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:
Yes, agreed. I've been saying 2026 is being very over optimistic given where they're at , the hurdles to overcome, the infrastructure missing, and the staff to recruit, secure their security approvals and then train. If the airfield is open I doubt very much it will have any passenger action.
Well it doesn’t look like they have an operator signed up yet, commercial discussions ongoing. Coppard said on Wednesday that they are not going to work towards deadlines because they want the deal to protect the tax payer. I’m not sure how this is going to be possible and to my mind the only way is for the private sector to take a bigger risk which doesn’t appear to be on the table.
 
Well it doesn’t look like they have an operator signed up yet, commercial discussions ongoing. Coppard said on Wednesday that they are not going to work towards deadlines because they want the deal to protect the tax payer. I’m not sure how this is going to be possible and to my mind the only way is for the private sector to take a bigger risk which doesn’t appear to be on the table.
Sounds to me as though Coppard knows only too well that reopening is a huge financial risk, and one that's being scrutinsed already . If DSA mk2 goes badly, that scrutiny will be magnified and his role, and that of CDC, looked at particularly. So he wants the private sector to take the majority risk - and given the history of DSA I wouldn't think any sensible private sector company will take the lions share of the risk as he wants.

It will be interesting to see if a deal is forthcoming or whether this will simply fade away in the new year.
 
Well it doesn’t look like they have an operator signed up yet, commercial discussions ongoing. Coppard said on Wednesday that they are not going to work towards deadlines because they want the deal to protect the tax payer. I’m not sure how this is going to be possible and to my mind the only way is for the private sector to take a bigger risk which doesn’t appear to be on the table.
And of course the more public money that is poured in to take on the significant and what seems increasing commercial risk due to lack of viability the greater they open themselves up for legal action from competitor airports..
 
When are we next due an announcement of some sort?
They’ll have to make some sort of announcement in the next couple of weeks but I’m not sure if it’ll be anything concrete yet. The next SYMCA board meeting is 28th January and I think they were aiming to request full Gainshare drawdown at that, SAU findings due no later than 22nd January. It’s difficult to know how they’ll play it, they might want to announce their operator (assuming the necessary legal and commercial contracts are in place) in the days leading up to the 28th to generate public interest and force the hand of SYMCA board? But Oliver Coppard was most recently quoted as not being held to deadlines in order to secure the right deal for the tax payer.

We could then see legal challenges from other airports as the business case clearly states that they envisage traffic displacement from those airports, and it would appear at the moment that the project will be 100% publicly funded initially. A legal challenge would most likely delay proceedings significantly, so it will be interesting to see what the SAU conclude.
 
They’ll have to make some sort of announcement in the next couple of weeks but I’m not sure if it’ll be anything concrete yet. The next SYMCA board meeting is 28th January and I think they were aiming to request full Gainshare drawdown at that, SAU findings due no later than 22nd January. It’s difficult to know how they’ll play it, they might want to announce their operator (assuming the necessary legal and commercial contracts are in place) in the days leading up to the 28th to generate public interest and force the hand of SYMCA board? But Oliver Coppard was most recently quoted as not being held to deadlines in order to secure the right deal for the tax payer.

We could then see legal challenges from other airports as the business case clearly states that they envisage traffic displacement from those airports, and it would appear at the moment that the project will be 100% publicly funded initially. A legal challenge would most likely delay proceedings significantly, so it will be interesting to see what the SAU conclude.
Makes you wonder whether OC has given CDC an 'ultimatum' (or friendly advice/indicator) as to how much they can spend on the deal if SYCMA are to approve it and the current (or recent) state of play did not meet the target - hence the delays - but who knows? The original Council vision of 2 years subsidy seems to have extended to 10 years was it? Whilst it does perhaps offer some stability the financial risk would seem very significant indeed.
 
Makes you wonder whether OC has given CDC an 'ultimatum' (or friendly advice/indicator) as to how much they can spend on the deal if SYCMA are to approve it and the current (or recent) state of play did not meet the target - hence the delays - but who knows? The original Council vision of 2 years subsidy seems to have extended to 10 years was it? Whilst it does perhaps offer some stability the financial risk would seem very significant indeed.
Not sure, I think the loan is for a period of 10 years to be paid when cash flow allows, but they claim the airport will be profitable within 5 years in all scenarios. Not possible.
 
Not sure, I think the loan is for a period of 10 years to be paid when cash flow allows, but they claim the airport will be profitable within 5 years in all scenarios. Not possible.
Profitable in 5 years is not just impossible, it's downright rubbish if they have any intention of becoming a passenger airport, especially given the level of investment needed to even open the place again. Frankly, I doubt any new airport in the UK would be profitable in that timescale unless they set out to be a minor airfield that didn't require any major infrastructure investment. Who on earth is coming up with all this nonsense? 🤣
 

This didn’t get so much attention but it looks like Peel are proposing to bring forward plans to build 1800 homes on land to the south of Great Yorkshire Way/Airport link road, ahead of the local plan which stipulates employment generating projects should be the priority. Presumably they are using the airport lease as leverage to get this pushed through first. It does also align with the rumours from inside Peel that they couldn’t really generate interest in using the airport site for something else (other than housing) when they were completing their strategic review - this could of course be false.

Cynically (characteristically?) they have mentioned the buzzwords ‘later living’ ‘affordable’ and ‘buy to rent’ to presumably satisfy the national government policy of building loads of new houses. I believe it also includes provision of the ‘central plaza’ retail and services complex.

So Peel have rented out the airport at a cost of around £1.7 million per year which the council is picking up the tab for currently, but this has also provided leverage to push through plans for thousands of houses at Gateway East whilst the Council have an airport to play with.
 
Last edited:

This didn’t get so much attention but it looks like Peel are proposing to bring forward plans to build 1800 homes on land to the south of Great Yorkshire Way/Airport link road, ahead of the local plan which stipulates employment generating projects should be the priority. Presumably they are using the airport lease as leverage to get this pushed through first. It does also align with the rumours from inside Peel that they couldn’t really generate interest in using the airport site for something else (other than housing) when they were completing their strategic review - this could of course be false.

Cynically (characteristically?) they have mentioned the buzzwords ‘later living’ ‘affordable’ and ‘buy to rent’ to presumably satisfy the national government policy of building loads of new houses. I believe it also includes provision of the ‘central plaza’ retail and services complex.

So Peel have rented out the airport at a cost of around £1.7 million per year which the council is picking up the tab for currently, but this has also provided leverage to push through plans for thousands of houses at Gateway East whilst the Council have an airport to play with.
i posted about this on the 21st november on here. also the other housing development Peel is involved with in south yorkshire , as been cut .
 
i posted about this on the 21st november on here. also the other housing development Peel is involved with in south yorkshire , as been cut .
Regardless, it proves a point that Peel are still very much involved. Palm off the bit that is a heavy loss maker and gain leverage for the one thing that will make them money on the site, housing! Remember, the council do not hold all the cards here, I expect Peel have done a fair few favours so that Ros Jones and her mates can go get photo opportunities next to light aircraft that are arriving and departing sporadically.
 
An interesting article, with some valid points we have discussed here ( it is a bit anti-airport overall, but its good to see independant views)

Interesting read, one that the majority of #SaveDSA will ignore.

Chadwick would prefer DSA to open to a third runway at Heathrow? What benefit will that bring to the country? None. Nobody wants to travel to Doncaster. 84% was outbound tourism, the facts are there.

As usual it doesn't fit with the narrative of the DSA brigade so will be ignored.

It does deserve to be challenged. I cant even see DSA taking business from other airports - it will be airlines expanding which will not benefit the environment.
 
An interesting article, with some valid points we have discussed here ( it is a bit anti-airport overall, but its good to see independant views)

If it weren't for the fact that article is written from a green anti aviation viewpoint, I would be saying 'bravo' to it, because at last, questions, which are obvious to us and which have been 'done to death' on this forum, are being asked. Pressure is being applied to politicians who are apparently intent on keeping all the detail under wraps. It seems that the writer is fully aware of what's going on and is going to make things uncomfortable.

I just hope this isn't read by the pro DSA mob on line as if they do, they will no doubt claim DSA should reopen and LBA, being a larger airport, should close, so as to meet the demands of the CCC.

I still can't help thinking that one day, further down the line, when a reopened DSA is still running up huge losses, questions will be asked and demands made for a Public Inquiry into how these politicians could spend such huge amounts on a project which seems doomed to fail, especially given the fact they persist in refusing to provide any meaningful evidence to justify their decisions. It's very easy to hide behind confidentiality isn't it?
 
If it weren't for the fact that article is written from a green anti aviation viewpoint, I would be saying 'bravo' to it, because at last, questions, which are obvious to us and which have been 'done to death' on this forum, are being asked. Pressure is being applied to politicians who are apparently intent on keeping all the detail under wraps. It seems that the writer is fully aware of what's going on and is going to make things uncomfortable.

I just hope this isn't read by the pro DSA mob on line as if they do, they will no doubt claim DSA should reopen and LBA, being a larger airport, should close, so as to meet the demands of the CCC.

I still can't help thinking that one day, further down the line, when a reopened DSA is still running up huge losses, questions will be asked and demands made for a Public Inquiry into how these politicians could spend such huge amounts on a project which seems doomed to fail, especially given the fact they persist in refusing to provide any meaningful evidence to justify their decisions. It's very easy to hide behind confidentiality isn't it?
I am saying bravo to it regardless of its green bias. I’ll be honest, I’ve become more of a green sympathiser in recent years anyway, and they do have a point because the hypocrisy is blatant!

This is, as the article highlights, purely a vehicle to retain seats in the elections this year. Pure and simple. Coppard doesn’t want it to reopen, would happily see the back of it, but he needs the cash for his tram project so if that is put at risk by upsetting CDC he’d much rather let them have their airport and turn a blind eye afterwards. Ros Jones will probably want to step aside in May and she’ll want the reopening as her legacy. Nick Fletcher is just a nutcase.

They know it’ll be a money sieve, and unless they really do have some solid private sector backers it’ll end up being a millstone round the necks of the Doncaster tax payer. They will not achieve in 5 or 10 years what Peel failed to do in 17, they might get a few TUI flights out of there, claim victory whilst keeping the proles happy, then keep kicking the can down the road when the annual financial reports are submitted, much like what we’re seeing at MME.

I’ve been wondering whether the SAU report will bring them back down to earth a little, but I’m not convinced that will be the case, and thereafter it will be down to whether any of the local airports decide to pursue legal challenges or not as to whether there may be further delays to their Spring 26 launch,
 
good article , but a lot of falsehoods ,
45 minutes journey ? 30 minutes no problem
a need for new housing ? ( doncaster as more than passed its target for new housing set by the government, even when it was doubled.)

In the committee’s 2023 report to Parliament on the UK’s progress in reducing emissions, they state that “there should be no net airport expansion [in the UK] unless the carbon-intensity of aviation is outperforming the Government's emissions reduction pathway and can accommodate the additional demand.”
and i suppose in all your eyes this only applys to DSA , lets forget about LBA exspansion

and i suppose you all think leeds gainshare £38 million is going bring in massive profits when invested in their transport system?
it will be profitable, a major boost for the economy, etc..
 
Last edited:

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.