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...?

 

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.

Yes but on the understanding that they will be pioneers in renewable/sustainable energy sources so it cancels it out. I don’t think there is an intention to mislead…

 

the change in government is going to make it happen, the transport secretary is from south yorkshire. the last one refuse to meet, even to discuss the airport! they are quotes now that it must have a major carriers. and peel really, really, want it become a sucess, and they did not lose money on the airport as much as people think.

 

the change in government is going to make it happen, the transport secretary is from south yorkshire. the last one refuse to meet, even to discuss the airport! they are quotes now that it must have a major carriers. and peel really, really, want it become a sucess, and they did not lose money on the airport as much as people think.

I wouldn't bank on that. Two of the cabinet are Leeds MPs (Reeves and Benn) and both campaigned to block the development of LBA despite the fact the Labour run Leeds City Council had approved it. We are yet to find out whether Labour will support aviation, and in the case of DSA, support it sufficiently to back it's reopening. And even if they do, reopening isn't dependent in the Government, it's down to the 'deal' on offer and what operators can actually do with it to make money, because you can be assured that's all they are interested in.

As for Peel not losing as much money as previously stated, I'm sure the accounts will prove or disprove that . No surprise though that a change of Government will lead to more nonsensical clamour from the Save DSA brigade.

 

the change in government is going to make it happen, the transport secretary is from south yorkshire. the last one refuse to meet, even to discuss the airport! they are quotes now that it must have a major carriers. and peel really, really, want it become a sucess, and they did not lose money on the airport as much as people think.

It lost as much as its publicly available published accounts said it lost. Dont forget Peel sold it to another operator back in 2010/11 and their an accounts were just as poor. Stop believing the rumours.

 

the operating loss excluded impairment and surplus on investment property.
it did not include transaction between other companies within the peel group which they used section 33 of frs 102 so they did not have to disclose.. as pug says it all in the published accounts.
so how much land have thry sold at DSA?

 

the operating loss excluded impairment and surplus on investment property.
it did not include transaction between other companies within the peel group which they used section 33 of frs 102 so they did not have to disclose.. as pug says it all in the published accounts.
so how much land have thry sold at DSA?

Did Vantage also do that when they purchased it off Peel? Because the accounts didn’t suddenly improve.

Sorry but I call BS on the creative accounting nonsense.

 

no , but vantage did not have land to sell .
did vantage have control of the car parks?
if you sell land involved with the purchase of the airport, and make a good profit on it, buying the airport makes sense .
but if you move the land into a property company and sell ?

 

no , but vantage did not have land to sell .
did vantage have control of the car parks?
if you sell land involved with the purchase of the airport, and make a good profit on it, buying the airport makes sense .
but if you move the land into a property company and sell ?

Yes they had control of the car parks. No airport operating company would purchase an airport with no car parks.

You don’t understand how much Peel wanted the airport to work, people just refuse to accept that and this is why many millions more public money is at risk.

 

so its not creative accounting when the sell land at the airport,its , in a seperate company?
if it not why creative accounting why exclude land from your accounts.
the 2 sites they sold in 2022 , they did not give them away!

 

so its not creative accounting when the sell land at the airport,its , in a seperate company?
if it not why creative accounting why exclude land from your accounts.
the 2 sites they sold in 2022 , they did not give them away!

They sold land that wasn’t part of the airport? Then why would it be in the airport accounts? Perhaps it should be, but then it never will be, will it! So if the land isn’t part of the airport package, but the airport requires the land to become profitable, it’s not going to become profitable is it.

 

the land they keep selling was part of the airport purchase , they would have not got one, without the other.

 

the land they keep selling was part of the airport purchase , they would have not got one, without the other.

What airport purchase? They purchased the estate, and doing as investors do they sectioned the land off into different entities. The hangars, car park, and part of the business park were all part of the airport. I suspect the 420 development was not, nor was the land earmarked for Gateway East, or the bit where they built houses.

You could argue that the whole estate should have been part of the airport, but it’s the same at LPL and that does well so why should DSA be a special case? The point has always been that despite attractive subsidies on offer very few airlines could make routes work and very few cargo operators could be attracted. So it would never have broken even. The Council believe that another operator would be able to do better, good luck to them, but if the site is restricted in terms of alternative revenue potential then there’s not a lot any new operator will be able to do to maximise revenue and generate growth.

 

LPL property is not excluded in the accounts .

pug, i suppose you also firmly believe that peel put there heart and soul into sheffield city airport, and not let in rundown , so they could buy it for a pound?

 

LPL property is not excluded in the accounts .

pug, i suppose you also firmly believe that peel put there heart and soul into sheffield city airport, and not let in rundown , so they could buy it for a pound?

LPL accounts provide pretty much the same breakdown as DSA. Where is property missing?

Sheffield City was completely different. It’s frankly boring having people like you cover the same old ground with this but…

SZD was taken over by Peel to shore up support for their operation at DSA. The airport was built to handle very small aircraft and it opened before 2001 when there were numerous regional airlines with the capability of operating from there. The industry changed after 9/11 and SZD lost all its scheduled services. Peel fought hard to get approval to build an airport at Finningley and in doing so needed the backing of all of the South Yorkshire authorities. They managed to convince the Sheffield authorities that SZD was non viable due to trends moving towards larger aircraft that SZD could not handle, they took it on to prove it was non viable to close it, and they got to redevelop the land. I disagree with what was allowed to happen there, but it’s done now so pointless going over it again.

However, SZD whether viable or not, was a source of conflict for Peel who wanted to ensure airlines like KLM would move in to DSA. They attempted to get them to move across from day one of opening and they weren’t able to do so. South Yorkshire drank the kool aid, they thought DSA was going to be a major hub airport not realising that there was no demand for one. Peel thought they could make it a success like they had done at LPL, that too failed.

Quite frankly you don’t understand what you’re talking about and it’s been clear throughout your input on this thread. Each time something for which there is strong evidence for gets raised, you try to go down another rabbit hole. Yes they purchased SZD to close it. But they built DSA and invested huge amounts to get it to the stage where it could open and handle passenger flights. Nobody does that with the purpose of closing it less than 20 years later, and if you choose to believe such rubbish your opinions are invalidated.

I did a myth busting post some time ago, perhaps it’s time to revisit that? But in short;

DSA was one of the cheapest airports to operate from in the U.K. my employer paid £0.00 to do so. Peel brought airlines in on very good deals and most of them pulled out because passengers didn’t use them, that will not change under a new owner, it’s a fundamental problem with DSA.

Car parking has not been syphoned off, people over estimate how much revenue is gained from that. LPL is as low as £3.10 per departing passenger. If DSA was the same that would mean it would have been £2.7million in 2019. However, typically car parking makes up 35% of total revenue, so in 2019 it’s not unreasonable to expect that car parking contributed just short of £4million of total revenue.

Peel do not have a poor track record of running airports, they have a poor track record of choosing airports to invest in. MME and DSA were always going to lose out to competitors once those competitors realised the importance of embracing the low cost model. LPL was right place right time but it does have a huge catchment area unlike DSA and MME.

Peel only got hold of SZD to close it because it was a direct competitor to DSA. To use it as an example of an inability to run airports successfully is blatantly stupid.

FWIW, SZD should have been kept open, DSA should have never been built. The public enquiry found that demand was non existent but it got approved due to it being investment in an area deemed wanting.

 

LPL property is not excluded in the accounts .

pug, i suppose you also firmly believe that peel put there heart and soul into sheffield city airport, and not let in rundown , so they could buy it for a pound?

What has Sheffield airport got to do with DSA other the fact it was owned by Peel?? That s where the similarities end….Sheffield was even more of a vanity project then DSA. A runway which was extremely limited in terms of aircraft it could support and an airport located in totally the wrong location.

As for Peel not trying to support DSA only an idiot would buy into that. They spent significant sums on the sponsorship of Sheffield arena, Sheffield United and events such as the Great Yorkshire show, add to that the extensive TV adverts over the years. As later as 2018/19 they made a significant investment in the airport adding new air bridges to support the Whizz U.K. ops - why do all that if their raison d'être was always to close the airport…..

the change in government is going to make it happen, the transport secretary is from south yorkshire. the last one refuse to meet, even to discuss the airport! they are quotes now that it must have a major carriers. and peel really, really, want it become a success, and they did not lose money on the airport as much as people think.

The government doesn’t dictate to carriers which airports to use…..Look at Teesside and Ben Houchen - the Tory golden boy and the success he has had in attracting airlines. A change of gov will make little or no difference to a struggling airport.

 

What has Sheffield airport got to do with DSA other the fact it was owned by Peel?? That s where the similarities end….Sheffield was even more of a vanity project then DSA. A runway which was extremely limited in terms of aircraft it could support and an airport located in totally the wrong location.

As for Peel not trying to support DSA only an idiot would buy into that. They spent significant sums on the sponsorship of Sheffield arena, Sheffield United and events such as the Great Yorkshire show, add to that the extensive TV adverts over the years. As later as 2018/19 they made a significant investment in the airport adding new air bridges to support the Whizz U.K. ops - why do all that if their raison d'être was always to close the airport…..


The government doesn’t dictate to carriers which airports to use…..Look at Teesside and Ben Houchen - the Tory golden boy and the success he has had in attracting airlines. A change of gov will make little or no difference to a struggling airport.

Simple Snackbar - it doesn’t support the narrative.

People will make all sorts of mental gymnastics to ‘prove’ it can work in spite of the fact it clearly couldn’t. Could you imagine this happening in other industries? It’s so expensive to set up an airport, we don’t know who the councils preferred partner is but whoever will undoubtedly be expecting subsidy and may well turn their backs on it when the free stuff runs out. It’s highly unlikely to work.

 

Simple Snackbar - it doesn’t support the narrative.

People will make all sorts of mental gymnastics to ‘prove’ it can work in spite of the fact it clearly couldn’t. Could you imagine this happening in other industries? It’s so expensive to set up an airport, we don’t know who the councils preferred partner is but whoever will undoubtedly be expecting subsidy and may well turn their backs on it when the free stuff runs out. It’s highly unlikely to work.

The problem is that’s civic pride overrides common sense and objectivity when it comes to airports. Doncaster isn’t alone you see it the world over where public money is used to prop up failing airports - in the UK alone we’ve Cardiff, Teesside and now Doncaster to name but three. Remove the public subsidy and these airports wouldn’t be operating. This report is well worth a read, perhaps Doncaster Council should take note!

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr14_21/qjab14021enc.pdf

 

The problem is that’s civic pride overrides common sense and objectivity when it comes to airports. Doncaster isn’t alone you see it the world over where public money is used to prop up failing airports - in the UK alone we’ve Cardiff, Teesside and now Doncaster to name but three. Remove the public subsidy and these airports wouldn’t be operating. This report is well worth a read, perhaps Doncaster Council should take note!
https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr14_21/qjab14021enc.pdf

I agree completely. I do however like to keep some hope open that a reopened airport with a solid industry leading operator could make it work if they can encourage other airlines to replicate the success of TUI and Wizzair (Hungary). It has been proven that people will travel to the airport for flights to certain destinations, and that if DSA has a hegemonic relationship with airlines like TUI they will fill the flights. But it has to have scale, it has to be able to support a large easyjet base or something like that to make it viable.

Cargo isn’t really much of a growth sector IMO, it will get some flights back but not on the scale required to make investment in more facilities viable.

I just get sick of people trying to justify the reopening by suggesting Peel are rubbish, or they had ulterior motives. It’s BS.

 

I agree completely. I do however like to keep some hope open that a reopened airport with a solid industry leading operator could make it work if they can encourage other airlines to replicate the success of TUI and Wizzair (Hungary). It has been proven that people will travel to the airport for flights to certain destinations, and that if DSA has a hegemonic relationship with airlines like TUI they will fill the flights. But it has to have scale, it has to be able to support a large easyjet base or something like that to make it viable.

Cargo isn’t really much of a growth sector IMO, it will get some flights back but not on the scale required to make investment in more facilities viable.

I just get sick of people trying to justify the reopening by suggesting Peel are rubbish, or they had ulterior motives. It’s BS.

I agree that people will travel to an airport to reach certain destinations…..although my nearest airport is LBA I tend to use MAN as much primarily because I tend to fly LH with BA and take the shuttle down to LHR since BA pulled out of LBA. However even if DSA reopens I cannot see it offering much if anything over and above what MAN or LBA currently offer other then maybe some LH TUI charters and that isn’t going to provide the required footfall.

 

I agree that people will travel to an airport to reach certain destinations…..although my nearest airport is LBA I tend to use MAN as much primarily because I tend to fly LH with BA and take the shuttle down to LHR since BA pulled out of LBA. However even if DSA reopens I cannot see it offering much if anything over and above what MAN or LBA currently offer other then maybe some LH TUI charters and that isn’t going to provide the required footfall.

It’s why I think Easyjet should be a key target, they don’t really fly from anywhere this side of the Country short of a couple of routes out of LBA. TUI were successful because they were able to focus on the one Yorkshire departure point and it worked well for them. Problem as I see it is when it comes to diversification into higher frequency city destinations, it never did well at that, and if it wants to be an economic generator it will need to have those flights.