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 mechanic was on Calendar, said DSA was dead during the day, if they can get flights, it will double what the previous owners did. That is him in sunglasses in not so sunny Doncaster.

 

the mechanic was on Calendar, said DSA was dead during the day, if they can get flights, it will double what the previous owners did. That is him in sunglasses in not so sunny Doncaster.

What a terrible report. Where are the experts? I saw none on there.

All I saw were the two mayors talking the usual talk about economy flights global connectivity with little of any substance. One bloke who runs a car garage, A CAR GARAGE!! Telling Peel how to do their job properly and apparently completely misunderstanding the concept of based aircraft waves. Oh and some guy who suffers the indignity of a 45 minute drive to a profitable airport to work for a ground handling agent.

Where was the critical insight? Where was the middle ground? They did the token interview with an environmentalist who couldn’t even make a coherent argument against it. Truly embarrassing but what I’ve come to expect these days unfortunately.

 

What a terrible report. Where are the experts? I saw none on there.

All I saw were the two mayors talking the usual talk about economy flights global connectivity with little of any substance. One bloke who runs a car garage, A CAR GARAGE!! Telling Peel how to do their job properly and apparently completely misunderstanding the concept of based aircraft waves. Oh and some guy who suffers the indignity of a 45 minute drive to a profitable airport to work for a ground handling agent.

Where was the critical insight? Where was the middle ground? They did the token interview with an environmentalist who couldn’t even make a coherent argument against it. Truly embarrassing but what I’ve come to expect these days unfortunately.

Well he was right - a few flights morning and a dew flights evening and nothing in between! It is not rocket science to deduce that if they can get flights during the day they will have more passengers! However - it will not be as simple as he might want to imply!!
As mentioned in an earlier post there is going to be lots of this sort of propaganda but I doubt that it will have much effect on the outcomes. The airlines are wiser than that even if SYMCA are not so.

 

Well he was right - a few flights morning and a dew flights evening and nothing in between! It is not rocket science to deduce that if they can get flights during the day they will have more passengers! However - it will not be as simple as he might want to imply!!
As mentioned in an earlier post there is going to be lots of this sort of propaganda but I doubt that it will have much effect on the outcomes. The airlines are wiser than that even if SYMCA are not so.

It’s more the fact that the exact same things were being said over 20 years ago. They’re not just similar but the exact same things. People like Coppard remember it, the garage owner won’t remember it. Indeed a lot of the former airport staff won’t. You simply cannot do the same thing and expect different results.

I did see that look north had some form of aviation specialist on who seemed to caution that it won’t be plain sailing, but apart from that we have people who have no clue what they’re talking about influencing others into believing that something might just work next time. There’s been some quite petulant posts about it elsewhere by people who really should know better.

Whole thing is a sham. Some of my Doncaster based friends have a widely different view on the matter and are suggesting that there’s a lot, perhaps a silent majority, who really do not support this proposal.

 

It’s more the fact that the exact same things were being said over 20 years ago. They’re not just similar but the exact same things. People like Coppard remember it, the garage owner won’t remember it. Indeed a lot of the former airport staff won’t. You simply cannot do the same thing and expect different results.

I did see that look north had some form of aviation specialist on who seemed to caution that it won’t be plain sailing, but apart from that we have people who have no clue what they’re talking about influencing others into believing that something might just work next time. There’s been some quite petulant posts about it elsewhere by people who really should know better.

Whole thing is a sham. Some of my Doncaster based friends have a widely different view on the matter and are suggesting that there’s a lot, perhaps a silent majority, who really do not support this proposal.

I suppose one good thing to come out of this is that they can no longer play make believe airports. They will now have to start dealing with the harsh and fickle reality of a fast changing industry, where margins are tight and expenses mind-bogglingly big. So it's rapidly going to get a lot harder to hide behind cliches and made up titles, once they have the inevitable back-slapping PR days they are going to have to start to produce results. And by results I don't just mean a lick of paint on the façade, or a bloke walking around the apron in a hi-viz vest. They are going to have to demonstrate that they can actually get value from the £160M of public funds now committed to the project. And the rest of the money they will almost certainly have to find from Doncaster's tax payers.... (I wonder if anyone has told them they might have to find more yet?)

I hope whoever takes the lead in this has a solid escape plan, preferably to a distant island with no extradition treaty with the UK...

 

You simply cannot do the same thing and expect different results.

I'm not sure they are expecting different results. The difference this time its a publicly owned utility where the motive is not to generate a hurdle rate return on the investment but to stimulate jobs, inward investment and anchor wider the development. From a financial perspective it looks like they want to do this in a way that uses the funding allocated i.e. the overall site, including business rates from property, eventually generates enough free cash flow that the public sector doesn't need to keep topping it up. From what I can tell, in interviews, the SYMCA documents and the Q&A yesterday, there is a clear acknowledgment that both the airport revenues and property revenues might not be enough, but they believe on balance the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Doing the same thing that doesn't work again in the hope it will work next time is a sign of madness.

Reopening DSA is a perfect example.

City status has gone to their heads in Doncaster. Delusions of grandeur. A vanity project. They're about to learn the hard way that blowing £160m in the vain hope they will attract investment is a pipe dream. In a few years time these politicians are going to have to answer to their critics .

 

Well he was right - a few flights morning and a dew flights evening and nothing in between! It is not rocket science to deduce that if they can get flights during the day they will have more passengers!

Peel sat there thinking
"more flights during the day? why didn't we think of that?"

 

What a terrible report. Where are the experts? I saw none on there.

All I saw were the two mayors talking the usual talk about economy flights global connectivity with little of any substance. One bloke who runs a car garage, A CAR GARAGE!! Telling Peel how to do their job properly and apparently completely misunderstanding the concept of based aircraft waves. Oh and some guy who suffers the indignity of a 45 minute drive to a profitable airport to work for a ground handling agent.

Where was the critical insight? Where was the middle ground? They did the token interview with an environmentalist who couldn’t even make a coherent argument against it. Truly embarrassing but what I’ve come to expect these days unfortunately.

Spot on @pug.

They won’t want industry experts talking to the press because it won’t fit the narrative of “Peel bad, CDC/SYMCA good”. There’s probably an element of experts also not wanting to talk out as normally it results in the mechanic leading a witch hunt with his expert knowledge in an industry he’s never had any role within. Let alone a senior position.

The real work starts now and when they have no airlines signed up, bar a very small TUI offering, then questions will quickly be asked. Interesting to see them continue to hide behind the “commercial confidentiality” excuse, but it doesn’t stop them answering as to why a number of airlines have already publicly said no and how they intend to get around that.

 

I'm not sure they are expecting different results. The difference this time its a publicly owned utility where the motive is not to generate a hurdle rate return on the investment but to stimulate jobs, inward investment and anchor wider the development. From a financial perspective it looks like they want to do this in a way that uses the funding allocated i.e. the overall site, including business rates from property, eventually generates enough free cash flow that the public sector doesn't need to keep topping it up. From what I can tell, in interviews, the SYMCA documents and the Q&A yesterday, there is a clear acknowledgment that both the airport revenues and property revenues might not be enough, but they believe on balance the benefits outweigh the risks.

Fundamentally they are trying to achieve the exact same result as Peels vision in the early to mid 2000’s. So effectively they are expecting the same results by doing ten same thing only with a far more high risk model in trying to achieve it.

They are downplaying the risks, yesterday’s window dressing was a case in point. They had this planned for weeks, they know which way the decision was going to go, and Coppards answers to pertinent questions were vague and designed to encourage people to just ‘support this thing because otherwise confidence will be lost’. They wanted this and so they want to make it make sense. Thats problematic.

 

My main observation from that video, was if only people spent time on dental care, rather than white elephants

 

and....I'm sorry but I'm old fashioned - learn to fasted the top button on their shirts and how to properly wear a tie.

 

I'm not sure they are expecting different results. The difference this time its a publicly owned utility where the motive is not to generate a hurdle rate return on the investment but to stimulate jobs, inward investment and anchor wider the development. From a financial perspective it looks like they want to do this in a way that uses the funding allocated i.e. the overall site, including business rates from property, eventually generates enough free cash flow that the public sector doesn't need to keep topping it up. From what I can tell, in interviews, the SYMCA documents and the Q&A yesterday, there is a clear acknowledgment that both the airport revenues and property revenues might not be enough, but they believe on balance the benefits outweigh the risks.

I think that is most certainly the plan and the strategy. The risk is downplayed but OC knows it is significant I guess he hopes the crunch point will be kicked far enough down the road so he is no longer around and will be disguised with propaganda and the usual ambiguity.

 

Good news for anyone who thinks it should be up to local people to decide whether they have major infrastructure nearby or not.
Being South Yorkshire born and bred, I have followed this story with some interest. Sheffield is currently the biggest city in the country not to have its own airport.
I cannot believe the amount of vitriol that has been levelled at this project from some quarters. Obviously proponents of Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands Airports would rather there wasn't competition nearby (though EMA is actually far closer to BHX than it is to DSA).
But it goes deeper than that. Peel Airports, a private company, threw in the towel in 2022 and said that it was impossible to make DSA profitable. The first assumption is that if Peel couldn't make it work, nobody can. cf Tees-side Airport, which is recovering quite nicely thank you since Peel sold it.
But there is a bigger assumption, rooted in this "Private Sector always does things better" nonsense, which has largely held sway since the Thatcher era. The fact is, the Private Sector is good at sacking people and apparently making money in the short term by cutting costs, but profits always come before everything else, including long-term strategy and, as a result, viability.
Challenge this idolatry (for that's what it is) at your peril. But forty years on from Thatcher flogging off the state assets to her rich friends, people are starting to question whether it has delivered what it promised. As far as UK airports go, the "Free Market" has delivered us a Heathrow which is way overloaded and "needs" (apparently) a third runway, while most of the country would rather fly from their local airport.

 

Good news for anyone who thinks it should be up to local people to decide whether they have major infrastructure nearby or not.
Being South Yorkshire born and bred, I have followed this story with some interest. Sheffield is currently the biggest city in the country not to have its own airport.
I cannot believe the amount of vitriol that has been levelled at this project from some quarters. Obviously proponents of Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands Airports would rather there wasn't competition nearby (though EMA is actually far closer to BHX than it is to DSA).
But it goes deeper than that. Peel Airports, a private company, threw in the towel in 2022 and said that it was impossible to make DSA profitable. The first assumption is that if Peel couldn't make it work, nobody can. cf Tees-side Airport, which is recovering quite nicely thank you since Peel sold it.
But there is a bigger assumption, rooted in this "Private Sector always does things better" nonsense, which has largely held sway since the Thatcher era. The fact is, the Private Sector is good at sacking people and apparently making money in the short term by cutting costs, but profits always come before everything else, including long-term strategy and, as a result, viability.
Challenge this idolatry (for that's what it is) at your peril. But forty years on from Thatcher flogging off the state assets to her rich friends, people are starting to question whether it has delivered what it promised. As far as UK airports go, the "Free Market" has delivered us a Heathrow which is way overloaded and "needs" (apparently) a third runway, while most of the country would rather fly from their local airport.

Firstly, Sheffield maybe the biggest city without an airport, but it has 3 within an hours drive. What stops the next largest city without one now demanding that they should have one? As it is, the UK actually has far too many airports for the amount of journeys made. Although aviation is currently growing, there are some very strong headwinds with the economy and I’d expect a large contraction to happen in the near future.

Secondly, please feel free to explain how Teesside is profitable and doing well? Last check it was still massively in debt to money loaned by the taxpayer and was still found to be making a loss (even if the mayor attempted to pull the wool). It’s been discussed on here at great length around the extents Peel went to try and make DSA work, especially as it was in there interest. Stop believing the lies and myths peddled by a mechanic and politicians. Peel may have closed the airport but not without good reason and not without many years of throwing the kitchen sink at it to make it viable. As mentioned above, please feel free to explain what CDC/SYMCA will do differently this time?

As for the rest about private and public sector, well I’m not even sure that’s worth answering. I hope you are looking forward to your council tax shooting up and being stuck with a millstone round South Yorkshire’s neck. If your so against private sector investment, you probably won’t want any of the inward private investment for the region that Coppard hopes this generates?

 

Good news for anyone who thinks it should be up to local people to decide whether they have major infrastructure nearby or not.
Being South Yorkshire born and bred, I have followed this story with some interest. Sheffield is currently the biggest city in the country not to have its own airport.
I cannot believe the amount of vitriol that has been levelled at this project from some quarters. Obviously proponents of Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands Airports would rather there wasn't competition nearby (though EMA is actually far closer to BHX than it is to DSA).
But it goes deeper than that. Peel Airports, a private company, threw in the towel in 2022 and said that it was impossible to make DSA profitable. The first assumption is that if Peel couldn't make it work, nobody can. cf Tees-side Airport, which is recovering quite nicely thank you since Peel sold it.
But there is a bigger assumption, rooted in this "Private Sector always does things better" nonsense, which has largely held sway since the Thatcher era. The fact is, the Private Sector is good at sacking people and apparently making money in the short term by cutting costs, but profits always come before everything else, including long-term strategy and, as a result, viability.
Challenge this idolatry (for that's what it is) at your peril. But forty years on from Thatcher flogging off the state assets to her rich friends, people are starting to question whether it has delivered what it promised. As far as UK airports go, the "Free Market" has delivered us a Heathrow which is way overloaded and "needs" (apparently) a third runway, while most of the country would rather fly from their local airport.

Firstly, a lot of the cynicism aimed at this project is because regardless of the Peel conspiracy theories, Peel threw £230 million at DSA over 17 years. Not once did the airport come anywhere close to breaking even. It wasn't that Peel wanted it to fail, it was because airlines couldn't sell enough seats to keep enough interest in flying from there. And in aviation, that's a big problem because it's an expensive business with fine margins for profit. None of this is in dispute other than on certain social media platforms.

As for the idea that the public sector might do it better, take a look around at big ticket infrastructure projects such as HS2. What makes you think that a bunch of local councillors with practically no experience are going do better? Sure they talk big about "global connectivity" brining investment in, and building a "sustainable aviation hub". But what airlines are going to be flying in the globe's business community to Doncaster? And what exactly is a sustainable aviation hub anyway? They don't have any answers other than maybe Tui will have a few bucket n spade flights a day or some cargo companies might move from EMA. The rest is pure aspirational, and as I'm sure many people on these forums who actually work in the industry will tell you is highly unlikely. Even CDC have massively downgraded their expectations from breaking even in 2030 to maybe some time in the 2050s, and benefit cost ratio slashed from 9:1 to 2:1. That really starts to tell a story, going from profits within a decade to "maybe never".

CDC are going to face exactly the same issues Peel did, that is there are not enough passengers. The difference is that Peel at this point have nothing to lose, they can carry raking in the lease. CDC not only have to stump up the start-up money, but cover any future investments and year on year operational losses. And by CDC I mean Doncaster council tax payers. Because the private sector, where the kind of money you need investing into something like this is, simply isn't interested because they don't see it making a profit. And you need serious money for airports because they can quickly become money pits, just ask Berlin!

Put simply Doncaster is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe 30,40, 50 years ago it could have beaten East Midlands or Leeds Bradford, and maybe even have eaten into Manchester's share. But the latter is simply light years ahead of DSA and spending billions in upgrades, and even the former are busily investing in capacity upgrades. Airlines are already re-evaluating the future operations, Tui for example are increasing the use of third party carriers for their short haul holidays (I know I booked a holiday with them this year and spent time working out a timing that wasn't on Ryanair), Jet2 are pulling seats on some routes, even legacy carriers are revising their future plans especially on Trans-Atlantic routes. But then CDC know all this, don't they...??

 

Good news for anyone who thinks it should be up to local people to decide whether they have major infrastructure nearby or not.
Being South Yorkshire born and bred, I have followed this story with some interest. Sheffield is currently the biggest city in the country not to have its own airport.
I cannot believe the amount of vitriol that has been levelled at this project from some quarters. Obviously proponents of Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands Airports would rather there wasn't competition nearby (though EMA is actually far closer to BHX than it is to DSA).
But it goes deeper than that. Peel Airports, a private company, threw in the towel in 2022 and said that it was impossible to make DSA profitable. The first assumption is that if Peel couldn't make it work, nobody can. cf Tees-side Airport, which is recovering quite nicely thank you since Peel sold it.
But there is a bigger assumption, rooted in this "Private Sector always does things better" nonsense, which has largely held sway since the Thatcher era. The fact is, the Private Sector is good at sacking people and apparently making money in the short term by cutting costs, but profits always come before everything else, including long-term strategy and, as a result, viability.
Challenge this idolatry (for that's what it is) at your peril. But forty years on from Thatcher flogging off the state assets to her rich friends, people are starting to question whether it has delivered what it promised. As far as UK airports go, the "Free Market" has delivered us a Heathrow which is way overloaded and "needs" (apparently) a third runway, while most of the country would rather fly from their local airport.

what a great post!!

 

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.

A dose of reality this morning for those at DSA who believe they will regain Eastern European services back with the current events over in Poland. I can see that these events will put a dent in city break and leisure demand in the short term and potentially longer term effects on all Polish market should this escalate any further.

The aviation industry is so fast paced, challenging and open to many different outside factors, be that Mother Nature, economic or even war. 3 years is a long time in aviation and target markets could be very much diminished by the time they are up and running.

 

One constant theme throughout this saga has been along the lines of 'some freight flights first, then passenger services later'. Leaving aside the passenger aspect, where are these freight flights coming from? Are they representing newly-found business or is it displaced activity from the likes of East Midlands and Stansted?

 

A dose of reality this morning for those at DSA who believe they will regain Eastern European services back with the current events over in Poland. I can see that these events will put a dent in city break and leisure demand in the short term and potentially longer term effects on all Polish market should this escalate any further.

The aviation industry is so fast paced, challenging and open to many different outside factors, be that Mother Nature, economic or even war. 3 years is a long time in aviation and target markets could be very much diminished by the time they are up and running.

Well they could be, of course. Or the outlook could be much brighter. Uncertainty goes both ways, surely. And no-one would do anything infrastructure related if the timeframe was just a few years. The UK aviation market is 40% bigger than it was in 2005 yet it's been through a global financial crisis, a worldwide pandemic, the biggest war in Europe since WW2 and a messy divorce from its major trading bloc. And yet here we are, a market that's 40% bigger than 20 years ago.