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...?

 

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/doncaster-sheffield-airport-council-corrects-social-media-misinformation-that-terminal-buildings-were-being-stripped-of-their-fittings-4176949?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=discover&utm_campaign=CCwqGQgwKhAIACoHCAowusqGCzCg1IQDMOWYzAEwmtziAQ&utm_content=bullets

 

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/doncaster-sheffield-airport-council-corrects-social-media-misinformation-that-terminal-buildings-were-being-stripped-of-their-fittings-4176949?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=discover&utm_campaign=CCwqGQgwKhAIACoHCAowusqGCzCg1IQDMOWYzAEwmtziAQ&utm_content=bullets

Why are they taking the time and making the effort to dispel the myth posted by one person on social media about the terminal having been ‘stripped’? We’ve known for months that the concessions have been removed, as to be expected.

The stripping of the terminal is the least of their worries, and to make a point of addressing that shows how out of touch they are. Although the buildings and infrastructure is mostly intact, they will still need to jump through all the regulatory hoops which will cost tens of millions of pounds.

This outline business case (which must be completed to ensure public money is being spent wisely!) has not been completed yet. It’s costing £6.2million to produce. I can only assume that they’ve looked for a specialist company to produce it. Given that they are ‘certain’ the airport can be a success, I would assume they’ll be appointing yes men who will write what they want to hear once they see the £££.. Peel have kept dead quiet, I bet they will bring out the truth along the line.

 

Joint statement on our efforts to #saveDSA SAVE Doncaster Sheffield Airport

As part of City of Doncaster Council preparations for a potential lease of the former Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) site from owners Peel, it has launched a search to find an investor/operator for the airport.

The council has gone out to the market that specialises in this sector ranging from investors with the capital to invest in the airport to aviation experts who have the experience and technical knowledge of running an airport to find the support it needs if the lease is agreed. The council is continuing its negotiations with Peel in the meantime.

This is an extremely positive step to deliver a successful future for the airport. We share this determination, and all believe an airport site of this size and calibre, even now closed, is an attractive proposition to the aviation industry and early feedback in this investor search seems to reflect our collective view. This complex piece of work is of course commercially confidential so there are no further details that can be shared. This initiative will continue into the summer and an update will be given when there is more to say and at the appropriate time.

We are hopeful that this initiative will ultimately reopen the airport. However, we are realistic that this is a complex undertaking and there are no guarantees. The council is still prepared to carry out a Compulsory Purchase Order for the site as an ultimate backstop if either a direct sale by Peel to a party that has shown previous interest or a lease to the council do not transpire.

#doncasterisgreat #saveDSA

The investor search begins.

 

Search? I thought they claimed to have someone or a number of interested parties already lined up? I can't believe they have spent all this money without any interested investors/operators.

The worse case is no one is interested and the council go down the CPO route to take it on themselves.

 

Search? I thought they claimed to have someone or a number of interested parties already lined up? I can't believe they have spent all this money without any interested investors/operators.

The worse case is no one is interested and the council go down the CPO route to take it on themselves.

It’s an easy thing to hide behind is commercial sensitivity. They claim they do, always have done. To say that Peel are failing to engage probably means that they still are not interested in selling for a small amount knowing that whoever takes it on will end up reaping the rewards and building a wind farm on it anyway.

 

I mean, if I were Peel I wouldn't want to engage with these bunch of amateurs either and just carry on with my plan to decommission the airport. I don't see that as being a negative reflection on Peel tbh.

Unfortunately I fear this saga has quite a bit left to run.

 

I mean, if I were Peel I wouldn't want to engage with these bunch of amateurs either and just carry on with my plan to decommission the airport. I don't see that as being a negative reflection on Peel tbh.

Unfortunately I fear this saga has quite a bit left to run.

Well I suspect that in order to get Peel to the table, they will have to go armed with suitable investor backing. No doubt Peel will have some pretty hard line requirements in order to entertain the idea. They have found the airport unviable, but if a major player with significant expertise and influence got interested you’d suddenly see Peels ears prick up. Peel had tried to sell the airport whilst it was a going concern and they only managed to flog it to a Canadian investment firm only to have it offloaded back to them after a few months.

My question is what’s changed? The aviation industry os notorious for attracting chancers and people who are prepared to exploit. The council have scored a monumental own goal by laying all their cards on the table in stating that they are convinced the airport is viable. Imagine the £££ signs!

 

Search? I thought they claimed to have someone or a number of interested parties already lined up? I can't believe they have spent all this money without any interested investors/operators.

The worse case is no one is interested and the council go down the CPO route to take it on themselves.

Search? I thought they claimed to have someone or a number of interested parties already lined up? I can't believe they have spent all this money without any interested investors/operators.

The worse case is no one is interested and the council go down the CPO route to take it on themselves.

Well I suspect that in order to get Peel to the table, they will have to go armed with suitable investor backing. No doubt Peel will have some pretty hard line requirements in order to entertain the idea. They have found the airport unviable, but if a major player with significant expertise and influence got interested you’d suddenly see Peels ears prick up. Peel had tried to sell the airport whilst it was a going concern and they only managed to flog it to a Canadian investment firm only to have it offloaded back to them after a few months.

My question is what’s changed? The aviation industry os notorious for attracting chancers and people who are prepared to exploit. The council have scored a monumental own goal by laying all their cards on the table in stating that they are convinced the airport is viable. Imagine the £££ signs!

I guess that's the plan - convince an investor/operator that it's viable and then leave them high and dry to fund the losses. Can't believe anyone in the know would be so gullible which will make it hard!! What's changed?? Only things for the worse in my opinion as they will need a 'launch' airline partner who will perhaps be nervous of the risks. Might be able to 'buy' a few 'W' legs, but a base.....??? Word on the street (although I have no first hand information) is that even TUI will not take the risk initially. As for WIZZ - if they are making more money from LBA than they did at DSA they will not return. If the opposite applies then they might eventually. Simples!! Who knows what might happen in the industry in the next couple of years

Even the lease route might take that sort of time to sort out and then return the airfield to operational status and of course entering into a lease means that they could not then pursue CPO. All very intriguing. Best of luck !

Why are they taking the time and making the effort to dispel the myth posted by one person on social media about the terminal having been ‘stripped’? We’ve known for months that the concessions have been removed, as to be expected.

The stripping of the terminal is the least of their worries, and to make a point of addressing that shows how out of touch they are. Although the buildings and infrastructure is mostly intact, they will still need to jump through all the regulatory hoops which will cost tens of millions of pounds.

This outline business case (which must be completed to ensure public money is being spent wisely!) has not been completed yet. It’s costing £6.2million to produce. I can only assume that they’ve looked for a specialist company to produce it. Given that they are ‘certain’ the airport can be a success, I would assume they’ll be appointing yes men who will write what they want to hear once they see the £££.. Peel have kept dead quiet, I bet they will bring out the truth along the line.

I have seen a 'WSP' logo on notices posted around DSA on behalf of the Council in respect of the CPO. I think WSP are a very large Consultancy with an aviation branch.

 

Even the lease route might take that sort of time to sort out and then return the airfield to operational status and of course entering into a lease means that they could not then pursue CPO. All very intriguing. Best of luck !



I have seen a 'WSP' logo on notices posted around DSA on behalf of the Council in respect of the CPO. I think WSP are a very large Consultancy with an aviation branch.

I think this was posted elsewhere some time ago, obviously doing what they’ve been paid to do as the appointed specialist.

I find the announcement last night misleading, as the council have been saying for the last six months that they have been in discussions over a lease deal with Peel. Now they say they have started going to the market. That’s a long time to wait to gauge industry or investor appetite after starting discussions!

Still have the issue of ensuring stake-holder buy in, will need an expert operating company to work their magic to get airlines to the table.

 

An objective feature on Look North lunch time BBC news (Yes..... Objective and on BBC!) regarding the search for an 'investor' to help Doncaster Council run the airport if it re-opens. Had a guy on - missed who he was or from which organisation - who was certainly cautious in his approach and not creating false expectation. What was not explained was what the term 'investor' meant. Sub-leaseholder maybe but
can't imagine that there will be many takers wanting to 'invest' in land/property that they do not own.

 

An objective feature on Look North lunch time BBC news (Yes..... Objective and on BBC!) regarding the search for an 'investor' to help Doncaster Council run the airport if it re-opens. Had a guy on - missed who he was or from which organisation - who was certainly cautious in his approach and not creating false expectation. What was not explained was what the term 'investor' meant. Sub-leaseholder maybe but
can't imagine that there will be many takers wanting to 'invest' in land/property that they do not own.

Not sure if the council are to be head of lease, as they appear to have been careful not to say so in all of their announcements.

Stick the usual thing in about there being no guarantees and it gives them the leeway to blame Peel if/when it all falls through. Hence the persistent mention of a CPO as a ‘last resort’. Bet Peel have appointed all the necessary legal apparatus already.

 

I’ve noticed recently that with the first anniversary of the announcement of the Strategic Review approaching, the myths that have now been accepted by many as hard facts have started resurfacing. Added to this we have people in positions of authority shooting from the hip when they really should know better. So I thought I’d summarise some of the claims.

Peel never wanted the airport to work. They just wanted the land with the improved road network.

They bought the former RAF Finningley in 1998 after Government pressure for the MOD to turn the land over to the MOJ to build a prison on the site. They had just taken over the running of LPL from British Aerospace and had the perfect model for high volume low-cost airlines which continues to go from strength to strength today. They then invested over £250million into the project, including fighting through a public enquiry, redeveloping the land from a military airfield into a first class airport, jumping through the regulatory hoops to provide some of the best landing and approach procedures in the country, subsidising the annual operating losses and any Capital investment programs (including the building of extra airbridges for Wizzair U.K.!). Why go to all that trouble just to get some land to build on? It’s just crazy to suggest this and can not be taken seriously.

Peel charged too much (also flights were too expensive).

This is a tricky one to dispel as there are no publicly available commercial rates. People are therefore using published rates as a basis for their argument. This is fundamentally flawed. Commercial rates between airport and airline/freight carrier/GA agent are subject to confidentiality. However, what I do know with my limited involvement in such agreements is that they are typically set on a principle of volume, I.e the more passengers, freight, landings (or fuel uplifts in some cases), the less an operator will pay. Using Wizzair U.K. as an example, they had an agreement to base up to three aircraft at DSA, the fees therefore will have been subject to rebates based on passenger footfall through the terminal. The more passengers carried the less the airline ultimately pays to the airport as the airport is able to generate revenue from the higher footfall. Let us not forget that an airport like DSA has large operating overheads. It’s pretty much agreed that Wizzair fell out with Peel over their contracted agreement, this is only partly true. Wizz reduced their based commitment due to low forward bookings and poor load factors (cite CAA), so they will have been subject to increased rates. They also made the decision to shore up their assets elsewhere, see also Cardiff.

But they turned airlines away.

No airport will turn an airline away. Ryanair had approached the airport during covid with a ploy to base 1 x aircraft there. Partly to see off Wizzair U.K. and partly to keep LBA on their toes (in the end they based an extra aircraft at LBA instead). In discussing with DSA they will have been asking to fly from there for free, and knowing Ryanair and their lack of commitment to airports, it will have ended in tears very quickly. Business decisions do not always have to focus on growth but there must also be a ROI. Clearly this was just not an acceptable proposal and I do not believe any other operator would have handled this any differently. So Ryanair will not have been turned away, but they probably had their offer of zero landing fees for little return rejected and instead invited to pay fees in line with the size of their proposed operation.

Same principle applies to freight operators. Cost intensive so a critical mass must be attained. You cannot reach that by purely hosting ad/hoc business.

But if they charge more then the airline will not fly from there.

This is suggesting that the airport operator should just suck it up and continue operating at a loss. Not exactly great business sense. The airport must be able to pay its way.

Flights weren’t supported because there was no advertising.

Firstly, it is the airlines job to advertise their routes and not the airport. However the airport will agree a support package with any airline prior to signing on the dotted line. Also, Peel/DSAL agreed a significant and expensive naming agreement with the Sheffield Arena, calling it the FlyDSA Arena and this was in 2017. This, amongst other marketing campaigns proves that this line of argument is nonsense. See also BMIBaby vs Peel.

The runway can handle any aircraft

True in a sense, however the TODA and LDA figures are actually in some circumstances more restrictive than EMA. Also, this comes back to…

There is demand (and LBA is rubbish).

Theoretically DSA is nicely located close to the main North/South and East/West motorway network and not far from the ECML. On paper this is great, however just a glance on a map will show that the vast majority of the catchment area is made up of farmers fields and small villages. The major population centres it purports to serve are very close to more successful airports. LBA has shown consistent growth over the history of DSA being in operation. It has more than doubled in size in the last 20 years. This is not the fault of Peel.

But those airports are rubbish, the airlines would move to DSA had the owners wanted them to.

As mentioned, Peel offered significant start up subsidies and ongoing support packages to Easyjet, Ryanair, FlyBe and others. What happened was the passenger support was not forthcoming. All airlines with the exception of Easyjet (and sadly FlyBe) are operating large bases from the competing airports. EasyJet’s peak load factors from DSA were 70% when at the time their network wide Load Factors were 85%, doesn’t take a genius to work out why they quickly abandoned the project. The core DSA market is not large or diverse enough to support a sufficient number of routes to make a DSA operation worthwhile. It would require the same principles as TUI applied (abandoning other regional airports to focus on DSA) in order for it to work for them all. They didn’t do this. All airlines have grown massively from DSA’s competitors since DSA opened.

Virgin wanted to fly from DSA

Complete and utter nonsense. This was a rumour doing the rounds back in the early 00’s and it was purely based on someone seeing some Virgin executives in the area. It was actually due to a deal with a hotel nearby and absolutely nothing to do with Virgin Atlantic or DSA. The DSA catchment area is far too sparsely populated to support long-haul scheduled traffic.

LBA colluding to overtake DSA airspace.

Again, rubbish. The ACP that was rejected this week was instigated in 2021. Its sole purpose was to reduce flight crew and ATC workload and ultimately improve safety for all airspace users as there are currently no published procedures once outside of LBA class D control. It’s not been rejected in principle and LBA have been invited to reapply once they have satisfied the criteria outlined.

The ACP instigated by DSAL is completely separate and the input from LBA is purely a measure to retain some of the airspace that they worked alongside DSA ATC on to ensure continuous descent profiles could be completed safely and within a controlled environment. This improves performance for the airlines (and ultimately their bottom line) and is not being applied for to spite DSA or any hopes to reopen it.

I hope my ramble makes sense. There is far more that I have forgotten to add which im sure can be discussed at a later date.

 

A great informative, true and sensible post Pug, which I am sure these DSA supporters will dismiss at a drop of a hat..

Ryanair, Wizz and some extent easyJet are ULCC, Fee's couldn't of been that high at all for them as all 3 operated from DSA, Wizz being a ULCC with the intention of x3 based AC.. Peel did put in the work. Yes the base was announced Covid time (probably the worst time along with CWL, of course it was a huge risk and didn't pay off). Flybe struck a large incentive deal to fly from there. I see a lot saying Jet2 would save the airport / turn it around, utter nonsense as the airline has no interest in flying from there. TUI was up to 5 based AC. If TUI was expensive to book from DSA it most likely / could of been a sign of strong forward bookings for them, simple revenue management - reduce MAN / EMA if DSA's load factor was higher to push passengers to that base.. that is of course how it does work. DSA holiday / flight prices was not high for the laugh. its all down to competition, capacity and load factor.

 

A great informative, true and sensible post Pug, which I am sure these DSA supporters will dismiss at a drop of a hat..

Ryanair, Wizz and some extent easyJet are ULCC, Fee's couldn't of been that high at all for them as all 3 operated from DSA, Wizz being a ULCC with the intention of x3 based AC.. Peel did put in the work. Yes the base was announced Covid time (probably the worst time along with CWL, of course it was a huge risk and didn't pay off). Flybe struck a large incentive deal to fly from there. I see a lot saying Jet2 would save the airport / turn it around, utter nonsense as the airline has no interest in flying from there. TUI was up to 5 based AC. If TUI was expensive to book from DSA it most likely / could of been a sign of strong forward bookings for them, simple revenue management - reduce MAN / EMA if DSA's load factor was higher to push passengers to that base.. that is of course how it does work. DSA holiday / flight prices was not high for the laugh. its all down to competition, capacity and load factor.

I’ll have to trawl through some old threads to get the passenger figures from the days when easyjet FlyBe etc operated. Thanks he running theme throughout has been poor support from the public when such attempts have been made.

There is no doubting that TUI and Wizzair (Hungary) enjoyed some success there, but the point is and always has been that the airport was running at 50% of states critical mass required to generate sufficient profit. Not to mention the perilous nature of relying on just one or two airlines for the bulk of your passenger throughput.

People just do not want to accept this fact. And it is a fact that is proven by stats.

 

A further one that seems to be pushed onto us.

More expansion for LGW, LHR, STN. What happened to ‘levelling up’..

This is completely misplaced and assumes that central Government have any control whatsoever over where global airlines want to fly to. The growth in the South East is not driven by Government but by the strength of the market these airports serve. Something like 80% of O&D traffic is South East based. Airline growth down there is purely demand driven. I take the point that you could market DSA as a London airport ‘to relieve pressure’ but the harsh reality is that the airline executives around the globe are wanting to fly into Heathrow/Gatwick. If they cannot do this they take their business to other hubs on the continent.

Deregulation has opened up low-cost air travel around Europe to people living in the regions. However, that demand is finite and is heavily influenced by numerous external factors.

Also add that airlines do not like to be seen to make bad route choices. Setting up new routes is an expensive undertaking let alone new bases and is high risk strategy. As soon as an airport is consistently failing to deliver, they are seen as even higher risk investments from the airlines perspective. This has happened a number of times at DSA and is again not the fault of Peel.

 

I’ve noticed recently that with the first anniversary of the announcement of the Strategic Review approaching, the myths that have now been accepted by many as hard facts have started resurfacing. Added to this we have people in positions of authority shooting from the hip when they really should know better. So I thought I’d summarise some of the claims.

Peel never wanted the airport to work. They just wanted the land with the improved road network.

They bought the former RAF Finningley in 1998 after Government pressure for the MOD to turn the land over to the MOJ to build a prison on the site. They had just taken over the running of LPL from British Aerospace and had the perfect model for high volume low-cost airlines which continues to go from strength to strength today. They then invested over £250million into the project, including fighting through a public enquiry, redeveloping the land from a military airfield into a first class airport, jumping through the regulatory hoops to provide some of the best landing and approach procedures in the country, subsidising the annual operating losses and any Capital investment programs (including the building of extra airbridges for Wizzair U.K.!). Why go to all that trouble just to get some land to build on? It’s just crazy to suggest this and can not be taken seriously.

Peel charged too much (also flights were too expensive).

This is a tricky one to dispel as there are no publicly available commercial rates. People are therefore using published rates as a basis for their argument. This is fundamentally flawed. Commercial rates between airport and airline/freight carrier/GA agent are subject to confidentiality. However, what I do know with my limited involvement in such agreements is that they are typically set on a principle of volume, I.e the more passengers, freight, landings (or fuel uplifts in some cases), the less an operator will pay. Using Wizzair U.K. as an example, they had an agreement to base up to three aircraft at DSA, the fees therefore will have been subject to rebates based on passenger footfall through the terminal. The more passengers carried the less the airline ultimately pays to the airport as the airport is able to generate revenue from the higher footfall. Let us not forget that an airport like DSA has large operating overheads. It’s pretty much agreed that Wizzair fell out with Peel over their contracted agreement, this is only partly true. Wizz reduced their based commitment due to low forward bookings and poor load factors (cite CAA), so they will have been subject to increased rates. They also made the decision to shore up their assets elsewhere, see also Cardiff.

But they turned airlines away.

No airport will turn an airline away. Ryanair had approached the airport during covid with a ploy to base 1 x aircraft there. Partly to see off Wizzair U.K. and partly to keep LBA on their toes (in the end they based an extra aircraft at LBA instead). In discussing with DSA they will have been asking to fly from there for free, and knowing Ryanair and their lack of commitment to airports, it will have ended in tears very quickly. Business decisions do not always have to focus on growth but there must also be a ROI. Clearly this was just not an acceptable proposal and I do not believe any other operator would have handled this any differently. So Ryanair will not have been turned away, but they probably had their offer of zero landing fees for little return rejected and instead invited to pay fees in line with the size of their proposed operation.

Same principle applies to freight operators. Cost intensive so a critical mass must be attained. You cannot reach that by purely hosting ad/hoc business.

But if they charge more then the airline will not fly from there.

This is suggesting that the airport operator should just suck it up and continue operating at a loss. Not exactly great business sense. The airport must be able to pay its way.

Flights weren’t supported because there was no advertising.

Firstly, it is the airlines job to advertise their routes and not the airport. However the airport will agree a support package with any airline prior to signing on the dotted line. Also, Peel/DSAL agreed a significant and expensive naming agreement with the Sheffield Arena, calling it the FlyDSA Arena and this was in 2017. This, amongst other marketing campaigns proves that this line of argument is nonsense. See also BMIBaby vs Peel.

The runway can handle any aircraft

True in a sense, however the TODA and LDA figures are actually in some circumstances more restrictive than EMA. Also, this comes back to…

There is demand (and LBA is rubbish).

Theoretically DSA is nicely located close to the main North/South and East/West motorway network and not far from the ECML. On paper this is great, however just a glance on a map will show that the vast majority of the catchment area is made up of farmers fields and small villages. The major population centres it purports to serve are very close to more successful airports. LBA has shown consistent growth over the history of DSA being in operation. It has more than doubled in size in the last 20 years. This is not the fault of Peel.

But those airports are rubbish, the airlines would move to DSA had the owners wanted them to.

As mentioned, Peel offered significant start up subsidies and ongoing support packages to Easyjet, Ryanair, FlyBe and others. What happened was the passenger support was not forthcoming. All airlines with the exception of Easyjet (and sadly FlyBe) are operating large bases from the competing airports. EasyJet’s peak load factors from DSA were 70% when at the time their network wide Load Factors were 85%, doesn’t take a genius to work out why they quickly abandoned the project. The core DSA market is not large or diverse enough to support a sufficient number of routes to make a DSA operation worthwhile. It would require the same principles as TUI applied (abandoning other regional airports to focus on DSA) in order for it to work for them all. They didn’t do this. All airlines have grown massively from DSA’s competitors since DSA opened.

Virgin wanted to fly from DSA

Complete and utter nonsense. This was a rumour doing the rounds back in the early 00’s and it was purely based on someone seeing some Virgin executives in the area. It was actually due to a deal with a hotel nearby and absolutely nothing to do with Virgin Atlantic or DSA. The DSA catchment area is far too sparsely populated to support long-haul scheduled traffic.

LBA colluding to overtake DSA airspace.

Again, rubbish. The ACP that was rejected this week was instigated in 2021. Its sole purpose was to reduce flight crew and ATC workload and ultimately improve safety for all airspace users as there are currently no published procedures once outside of LBA class D control. It’s not been rejected in principle and LBA have been invited to reapply once they have satisfied the criteria outlined.

The ACP instigated by DSAL is completely separate and the input from LBA is purely a measure to retain some of the airspace that they worked alongside DSA ATC on to ensure continuous descent profiles could be completed safely and within a controlled environment. This improves performance for the airlines (and ultimately their bottom line) and is not being applied for to spite DSA or any hopes to reopen it.

I hope my ramble makes sense. There is far more that I have forgotten to add which im sure can be discussed at a later date.

I appreciate the effort you have put into this posting. Its very comprehensive and reflects my own views. Could you send a copy to Look Norths transport correspondant?

 

I’ll have to trawl through some old threads to get the passenger figures from the days when easyjet FlyBe etc operated. Thanks he running theme throughout has been poor support from the public when such attempts have been made.

There is no doubting that TUI and Wizzair (Hungary) enjoyed some success there, but the point is and always has been that the airport was running at 50% of states critical mass required to generate sufficient profit. Not to mention the perilous nature of relying on just one or two airlines for the bulk of your passenger throughput.

People just do not want to accept this fact. And it is a fact that is proven by stats.

Facts are not of interest (perhaps with the exception of 1 of them) to the DSA campaign sites. Objectivity is blinded by frustration of holiday makers having to endure 'horrendous' journeys to different 'rubbish' airports. Throw away lines with no factual basis (as you have highlighted in your comprehensive post) seem to get picked up on and become 'gospel' in the hope that this somehow will help in re-opening the airport. When you even have a local MP posting incorrect information in respect of ACP because they don't understand the technical facts and haven't done their homework it's a poor do. I noticed someone had posted corrected information on his post - but this appears to have been deleted. The people there will believe what they want to believe and most (but not all) have been brainwashed to ignore the facts and no-one will persuade them otherwise.

 

Facts are not of interest (perhaps with the exception of 1 of them) to the DSA campaign sites. Objectivity is blinded by frustration of holiday makers having to endure 'horrendous' journeys to different 'rubbish' airports. Throw away lines with no factual basis (as you have highlighted in your comprehensive post) seem to get picked up on and become 'gospel' in the hope that this somehow will help in re-opening the airport. When you even have a local MP posting incorrect information in respect of ACP because they don't understand the technical facts and haven't done their homework it's a poor do. I noticed someone had posted corrected information on his post - but this appears to have been deleted. The people there will believe what they want to believe and most (but not all) have been brainwashed to ignore the facts and no-one will persuade them otherwise.

This is the problem when people get half a story and see figures like 1.4 million passengers, they don’t see or u dread and the bigger picture.

It’s like the people who are adamant DSA was going to be some intercontinental gateway because it had a long runway, that is partly Peels fault but lets me real here, it’s in Doncaster. Not to be derogatory to Doncaster but it’s hardly an economic powerhouse is it. The airport has failed because of where it is, and because of the strength of competition and the huge risk facing any airline operator wanting to start a service from there. Like I said in my last post, once routes are dropped it becomes difficult to pick them back up as airline executives are cautious, they have to be! It’s such a hyper competitive market and what they are selling is a highly perishable product. Going out with too many empty seats too many times does nothing for the bottom line. Again, this happened with all but TUI and this is nothing to do with Peel mismanagement or lack of marketing support. It’s purely down to lack of demand.

 

I'm now seeing posts on SAVEDSA Facebook page about LGW wanting to get their second runway/operational (which obviously makes sense), locals are now stating that they wouldn't need it if DSA reopened to take up the slack, its absolutely laughable. I cant see anybody living in the M25 booking a flight from DSA for a TUI holiday which they can book from LGW or Wizz flight which they can book from LTN.

They are living in dream world. They slam every other airport whenever possible, because of queues/access etc, there's a reason why DSA was easier to use, barely any PAX of course there isn't going to be queues. of course access is going to be easy as there's nobody travelling there. They think DSA faced no problems at all.. when I used the FlyBe AMS service, there was only 1 security lane open. obviously a handful of flights so there was obviously a long wait. they also cant understand why any airport with less Pax then DSA still operating in the country. absolutely absurd.

I've also seen someone claim that DSA had a KLM linked to AMS. face palm. it has never.

Honestly what they don't know they make up and brainwash each other, I think ive mentioned before but the amount of posts ive seen about them saying Jet2 needs to come and rescue the airport, cant help but laugh. we all know why Jet2 have never been interested.

LGW / LHR need to expand to keep up with AMS/CDG/FRA its a no brainer.

another post about HS2 and the cost of that some how relates to the government should spend it on DSA instead? ITS A LOSS MAKING AIRPORT as Pug posted above, Peel did a good job in the amount of airlines that gave DSA a try and failed.

The country does not need DSA as they all post. a handful of Holiday flights and Eastern Europe flights isn't the be all and end all.

and for the record, I am not ANTI DSA or ANTI any airport for that matter. I just see the facts/bigger picture/ both sides of the argument. I do agree other UK airports are struggling and their owners have put them put for sale (SEN) being and example. I can see that one shutting down again. Why would a owner keep a airport open when it is repeatedly losing a lot of money. Its a tough industry at the moment and for all airports/airlines.

 

Some more laughable posts about DSA on the Facebook DSA page, TUI staff are apparently more in favour of DSA over LBA?? Which TUI staff are based at LBA may I ask? None. Which cabin crew operate from LBA is BHX or NCL if I seem to remember correctly who most likely don’t give a toss / have a clue about the LBA experience.

Then many now claiming TUI would be back at DSA in a heartbeat if it reopened because someone they know from TUI works there. If they’re from the Doncaster region the only TUI staff who work in the area are EMA cabin crew or local travel agents. Who will of course have a biased opinion about their local airport.

They haven’t a clue in hell that TUI would be back in a heartbeat. Talk utter sh!!e. Unless it’s someone from head office at Luton which I very much doubt as it’s commercial sensitive information. It’s going to be years if anything before another plane will land there. Who knows, TUI maybe really happy with how their expanded EMA base is going and may not return, maybe happy with their LBA ops and decide to expand frequencies or even base. Presumptuous and desperate the lot of them.