Doncaster Sheffield Airport Strategic Review Announcement

1658481558330.png

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...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I totally agree the figures the Council have put out are totally fantasy. The best bit is that this figure incorporates stuff well away from the airport and of no relevance to the airport. Why on earth they added these figures into the airports case I haven't got a clue. Other than to try and make it look more impressive than what it is.
 
I totally agree the figures the Council have put out are totally fantasy. The best bit is that this figure incorporates stuff well away from the airport and of no relevance to the airport. Why on earth they added these figures into the airports case I haven't got a clue. Other than to try and make it look more impressive than what it is.
It’s quite easy to pluck a number out of thin air that sounds impressive and run with it. But like I’ve said previously, an industrial estate in Thorne has a greater impact on GVA/GDP than the best case scenario for DSA.

What they’re basically saying is that DSA is a gateway to the world that has been purposefully or inadvertently managed to destruction. Rubbish, obviously but they’re playing catch up as for the past 20 years they’ve let other people get on with it and trusted implicitly that they know what they’re doing. Funny thing when it doesn’t go their way isn’t it.
 
Still amazes me when people who have power slag of Peel, the very people they are currently in negotiations with.

Still amazes me when people who have power slag of Peel, the very people they are currently in negotiations with.

Joke isn’t it. Anyone would think he’s not all that bothered about reopening the airport, just to apportion blame instead. In fairness he’s not really involved in the discussions, that’s the job of Ros Jones and the Council, he’s just there to help fund whatever scheme they dream up to get it reopened.

Heard from numerous people that current consensus is Ros Jones had been advised to tone it down a bit cos there isn’t enough money. This is completely unverified of course, but I’m surprised we haven’t been told about a successful lease agreement being reached yet, maybe tomorrow….
 
Joke isn’t it. Anyone would think he’s not all that bothered about reopening the airport, just to apportion blame instead. In fairness he’s not really involved in the discussions, that’s the job of Ros Jones and the Council, he’s just there to help fund whatever scheme they dream up to get it reopened.

Heard from numerous people that current consensus is Ros Jones had been advised to tone it down a bit cos there isn’t enough money. This is completely unverified of course, but I’m surprised we haven’t been told about a successful lease agreement being reached yet, maybe tomorrow….
As you say - don't think he has an holistic handle on the situation. Working on a business plan which must be tenuous at least. Fashionable to blame Peel for everything but the remaining 'investors' will be aware of the real life situation regardless of the blame game and 'creative' propaganda if they are big players and I wonder if it might be a case of the Council trying to persuade one of them to take it on rather than them competing for the privilege. The term 'investor' has been used from the start but I still cannot get my head around who would invest in something that they don't own. I'm sure that to render it 'risk free' for the 'investor is going to take an awful lot of money - probably too much as alluded to in your post.
 
As you say - don't think he has an holistic handle on the situation. Working on a business plan which must be tenuous at least. Fashionable to blame Peel for everything but the remaining 'investors' will be aware of the real life situation regardless of the blame game and 'creative' propaganda if they are big players and I wonder if it might be a case of the Council trying to persuade one of them to take it on rather than them competing for the privilege. The term 'investor' has been used from the start but I still cannot get my head around who would invest in something that they don't own. I'm sure that to render it 'risk free' for the 'investor is going to take an awful lot of money - probably too much as alluded to in your post.
I feel I must be even more precise, knowing there are those with very tenuous grasps on reality reading these threads - they’d try to pick holes in space! It won’t even be Ros Jones leading the talks, obviously the council will have suitably qualified legal/execs dealing with these discussions on her/Councils behalf.

What I can’t get my head around is why Oliver Coppard would continue to toe the line regarding Peel being to blame for closing the airport. I won’t bothering mentioning Nick Fletcher as the blokes a nutcase who knows his days in parliament are probably numbered and using deflection and blame tactics to score political points. Oliver however at least appears to have something about him.

It was Oliver’s predecessor who declined an invitation to loan or purchase equity in DSA in return for £20million. What doesn’t get mentioned is that they refused to do so because it was irresponsible use of public funds. Peel couldn’t convince them that the business was going to become profitable and make good of their proposed investment. I know it’s old news but why aren’t they being honest about this? Peel again retaining a dignified silence when they could quite rightly challenge these myths publicly.

Like you Golfox, I also wonder whether this is a case of a private sector airport operator(s) being interested in ‘investing’ or whether they have entered the race to potentially score a lucrative contract to operate DSA on behalf of the Council at no financial risk to themselves. Perhaps though, like you say it might be the Council themselves trying to convince these businesses to invest, in which case they’re probably flogging a dead horse. Perhaps they’re so adamant the business was mismanaged that another suitable operator would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on it, in which case I find it very unlikely to work out in favour of reopening.

So yes, as we’ve been saying for months, it will come down purely to how much is available to an operator to make sure the airport can establish itself without the private sector having to dig deep - if at all.. The Full Outline Business Case (it’s not clear whether this has been submitted yet, Oliver just mentions the Outline Business Case in this interview) needs to be submitted in order to get the funding released. It will need to be scrutinised by Central Government to ensure the authority are spending money wisely. It’s not clear where the money is coming from nor how much is required and how much it will be. I would expect this will need to be made public in due course.

Peel certainly are not going to lose out whatever happens, that is for sure.
 
I think Oliver is optimistic thinking it could be open this time next year.
If hoping they will get an operator to take it on by later this year, there is the time to get the infrastructure back in place and attract airlines that do their planning 2-3 years in advance.
The longer this fiasco carries on, the less likely they will attract the paying passenger back to it.
Mind you, a neighbour said they wish it was open as they enjoyed flying from there - twice a year!

As I have said before, I'm glad I don't pay my council tax to DBC.
 
I think Oliver is optimistic thinking it could be open this time next year.
If hoping they will get an operator to take it on by later this year, there is the time to get the infrastructure back in place and attract airlines that do their planning 2-3 years in advance.
The longer this fiasco carries on, the less likely they will attract the paying passenger back to it.
Mind you, a neighbour said they wish it was open as they enjoyed flying from there - twice a year!

As I have said before, I'm glad I don't pay my council tax to DBC.
I would say wildly optimistic bordering on deluded.

Not only the infrastructure required, some of which was NOT in place before, such as the latest security scanners now required, but recruit ATC, recruit a fire team capable of handling the traffic, recruit and train security staff (all of whom have to first get Home Office approval after security checks), secure the services of handling agents such as Swissport who themselves need to recruit , obtain security clearance and train staff, recruit all other airport staff who also need training, secure the services of the local Police, and various others. They might not find that easy. Would for example, an established ATC officer give up a secure job elsewhere to take the risk of a transfer to a new DSA after what's happened? It's a risk and not everyone wants to uproot family to relocate.

Then there's all the retail - new contracts to let, shops, bars etc to fit out, staff to recruit.

I'm sure too that approval from the CAA will be needed and then there's DSA airspace to sort out ....

The list goes on.
 
Mind you, a neighbour said they wish it was open as they enjoyed flying from there - twice a year!
I have absolutely no doubt DSA was useful for many people, but the fact of the matter remains that the airports catchment is not as large as they suggest it is and cearly, people were not finding the journey across to Manchester as much of a hindrance to switch in their droves to DSA in the 20 years it was operating.
 
The term 'investor' has been used from the start but I still cannot get my head around who would invest in something that they don't own.

It's actually quite common. Locally, the arena in Leeds for example is owned by Leeds City Council but they lease it to ASM Global. In Australia, I believe a number of the larger airports are owned by the states by operated under long-term lease agreements. The appeal to the operator is that they don't have to incur that capital outlay of buying, developing the site.

In this specific case, there would an extra part involved as the council don't own the land. So Peel as the landowner will simply want rent from the council that is equivalent to what they could earn from developing and renting out industrial / logistics units on the site. Presumably with some adjustment for the fact they won't have the initial outlay of having to build any units. Of course that then ties the council (as the tenant) into paying that amount whether they have an airport operator on board or not. So the council will want an airport operator to sign up for a lease which is on equivalent terms to their own lease with Peel. So you can see why it will start to get complicated !
 
It's actually quite common. Locally, the arena in Leeds for example is owned by Leeds City Council but they lease it to ASM Global. In Australia, I believe a number of the larger airports are owned by the states by operated under long-term lease agreements. The appeal to the operator is that they don't have to incur that capital outlay of buying, developing the site.

In this specific case, there would an extra part involved as the council don't own the land. So Peel as the landowner will simply want rent from the council that is equivalent to what they could earn from developing and renting out industrial / logistics units on the site. Presumably with some adjustment for the fact they won't have the initial outlay of having to build any units. Of course that then ties the council (as the tenant) into paying that amount whether they have an airport operator on board or not. So the council will want an airport operator to sign up for a lease which is on equivalent terms to their own lease with Peel. So you can see why it will start to get complicated !
I can't help but think that whilst all this goes on, with people slagging off Peel, they, maintain their dignified silence, sit back, and watch the Council tie themselves in knots , knowing that either way they won't really lose out. Somehow I dont think that will apply to the Council if they go ahead and spend huge amounts on a scheme that's failed once and has a better than evens chance of failing again for all the same reasons.
 
It's actually quite common. Locally, the arena in Leeds for example is owned by Leeds City Council but they lease it to ASM Global. In Australia, I believe a number of the larger airports are owned by the states by operated under long-term lease agreements. The appeal to the operator is that they don't have to incur that capital outlay of buying, developing the site.

In this specific case, there would an extra part involved as the council don't own the land. So Peel as the landowner will simply want rent from the council that is equivalent to what they could earn from developing and renting out industrial / logistics units on the site. Presumably with some adjustment for the fact they won't have the initial outlay of having to build any units. Of course that then ties the council (as the tenant) into paying that amount whether they have an airport operator on board or not. So the council will want an airport operator to sign up for a lease which is on equivalent terms to their own lease with Peel. So you can see why it will start to get complicated !
What I find interesting in the whole thing is, whilst Peel were operating the airport they were clearly open to sharing equity with either the local Mayoral authority or with other investment firms. The sale to Vantage is an example of this, as is the corporate structure of Liverpool airport. That nobody else appears to have willingly entered into a shared ownership of the site to me speaks volumes. I don’t know, perhaps Peel are difficult to work with, but then again the LPL example would suggest not. So why then are the Council poised to do a better job given, as you say, Peel will still be the landlord? I fear it all come down again to access to funding. The risk will fall squarely on the Council and by virtue of that, the local tax payer. For this reason I don’t think your example of the Leeds Arena is relevant in any way. That is a successful venue managed by an experienced operator on behalf of the Council. This doesn’t compare.

For all the talk of it being a vital piece of national infrastructure (note that the NPAS fixed wing operation have this week announced their new permanent base at EMA), their argument for it being so are tenuous at best. Coppard even mentions in the interview linked to above that it used to be a Space Shuttle Abort Landing Site. For a start, the Space Shuttle program ended years ago, it’s a bit like saying it’s a vital nuclear deterrent cos it used to be a V-Bomber base. But even then I have never found any solid evidence of it being a space shuttle abort site other than an entry in Wikipedia which is in itself open to anyone editing information in there. Fairford was the official trans orbital abort site in the U.K. If they are forced to use outdated information to determine its reason detre, it doesn’t bode well does it?

I’d be all for the sort of public/private partnerships that you allude to in your post, in fact in many ways they add benefit as things like what Peel have done would be kept in check. But the point remains, without Peel there would be a prison on the site now. Nobody else saw benefit in building an airport there, and their risk in doing so did not pay off. This is not a vital piece of infrastructure, there are numerous alternatives within 50 miles, it’s a failed business and it’s sorry life is being dragged out by a local authority adamant it must have an airport in order to be a city in the truest sense.
 
Last edited:
And so it continues - a few cracks seem to be emerging now. Potential operators look to be increasingly worried about set up costs- hardly surprising given the airport’s history and the fact that due to inflation these will have increased significantly since the airport closed. OC also acknowledging the significant pubic sums needed to even get operators interested and the hurdles needed to get this investment.
 

The above link is a fairly recent document created by Sheffield City Council outlining ‘Gainshare’ that Ros Jones keeps talking about as the source of funding to reopen DSA.

It’s quite a (purposefully) complex topic that I cant pretend to fully understand, however following Ros Jones most recent announcement today that work is still ongoing (what’s new?) to reopen the airport.

In the link notice the amount available to City of Doncaster Council per year, Capital and Revenue combined amounts to £5.7million-ish. The total over a period of 30 years is £146million. There does appear to be another nominal sum allocated to the Mayoral Combined Authority of £94million for Capital and £62million revenue. I’m not sure what Capital and Revenue refers to in this context. Could CDC be asking for this advance?

If gainshare is the source of funding this scheme, then I would be quite confident to believe that the cost would wipe out any the vast majority of the gainshare allocated to CDC over the next 30 years. Is it perhaps the case that Ros Jones is trying to collude with SYMCA to draw down Gainshare from the entire South Yorkshire pot? Even then this is worth only £30million a year.

Not sure how often this money is available, is it in tranches of 5 years for example? Perhaps someone on here could read the document and understand it? As if this genuinely is where the money is supposedly coming from, and the other pots of money for transport are allocated on the Tram renewal, I cannot see how this will progress..
 
Last edited:

The above link is a fairly recent document created by Sheffield City Council outlining ‘Gainshare’ that Ros Jones keeps talking about as the source of funding to reopen DSA.

It’s quite a (purposefully) complex topic that I cant pretend to fully understand, however following Ros Jones most recent announcement today that work is still ongoing (what’s new?) to reopen the airport.

In the link notice the amount available to City of Doncaster Council per year, Capital and Revenue combined amounts to £5.7million-ish. The total over a period of 30 years is £146million. There does appear to be another nominal sum allocated to the Mayoral Combined Authority of £94million for Capital and £62million revenue. I’m not sure what Capital and Revenue refers to in this context. Could CDC be asking for this advance?

If gainshare is the source of funding this scheme, then I would be quite confident to believe that the cost would wipe out any the vast majority of the gainshare allocated to CDC over the next 30 years. Is it perhaps the case that Ros Jones is trying to collude with SYMCA to draw down Gainshare from the entire South Yorkshire pot? Even then this is worth only £30million a year.

Not sure how often this money is available, is it in tranches of 5 years for example? Perhaps someone on here could read the document and understand it? As if this genuinely is where the money is supposedly coming from, and the other pots of money for transport are allocated on the Tram renewal, I cannot see how this will progress..
From my reading of this, and in particular para 4.2.2, the money is available in 5 year tranches, with projects within each tranche needing Government approval before funds can be allocated. Once allocated the Council should be confident that their annual allocation will be available to cover any expenditure up to the agreed limit and beyond that CDC would need to fund the rest.

I can't see anything to suggest that they can draw down funding (or get Government approval to do so) beyond the 5 year period and IF that's the case then I cant see how CDC can acquire approval to use their funding allocation beyond 5 years which I guess is £28.5m, but that's split between Capital and Revenue. My understanding (I may be wrong, but I'm thinking back to my time as a Capital Projects Manager in the Civil Service) is that Capital relates to longer term expenditure , so infrastructure, equipment, vehicles buildings etc. so again I would guess that the amount available to CDC would be limited according to what they are wanting to spend it on. I doubt for example, that they could use a Capital allocation to underwrite an airport operators costs but possibly they could do that using the Revenue allocation which is for shorter term costs such as salaries, running costs etc.

So, it would suggest CDC might, subject to Government approval of the list submitted by the SYMCA, be able to secure up to £28.5m over the next 5 years as their Gainshare allocation, split into a Capital and Revenue allocation and utilised for different elements of the project. Again, I may be wrong. It's not exactly clear!

Of course if they do so then that's used up the entire fund for 5 years in one go. Beyond 5 years, with the airport probably still loss making, where would the money come from to underwrite operator costs if that's part of any deal? The next 5 year tranches using their Revenue allocation? Again, subject to Government approval and, using funds that might be needed elsewhere. I'm not sure whether the cost of leasing the airport would sit within Capital or Revenue funding.

I can't help thinking that CDC may be in danger of putting all their eggs in the DSA basket chasing their vanity project , denying the city funding for any number of other much needed projects over time. I still think there's a big hole in that basket too with DSA mark 2 unlikely to do much better than DSA Mark 1.

It's also worth noting that projects are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and that funds are aimed at green developments , which some would argue is the exact opposite of opening an airport. The Capital allocation would, for example, probably be used to purchase a fleet of electric vehicles for the Council. Clearly CDC have other priorities but it will be interesting to see the Government view when the time comes !
 
Last edited:
From my reading of this, and in particular para 4.2.2, the money is available in 5 year tranches, with projects within each tranche needing Government approval before funds can be allocated. Once allocated the Council should be confident that their annual allocation will be available to cover any expenditure up to the agreed limit and beyond that CDC would need to fund the rest.

I can't see anything to suggest that they can draw down funding (or get Government approval to do so) beyond the 5 year period and IF that's the case then I cant see how CDC can acquire approval to use their funding allocation beyond 5 years which I guess is £28.5m, but that's split between Capital and Revenue. My understanding (I may be wrong, but I'm thinking back to my time as a Capital Projects Manager in the Civil Service) is that Capital relates to longer term expenditure , so infrastructure, equipment, vehicles buildings etc. so again I would guess that the amount available to CDC would be limited according to what they are wanting to spend it on. I doubt for example, that they could use a Capital allocation to underwrite an airport operators costs but possibly they could do that using the Revenue allocation which is for shorter term costs such as salaries, running costs etc.

So, it would suggest CDC might, subject to Government approval of the list submitted by the SYMCA, be able to secure up to £28.5m over the next 5 years as their Gainshare allocation, split into a Capital and Revenue allocation and utilised for different elements of the project. Again, I may be wrong. It's not exactly clear!

Of course if they do so then that's used up the entire fund for 5 years in one go. Beyond 5 years, with the airport probably still loss making, where would the money come from to underwrite operator costs if that's part of any deal? The next 5 year tranches using their Revenue allocation? Again, subject to Government approval and, using funds that might be needed elsewhere. I'm not sure whether the cost of leasing the airport would sit within Capital or Revenue funding.

I can't help thinking that CDC may be in danger of putting all their eggs in the DSA basket chasing their vanity project , denying the city funding for any number of other much needed projects over time. I still think there's a big hole in that basket too with DSA mark 2 unlikely to do much better than DSA Mark 1.

It's also worth noting that projects are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and that funds are aimed at green developments , which some would argue is the exact opposite of opening an airport. The Capital allocation would, for example, probably be used to purchase a fleet of electric vehicles for the Council. Clearly CDC have other priorities but it will be interesting to see the Government view when the time comes !
Thanks WH for your comprehensive explanation, makes perfect sense.

I expect then that when Ros Jones mentions Gainshare she is referring to the £94million Capital allocated to the MCA over the next 5 years? Therefore I suspect this is why the project has been called South Yorkshire Airport City, to drill down on the fact that it is of wider regional benefit than just to Doncaster.

None of us on the outside know the costs involved, CDC have hidden behind commercial confidentiality, so this is open to speculation. Could they reopen it on £20million Capital and then support the airport for up to 24 months using the revenue available? Is £20million an optimistic figure given the investment required to replace lost infrastructure and recommission things like ILS, ATC, perhaps Radar if this was brought in-house, replacement of vehicles for EV to appease the environmental aspect? Investment in staff and training, re-equip the terminal with necessary security apparatus.

We then of course have to ask what they are competing with in SYMCA remit regards funding. Is some of it already allocated to things like the tram replacement scheme? Led to believe this is from a different pot entirely. Would expect some kick back on a wider regional level if most or all of the money is used on this.

They really do seem to believe Perl have mismanaged it, would love to be a fly on the wall of the discussions taking place between their council legal/exec team and Peel!!
 
H
Thanks WH for your comprehensive explanation, makes perfect sense.

I expect then that when Ros Jones mentions Gainshare she is referring to the £94million Capital allocated to the MCA over the next 5 years? Therefore I suspect this is why the project has been called South Yorkshire Airport City, to drill down on the fact that it is of wider regional benefit than just to Doncaster.

None of us on the outside know the costs involved, CDC have hidden behind commercial confidentiality, so this is open to speculation. Could they reopen it on £20million Capital and then support the airport for up to 24 months using the revenue available? Is £20million an optimistic figure given the investment required to replace lost infrastructure and recommission things like ILS, ATC, perhaps Radar if this was brought in-house, replacement of vehicles for EV to appease the environmental aspect? Investment in staff and training, re-equip the terminal with necessary security apparatus.

We then of course have to ask what they are competing with in SYMCA remit regards funding. Is some of it already allocated to things like the tram replacement scheme? Led to believe this is from a different pot entirely. Would expect some kick back on a wider regional level if most or all of the money is used on this.

They really do seem to believe Perl have mismanaged it, would love to be a fly on the wall of the discussions taking place between their council legal/exec team and Peel!!
I can't help thinking they might be in for a shock when it comes to re-instatement costs. Just as an example,.installing the new (now required) security scanning equipment and body scanners will use up several million if the Capital allocation. . Purchasing Fire Fighting equipment a few more million . Re- instating the ILS and landing lights, a good few more million. And I'm sure the list of wants and needs will be a long one, quickly using up any allocation. They literally can't afford to miss out anything in their calculations as airport costs have a habit of being significant.

I remain unconvinced that the benefit to the wider region is anywhere near what they claim and I'm sure there would be some disquiet in Sheffield, Barnsley etc. if money they could have used is allocated to Doncaster instead to pour into a project that at best, is high risk. I can't help thinking that Government will be all over this like a rash if the Mayor submits a bid that uses the money in this way.
 
H
I can't help thinking they might be in for a shock when it comes to re-instatement costs. Just as an example,.installing the new (now required) security scanning equipment and body scanners will use up several million if the Capital allocation. . Purchasing Fire Fighting equipment a few more million . Re- instating the ILS and landing lights, a good few more million. And I'm sure the list of wants and needs will be a long one, quickly using up any allocation. They literally can't afford to miss out anything in their calculations as airport costs have a habit of being significant.

I remain unconvinced that the benefit to the wider region is anywhere near what they claim and I'm sure there would be some disquiet in Sheffield, Barnsley etc. if money they could have used is allocated to Doncaster instead to pour into a project that at best, is high risk. I can't help thinking that Government will be all over this like a rash if the Mayor submits a bid that uses the money in this way.
They are indeed Capital intensive investments, they also need ongoing investment to maintain standards of fixed assets and invest in new equipment quite frequently in line with technology/security requirements. Not cheap when you want to be a full service airport, which I assume is the plan for a reopened DSA. Need some serious business interest to be sustainable. Bet the four bidders invited to tender have some glossy brochures with promises of new terminals and hangars and models of packed ramps. Much like what Peel released a few years ago!
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

Jon Dempsey wrote on HPsauce's profile.
Hi, I was born and lived in B36 for a long time - Lindale Avenue, just around the corner from Hodge Hill Comp.
I just noticed your postcode on a post.

Do you still live in the area?
survived a redundancy scenario where I work for the 2nd time
If you’re tired of takeoffs, you’re tired of life.
49 trips undertaken last year. First done this year which was to North Wales where surprisingly the only slippery surfaces were in Conwy with the castle and it's walls closed due to the ice.
Aviador wrote on SNOWMAN's profile.
Thanks for the support @SNOWMAN

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker.