which a joint press release with Peel declared “has the potential to be harnessed to create up to 35,000 jobs and 3,000 new homes worth £6.5bn to the local economy by 2037.”

The press notice said that one option being considered was opening a sustainable aerospace facility on Gateway East. That never happened. Instead, the Mayor, along with Sheffield City Council, released £14 millions of taxpayers’ money to build the University a new sustainable aviation research facility, COMPASS, not in Gateway East next to DSA, but on the old Sheffield Airport site which has now been re-branded as Runway Park.

Of the new composites research facility built by the combined authority and Sheffield Council, the AMRC’s then CEO, Steve Foxley made the bold claim that: “I’m not exaggerating when I say this could be one of the most significant regeneration projects for the UK and that it could have an impact that is three or four times bigger than the impact the AMRC has made, so far, over the past 20 years.’ How much better, Oliver may have thought, had it been built over in Doncaster as the opening gambit in the reopening of DSA.

While Runway Park ( formerly AMRC2, then Advanced Manufacturing Campus, then University of Sheffield Innovation District) is still little more than an architect’s runaway imagination, it does send out a confusing signal to potential companies wanting to invest in advanced manufacturing and aerospace in South Yorkshire. Gateway East or Runway Park?

The protracted efforts to make a business case for reopening DSA, and the likelihood that commercial flights will commence at the earliest in 2028 gives Runway Park a flying start in landing lucrative deals with inward investors. The fact that it already has Boeing in place and the SAF research centre is a powerful pull.

Add to that the £80 million publicly funded COMPASS project and the presence of the AMRC’s digital manufacturing flagship Factory 2050 and its clear Doncaster has a lot of work to do to achieve 35,000 jobs and 3,000 new homes worth £6.5 billion to the local economy by 2037.

If an inward investor is in any doubt about the link between Runway Park and aviation and aerospace, its vision is clear. This is the place where “innovation-led growth takes flight.” It all feels a bit like the air traffic controllers in South Yorkshire have left the control tower and it’s every innovation district for itself.

This shows quite clearly that there’s somewhat a disconnect between SYMCA/CDC and their regional stakeholders when it comes to strategic planning. Quite clearly in this case, with the inconsistent approach to support for growth at DSA, in this instance with SYMCA proving a hindrance, then when compounded by a consistent lack of ability to secure sustainable growth, lack of buy in from the regional authorities and even moves to relocate developments it’s no wonder the Peel Board lost confidence.

The damage is already done. Now because of decisions made by SYMCA there is an immense urge to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. With this, there is now a requirement to commit £hundreds of millions to something that was a commercial failure, and someting that will always struggle to gain traction in the shadow of its local competitors. The risk of legal action in this instance is incredibly high, had they the foresight to support the Sheffield University plans for Gateway East, and had they purchased a seat at the board of the airport, things may have been quite different. Coppard knows this, the fact he refuses to acknowledge it is quite telling.

 

i sure the people of south yorkshire would be fine with a small loss.
there is an interesting article in the local paper tonight..
The withdrawal of Wizz Airlines due to later delivery of aircraft from Airbus “threw everything off track” and Peel’s board lost confidence.
DSA 2.0 would be different due to it being an aviation cluster “in all its forms” set to include university involvement, maintenance and repair, dismantling, training, aviation businesses and cargo.The rail link is really important to complement the great road connections. It needs to be progressed. Car parking and retail is a big source of revenue for any airport The airport was seen as crucial to South Yorkshire’s fortunes .passenger flying is important. It pays some of the overheads but is certainly not everything.
i think they just have to make it work this time and throw everthing they can atit. let companies build warehouses, factorys, etc there . there is no bigger space , with planning avaialble in the north of england.

So basically Teesside? How well are they doing from a profitability point of view?

 

on want grounds can they make a legal challenge on spending there gainshare money on reopening an airport for economic reasons?

have they paid subsidies to airlines ?

no.

i do not have to be a leagl expert to know that.

and snackbar dont go into the prediction game, for all you spouted , DSA is opening.

well you are correct on one point you are certainly no legal expert. Maybe rather than just commenting on here maybe take time to read the board report being presented tomorrow or even the SAU report…all clearly state that the loans being provided at an advantageous rate constitute a subsidy…..You don’t even need to be a legal expert to for that, just the ability to read!

If I were EMA/MAN/LBA I would definitely be looking to challenge this.

trouble for you Karfa your not,

and there will be no legal challenge.

and we should we know soon enough , as they only have a month to make a legal challenge.

On 6 December 2024, the CMA accepted a referral from the City of Doncaster Council in respect of a proposed subsidy of up to £89.7m to Fly Doncaster Limited (a 100% owned Council subsidiary), in order to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport,

and it was published in jan 2025

Why would they chose not to challenge…….a referral to CAI is relatively inexpensive and any private company will do their upmost to protect their investment given they have a responsibility to their shareholders…..

If I were EMA/MAN/LBA I would definitely be looking to challenge this.

trouble for you Karfa your not,

and there will be no legal challenge.

and we should we know soon enough , as they only have a month to make a legal challenge.

On 6 December 2024, the CMA accepted a referral from the City of Doncaster Council in respect of a proposed subsidy of up to £89.7m to Fly Doncaster Limited (a 100% owned Council subsidiary), in order to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport,

and it was published in jan 2025

Why would they chose not to challenge…….a referral to CAI is relatively inexpensive and any private company will do their upmost to protect their investment given they have a responsibility to their shareholders…..

 

well you are correct on one point you are certainly no legal expert. Maybe rather than just commenting on here maybe take time to read the board report being presented tomorrow or even the SAU report…all clearly state that the loans being provided at an advantageous rate constitute a subsidy…..You don’t even need to be a legal expert to for that, just the ability to read!


Why would they chose not to challenge…….a referral to CAI is relatively inexpensive and any private company will do their upmost to protect their investment given they have a responsibility to their shareholders…..


Why would they chose not to challenge…….a referral to CAI is relatively inexpensive and any private company will do their upmost to protect their investment given they have a responsibility to their shareholders…..

The shareholders may encourage a challenge given the investment package that LBA is undergoing, with that will most likely come some pretty good commercial lawyers because like you say they need to protect their investment, even if there isn’t a direct threat to LBA it will make the commercial environment more challenging. I’m not sure whether MAG will do the same though, given their ownership model it might be seen to be a bit rich. I do expect other airport operators to jump in though, particularly the like of RCA who as we know were one of the ones who submitted evidence to the SAU.

 

i sure the people of south yorkshire would be fine with a small loss.
there is an interesting article in the local paper tonight..
The withdrawal of Wizz Airlines due to later delivery of aircraft from Airbus “threw everything off track” and Peel’s board lost confidence.
DSA 2.0 would be different due to it being an aviation cluster “in all its forms” set to include university involvement, maintenance and repair, dismantling, training, aviation businesses and cargo.The rail link is really important to complement the great road connections. It needs to be progressed. Car parking and retail is a big source of revenue for any airport The airport was seen as crucial to South Yorkshire’s fortunes .passenger flying is important. It pays some of the overheads but is certainly not everything.
i think they just have to make it work this time and throw everthing they can atit. let companies build warehouses, factorys, etc there . there is no bigger space , with planning avaialble in the north of england.

Oh I'm sure the public will be perfectly fine with it (the airlines won't however), until the cuts in council budgets come. Then that small loss will come sharply into focus. And it won't just be a "small loss" BTW, there will still be the matter of the £160 million or so spent on it plus any additional funds needed to keep the airport going down the line, AND the small operating loss. Let's hope for the Labour council's sake there isn't a political party to the right of centre, that would use all this to wipe them out at a future local election....

It is literal political suicide, Reform in Doncaster must be rubbing their hands with glee.

 

The shareholders may encourage a challenge given the investment package that LBA is undergoing, with that will most likely come some pretty good commercial lawyers because like you say they need to protect their investment, even if there isn’t a direct threat to LBA it will make the commercial environment more challenging. I’m not sure whether MAG will do the same though, given their ownership model it might be seen to be a bit rich. I do expect other airport operators to jump in though, particularly the like of RCA who as we know were one of the ones who submitted evidence to the SAU.

Given Infrabridge were/are looking at a potential sale of LBA in the near term I suspect they will also be looking to take actions to mitigate risks to the value of their assets - yet another reason for potential competition challenge. https://ionanalytics.com/insights/infralogic/infrabridge-halts-newcastle-airport-stake-sale/
MAG who knows - given their ownership model has never been reliant on public funding it shouldn’t be a reason not to, however they have the scale and commercial clout to simply out bid DSA on every significant opportunity and drive a significant wedge into the viability of DSA particularly on the cargo side…

 

Oh I'm sure the public will be perfectly fine with it (the airlines won't however), until the cuts in council budgets come. Then that small loss will come sharply into focus. And it won't just be a "small loss" BTW, there will still be the matter of the £160 million or so spent on it plus any additional funds needed to keep the airport going down the line, AND the small operating loss. Let's hope for the Labour council's sake there isn't a political party to the right of centre, that would use all this to wipe them out at a future local election....

It is literal political suicide, Reform in Doncaster must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Reform must be stopped. If it was the cost of reopening a failed airport then hurry up and get DSA open! Only I think you’re right, this is only going to play right into their hands down the line and if we do see a Reform mayor at the next local elections it will throw the whole thing into doubt once again, not least because they’re so incompetent that the economy would tank. But if they really think reopening the airport will stop the rot they’re being incredibly naive.

The decision today will be a positive one, it’s effectively already been made and I can’t see their party colleagues in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley throwing a spanner in the works with it.

 

There's a lot of similarities between DSA and CWL. Similar types of operation, similar levels of struggles. The differences is that the Welsh Government stepped in and bought CWL before it closed, so they are the sole owner and operator of the Airport. As owner they are almost obliged to provide funding to keep it going and help it grow. The scrutiny is if it's actually viable to keep doing that and if it will ever be profitable, which BRS is currently contesting.
DSA actually closed down, and is being reopened with some help of public funding. The jobs had already been lost. Regional airports take a lot of funding to keep afloat, but there is prospect for profitability, look at EXT/NWI/BOH. The question is, how does it get there?

CWL as a going concern is currently struggling to attract new airlines. The airline pool in 2025 is much smaller than 10-20 years ago. Options are limited now and regional airlines are struggling, so that only really leaves the likes of Easyjet, Ryanair, Wizz, TUI and Jet2, all pretty well established at other nearby Airports to DSA and CWL. At CWL TUI only grew to 3 summer aircraft because Thomas Cook went bust, and will grow to 2 winter aircraft this winter and 4 summer aircraft in 2026, likely because of the effect of Jet2 at BRS. It's taken a long time to get to that.

Had DSA been kept going then it would've been a stronger case, but personally I don't understand why a failed Airport is being reopened when there's already a number of alternative Airports nearby

 

Reform must be stopped. If it was the cost of reopening a failed airport then hurry up and get DSA open! Only I think you’re right, this is only going to play right into their hands down the line and if we do see a Reform mayor at the next local elections it will throw the whole thing into doubt once again, not least because they’re so incompetent that the economy would tank. But if they really think reopening the airport will stop the rot they’re being incredibly naive.

The decision today will be a positive one, it’s effectively already been made and I can’t see their party colleagues in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley throwing a spanner in the works with it.

Opening DSA with the severe risk that it will fail will only act as ammunition for Reform, that is pretty much nailed on. It's exactly the kind of thing they will jump on, it's being reported elsewhere that they will go after the Northern Powerhouse Rail project if Labour pushes ahead. So DSA will be another project they will target as examples of bad use of public money (it doesn't matter to them if they are bad use or not, any public spending on big ticket items are likely to be targeted). And their supporters will lap it up, especially if CDC are forced into budget cuts in future whilst still propping up DSA, which is very possible in the current economic climate.

If SYMCA do go ahead today as expected, I feel certain Reform will start to use it as political ammunition almost immediately. And sadly it will gain traction.

 

trouble for you Karfa your not,

and there will be no legal challenge.

and we should we know soon enough , as they only have a month to make a legal challenge.

On 6 December 2024, the CMA accepted a referral from the City of Doncaster Council in respect of a proposed subsidy of up to £89.7m to Fly Doncaster Limited (a 100% owned Council subsidiary), in order to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport,

and it was published in jan 2025

so for those who don't get it, let me dumb it down a little.

imagine you have a grocery shop on the high street, you are doing ok and making a small profit every year. within 5 miles there are some other grocery shops as well, so it's a competitive market - there is a good level of competition. but you can cope and enough people still make the choice to come to you. this is a normal competitive market, there is no failure of the market here and everyone has a choice where to go and which grocery to use. competition also keeps the prices down as well.

now imagine the council just decides to support the opening of a new grocery store a few shops down from you. they get grants, subsidies, low interest loans etc. all at taxpayers expense. there is no need for a new grocery store, there are plenty within the area. no one needs it, and in fact that same shop was a grocery store before a few years ago, but it failed because not enough people used it and it never made a profit. suddenly you are not in a normal market, you are having to compete with a new grocery which is getting all sorts of handouts, whereas you are trying to operate as a normal private business - no one is giving you anything. maybe the new store may only take 5% of your customers, but that's your profit margin gone.

set aside all the laws around subsidies and unfair competition, is any of that fair on you? i think you would be looking to challenge that since it is so obviously completely unfair.

 

Funding approved as predicted, with a mention of MIA still. Interesting.

Good luck with the white elephant!

Doncaster Airport Moves Step Closer To Take-Off After Funding Agreed - City of Doncaster Council

www.doncaster.gov.uk

 

what a waste of tax payers money I get the feeling this will be a bumpy road ahead

 

Funding approved as predicted, with a mention of MIA still. Interesting.

Good luck with the white elephant!

Doncaster Airport Moves Step Closer To Take-Off After Funding Agreed - City of Doncaster Council

www.doncaster.gov.uk

They have made their choice so it is now sit back and watch it evolve. No doubt there will be a barrage of propaganda over the next couple of years but that, just like our own opinions, will not actually change the eventual outcome whatever that will be. OC did mention a while ago that he looked forward to working with MAI in the future so together with Ms Jones statement it looks as though they are still on the books.

what a waste of tax payers money I get the feeling this will be a bumpy road ahead

I think too it will be bumpy but it will be covered up as much as possible with spin and propaganda. If I were in the position they are now, I would do the same but I doubt it will change the outcome.

i sure the people of south yorkshire would be fine with a small loss.
there is an interesting article in the local paper tonight..
The withdrawal of Wizz Airlines due to later delivery of aircraft from Airbus “threw everything off track” and Peel’s board lost confidence.
DSA 2.0 would be different due to it being an aviation cluster “in all its forms” set to include university involvement, maintenance and repair, dismantling, training, aviation businesses and cargo.The rail link is really important to complement the great road connections. It needs to be progressed. Car parking and retail is a big source of revenue for any airport The airport was seen as crucial to South Yorkshire’s fortunes .passenger flying is important. It pays some of the overheads but is certainly not everything.
i think they just have to make it work this time and throw everthing they can atit. let companies build warehouses, factorys, etc there . there is no bigger space , with planning avaialble in the north of england.

Panattoni already built a huge warehouse adjacent to the airport?? I saw it advertised on the campaign site page as awaiting tenants. Its been built a while as I recall - still empty??

 

They have made their choice so it is now sit back and watch it evolve. No doubt there will be a barrage of propaganda over the next couple of years but that, just like our own opinions, will not actually change the eventual outcome whatever that will be. OC did mention a while ago that he looked forward to working with MAI in the future so together with Ms Jones statement it looks as though they are still on the books.


I think too it will be bumpy but it will be covered up as much as possible with spin and propaganda. If I were in the position they are now, I would do the same but I doubt it will to change the outcome.


Panattoni already built a huge warehouse adjacent to the airport?? I saw it advertised on the campaign site page as awaiting tenants. Its been built a while as I recall - still empty??

Certainly an answer we all expected, no doubt Champaign corks popping in certain car garages right now and mentions of knighthoods in the post.

Frankly this has to work now because the fallout from it would otherwise be catastrophic. I won’t go into detail but let’s just say there was bewilderment from certain quarters today that they don’t need.

I agree, this will be spin overload the like of which we saw 20 years ago, but it will depend in the next few weeks on whether a legal challenge is launched.

To the people suggesting this is an acceptance that Peel did the dirty, be careful what you wish for. Clearly SYMCAs external advisors have cautioned that they probably were correct but SYMCA think it’s ok to risk so much public money on it, cos it’s not their money is it and they won’t be around to take the wrap.

 

Certainly an answer we all expected, no doubt Champaign corks popping in certain car garages right now and mentions of knighthoods in the post.

Frankly this has to work now because the fallout from it would otherwise be catastrophic. I won’t go into detail but let’s just say there was bewilderment from certain quarters today that they don’t need.

I agree, this will be spin overload the like of which we saw 20 years ago, but it will depend in the next few weeks on whether a legal challenge is launched.

To the people suggesting this is an acceptance that Peel did the dirty, be careful what you wish for. Clearly SYMCAs external advisors have cautioned that they probably were correct but SYMCA think it’s ok to risk so much public money on it, cos it’s not their money is it and they won’t be around to take the wrap.

I believe the line “Success can not be measured on a P&L line, my measure of success is simple. Does this create growth and jobs? The answer is yes” was trotted at the meeting by Coppard.

Basically confirming that they aren’t bothered about it whether it makes money or how much it robs the taxpayer in South Yorkshire. I think the private sector and owners of nearby airports may disagree with the P&L line comment, when the private sector has to deliver a profit for shareholders.

I can’t see how those words would inspire any airline to take the risk. It’s like admitting it won’t make cash for the airport and if the airport doesn’t make a profit, the airlines sure as hell won’t!

 

No doubt CDC will spin the financials like the do for MME. it’s a yawn fest. 2.5 years of the airport stood empty.. alright,

What do you mean Sustainable aviation hub? Do you know how expensive saf fuel is and not many airlines are using yet!

What don’t you understand about minimal airlines have even given a hint of interest. Let’s sit back and watch the circus !

 

I believe the line “Success can not be measured on a P&L line, my measure of success is simple. Does this create growth and jobs? The answer is yes” was trotted at the meeting by Coppard.

Basically confirming that they aren’t bothered about it whether it makes money or how much it robs the taxpayer in South Yorkshire. I think the private sector and owners of nearby airports may disagree with the P&L line comment, when the private sector has to deliver a profit for shareholders.

I can’t see how those words would inspire any airline to take the risk. It’s like admitting it won’t make cash for the airport and if the airport doesn’t make a profit, the airlines sure as hell won’t!

They don’t. The submission to the SAU remains fundamentally unchanged. A significant amount allocated to this is based on loans to keep the airport afloat for a period of up to ten years, with breakeven forecast at Y5. I’m not sure if this has changed in the SYMCA document, I’ll have to re read it. However the SAU questioned the rationale behind loaning FlyDoncastef money to defer lease payments for x number of years when they forecast breakeven in a much shorter timeframe. This may or may not have been amended.

I’m also not aware of how the full decision played out, I know some of it was completed behind closed doors presumably for ‘commercial sensitivity’ reasons. However will the money be available as of now or has Coppard agreed to release the money in tranches over a set period? If the latter then I expect that we’ll see movements from 2Excel ramp up quite quickly, although I still expect there will be legal challenges mounted by competitors who will justifiably feel a bit put out by this. A lot of the fanfare today was pre planned for a reason, they want to get the public on side to try to ward off any litigation due to strength of public opinion, but I think they might have misjudged that somewhat.

As for the lease agreement, is it still an agreement in principle that Peel will reduce the performance targets? I did see something about them removing the 2031 targets but keeping the 2036 targets in place. This could be a mutual agreement to give the future SYMCA/CDC an ‘out’ if/when it becomes apparent that the airport is an expensive dead weight.

As for airlines, challenging times ahead by all accounts, it might not be the best time to be opening an airport. You can bet that if Reform do get in at the next GE then public spending of this nature will be shelved.

 

They don’t. The submission to the SAU remains fundamentally unchanged. A significant amount allocated to this is based on loans to keep the airport afloat for a period of up to ten years, with breakeven forecast at Y5. I’m not sure if this has changed in the SYMCA document, I’ll have to re read it. However the SAU questioned the rationale behind loaning FlyDoncastef money to defer lease payments for x number of years when they forecast breakeven in a much shorter timeframe. This may or may not have been amended.

I’m also not aware of how the full decision played out, I know some of it was completed behind closed doors presumably for ‘commercial sensitivity’ reasons. However will the money be available as of now or has Coppard agreed to release the money in tranches over a set period? If the latter then I expect that we’ll see movements from 2Excel ramp up quite quickly, although I still expect there will be legal challenges mounted by competitors who will justifiably feel a bit put out by this. A lot of the fanfare today was pre planned for a reason, they want to get the public on side to try to ward off any litigation due to strength of public opinion, but I think they might have misjudged that somewhat.

As for the lease agreement, is it still an agreement in principle that Peel will reduce the performance targets? I did see something about them removing the 2031 targets but keeping the 2036 targets in place. This could be a mutual agreement to give the future SYMCA/CDC an ‘out’ if/when it becomes apparent that the airport is an expensive dead weight.

As for airlines, challenging times ahead by all accounts, it might not be the best time to be opening an airport. You can bet that if Reform do get in at the next GE then public spending of this nature will be shelved.

It won’t need Reform to get in at the next GE…..Well before that there will be local elections which have the potential to fundamentally change the construct of both CDC and SYMCA even if Coppard remains in post…Unless there is some quick upside to this expect Reform to use this as a yet another example of Labour failure……