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...?

 

A break clause is usually time based nothing to do with performance . If you decided to rent space at a new office in say Wellington Place in Leeds, the landlord might offer you a 10 year lease, with a break after 5 years. Which means after 5 years, you can hand the keys back and walk away. If you surrender the lease before 5 years, you would usually be liable for any remaining rent payable up to year 5.

So for DSA, Peel might offer the council a 50 year lease with a break after 10 years. Meaning the Council from that point is liable for 10 years worth of rent, irrespective of whether the aiport performs well or not. Which is why I think you’re placing a bit too much emphasis on Peel’s involvement post the lease being signed. From that point, they can’t lose really.

 

A break clause is usually time based nothing to do with performance . If you decided to rent space at a new office in say Wellington Place in Leeds, the landlord might offer you a 10 year lease, with a break after 5 years. Which means after 5 years, you can hand the keys back and walk away. If you surrender the lease before 5 years, you would usually be liable for any remaining rent payable up to year 5.

So for DSA, Peel might offer the council a 50 year lease with a break after 10 years. Meaning the Council from that point is liable for 10 years worth of rent, irrespective of whether the aiport performs well or not. Which is why I think you’re placing a bit too much emphasis on Peel’s involvement post the lease being signed. From that point, they can’t lose really.

I don’t think you can liken this to renting an office space in Leeds over a fixed term. You will probably find in this instance that Peel are keen to explore other uses for the land, they may not know what yet but they already alluded to non aviation uses. They also made it clear that they would not accept further public subsidy as they are adamant there is no future for aviation on the site. You may be fair to assume that they don’t care as long as they are getting some revenue from the site, which ultimately is probably true as I have said numerous times, the only winner here will be Peel. However, what they will not agree to is a long term lease if there is little prospect of success. So, this is why I believe any lease agreement will be firmly in their favour and I do not believe they will set a long term for a break clause. It’s also why I believe they will be more involved in whatever happens with the site than what we are being led to believe, and what you appear to be alluding to here,

They are invested in the site. In fact I think they’re probably waiting to see what the Council come up with in terms of operation/management of the site before they agree in principle. The Council appear to have been in talks over the leasehold for at least 6 months.

 

Just wanted to clear up some poor wording on my part. Statto quite rightly corrected me on my misuse of the break clause. I have had a discussion with someone today who is quite in the know with this sort of thing (but not DSA specific I might add), who believes there will be a number of ‘release clauses’ driven by Peel to allow them to effectively regain overall control of the land should it be determined for whatever reason that it is a basket case. Obviously might not be legally correct phraseology but it is expected that they won’t just let it go for a nominal fee and accept a periodic payment for use of the land.

What is uncertain at this time is what are they offering to lease? Is it just the airport critical part, with hangars, terminal and car park included? Is it the entire Finningley estate? Do Peel even still own the whole estate? Is there room for growth on the site that is subject to the lease being discussed I.e a business park, further hangarage for MRO, cargo etc to increase revenue? Or are the operator and ultimately the council relying on aviation revenue and car parking/retail much like it appears DSA did under Peel and Vantage?

Peel need to be involved in some way because they have Gateway East, which may give the Council some leverage but it’s best not forgotten that if they jeopardise Peels investment there they could stunt a large prospective employment zone.

I appreciate that it’s a complex undertaking, but I was far too short in my previous post regarding how long these talks have been ongoing, it’s getting close to 12 months now! Both parties obviously driving a hard bargain.

 

May I just add yet another post to dispel an often used myth about RAF Finningley and its supposed designation as a Space Shuttle Abort Landing Site. Particularly pertinent as Oliver Coppard recently used it as a reason why DSA should reopen.

The only official abort landing site in the UK cited in any NASA documents was RAF Fairford and Shannon airport in Ireland. Based on the specifications as outlined by NASA, the Shuttle required 12000ft of paved runway for an emergency landing, Fairford was in fact the exception to that rule being only 10,000ft long. But I believe this is because of a lack of other suitable options in the U.K. and probably because they had a US presence on site who were trained to deal with such an eventuality.

RAF Finningley was never considered as a Space Shuttle emergency landing site, it didn’t even meet the specifications as outlined by NASA. It’s not and has never even been the longest runway in the north of England. It does have a wider than standard runway due to its days as a V-Bomber base, but runways wider than 45 metres have no practical use within civilian aviation.

BBC - RAF Fairford on standby for Space Shuttle landing

news.bbc.co.uk

Then on to the military importance, also often cited. This again is utter rubbish, the military do not need DSA on any reserve status, they have not needed it since 1996 when they closed it and sold it off.

The importance to ‘blue light’ services is also rubbish, as has been proven as all of those services have relocated to other airports.

 

May I just add yet another post to dispel an often used myth about RAF Finningley and its supposed designation as a Space Shuttle Abort Landing Site. Particularly pertinent as Oliver Coppard recently used it as a reason why DSA should reopen.

The only official abort landing site in the UK cited in any NASA documents was RAF Fairford and Shannon airport in Ireland. Based on the specifications as outlined by NASA, the Shuttle required 12000ft of paved runway for an emergency landing, Fairford was in fact the exception to that rule being only 10,000ft long. But I believe this is because of a lack of other suitable options in the U.K. and probably because they had a US presence on site who were trained to deal with such an eventuality.

RAF Finningley was never considered as a Space Shuttle emergency landing site, it didn’t even meet the specifications as outlined by NASA. It’s not and has never even been the longest runway in the north of England. It does have a wider than standard runway due to its days as a V-Bomber base, but runways wider than 45 metres have no practical use within civilian aviation.

BBC - RAF Fairford on standby for Space Shuttle landing

news.bbc.co.uk

Then on to the military importance, also often cited. This again is utter rubbish, the military do not need DSA on any reserve status, they have not needed it since 1996 when they closed it and sold it off.

The importance to ‘blue light’ services is also rubbish, as has been proven as all of those services have relocated to other airports.

It's obvious that from the start the politicians have been prepared to exaggerate to achieve aims. But when we're politicians ever really trustworthy?

Regarding a Space shuttle landing site, I'm certain I read among information available at the Yorkshire Air Museum (ex RAF Elvington near York) that the runway there had a specially strengthened stretch specifically so that it could be used by the Space Shuttle. I've driven down that runway on a track day and recall a length of runway that was of a different construction. I'm not saying it's a true fact, just what I read and what we were told. It's all academic anyway.

Incidentally, Elvington had a longer runway at 3094 metres than Finningley which was 3000 metres when operational. That appears to have been shortened slightly once it became a civil airport.

 

It's obvious that from the start the politicians have been prepared to exaggerate grossly, or downright lie, to achieve aims. But when we're politicians ever really trustworthy?

Regarding a Space shuttle landing site, I'm certain I read among information available at the Yorkshire Air Museum (ex RAF Elvington near York) that the runway there had a specially strengthened stretch specifically so that it could be used by the Space Shuttle. I've driven down that runway on a track day and recall a length of runway that was of a different construction. I'm not saying it's a true fact, just what I read and what we were told. It's all academic anyway.

Incidentally, Elvington had a longer runway at 3094 metres than Finningley which was 3000 metres when operational. That appears to have been shortened slightly once it became a civil airport.

Agreed about politicians but it’s blatant regurgitation of urban myths when he should be doing his research and at least ignoring the nonsense.

I think a lot of airfields would satisfy the category of ‘could be a space shuttle abort landing site’ cos of the runway length being just about long enough to qualify (although like I said, 12000ft was the stipulation. Elvington was not built for the space shuttle. Building it was a feat in itself though, taken over by the USAF in the 1950’s after having laid unused since WW2 and completely reconfigured at huge expense (the land wasn’t exactly best suited to long and strong runways, I believe being a bit damp), but in any event it wasn’t really used by the USAF if at all, and was abandoned by 1959 I believe placed on some kind of care and maintenance until the RAF took it back and used it as a Relief Landing Ground for trainee pilots at Church Fenton and Linton on Ouse. There was a documentary made I believe in the 60’s about Elvington and its lack of use. If I can find it I will post a link, appreciate its detailing the thread somewhat. However, as creating a civil airport there never took off, kind of proves the point that it takes more than a long runway to be successful,

EDIT: the Elvington feature was on BBC ‘tonight’ and can be viewed on the BBC archive Facebook page if you search for Tonight: Elvington Airfield. The date I believe is incorrect, it states 1971 but the program ran between 1958 and 1965 on BBC, and the Americans had completely abandoned the place by 1971!

 

Agreed about politicians but it’s blatant regurgitation of urban myths when he should be doing his research and at least ignoring the nonsense.

I think a lot of airfields would satisfy the category of ‘could be a space shuttle abort landing site’ cos of the runway length being just about long enough to qualify (although like I said, 12000ft was the stipulation. Elvington was not built for the space shuttle. Building it was a feat in itself though, taken over by the USAF in the 1950’s after having laid unused since WW2 and completely reconfigured at huge expense (the land wasn’t exactly best suited to long and strong runways, I believe being a bit damp), but in any event it wasn’t really used by the USAF if at all, and was abandoned by 1959 I believe placed on some kind of care and maintenance until the RAF took it back and used it as a Relief Landing Ground for trainee pilots at Church Fenton and Linton on Ouse. There was a documentary made I believe in the 60’s about Elvington and its lack of use. If I can find it I will post a link, appreciate its detailing the thread somewhat. However, as creating a civil airport there never took off, kind of proves the point that it takes more than a long runway to be successful,

EDIT: the Elvington feature was on BBC ‘tonight’ and can be viewed on the BBC archive Facebook-- page if you search for Tonight: Elvington Airfield. The date I believe is incorrect, it states 1971 but the program ran between 1958 and 1965 on BBC, and the Americans had completely abandoned the place by 1971!

Just to clarify, my reference to the runway being shorter slightly when it became a civil airport referred to Finningley/DSA as the DSA runway length was given as slightly less than that for RAF Finningley.

I'm sure that whilst RAF Church Fenton was suggested as a replacement for LBA in the early 70s (dismissed by the RAF as they still used it as a relief landing ground), Elvington was suggested by some as an ideal central location for a major airport for Yorkshire by those who dont appreciate the importance of being close to the served catchment areas and in particular the big cities. Yes Elvington is central in Yorkshire and close to a main road and flat and spacious and the rest, but apart from York it's nearly 25 miles from Leeds, the nearest big city and too far from everywhere else given that MAN will be equally close to most other Yorkshire towns and cities.

Perhaps Peel should have taken note when developing DSA.

 

Do enjoy catching up on the DSA posts periodically, which all continue to make me chuckle. Not in relation to who has posted what but just the general delusions of grandeur that clearly exist within the council. As someone else posted a quite laughable soap opera. I would be livid if my local council threw so much money at such a huge vanity project. Equally I would love our local council(s) to be as keen to support LBA as is happening re DSA. Short sighted liars - the lot of em!!

 

At the time of the LBA sale I asked a Leeds Councillor why they chose to sell the airport rather than invest in it and she said airports are too risky a business for councils to put in the kind of investment they need.

 

Just to clarify, my reference to the runway being shorter slightly when it became a civil airport referred to Finningley/DSA as the DSA runway length was given as slightly less than that for RAF Finningley.

I'm sure that whilst RAF Church Fenton was suggested as a replacement for LBA in the early 70s (dismissed by the RAF as they still used it as a relief landing ground), Elvington was suggested by some as an ideal central location for a major airport for Yorkshire by those who dont appreciate the importance of being close to the served catchment areas and in particular the big cities. Yes Elvington is central in Yorkshire and close to a main road and flat and spacious and the rest, but apart from York it's nearly 25 miles from Leeds, the nearest big city and too far from everywhere else given that MAN will be equally close to most other Yorkshire towns and cities.

Perhaps Peel should have taken note when developing DSA.

The runway at DSA was technically slightly shorter than when it was RAF Finningley, but that is because of the differences between required declared distances between the type of flying the military do when compared to commercial air transport. Hasn’t stopped a bunch of idiots spreading another myth that Peel physically shortened the runway when they turned it into DSA.

Elvington did actually have its runway shortened by the RAF, that is to say the useable paved surface when it was an RLG was 6000ft, didn’t really need to go to the expense of keeping a full 10000ft stretch of runway up to spec when it wasn’t needed. Advice to any DSA buffs, they did this in the 60’s when the airforce was much bigger than it is now! Another tell tale sign of why Finningley does not need to be reserved for military flying!

Aviador - correct. They were all sold off starting in the 90’s because they’re best driven by private enterprise. Even Oliver Coppard admits this. We are not the USA. Our entire land mass would fit inside Arizona. We do not need lots of airports vying for the same business, nor do we need internal flights apart from to the extreme ends of the country (NQY, ABZ) because surface access is relatively straight forward. Statto used the example of Australian airports being owned by local authorities but operated by private sector. Again, far less competitive market, and air travel is a necessity there due to the vast distances between urban areas.

DSA is not needed, its contribution to the regional economy is negligible. It is a nice to have, but if it fails to attract operators en masse and it is heavily reliant of public funding then its best left to be redeveloped as something else that actually might provide better opportunities for people in Doncaster and South Yorkshire

 

Another myth to bust. DSA car parking revenue never contributed to the DSA Ltd revenue and was syphoned off to another Peel entity.

I now know this to be 100% bullsh1t. In fact, there was a person employed to maximise revenue to the airport operating company through car parking and concessions that directly contributed to revenue as reported in the annual accounts. Car parking was never outsourced to another Peel company, facts are that they made very little from aeronautical fees (because they charged pittance) that car parking and commercial property were the two largest revenue streams for the airport.

Proof? Alongside the evidence provided within the accounts of other Peel owned airports which report a revenue per departing passenger from car parking of £3.60, just a quick Google search will bring up a profile of the person who was in charge of doing this very job - maximising revenue from car parking.

Peel did not charge airlines too much to fly from there, they actually charged very little in an attempt to make it competitive. Had they charged more the airlines that did operate from there would probably not have done so.

What they did do is outsource some of the air traffic services like Radar Control which was operated remotely from Liverpool, which is what contributed to some of the ‘admin’ charges in the published accounts. However, this may have provided value for money over and above actually having it in-house at DSA.

 

Another myth to bust. DSA car parking revenue never contributed to the DSA Ltd revenue and was syphoned off to another Peel entity.

I now know this to be 100% bullsh1t. In fact, there was a person employed to maximise revenue to the airport operating company through car parking and concessions that directly contributed to revenue as reported in the annual accounts. Car parking was never outsourced to another Peel company, facts are that they made very little from aeronautical fees (because they charged pittance) that car parking and commercial property were the two largest revenue streams for the airport.

Proof? Alongside the evidence provided within the accounts of other Peel owned airports which report a revenue per departing passenger from car parking of £3.60, just a quick Google search will bring up a profile of the person who was in charge of doing this very job - maximising revenue from car parking.

Peel did not charge airlines too much to fly from there, they actually charged very little in an attempt to make it competitive. Had they charged more the airlines that did operate from there would probably not have done so.

What they did do is outsource some of the air traffic services like Radar Control which was operated remotely from Liverpool, which is what contributed to some of the ‘admin’ charges in the published accounts. However, this may have provided value for money over and above actually having it in-house at DSA.

We at LBA know that Peel did their best to attract airlines to DSA through low or maybe non existent fees, and that the pro DSA campaign were and still are talking total nonsense. W

That's probably a reason why TUi closed the LBA base and moved it to DSA. We were also told that's why the expected announcement of a new Flybe base turned into an announcement of a new DSA base instead. They did a good job on LBA (but not good enough it seems). Clearly it was a strategy that was necessary to attract airlines and ultimately one that failed, as is usually the case when an airport needs to do this to attract business.

Still, Doncaster's Mayor and the South Yorkshire Mayor are experts on running airports and know best.

 

@pug the outsourcing of ATC to Peels sister company at Liverpool will have saved Doncaster airport a significant amount of money. A new council run operation at the airport will not have that priverlidge and they will have to pay for it, a further cost a new company can illaford.

 

@pug the outsourcing of ATC to Peels sister company at Liverpool will have saved Doncaster airport a significant amount of money. A new council run operation at the airport will not have that priverlidge and they will have to pay for it, a further cost a new company can illaford.

Not only will they have to recruit the staff, they will have to buy the ATC equipment that wasn't needed when it was dealt with over at LPL.

 

Not only will they have to recruit the staff, they will have to buy the ATC equipment that wasn't needed when it was dealt with over at LPL.

Not only will they have to recruit the staff, they will have to buy the ATC equipment that wasn't needed when it was dealt with over at LPL.

Think it would be possible to secure an agreement with the ATS provider at LPL like before, think that’s outsourced to Vantage who used to own Peel Airports. Still, depends on whether a budding operator would want to do that or have it all in-house and of course it would add to the expense or installing the necessary equipment and staffing it.

 

Think it would be possible to secure an agreement with the ATS provider at LPL like before, think that’s outsourced to Vantage who used to own Peel Airports. Still, depends on whether a budding operator would want to do that or have it all in-house and of course it would add to the expense or installing the necessary equipment and staffing it.

That is likely and there are other operators who can do the same but it will still come at a cost.

 

That is likely and there are other operators who can do the same but it will still come at a cost.

The Full Outline Business Case was I believe supposed to have been submitted to SYMCA this month, not sure whether it has yet or not but it is again unlikely to be made public at this stage. That may have outlined what their plans are for it. I believe the deadline to select the two front runners was on Wednesday last week.

 

Think the way the Mayors delayed getting everything going, thinking would be most beneficial towards election time drive for an announcement.

In the end it has landed them slap bang in the centre of diluted market place with numerous airports for sale. Could this be a case of better prospects to be had elsewhere by purchasing and DSA being a lease operation becomes an unfavourable look for investors. As investors would prefer ownership as tangible equity sunk in can be held with the ownership, whereas investment in a lease driven operation doesn't have the same weight as ownership investment.

Could this be why when Peel conducted review into DSA operations and the outcome was airport operation unviable going forward. They knew how many other airports were coming onto the market at what sort of time frame and would see DSA at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to investors buying, meaning DSA being left on the shelf.

 

Think the way the Mayors delayed getting everything going, thinking would be most beneficial towards election time drive for an announcement.

In the end it has landed them slap bang in the centre of diluted market place with numerous airports for sale. Could this be a case of better prospects to be had elsewhere by purchasing and DSA being a lease operation becomes an unfavourable look for investors. As investors would prefer ownership as tangible equity sunk in can be held with the ownership, whereas investment in a lease driven operation doesn't have the same weight as ownership investment.

Could this be why when Peel conducted review into DSA operations and the outcome was airport operation unviable going forward. They knew how many other airports were coming onto the market at what sort of time frame and would see DSA at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to investors buying, meaning DSA being left on the shelf.

I don’t think they’ve purposefully delayed it, in fairness to them they’ve been effectively blindsided by it (though Coppards predecessor seems to have had an inkling all was not rosey), and getting the mechanisms in place when they have no knowledge of airport operations has been what’s taken the time. That and the headless chicken approach to it initially by offering public threats to Peel.

I do not think Peel were strategically waiting for the right time to wrap it up. They did so because they couldn’t keep bailing the airport out. Maybe some of those higher up in the Peel enterprise were anticipating change, the final nail hammered in by Wizzair withdrawing their base as it coincided with one or two of the directors of DSA leaving the business (pushed?) around the time of that announcement. There was no prospect for growth as they had already exhausted all avenues, and to drastically change the airport operation to enable it to become self sustaining was probably not possible hence the decision to close. They had also begun investment into more boarding bridges to cater to an expected increase in usage that sadly didn’t materialise. For anyone thinking I was waiting for it to fail, I was quite positive about the Wizzair announcement (as I was about easyjet) as I believed if anyone could make it work it would be those two..

It’s a right kick in the teeth for South Yorkshire, and it’s quite understandable why the authorities are pushing ahead with trying to save it. But let me point you back to the start 20 years ago, there was acceptance that the airport wasn’t needed, and in fact it was stated quite plainly that it would struggle to establish, and it did. Peel took a huge risk where others wouldn’t and it didn’t pay off. Regional business leaders and the local Chamber of Commerce are apparently perplexed at the closure of the airport, citing various avenues that they do not believe were explored by Peel. Mark Chadwick has shared an information sheet that has presumably been obtained via the Chamber, again it fails to drill down into the detail, that being the proximity of EMA which renders any large scale cargo operation at DSA unviable.

 

I didn't say that Peel waited. I was saying that Peel whilst doing the review will have been aware that number of airports for sale/ coming up for sale. So the likelihood of buyers would have been slim.

I was saying that the way the Mayors have gone on with things, that delays meant the bidding process has fallen right into the centre of a saturated market with numerous airports up for sale. Which puts DSA down the pecking order for investors. Purchase would be better for investors than a lease deal.

Why the Mayors never put in an offer to buy the airport from Peel in the early days of the saga, would have been more helpful to the reopening cause than the way they have gone about it.