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...?

 

In actual fact, it wouldn't have happened because DSA didn't have Airbridges.
It still is a stupid statement.

 

In actual fact, it wouldn't have happened because DSA didn't have Airbridges.
It still is a stupid statement.

However as I see it there was not an airbridge involved. I'm sure one image showed a Swissport logo which would indicate airstairs.

 

Another scream on the #SaveDSA FB page, regarding the TUI 787 with its door ripped off, someone posted and was utter serious said it would of never happened at DSA. oh how you have to laugh at these utter morons. the same that states DSA was never effected by weather during a storm and it should be open to help LHR/BHX/LBA out with diversions.. don't make me laugh. the group are desperate and laughable.

lets open DSA spend millions of public money for it to fail again and shut in a year.. great. oh no silly me Jet2 are buying it hahha, give up

In fairness to those groups, they’re largely used by people that don’t even have a passing interest to the extent that we do, so how do they know that long runway doesn’t equal long haul flights, nor that what Peel led everyone to believe 20 years ago was actually a bit of a fallacy? I’ve seen the post in question, and it looks like one of the more sensible members has shut it down a bit.

The issue with those groups is that, faced with an engrained belief that the airport should be successful because of inconsequential things like runway length and accessibility to M18, then it makes it very easy to believe the narrative that it was mishandled or made to fail. Thats where it’s dangerous as far as public opinion is concerned, you certainly won’t see much of Peel outwardly challenging that, and York Aviation only passed comment because they were asked by the BBC to do so! This is why the narrative is potentially dangerous as on these groups it seems public opinion would effectively sanction the writing of a blank cheque to reopen it. I have friends and colleagues who have put their head above the parapet on there only to be shot down and have seemingly given up posting on those forums. Although there appears to be a silent majority in Doncaster who don’t really care, and if push came to shove would probably prefer the money went on something else, those people’s voices are drowned out by people that appear to feel very strongly about the situation to the point that they will happily throw anyone under a bus who doesn’t agree with their beliefs.

You can’t win.

 

However as I see it there was not an airbridge involved. I'm sure one image showed a Swissport logo which would indicate airstairs.

Yes it was parked on a remote stand and then attacked by the stairs, maybe DSA plan to use a rope ladder to avoid such mishaps.

 

I can't imagine there'd be one other area in the country where there wouldn't be a green lobby campaigning against the opening (reopening) of an airport. It seems reopening at all costs (environmental and financial) is the order of the day. Does South Yorkshire not have any active green lobby groups or taxpayer alliance groups?

 

I can't imagine there'd be one other area in the country where there wouldn't be a green lobby campaigning against the opening (reopening) of an airport. It seems reopening at all costs (environmental and financial) is the order of the day. Does South Yorkshire not have any active green lobby groups or taxpayer alliance groups?

I laughed when I read your post because I'm used to associating a "lobbyist" with the US political system where groups basically pay US political leaders to do what they want. In the UK this tends to be referred to more as "bribery". Do you mean to bribe or to persuade?

 

I can't imagine there'd be one other area in the country where there wouldn't be a green lobby campaigning against the opening (reopening) of an airport. It seems reopening at all costs (environmental and financial) is the order of the day. Does South Yorkshire not have any active green lobby groups or taxpayer alliance groups?

There has been one article highlighting opposition from Douglas Johnson, Green Party Ward Councillor Sheffield who has accused the proponents of ‘greenwashing’

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Greens claim 'failed' airport should not reopen during climate emergency

Almost £140m of taxpayers’ money should not be spent reopening a “failed” airport during a climate emergency, the leader of the Green Party in Sheffield has claimed.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

He’s probably not wrong. I’m interested to know how having a long runway has any positive implications on sustainable air transport, is it the understanding that there will be fewer flights on larger aircraft in future? If that is the case then unless other airports close there is no way DSA could fill a wide body to most popular destinations when it couldn’t on the A320/B738 series aircraft of previous ops. As he says in the article, alternative jet fuel is a long way off.

 

I’m interested to know how having a long runway has any positive implications on sustainable air transport

Interesting point. I seem to recall either Southampton or Birmingham airport stating that a longer runway would enable lower fuel consumption for aircraft on take-off.

 

Interesting point. I seem to recall either Southampton or Birmingham airport stating that a longer runway would enable lower fuel consumption for aircraft on take-off.

Possibly, but then runway length isn’t as much of a factor as would be climb performance and obstacle clearance. Can’t imagine there would be very much difference.

 

Possibly, but then runway length isn’t as much of a factor as would be climb performance and obstacle clearance. Can’t imagine there would be very much difference.

And if there is any beneficial saving its taken away by the requirement for passengers to travel from further afield to make the airport viable.

 

And if there is any beneficial saving its taken away by the requirement for passengers to travel from further afield to make the airport viable.

So basically mentioning any green value is a hollow gesture just to ensure support is maintained cos the reality is that they see it as a vital economic driver - which is intrinsically problematic as already discussed on here.

EDIT; just going back to my basic training I still don’t think a longer runway has any positive implications on fuel burn at all. In fact, they impose significant fuel penalties. Jet engines perform best at high RPM, of course this uses a bit more fuel (very slightly), but if you are taking off derate and climbing slowly, what you’re actually doing is taking longer to get to the point where the engines are most efficient, that being the cruising altitude! It may provide marginal advantages in terms of flap setting on take-off (I.e lower flap setting, less drag so improved fuel flow) but on balance the long runway is greener argument is horse droppings. Derate is used to prolong engine life, not save fuel!

 

Interesting point. I seem to recall either Southampton or Birmingham airport stating that a longer runway would enable lower fuel consumption for aircraft on take-off.

Remember it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts!

 

Interesting point. I seem to recall either Southampton or Birmingham airport stating that a longer runway would enable lower fuel consumption for aircraft on take-off.

Many years ago, when it was still possible, I had a flightdeck visit on an Air New Zealand B747-400. I asked about the departure performance from LHR and was told that because the runway was so long it only required 75% power, reducing engine wear, fuel burn and emissions.

 

Many years ago, when it was still possible, I had a flightdeck visit on an Air New Zealand B747-400. I asked about the departure performance from LHR and was told that because the runway was so long it only required 75% power, reducing engine wear, fuel burn and emissions.

Depends on what aircraft and engine type, but derate is used across the board including out of more performance restricted airports like LBA. I really don’t think it makes all that much difference, like I say the real fuel burn savings are provided in the flight levels where jet engines are happiest, so actually it’s best to get there as quickly as possible. The green argument for longer runways is nauseatingly hollow.

 

Mr Fletcher continues to entertain, link below
Mr fletcher -

MP launches 5 days of claims against mayor’s “radical green agenda​

 

Mr Fletcher continues to entertain, link below
Mr fletcher -

MP launches 5 days of claims against mayor’s “radical green agenda​

So based on his theory the two Mayor's will be working behind the scenes to ensure the airport doesn't reopen, therefore the whole thing would be for show, and votes? Frankly that doesn't sound plausible. It's obviously political posturing. The MP trying to undermine the Labour Mayors.

I'm sure all this in-fighting wont go unnoticed by any prospective Airport operators.

 

So based on his theory the two Mayor's will be working behind the scenes to ensure the airport doesn't reopen, therefore the whole thing would be for show, and votes? Frankly that doesn't sound plausible. It's obviously political posturing. The MP trying to undermine the Labour Mayors.

I'm sure all this in-fighting wont go unnoticed by any prospective Airport operators.

Whilst he is undoubtedly a pest and unfit for his role (this he knows hence the underhand electioneering tactics) he does have a point here.

When the strategic review was announced Oliver Coppard was quick to slate Peel for their reluctance to ‘open their books’ to SYMCA following their request for a loan or equity sale in the airport. I could be imagining it, but I’m pretty certain in the latter months of 2022 there was a document of minutes with the SYMCA decision to not grant the loan for numerous reasons, one being their own lack of surety that the airport would ever be profitable. I’ve looked back through this thread and whatever I was referring to then I didn’t link. What is strange, and this is highlighted in Nick Fletchers post, is that there was supposed to be a decision on the loan on 21st March 2022 (when Dan Jarvis was SY Mayor) it’s mentioned in a number of preceding meeting documents under case number D0024, but in the MCA board meeting on that date it gets zero mention, and there is no mention of it in subsequent minutes. Why is the decision not documented?

Like I say, I could have imagined seeing it on the SYMCA website originally, but I’m certain I have seen it on there and it’s not there now.

 

Whilst he is undoubtedly a pest and unfit for his role (this he knows hence the underhand electioneering tactics) he does have a point here.

When the strategic review was announced Oliver Coppard was quick to slate Peel for their reluctance to ‘open their books’ to SYMCA following their request for a loan or equity sale in the airport. I could be imagining it, but I’m pretty certain in the latter months of 2022 there was a document of minutes with the SYMCA decision to not grant the loan for numerous reasons, one being their own lack of surety that the airport would ever be profitable. I’ve looked back through this thread and whatever I was referring to then I didn’t link. What is strange, and this is highlighted in Nick Fletchers post, is that there was supposed to be a decision on the loan on 21st March 2022 (when Dan Jarvis was SY Mayor) it’s mentioned in a number of preceding meeting documents under case number D0024, but in the MCA board meeting on that date it gets zero mention, and there is no mention of it in subsequent minutes. Why is the decision not documented?

Like I say, I could have imagined seeing it on the SYMCA website originally, but I’m certain I have seen it on there and it’s not there now.

I don't think you imagined it and I feel sure there was reference to it in the airport Consultative committee minutes that I read after the closure was announced. Peel referred to the refusal of funds followed by the departure of Wizz as effectively being the final straw.

The fact there's no reference to it in the minutes of the SYMCA seems very odd and questionable. I've no doubt Nick Fletcher is correct in pointing out that the Mayor's contributed to the failure of the airport. They refused a £20m loan in return for equity shares from memory, and partly as a result are now sanctioning spending £138m to undo the outcome. Hardly what you'd call smart business!

 

I don't think you imagined it and I feel sure there was reference to it in the airport Consultative committee minutes that I read after the closure was announced. Peel referred to the refusal of funds followed by the departure of Wizz as effectively being the final straw.
The fact there's no reference to it in the minutes of the SYMCA seems very odd and questionable. I've no doubt Nick Fletcher is correct in pointing out that the Mayor's contributed to the failure of the airport. They refused a £20m loan in return for equity shares from memory, and partly as a result are now sanctioning spending £138m to undo the outcome. Hardly what you'd call smart business!

It was mentioned in the CC minutes but was never in detail of why the loan application or the discussions around equity were rebuffed by SYMCA. But I distinctly recall that one of the reasons was down to the viability of the site and how Peel were unable to provide any evidence that the business would ever become profitable, as you would expect to be made available due to use of public money!

The CC noted the agreement with Wizzair UK to base up to 3 aircraft which was reneged by the airline and not the airport like the supporters seem to want to believe. Commercial agreements with rebates are based on volume, so if the contract stipulated 3 aircraft and the airline only based one, they will not have been eligible for rebates with one aircraft. Unfortunately unless anyone has seen what these contracts look like it’s easy to create myths surrounding them and twist the narrative, much like Oliver Coppard appears to have done by saying Peel refused to ‘open their books’.

YVR loses $50 million on investment

YVR subsidiary chooses to sell its 65 per cent share in Liverpool John Lennon Airport back to the same company it bought it from.

www.richmond-news.com

The attached link to a news article over in Canada following the sale of Peel Airports back to the Peel Group in 2014 for an undisclosed sum paints an interesting picture, this was not reported in such a negative light over here in the U.K. at the time.

 

You are right. I did see it mentioned somewhere that they backed away after seeing it was not going to be sustainable and unable to show that it would become viable. Could it be somewhere on Bassetlaw or one in Nottinghamshire authority think had a real good write up.

I've said from the very start of this saga that the authorities knew/ were told that the airport was in a perilous position for a number of years before this review took place. So for them to tell/ lead on people constantly this past two years that they were unaware is absolutely disgusting and shocking beyond belief.