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...?

 

Maybe this is a Middle East and/or Ukraine V3. So many people can see it needs stopping but don't, or won't, have the b***s to really do anything to properly stop something that is so wrong. OK i agree we are talking very different circumstances and potential repercussions but I think you get the sentiment regarding silent opposition. Hence the dictator carries on regardless!

The problem here is that the council and SYMCA have dug themselves a hole with it by reacting in such a way back in 2022. They should have applied a more open approach in that they could have said ‘maybe it isn’t the best use of the land but we’ll look into it’ rather than the knee jerk reaction at the time which, it cannot be denied, helped sway public opinion, they have now tied themselves to the project by being held to ransom by that same public.

It seems that Ros Jones was pushing back on the difficult questions with accusations of a lack of support for what the people and businesses of Doncaster want. This is the problem, anyone who legitimately questions the decision will be called a traitor to Doncaster and no councillor would feel comfortable with that particular tag, it’s why I think it needs to come from SYMCA.

 

I play golf with a couple of lads from the Doncaster area. Both have expressed concern to me about DSA being re-opened and the cost, and both feel it will be an expensive white elephant . Neither used it much previously, flying from MAN, and EMA . I'm sure they are not alone, but if the attitude of the senior politicians pushing this is that councillors should ask no questions and shut up, (which effectively means that the public they represent must do the same) then it seems that this bonkers scheme will only be stopped by the South Yorkshire Mayor or Central Government.

I couldn't help thinking watching this video that the Mayor is in a crusade with this and isn't going to stop no matter what. Her attitude is very concerning, coming across that it's not the other Councillors business so not to ask or rock the boat.

Is there any one or any body out there who can see the risks and intervene, with a view to at the very least reviewing some if the crazy claims being made in order to justify this scheme?

I'm pretty convinced this is now little more than a crusade for Ros Jones and her DSA team. They seemed to put a lot of stock into in in the run up to local / national elections, but now both are past they seem just to be digging some very deep trenches for themselves, which is why other councillors and a growing number of local residents are picking up on.

Unfortunately it seems to be a bit of a trait for local, Labour leaders at the moment. Similar poorly judged projects have been seen in Bradford under Susan Hinchchliffe's stewardship, in particular with the Bradford Live project, which I do actually support but understand how badly the council has run it, leading to the costs growing rapidly and scaring away investors / operators. I think the same can be said of DSA, only with far more unrealistic profit expectations (bordering on pure fantasy), and of course a much higher cost to local council tax payers.

I can only imagine that Jones & Co are either frantically rubbing the magic lamp in the hope of a genie delivering them investors prepared to take on huge risk for little gain, or possibly slightly more realistically hoping for another body like SYMCA to step in a call time on it. The latter would also mean that CDC would then have a handy scapegoat for the failure of the project, which is always very important in political circles...

 

I'm pretty convinced this is now little more than a crusade for Ros Jones and her DSA team. They seemed to put a lot of stock into in in the run up to local / national elections, but now both are past they seem just to be digging some very deep trenches for themselves, which is why other councillors and a growing number of local residents are picking up on.

Unfortunately it seems to be a bit of a trait for local, Labour leaders at the moment. Similar poorly judged projects have been seen in Bradford under Susan Hinchchliffe's stewardship, in particular with the Bradford Live project, which I do actually support but understand how badly the council has run it, leading to the costs growing rapidly and scaring away investors / operators. I think the same can be said of DSA, only with far more unrealistic profit expectations (bordering on pure fantasy), and of course a much higher cost to local council tax payers.

I can only imagine that Jones & Co are either frantically rubbing the magic lamp in the hope of a genie delivering them investors prepared to take on huge risk for little gain, or possibly slightly more realistically hoping for another body like SYMCA to step in a call time on it. The latter would also mean that CDC would then have a handy scapegoat for the failure of the project, which is always very important in political circles...

I agree. I think Oliver Coppard is in a precarious position too. To cancel the project, or to call the viability into question, would instantly kill off any support he may have had in Doncaster. It mar well be that there is an investor waiting in the wings, but if there is I cannot fathom why this wasn’t mentioned in the FBC. The only thing I can think of now is that the reinstatement costs (£50-60 million?) are to be met my SYMCA under Capital and the 5 year losses (£10 million per year?) account for the 5 year operational losses and a bit more for marketing and other things. That would take them to the 5 year point by which point the can is kicked down the road and it either closes once again, CDC go to SYMCA with their begging bowl, or they get this investor confidence and it’s handed over to them. Reading the FBC that’s how I see it, and those costs would be contained within the £105million in Gainshare that is being proposed. Looks like CDC are paying over £1million per year in rent, wonder how much they’ll be paying the operator?

So I think it will reopen because they’re in too deep now, but by the time it gets to Y5 Ros Jones will have retired and OC Will have probably moved on in his political career. It’ll be their distant legacy.

I think Peel will be poised to take it back in 2031 if the passenger and cargo figures aren’t on course to be met and/or there is no private sector investment and losses remain unsustainable. The only hope now is that the councillors get more vocal in their questioning of the viability and request more transparency. OC has made it quite clear that they don’t want a flash in the pan operation and it has to have longevity, I imagine the CDC execs are now doubling over in their discussions with the preferred operator.

I note as if 8th November a new Company has been registered with Companies House under the title Flydoncaster Limitrd, its board currently made up of three Doncaster Council Execs.

 

I agree. I think Oliver Coppard is in a precarious position too. To cancel the project, or to call the viability into question, would instantly kill off any support he may have had in Doncaster. It mar well be that there is an investor waiting in the wings, but if there is I cannot fathom why this wasn’t mentioned in the FBC. The only thing I can think of now is that the reinstatement costs (£50-60 million?) are to be met my SYMCA under Capital and the 5 year losses (£10 million per year?) account for the 5 year operational losses and a bit more for marketing and other things. That would take them to the 5 year point by which point the can is kicked down the road and it either closes once again, CDC go to SYMCA with their begging bowl, or they get this investor confidence and it’s handed over to them. Reading the FBC that’s how I see it, and those costs would be contained within the £105million in Gainshare that is being proposed. Looks like CDC are paying over £1million per year in rent, wonder how much they’ll be paying the operator?

So I think it will reopen because they’re in too deep now, but by the time it gets to Y5 Ros Jones will have retired and OC Will have probably moved on in his political career. It’ll be their distant legacy.

I think Peel will be poised to take it back in 2031 if the passenger and cargo figures aren’t on course to be met and/or there is no private sector investment and losses remain unsustainable. The only hope now is that the councillors get more vocal in their questioning of the viability and request more transparency. OC has made it quite clear that they don’t want a flash in the pan operation and it has to have longevity, I imagine the CDC execs are now doubling over in their discussions with the preferred operator.

I note as if 8th November a new Company has been registered with Companies House under the title Flydoncaster Limitrd, its board currently made up of three Doncaster Council Execs.

FlyDoncaster, sounds like the working title for a new sitcom...

Seriously though, even though CDC might be a way down the road with this project they should never consider themselves too deep in to reverse it if it looks like it is not going to work. Much bigger national projects have been canned at short notice when costs have got out of control, so this ought to be no different. At the end of the day there is a lot of public money at stake here, and as we've talked about previously local council budgets will become increasingly stretched in the coming years. This should not be about some local politician's egos, so unless they can find a way to make it turn a profit they should do the right thing for the people they are supposed to represent & call time on it.

 

FlyDoncaster, sounds like the working title for a new sitcom...

Seriously though, even though CDC might be a way down the road with this project they should never consider themselves too deep in to reverse it if it looks like it is not going to work. Much bigger national projects have been canned at short notice when costs have got out of control, so this ought to be no different. At the end of the day there is a lot of public money at stake here, and as we've talked about previously local council budgets will become increasingly stretched in the coming years. This should not be about some local politician's egos, so unless they can find a way to make it turn a profit they should do the right thing for the people they are supposed to represent & call time on it.

Totally agree.

 

FlyDoncaster, sounds like the working title for a new sitcom...

Seriously though, even though CDC might be a way down the road with this project they should never consider themselves too deep in to reverse it if it looks like it is not going to work. Much bigger national projects have been canned at short notice when costs have got out of control, so this ought to be no different. At the end of the day there is a lot of public money at stake here, and as we've talked about previously local council budgets will become increasingly stretched in the coming years. This should not be about some local politician's egos, so unless they can find a way to make it turn a profit they should do the right thing for the people they are supposed to represent & call time on it.

I think the vocal support online for it is enough to spur them on. Add to this the very clear picture they’ve received from their consultants for ‘base, pessimistic and optimistic’ saying that the airport will be profitable within 5 years with each scenario, there is no way they will turn back now assuming everything lines up and remains within initial budget for now. It’s the 5 year point that I don’t think they’re being open and honest about, as I suspect that if they reach that point and the airport is still losing money they will not be able to continue running it without further tax payer input, this is why it’s incumbent on either CDC or the SYMCA issuing authority to commission a report that scrutinises the plan before committing to it.

Chances are at the moment that it will become a failure again very quickly, unless there is some serious private backing for it. I suppose since they said the talks should complete by Christmas, we don’t have long to wait for further news on it.

 

I think that this is going to drag on longer than we thought it would. it will be a shame if it reopens and closes again after 5 years.
I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't pay my Council Tax to CDC.

 

I think that this is going to drag on longer than we thought it would. it will be a shame if it reopens and closes again after 5 years.
I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't pay my Council Tax to CDC.

Not least because if, as I understand it, they have no private sector input for the initial start up costs and period of sustained losses, then they will be borrowing against their allocated gainshare over the period of 30 years (or whatever it is?) because it’s only available in annual increments of something like £5 million per year. Imagine borrowing against that for such a long period only for it to fail again within 5 years needing more investment! Such a high risk.

 

I think that this is going to drag on longer than we thought it would. it will be a shame if it reopens and closes again after 5 years.
I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't pay my Council Tax to CDC.

Think it would be outrageous to open it for just that long rightly or wrongly, they should open it for 10 years see how it goes and then can it unless the loses are completely out of hand, really can't see what point 5 years of being open achieves at current rates it will have been closed half that time to passenger ops anyway. If its any chance of closing after 5 years the project just needs booting down the road. The aviaiton business at the best of times is turbulent who knows what could happen say 12 months after its reopened as an industry.

Who knows the whole thing may just be a success logic says no but who knows what the operator will bring to the table we don't know the ins and out of the deal how little an operator may be putting on the line but they aren't going into it to fail they must have some belief they can make a go of it.

 

Not least because if, as I understand it, they have no private sector input for the initial start up costs and period of sustained losses,

I must admit that wasn’t my interpretation of the recent written update to the council’s executive board. It said the initial public sector contribution to capitalising the SPV would need to be ‘greater than initially envisaged’ or words to that effect, but I didn’t see anything to suggest there would be no private sector contribution. Perhaps I didn’t read it closely enough. Or has there been other information released confirming no private sector contribution to the SPV.

 

I must admit that wasn’t my interpretation of the recent written update to the council’s executive board. It said the initial public sector contribution to capitalising the SPV would need to be ‘greater than initially envisaged’ or words to that effect, but I didn’t see anything to suggest there would be no private sector contribution. Perhaps I didn’t read it closely enough. Or has there been other information released confirming no private sector contribution to the SPV.

That I accept, but if you read further it clearly states that the reason is because of the need to generate market confidence and facilitate conditions for private sector investment. That doesn’t say there would be no private sector investment, but it suggests to me that in order to gain that investment they will need to reopen the airport and prove that a market exists for it! Hence why I’m suggesting that their previous expected subsidy of ‘up to 24 months’ now appears to have moved to 5 years in line with their projections for time to profitability. Otherwise it could mean that the council will be bound to cover all losses if their 5 year break even point isn’t realised!

They may well have a private sector backer, if it’s who I think it is then they have operated a similar model elsewhere. But the airport they operate and that the investor has backed already handles 7mppa and has a high freight throughput. So hence why I’m suggesting that this private backer may be waiting in the wings to see what the market is before actually investing themselves. I find it quite bizarre that, as this is an important bit of information, nothing has been made of this in the FBC. I appreciate the need for commercial sensitivity but they didn’t need to mention the operator/investor in the document, just that this is how the model will look. You have to admit it’s vague and appears to be an exercise in damage limitation, just listen to how it was received at SYMCA board and last week at Doncaster Full Council!

 

Have they published the Full Business Case document yet. As I can't seem to find it, only a nine page covering letter that has no details whatsoever.

 

Have they published the Full Business Case document yet. As I can't seem to find it, only a nine page covering letter that has no details whatsoever

Full Business Case published, business plan not published. My argument which I accept may be wide of the mark (but appears to have been interpreted the same way as some Councillors) is therefore as I’ve outlined previously, they may have a private backer but at the moment that backer may expect significant public sector investment to get the ball rolling and cover losses incurred. If they are following the Teesside blueprint this will be the case and it will be incumbent on the CDC to invest in the start up and continued support to get the airport to a point where it’s either profitable or looks like it could become a good long term investment.

Anyone thinking the private sector will be able to borrow to fund this, or that there will be a foreign pension fund looking to invest, may be wide of the mark owing to the published accounts of the previous entities. I suspect all that would come later if it can be proven that CDC and their advisors are correct, and the airport does have a viable future. The CDC are making the initial gamble and it’s quite clear in the FBC and how it’s been received at SYMCA and CDC level.

I’ve said all along im open to be proven wrong, we haven’t seen enough information to be able to accurately gauge the situation as yet, and we need to see the announcement of the operator and who is behind them before we can judge.

 

Where is the Full Business Case published?

Are you just talking about that nine page statement. That isn't the FBC.

TVCA Full Business Case for Teesside Airport was 79 pages, Business Plan 90 pages, Consultants Report 54 pages long. That was fully publicly available for a couple of months before the Combined Authority Meeting for Approval. It was done so residents were able to get in touch with their Council Leaders to get them to support the proposals.

 

Where is the Full Business Case published?

Are you just talking about that nine page statement. That isn't the FBC.

TVCA Full Business Case for Teesside Airport was 79 pages, Business Plan 90 pages, Consultants Report 54 pages long. That was fully publicly available for a couple of months before the Combined Authority Meeting for Approval. It was done so residents were able to get in touch with their Council Leaders to get them to support the proposals.

Is there a legal requirement to release such an exhaustive document? Morally I think it’s important for transparency, but they seem to be able to use cloak and dagger techniques in the name of commercial sensitivity.

Why wouldn’t they release such a document? Because people like opposition councillors or York Aviation (if someone was so included as to commission them) could pick it to pieces and they don’t want that, also they probably don’t have a full detailed plan because they’ll want the operator to do all that for them. ‘The papers’ Ros Jones read about off a notepad at Full Council last week was probably the document similar to the Teesside one, but they don’t want us to see it, and you must ask why.

I would expect to see a more detailed plan once the operator his signed up and the details announced.

 

So Full Business Case is being presented to SYMCA, a Business Case that has not yet been completed and still being worked on. With the Government Budget announcement, meaning calculations needing to be refactored. Is this all really going to be completed in time to be presented fully with enough time to fully read and digest before decision day.

When you think back to the TVCA Full Business Case & Full Business Plan for the purchase of Teesside Airport was a combined 225 pages long. That was published a month or so before the full MCA board meeting to gain approval, so to allow time for residents to read it and get in touch with their Council Leaders with messages of support.

I can see that more delays are going to be seen.

Was this Business Case presented announcement intended to be announced so to have enough media coverage well before the Mayoral Election Candidates announcements fill up the media spots. Just so they can say that Labour is making things happen.

So is it a case of mirrors being played, just like that James Bond scene. Political skulduggery.

I have attached the TVCA Business Case & Plan, shows how in depth it went. Even doing a summary of LBA, DSA & NCL included in the ICF Business Plan.

 

So Full Business Case is being presented to SYMCA, a Business Case that has not yet been completed and still being worked on. With the Government Budget announcement, meaning calculations needing to be refactored. Is this all really going to be completed in time to be presented fully with enough time to fully read and digest before decision day.

When you think back to the TVCA Full Business Case & Full Business Plan for the purchase of Teesside Airport was a combined 225 pages long. That was published a month or so before the full MCA board meeting to gain approval, so to allow time for residents to read it and get in touch with their Council Leaders with messages of support.

I can see that more delays are going to be seen.

Was this Business Case presented announcement intended to be announced so to have enough media coverage well before the Mayoral Election Candidates announcements fill up the media spots. Just so they can say that Labour is making things happen.

So is it a case of mirrors being played, just like that James Bond scene. Political skulduggery.

I have attached the TVCA Business Case & Plan, shows how in depth it went. Even doing a summary of LBA, DSA & NCL included in the ICF Business Plan.

Smoke and mirrors springs to mind.

 

Smoke and mirrors springs to mind.

They have made the document available to councillors as this is what Ros was referring to in her prepared answers at full council. It looks like the councillors were told to back away and not ask questions during the procurement phase. So I presume this information has been made available to them, so as they’re still asking questions the information can’t have been clear enough or these councillors have cottoned on to something like some of us here have.

I believe it’s a view shared by other authorities which is why the SYMCA board meeting wasn’t particularly positive, but there are a lot of councillors still afraid to ask questions.

Whichever side of the fence you’re on, you have to admit that this should not be allowed to happen without due scrutiny.

I think what Stagman says has some merit, the FBC clearly is not a FBC at all, they just promised to submit it to SYMCA in November so they rehashed and updated the OBC and resubmitted it. The reason? Well they said on 4th November that they’d identified a preferred bidder and operator, what they clearly hadn’t done is concluded a deal so it was incredibly misleading. Perhaps we will see the business case in full if/when they reach an agreement with the bidder and prior to it going to SYMCA for approval? I still think it’s fair to say that at this time they do not have private sector investor commitment.

 

I saw a post yesterday evening, from the mechanic stating apparently the white X’s have been removed and 2 Excel are to fly their x2 727s in.. obviously met with excitement / a lot of social media activity.. however has now been deleted..

Not sure how true it is but surely moving 2 planes with no fuel farm / ATC / ground staff at the airport is well.. not possible..?

 

I saw a post yesterday evening, from the mechanic stating apparently the white X’s have been removed and 2 Excel are to fly their x2 727s in.. obviously met with excitement / a lot of social media activity.. however has now been deleted..

Not sure how true it is but surely moving 2 planes with no fuel farm / ATC / ground staff at the airport is well.. not possible..?

If the mechanic says that then it must be true, lol. .

Out of interest, has DSA retained its fire service for 2 years sat twiddling their thumbs? If not, and there's no fire cover, then surely nothing can land.