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...?

 

Ros can’t help mentioning CAS yet again, I really don’t see why this matters so much to an operator at this stage, it’s a formality. Perhaps a budding operator is concerned that once it’s gone it’s going to be tough to make an argument to regain it due to relatively low CAT throughput?

What do people make of it?

Airspace is important, in that it is very expensive, time consuming and difficult to establish if it isn’t already there.

Furthermore, the absence of CAS is a huge impediment to achieving the scale of operation that will be needed to make DSA profitable. Even if it were likely that a similar-sized operation to the previous one could be established quickly after reopening (and that’s a whole other debate…), the absence of CAS would prevent that and would necessitate a slower build-up over several years before the need for CAS could be demonstrated.

This compounds the problems for the new operation, as operators are reluctant to establish passenger services to airports which cannot afford them the protection of CAS. Airports without CAS, like Humberside, must undertake rigorous assurance to demonstrate to operators that their ATC unit is up to the task of guiding their flights through busy, uncontrolled airspace without incident. Add to that, the idea of IFR operations in uncontrolled airspace is simply a confusing anathema to many foreign operators.

You say it’s a formality, it’s anything but. The CAA has previously been embarrassed by the way the original CAS was granted and it will be reluctant to put itself in the same position again.

In the CAS Post-Implementation Review in 2017, (which was delayed until the CAA’s embarrassment could be minimised by the existence of a larger DSA operation justifying the airspace), the CAA accepted that the airspace would not be granted on the same scale if it were to be done over. The CAAs suggestions to trim back the airspace and introduce more flexibility for other airspace users were stonewalled by the airport.

In summary, the airspace was acknowledged by the CAA as being too much even for the previous Airport operation at its peak, and would not have been granted in that form with the benefit of hindsight. The new operation starts with zero passenger operations, and at the moment lacks even an ATC unit to control and administer the airspace (another thing that is extremely expensive, time consuming and difficult to establish if it isn’t there, btw). I can’t see how the CAA would grant the reestablishment of the previous airspace, unless there was a similar-sized operation ready to go from the outset.

 

DSA was rated most friendliest/effeicent because there was simply no passenger footfall, of course there is no queues... that isnt a good sign from a business prospective. Busy airports mean queues no matter where in the world.

DSA supporters are adamant Monarch will be back and going in.. Virgin wanted to base there.. all pie in the sky laughable opinions which will never happen.

Get DSA open, x2/3 based TUI there, will this take away queues from LBA/EMA/MAN? nope not at all. sooo where do we go from here?

Eastern may make an appearance to operate empty flights to DUB/BHD with heavy subsidiaries..

Airspace is important, in that it is very expensive, time consuming and difficult to establish if it isn’t already there.

Furthermore, the absence of CAS is a huge impediment to achieving the scale of operation that will be needed to make DSA profitable. Even if it were likely that a similar-sized operation to the previous one could be established quickly after reopening (and that’s a whole other debate…), the absence of CAS would prevent that and would necessitate a slower build-up over several years before the need for CAS could be demonstrated.

This compounds the problems for the new operation, as operators are reluctant to establish passenger services to airports which cannot afford them the protection of CAS. Airports without CAS, like Humberside, must undertake rigorous assurance exercises to demonstrate to operators that their ATC unit is up to the task of guiding their flights through busy, uncontrolled airspace without incident. Add to that, the idea of IFR operations in uncontrolled airspace is simply a confusing anathema to many foreign operators.

You say it’s a formality, it’s anything but. The CAA has previously been embarrassed by the way the original CAS was granted and it will be reluctant to put itself in the same position again.

In the CAS Post-Implementation Review in 2017, (which was delayed until the CAA’s embarrassment could be minimised by the existence of a larger DSA operation justifying the airspace), the CAA accepted that the airspace would not be granted on the same scale if it were to be done over. The CAAs suggestions to trim back the airspace and introduce more flexibility for other airspace users were stonewalled by the airport.

In summary, the airspace was acknowledged by the CAA as being too much even for the previous Airport operation at its peak, and would not have been granted in that form with the benefit of hindsight. The new operation starts with zero passenger operations, and at the moment lacks even an ATC unit to control and administer the airspace (another thing that is extremely expensive, time consuming and difficult to establish if it isn’t there, btw). I can’t see how the CAA would grant the reestablishment of the previous airspace, unless there was a similar-sized operation ready to go from the outset.

Thanks for your detailed and clearly expert response radar.

Whilst I understand the complexities of establishing the airspace from scratch, my argument was down the lines of being sure the new operator will want to have to manage it. I.e it must be costly to maintain it, given you presumably have to have a full compliment of fully trained ATC operators over a long period. We do not yet know what the plans are for the airport, because it’s not likely to be a success by just following the blueprint set down by the previous operators.

Of course if the airport does reopen then re-establishing the airspace may be a formality assuming the CAA do not complete the change process in the meantime. As I understand it, despite the CAA finding that it does not meet the call in criteria, it has been called in anyway and presumably they are awaiting any decisions from SoS - which on face value renders the current petition to halt the CAA from pushing ahead as useless, ignoring the obvious that the CAA are not at liberty to listen to Gladys from Rossington who would quite like the airport to reopen so she doesn’t have to travel to EMA to get her annual flight to Beindorm. I would expect there is some good grace from Government to just sit on it a while and see how it plays out.

Interesting to note the findings of the review. They may be keen to pursue a change irrespective of what happens with regards reopening, given other stakeholder input and various ACP for LBA. Perhaps the consultants to the Council are well aware of this review from 2017 and have advised caution?

 

Thanks for your detailed response radar.

Whilst I understand the complexities of establishing the airspace from scratch, my argument was down the lines of being sure the new operator will want to have to manage it. I.e it must be costly to maintain it, given you presumably have to have a full compliment of fully trained ATC operators over a long period. We do not yet know what the plans are for the airport, because it’s not likely to be a success by just following the blueprint set down by the previous operators.

Of course if the airport does reopen then re-establishing the airspace may be a formality assuming the CAA do not complete the change process in the meantime. As I understand it, despite the CAA finding that it does not meet the call in criteria, it has been called in anyway and presumably they are awaiting any decisions from SoS - which on face value renders the current petition to halt the CAA from pushing ahead as useless, ignoring the obvious that the CAA are not at liberty to listen to Gladys from Rossington who would quite like the airport to reopen so she doesn’t have to travel to EMA to get her annual flight to Beindorm. I would expect there is some good grace from Government to just sit on it a while and see how it plays out.

Interesting to note the findings of the review. They may be keen to pursue a change irrespective of what happens with regards reopening, given other stakeholder input and various ACP for LBA.

Points well made. If the airport isn’t planned to be a passenger operation, and instead something like Kemble, then obviously it won’t require CAS, or ATC. But that would necessarily limit any ambitions of establishing passenger operations in future.

The SoS does have the matter called in, but it would be dangerous to assume that means it’s a done deal if the minister wanted to reestablish it - there are many more stakeholders involved than just the airport, and the other airspace users would demand that the operation justified the reduction of their freedoms. I can quite see the gliding community, for example, taking legal action.

 

Points well made. If the airport isn’t planned to be a passenger operation, and instead something like Kemble, then obviously it won’t require CAS, or ATC. But that would necessarily limit any ambitions of establishing passenger operations in future.

The SoS does have the matter called in, but it would be dangerous to assume that means it’s a done deal if the minister wanted to reestablish it - there are many more stakeholders involved than just the airport, and the other airspace users would demand that the operation justified the reduction of their freedoms. I can quite see the gliding community, for example, taking legal action.

I do have a query if I may with regards reluctance of passenger airlines to operate into airports without CAS. As I understand it at the moment airports of similar size or larger than HUY like EXT and NQY do not currently have CAS, I note EXT has applied for it but seems that’s pending (unless there have been updates since 2022). Regardless, my employer does not rule out ops to airports without swathes of class D or equivalent airspace. Those airports may be subject to a risk assessment but that’s pretty standard affair and rarely results in a negative outcome. Obviously, if it’s a large operation with numerous based aircraft then class d would be a mutual benefit that I’m sure the CAA and other stakeholders would accept.

I think that it’s called in means, if I’m not mistaken, that the ACP is paused so could in theory be rescinded should an operator be appointed to reopen it. I get that there may be legal challenges from the GA and Gliding community, but the Class D did benefit LBA for CDA approaches for arrivals from the East which are not afforded the same level of protection as they once were. I would expect that would take precedence and should the airport be successful in reopening then I suspect LBA would be supportive of that airspace being retained. Perhaps you know differently?

 

I do have a query if I may with regards reluctance of passenger airlines to operate into airports without CAT. As I understand it at the moment airports of similar size or larger than HUY like EXT and NQY do not currently have CAT, I note EXT has applied for it but seems that’s pending (unless there have been updates since 2022). Regardless, my employer does not rule out ops to airports without swathes of class D or equivalent airspace. Those airports may be subject to a risk assessment but that’s pretty standard affair and rarely results in a negative outcome. Obviously, if it’s a large operation with numerous based aircraft then class d would be a mutual benefit that I’m sure the CAA and other stakeholders would accept.

I think that it’s called in means, if I’m not mistaken, that the ACP is paused so could in theory be rescinded should an operator be appointed to reopen it. I get that there may be legal challenges from the GA and Gliding community, but the Class D did benefit LBA for CDA approaches for arrivals from the East which are now afforded the same level of protection. I would expect that would take precedence and should the airport be successful in reopening then I suspect LBA would be supportive of that airspace being retained. Perhaps you know differently?

Of course, while the absence of CAS doesn’t preclude airlines agreeing to operate, it’s unlikely to be their preference if they have a choice. We haven’t seen any of the old charter operations flooding back to HUY after DSA closed, the world and its attitude to risk has moved on to a certain extent - I dare say we’d be unlikely to see Jet2 going back to Blackpool. It’s not impossible, just difficulties that DSA 2.0 could well do without.

The LBA use of the airspace doesn’t really carry much weight tbh. Relative to the overall volume of airspace, the portion they used was tiny, and in any event they are currently having their busiest summer season ever without apparent need for it. It’s telling that LBA discontinued their efforts to retain that bit of airspace.

 

Of course, while the absence of CAS doesn’t preclude airlines agreeing to operate, it’s unlikely to be their preference if they have a choice. We haven’t seen any of the old charter operations flooding back to HUY after DSA closed, the world and its attitude to risk has moved on to a certain extent - I dare say we’d be unlikely to see Jet2 going back to Blackpool. It’s not impossible, just difficulties that DSA 2.0 could well do without.

The LBA use of the airspace doesn’t really carry much weight tbh. Relative to the overall volume of airspace, the portion they used was tiny, and in any event they are currently having their busiest summer season ever without apparent need for it. It’s telling that LBA discontinued their efforts to retain that bit of airspace.

I think the reason HUY haven’t scooped up lost charter traffic is more down to lack of any ambition to do so rather than specific issues with ATC. They will not open out of core hours unless it ties in with the KLM movements (which are on a lower category aircraft). Regardless, TUI have committed to increase their program next year, and the flights to Bulgaria appear to be selling well, so it’s clearly not deterring some growth. Theoretically a Class D covered airport is more attractive, but commercial pressure trumps convenience 99.9% of the time as we found out with DSA 1.0, and BLK again will not open to large CAT movements as there isn’t the commercial demand for it to happen.

I wasn’t aware LBA had dropped their proposal to take some of that airspace. Flight crew do miss it, so again perhaps it’s commercial rather than operational pressure at play.

 

@rabbitfoot and anybody else wishing to quote external content, please visit the help pages to learn how to correctly source external content. You must not copy and paste external news onto Forums4airports.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Aviador

 

would Aena be to big to show an interest in DSA?
as they have with glasgow, edinburgh, aberdeen and southampton

 

would Aena be to big to show an interest in DSA?
as they have with glasgow, edinburgh, aberdeen and southampton

Who knows - names that keep cropping up are Fraport (Frankfurt Airport/Airport City owners/ developers and ADP - the Paris Airports Group. Both huge and on the face of it one might think that they were too big to have an interest or as 'experienced operators' would know what sort of challenge they face and think it would be too high risk - but we will not know for sure until an operator is announced. Once that's done I guess there will be due diligence to complete and negotiations to finalise the legal details. Possibly all hinges on how much public money will be offered to de-risk the operation for the 'operator/investor' or in whatever capacity they will be.

 

BAA so they can turn it into a second Heathrow with its super duper long runway. It'll be known as UK Central with a capacity 150 mppa. Airports at Manchester, East Midlands and Leeds will close due to their inability to facilitate the fantastic growth opportunities of the North as everyone from the great northern conurbations flock to the new airport.

 

I think it’s important to point out at this stage that anyone claiming to know who it is is making things up. I understand the people running this process are taking the confidentiality of the participants very seriously, as will any bidders be. I think it’s therefore pointless speculating as to the identity of any interested parties at this time until any formal announcement is made.

It’s worth considering that whoever it is, there’ll be a big question mark over what’s in it for them. Like Goldfox has insinuated, it will most likely come down to how much financial support is available. I expect Peel will still have some involvement in the proceedings, whether they have any input with any new airport OPCO or not remains to be seen, but they will have a vested interest in what happens on the site.

 

@White Heather perhaps you could provide an overview of the LBA CC with regards opinions on DSA on this thread?

 

@White Heather perhaps you could provide an overview of the LBA CC with regards opinions on DSA on this thread?

OK, at today's LBA Consultative Committee meeting, one member asked about DSA. She had been told by someone ' in the know' that DSA would reopen this year, and, when it did, TUi would not only move back but would make it their main base (in the UK presumably). She asked if LBA considered a reopened DSA to be a threat.

LBA management stated that:

a) they don't tend to get involved in matters relating to other airports, but

b) they never like to see airports go under and when they do, it sends a bad message out within the industry relating to aviation demand within that region.

c). they were aware of various political statements and claims relating to DSA but suggested that not all of those claims could be relied upon and did not always reflect the true position.

d). It was clear that they were somewhat sceptical regarding the reopening of DSA and confirmed that whether it reopened or not, they saw it as no threat to their growth plans at LBA which are advancing nicely. Earlier in the meeting it was confirmed that for 2024/5 LBA expected to once again break it's passenger throughput record with 4.5m passengers, whilst the terminal extension will complete next year and the entire terminal redevelopment scheme in 2026. LBA now serves in excess of 80 destinations.

I must stress that in no way were LBA management dismissive of DSA nor disrespectful. Quite the opposite. But it was clear that they are not convinced regarding claims made, or that reopening will impact on LBA growth. Whether that comes from inside knowledge within the industry or is simply an educated opinion, I wouldn't know.

 

OK, at today's LBA Consultative Committee meeting, one member asked about DSA. She had been told by someone ' in the know' that DSA would reopen this year, and, when it did, TUi would not only move back but would make it their main base (in the UK presumably). She asked if LBA considered a reopened DSA to be a threat.

LBA management stated that:

a) they don't tend to get involved in matters relating to other airports, but

b) they never like to see airports go under and when they do, it sends a bad message out within the industry relating to aviation demand within that region.

c). they were aware of various political statements and claims relating to DSA but suggested that not all of those claims could be relied upon and did not always reflect the true position.

d). It was clear that they were somewhat sceptical regarding the reopening of DSA and confirmed that whether it reopened or not, they saw it as no threat to their growth plans at LBA which are advancing nicely. Earlier in the meeting it was confirmed that for 2024/5 LBA expected to once again break it's passenger throughput record with 4.5m passengers, whilst the terminal extension will complete next year and the entire terminal redevelopment scheme in 2026. LBA now serves in excess of 80 destinations.

I must stress that in no way were LBA management dismissive of DSA nor disrespectful. Quite the opposite. But it was clear that they are not convinced regarding claims made, or that reopening will impact on LBA growth. Whether that comes from inside knowledge within the industry or is simply an educated opinion, I wouldn't know.

A fair assessment I feel, and certainly you will never get an exec to state their true opinions on something like this.

Regards TUI, I’m not sure when they could implement a main base strategy at DSA. It would on face value make sense, assuming nobody else wanted to move in there having a large base all to themselves would be advantageous, it clearly worked for them in the past. Main problem is lack of aircraft as far as I can see at the moment. Not sure when they expect to receive the Max 10’s, but I think that will be fleet attrition in the main. They may pull EMA, who knows?

One thing is clear, if they want to have a success in the passenger market, they’re going to have to pull people from further than South Yorks. It needs to be a viable departure point for people in the whole of Yorkshire and the east midlands, and for that to happen it needs to offer something the others don’t. That to me is a large TUI base like before and a large easyjet base. If LBA get first mover advantage with easyjet the narrowing of possibilities may deter any investor/operator from signing up. Freight is the same, they may be able to sell the advantages to some Middle Eastern freight carrier but with trends towards belly hold, and EMA having a large pure freight operation, I just can’t see at the moment where it might come from.

 

TUI had over 17 years to make DSA a large / main base and they never did.. why would they now? because Donna from Donny wants to go to Benidrom twice a year.. not money spinners really..

Live in dream world, nothing but hilarious to watch the desperation play out and drag down every airport in the country apart from the beloved DSA which in winter manages 1/2 flights a day.. and IF it reopens I can not see it changing

 

TUI had over 17 years to make DSA a large / main base and they never did.. why would they now? because Donna from Donny wants to go to Benidrom twice a year.. not money spinners really..

Live in dream world, nothing but hilarious to watch the desperation play out and drag down every airport in the country apart from the beloved DSA which in winter manages 1/2 flights a day.. and IF it reopens I can not see it changing

I still can’t understand how there has been such a shift in interest in the site now that wasn’t there before. Talk elsewhere of a mix of investors and operators being in the race to run the place. I call BS on that on the basis that when Peel ran it, sold it to a Canadian firm, then bought it back, nobody would invest in it. Not least the local mayoral combined authority to the tune of £20million. Tiny compared with what is now being proposed.

So unless there has been a seismic shift in demand in the last two years, no idea where this investment interest is coming from. I still expect it to be far from a done deal, it’s one thing submitting a tender and another actually agreeing workable terms that benefits all parties.

The airport city will still have Peel input, it has to cos they own the land. So where is the money coming from?

 

I still can’t understand how there has been such a shift in interest in the site now that wasn’t there before. Talk elsewhere of a mix of investors and operators being in the race to run the place. I call BS on that on the basis that when Peel ran it, sold it to a Canadian firm, then bought it back, nobody would invest in it. Not least the local mayoral combined authority to the tune of £20million. Tiny compared with what is now being proposed.

So unless there has been a seismic shift in demand in the last two years, no idea where this investment interest is coming from. I still expect it to be far from a done deal, it’s one thing submitting a tender and another actually agreeing workable terms that benefits all parties.

The airport city will still have Peel input, it has to cos they own the land. So where is the money coming from?

Unless Peel sell the required land to an 'investor' which seems uncertain at best, then the 'investor' like the 'operator' if they are separate entities, will not actual own anything that they are 'investing' in. Assume a purpose built freight integrator will need to be on the airport site if that's the direction the new 'operator' is to take - which Peel will still own. (Unless of course it would be remote which seems pointless). Might as well use the huge speculatively built warehouse outside the airfield site which is apparently still lying idle. I know I've mentioned it before and there may be a twist in the tail, but if there are folk prepared to invest with their own money in something that they don't own, (other than CDC using our/ public money) they can't be from Yorkshire!

 

Unless Peel sell the required land to an 'investor' which seems uncertain at best, then the 'investor' like the 'operator' if they are separate entities, will not actual own anything that they are 'investing' in. Assume a purpose built freight integrator will need to be on the airport site if that's the direction the new 'operator' is to take - which Peel will still own. (Unless of course it would be remote which seems pointless). Might as well use the huge speculatively built warehouse outside the airfield site which is apparently still lying idle. I know I've mentioned it before and there may be a twist in the tail, but if there are folk prepared to invest with their own money in something that they don't own, (other than CDC using our/ public money) they can't be from Yorkshire!

There is a caveat, the 125 year lease. So in theory it’s not a huge risk in terms of investment to the property, though I would expect most investors would prefer to have freehold themselves. However, I know it’s become a broken record, but who is going to invest so much into something where airlines have shunned it in the past? I still fail to see the latent demand that apparently exists that didn’t exist before. It again comes back to Peel and a suspicion that they mishandled it, but Peel are experts at generating growth through land value, this is exactly what the Council appear to be advocating with their airport city.

Still far too many unknowns at this stage but I still think people are getting bit too excited.

 

Don’t want to be too political but got to have a little giggle at some of the comments regarding the change in Government (and long overdue ousting of former MP Nick and his now redundant selfie stick), and the future of DSA.

If anything this new Government should help matters along rather than hinder. I personally want to see a more pragmatic approach to the regulatory problem and a rejoining of EASA. But on a local level, a Labour led team genuinely committed to reopening DSA, whether we agree with it or not, will now have greater support in doing so. Do not forget that Peel were granted permission to build the airport under a Labour Government.

**this is not a post to show my own political leanings, I’m not a natural Labour voter, but I’m happy that the last crop of corrupt and populist charlatans have finally been given their marching orders.

 

I heard on the radio this morning that the new MP is pushing to get the airport open and the next comment was that he is for improving the environment!
I may have misheard/misinterpreted the story but these 2 aims are contradictory.