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...?

 

It was put on a different DSA Facebook page a few days ago with comments that it had been commissioned by LBA and sent to SAU. I’ve no way of knowing if that’s true or not. It makes for grim reading and only increases my concern that CDC are going to spaff £100m up the wall that could go into far more worthwhile projects.

Unfortunately Chadwick and his merry men are typical of the industrial past of the town and the lack of reality by people who are really not equipped to understand the complexities not to mention their own greed, selfishness and lack of reasonableness means they simply don’t care of other projects cannot go ahead so long as they can land back at DSA when they come back from Benners and be at home after a 15 minute journey. Im embarrassed to be associated with these people in that I am from the same town.

It has not been commissioned by LBA. LBA submitted their own evidence to the SAU along with a reported 7 other groups, one being Regional and City Airports who, as I have said before, currently have no local airport interests but nonetheless understand the national implications on increased competition, particularly if it’s to be subsidised by the public sector.

Reading the report it’s interesting to note that the stated GVA ambitions of SY airport City are greater than the entire national GVA contribution by LGW, the UK’s second busiest airport!

Even if York Aviation are being objectively negative, and I’ve no reason to believe they are, there is enough unquestionable information in there to confirm that the entire project lacks viability and wool never reach its stated objectives. This is only added to by the recent statement by Michael O’Leary and the actual operational history of DSA mk.1.

The council must be aware of all of this. Oliver Coppard must be aware. I’ve no idea how they’ll come back from this either reasonable answers to all questions posed, even the watered down diplomatic ones make by the SAU in their final report.

 

The report from York Aviation was on the Doncaster Sheffield Airport DSA Facebook page on the 29 January 2025, whether this was leaked illegally or if it was put out on that day I'm not sure. Whatever, it is a damming report, and something the electorate of Doncaster should be made fully aware of before the May local elections. Ross Jones will be long gone leaving the people the burden of paying for this over many decades.

Thanks. In that case it should be seen by not only the SAU, but also Oliver Coppard. In the end, he makes the decision and agrees the funding. The buck stops with him. He has absolutely no defence further down the line if he blows so much money and it all goes belly up . He has been warned by arguably the foremost aviation consultancy in the UK as to what lies ahead. And at the very least, he needs to be very aware that York Aviation and the original advisers to CDC take a polar opposite view as to the costs, timescales, and eventual outcome.

Surely, it's only a matter of time before this report is picked up by the media. When they do, (if they haven't already) the cat's out of the bag. Questions will be asked in the house and on TV. CDC and Mr Coppard could be in for a turbulent ride. I hope they've fastened their seat belts!

 

The report from York Aviation was on the Doncaster Sheffield Airport DSA Facebook page on the 29 January 2025, whether this was leaked illegally or if it was put out on that day I'm not sure. Whatever, it is a damming report, and something the electorate of Doncaster should be made fully aware of before the May local elections. Ross Jones will be long gone leaving the people the burden of paying for this over many decades.

However it became in the public domain it is in the interests of the public to know the true scale of the commitment required to bring the airport back into use.

 

However it became in the public domain it is in the interests of the public to know the true scale of the commitment required to bring the airport back into use.

And the ongoing commitment to running an airport that unlikely to ever make a profit, and that suggests they will never get their 'loan' back.

I can't help wondering what the airport operator who is waiting in the wings makes of all this?

The whole thing feels like the aviation equivalent of a volcano which is about to erupt.

 

And the ongoing commitment to running an airport that unlikely to ever make a profit, and that suggests they will never get their 'loan' back.

I can't help wondering what the airport operator who is waiting in the wings makes of all this?

The whole thing feels like the aviation equivalent of a volcano which is about to erupt.

Well they have no reason not to announce the operator now that the procurement exercise has competed. Can’t be commercially sensitive any longer. Makes you wonder why they would delay making such an announcement, I understand whoever it is they managed to get was a credible operator so it could only help their cause by announcing them..

 

And the ongoing commitment to running an airport that unlikely to ever make a profit, and that suggests they will never get their 'loan' back.

I can't help wondering what the airport operator who is waiting in the wings makes of all this?

The whole thing feels like the aviation equivalent of a volcano which is about to erupt.

Depends on the commercial vehicle - I read in the SAU that the Council was going to contract with an operator to run the airport. The commercials could be such that the Council pay an operator to run the airport and as such given that the Council are picking up all the setup costs it’s a win win for the operator as they get paid whatever happens and don’t take the commercial risk which all sits with the Council.

 

Depends on the commercial vehicle - I read in the SAU that the Council was going to contract with an operator to run the airport. The commercials could be such that the Council pay an operator to run the airport and as such given that the Council are picking up all the setup costs it’s a win win for the operator as they get paid whatever happens and don’t take the commercial risk which all sits with the Council.

That’s how it looks at the moment. Hence why I can’t understand why they haven’t announced it yet.

If the appointment rests on the ability to attract match funding or sustained operational funding then I could understand the reasons behind delaying the announcement of the operator, indeed maybe that is what they’re currently trying to achieve to at least mitigate the glaring concerns raised by the SAU? But in that case you couldn’t exactly say they are ‘waiting in the wings’ could you?

Fletcher once again doing politician speak, another Facebook post saying that Ryanair could be persuaded to return to DSA!!

 

That’s how it looks at the moment. Hence why I can’t understand why they haven’t announced it yet.

If the appointment rests on the ability to attract match funding or sustained operational funding then I could understand the reasons behind delaying the announcement of the operator, indeed maybe that is what they’re currently trying to achieve to at least mitigate the glaring concerns raised by the SAU? But in that case you couldn’t exactly say they are ‘waiting in the wings’ could you?

Fletcher once again doing politician speak, another Facebook post saying that Ryanair could be persuaded to return to DSA!!

Bribed to return is nearer the truth. Suspect that Mr O'Leary isn't one for changing his views . Fletcher really is a numpty. It's scary to think that these people are in positions of power and influence across the UK.

 

if , and i know it is not , but if LBA was closing and it needed a help from funding, would all the leeds bases posters be against it?

 

if , and i know it is not , but if LBA was closing and it needed a help from funding, would all the leeds bases posters be against it?

It’s a bit of a weird stance to take. LBA isn’t closing, it’s not unviable.

You are always welcome on here to me rabbitfoot and I’m sure the other forumers would agree. But your usual input is clutching at straws or trying to draw up counterfactuals and hypotheticals which adds nothing to the debate and just deviates from the topic.

You are now armed not only with what we’ve been discussing on here, which you’re welcome to disregard at your discretion, but now key industry players announcing publicly that there’s not much they’d do for DSA because it’s not an attractive place to put aircraft. You have a report by an independent aviation policy advisor and industry consultant bringing to light the facts that have been hidden by your local authority and the people championing the reopening of the airport at any cost. You’ve not even acknowledged any of it other than to ask who commissioned the report and then a hypothetical scenario that isn’t actually remotely likely to happen.

If anything LBA has been a success in spite of political interference. DSA has failed in spite of political interference. What does that tell you?

 

It’s a bit of a weird stance to take. LBA isn’t closing, it’s not unviable.

You are always welcome on here to me rabbitfoot and I’m sure the other forumers would agree. But your usual input is clutching at straws or trying to draw up counterfactuals and hypotheticals which adds nothing to the debate and just deviates from the topic.

You are now armed not only with what we’ve been discussing on here, which you’re welcome to disregard at your discretion, but now key industry players announcing publicly that there’s not much they’d do for DSA because it’s not an attractive place to put aircraft. You have a report by an independent aviation policy advisor and industry consultant bringing to light the facts that have been hidden by your local authority and the people championing the reopening of the airport at any cost. You’ve not even acknowledged any of it other than to ask who commissioned the report and then a hypothetical scenario that isn’t actually remotely likely to happen.

If anything LBA has been a success in spite of political interference. DSA has failed in spite of political interference. What does that tell you?

What it tells me is that a certain politician, laid to rest this week, should have listened to all the industry experts 20 years ago at the Public Inquiry and not approved the opening of an airport that they all said would fail. Not only did it do just that , it also impacted several other airports and negatively affected their growth. At least on that occasion, it was funded by Peel. Reopening it, using huge amounts of public money , with a stated business case of diverting business away from other airports which receive zero public funding is absolutely not right.

I have no objection to DSA per se, but I do object strongly to public money from any source, being used to unnecessarily and deliberately damage the business of long established other airports which are self financing. Why should LBA (for example) invest £200m to enhance its future, only to then have a publicly aided DSA effectively try to bribe airlines to relocate there by literally paying them to do so. It's plain wrong.

Doncaster has no divine right to its own airport, particularly with 4 others within an hour's drive. DSA had its chance, and it proved the experts right and failed. Nothing CDC have said has even begun to justify what they are planning and the claims being made regarding GDP are simply laughable. The entire basis for reopening doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Had private funding to reopen been secured, then fair enough , but the way this is being done is unacceptable.

 

Thanks. In that case it should be seen by not only the SAU, but also Oliver Coppard. In the end, he makes the decision and agrees the funding. The buck stops with him. He has absolutely no defence further down the line if he blows so much money and it all goes belly up . He has been warned by arguably the foremost aviation consultancy in the UK as to what lies ahead. And at the very least, he needs to be very aware that York Aviation and the original advisers to CDC take a polar opposite view as to the costs, timescales, and eventual outcome.

Surely, it's only a matter of time before this report is picked up by the media. When they do, (if they haven't already) the cat's out of the bag. Questions will be asked in the house and on TV. CDC and Mr Coppard could be in for a turbulent ride. I hope they've fastened their seat belts!

You are correct - the media have hold of it - headlines (I think) in this mornings Yorkshire Post. Haven't read what the article said, just saw the headline(?) as I walked past the paper shop in the village. Of course YP is in the pocket of LBA and the report is commissioned by them --- right?? .
This is going to be an interesting 'spin' by CDC/SYMCA and of course the particular Facebook page. Have to say being objective the chap does do a really good job of keeping things in he public eye but all one sided. Was really interested to see a clip posted of one of his MP group speaking in Parliament about visiting FODSA for a pie and pea supper. Yes really!!! He may have something more important to discuss now.
Unfortunately CDC appear to have dug themselves a huge hole which it will be difficult to extricate themselves from. Political suicide to withdraw, financial difficulties if they don't, but in any event looks likely that no flights to Alicante/Benidorm in Spring in which case mounting pressure from the locals. I guess if CDC stick to the advice one presumes they have been given, time will tell who is right!

if , and i know it is not , but if LBA was closing and it needed a help from funding, would all the leeds bases posters be against it?

No I doubt they would - I don't think anyone was against CDC/SYMCA giving a £20m load to DSA to prop it up exactly as if LCC were doing the same for LBA - but this process is a totally different scenario.

 

You are correct - the media have hold of it - headlines (I think) in this mornings Yorkshire Post. Haven't read what the article said, just saw the headline(?) as I walked past the paper shop in the village. Of course YP is in the pocket of LBA and the report is commissioned by them --- right?? .
This is going to be an interesting 'spin' by CDC/SYMCA and of course the particular Facebook page. Have to say being objective the chap does do a really good job of keeping things in he public eye but all one sided. Was really interested to see a clip posted of one of his MP group speaking in Parliament about visiting FODSA for a pie and pea supper. Yes really!!! He may have something more important to discuss now.
Unfortunately CDC appear to have dug themselves a huge hole which it will be difficult to extricate themselves from. Political suicide to withdraw, financial difficulties if they don't, but in any event looks likely that no flights to Alicante/Benidorm in Spring in which case mounting pressure from the locals. I guess if CDC stick to the advice one presumes they have been given, time will tell who is right!


No I doubt they would - I don't think anyone was against CDC/SYMCA giving a £20m load to DSA to prop it up exactly as if LCC were doing the same for LBA - but this process is a totally different scenario.

The YP appear to be claiming that LBA had commissioned the YA report. It doesn’t state anywhere in the report that this is the case, which im sure would be stated within if this was? It could be that they’ve been commissioned by a consortium of airports owing to the fact that apparently 8 separate responses were received to the SAU submission.

Anyway, the YP appear to have also missed the point, claiming that the SY Airport City project must promote itself as not just an aviation proposal. That’s what they are doing, but in doing so are trying to hide the fact that the airport does not need to be the cornerstone of the Gateway East project and in fact they haven’t done a proper analysis of alternative uses for the site to drive growth. The key point is that the airport is likely to be a financial millstone and is likely to have a negative ROI that will have no positive impact on the surrounding area. If the site was to become an employment zone not only would it relieve the financial burden on the authority but it could also provide the stated employment goals and work towards reducing the wealth gap which they claim is the purpose of reopening the airport.

Even if YA have been commissioned by LBA, their assessment is based on reality, including an assessment of the site just after it closed. They are well placed to comment as they did when the airport was closing.

YP are correct on one point though, transparency is key. If they have attracted match funding and a commitment by the private sector to cover the ongoing operational costs once the council have got the airport to the pint of reopening then now is the time to announce this to the public because if they haven’t it’s time to cancel the project before more money is wasted.

It is interesting they didn’t mention MoLs recent comments, as that’s a genuine industry opinion that is shared by most airlines. Even if they have Jet2 interested, or perhaps TUI and KLM, the costs would still be higher to host them than the revenue they would attract. As we’ve seen in the past, airlines have no loyalty and if the services don’t take off like they didn’t in the past they wouldn’t hang around out of some sense of service to the airport. They’d be gone leaving it harder to replace them.

I expect it won’t just be LBA poised to make a legal challenge.. this isn’t just about reopening the airport for the benefit of Doncaster, it would have far reaching consequences.

 

The YP appear to be claiming that LBA had commissioned the YA report. It doesn’t state anywhere in the report that this is the case, which im sure would be stated within if this was? It could be that they’ve been commissioned by a consortium of airports owing to the fact that apparently 8 separate responses were received to the SAU submission.

Anyway, the YP appear to have also missed the point, claiming that the SY Airport City project must promote itself as not just an aviation proposal. That’s what they are doing, but in doing so are trying to hide the fact that the airport does not need to be the cornerstone of the Gateway East project and in fact they haven’t done a proper analysis of alternative uses for the site to drive growth. The key point is that the airport is likely to be a financial millstone and is likely to have a negative ROI that will have no positive impact on the surrounding area. If the site was to become an employment zone not only would it relieve the financial burden on the authority but it could also provide the stated employment goals and work towards reducing the wealth gap which they claim is the purpose of reopening the airport.

Even if YA have been commissioned by LBA, their assessment is based on reality, including an assessment of the site just after it closed. They are well placed to comment as they did when the airport was closing.

YP are correct on one point though, transparency is key. If they have attracted match funding and a commitment by the private sector to cover the ongoing operational costs once the council have got the airport to the pint of reopening then now is the time to announce this to the public because if they haven’t it’s time to cancel the project before more money is wasted.

It is interesting they didn’t mention MoLs recent comments, as that’s a genuine industry opinion that is shared by most airlines. Even if they have Jet2 interested, or perhaps TUI and KLM, the costs would still be higher to host them than the revenue they would attract. As we’ve seen in the past, airlines have no loyalty and if the services don’t take off like they didn’t in the past they wouldn’t hang around out of some sense of service to the airport. They’d be gone leaving it harder to replace them.

I expect it won’t just be LBA poised to make a legal challenge.. this isn’t just about reopening the airport for the benefit of Doncaster, it would have far reaching consequences.

Im really surprised the YP didn't highlight the discrepancies relating to GDP, given the huge snd unrealistic claims made by CDC were part of the justification for funding being made available. No surprise that CDC failed to respond to questions raised though. Keeping quiet has been a recurring theme all along.

I would think that if LBA did NOT commission the YA report, they will be making that very clear to the YP. I would be surprised if they did, at least by themselves. I know that LBA management were pretty ambivalent towards the threat posed by a reopened DSA, but the fact that it's now publicly funded and has a specific aim of damaging the growth of LBA (and others), the attitude has clearly changed, and with justification. Competition on an equal footing is fine, but this is far from equal.

Ultimately there are no winners. The people of South Yorkshire will be paying for a loss making airport for years to come, surrounding airports will suffer, some of their jobs will go, airlines enticed to move will later abandon DSA when the subsidies end or reduce, and it all ends up in an expensive and damaging mess.

There is of course the potential that like Ryanair, airlines will not be induced into operating at DSA despite the incentives, having experienced poor loads there in the past. Then the only losers are the people of South Yorkshire. A risk worth taking?

 

I would think that if LBA did NOT commission the YA report, they will be making that very clear to the YP. I would be surprised if they did, at least by themselves. I know that LBA management were pretty ambivalent towards the threat posed by a reopened DSA, but the fact that it's now publicly funded and has a specific aim of damaging the growth of LBA (and others), the attitude has clearly changed, and with justification. Competition on an equal footing is fine, but this is far from equal.

Ultimately there are no winners. The people of South Yorkshire will be paying for a loss making airport for years to come, surrounding airports will suffer, some of their jobs will go, airlines enticed to move will later abandon DSA when the subsidies end or reduce, and it all ends up in an expensive and damaging mess.

There is of course the potential that like Ryanair, airlines will not be induced into operating at DSA despite the incentives, having experienced poor loads there in the past. Then the only losers are the people of South Yorkshire. A risk worth taking?

Think this is why they’re calling for transparency. The public seem to believe that it was Peel mismanaging or ultimately having a plan to close that caused it. The YP state that if it was commercially viable Peel wouldn’t have closed it but there will be people commenting that it was because of Peel. The YA report clearly shows why this is not the case, but the slightly problematic aspect of the YA report is the assumption that the council and operator would return with the same operating ethos, which may not be the case. Problem is they haven’t told us this, nor how they believe traffic will be built back in spite of the low yielding nature of the flights that came and went before.

We know it’s not a risk worth taking, but the general public probably don’t because it’s not something they’re interested in enough to actually follow it. Most people I speak to at work do not believe DSA has a future, so where is the positive noise coming from within industry that is eluding us? Ryanair arent interested, TUI might be. Wizzair haven’t really had any input.. easyJet appear to be working with LBA. The council claim it will regenerate the area but don’t actually state how, based their ROI on something that would be more powerful than Gatwick, how? But this is the stance they’ve taken and the SAU seems to suggest that they’ve outline that quite clearly, how?

You’re right though, if it continues and goes ahead there will be no winners in this at all,

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Flight risk or soaring success? - BBC News

After Rachel Reeves pledges her support, is Doncaster Sheffield Airport clear for take-off?

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC with a slightly different take.

 

it says it was done on the behalf of leeds /bradford airport.
all leeds based will swear by the report , while they slated the one CDC had done that was positive .
and honestly can anyone on here say they would not be biased.
and the mechanic was right who commisoned it!

Transparency will be key as Doncaster Sheffield Airport heads for reopening

Local leaders have shown great mettle in getting this far in the fight to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) but the real challenges lay ahead.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Leeds Bradford Airport has reported a return to pre-tax profit in its latest financial results, with passenger numbers surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Accounts recently filed with Companies House show a pre-tax profit of £202,000 was achieved in the year ending 31 March 2024, compared to a £2.3m loss in 2022/23.

 

it says it was done on the behalf of leeds /bradford airport.
all leeds based will swear by the report , while they slated the one CDC had done that was positive .
and honestly can anyone on here say they would not be biased.
and the mechanic was right who commisoned it!

Transparency will be key as Doncaster Sheffield Airport heads for reopening

Local leaders have shown great mettle in getting this far in the fight to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) but the real challenges lay ahead.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Leeds Bradford Airport has reported a return to pre-tax profit in its latest financial results, with passenger numbers surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Accounts recently filed with Companies House show a pre-tax profit of £202,000 was achieved in the year ending 31 March 2024, compared to a £2.3m loss in 2022/23.

Taking away the debate about who commissioned the report as frankly it’s not really that important; it’s interesting to look over York Aviation’s client list on their website which includes the CAA, DfT, Transport for North, Ryanair and various airport groups including MAG.

I’d take any report they have done with a huge amount of credibility as it looks like most of the aviation industry do. Who were the consultants that CDC went to? Very easy in industries to find consultants who will do work telling you what you want to hear when you are paying them for it.

I’d hazard a guess @rabbitfoot that even though we welcome healthy debate, you may be a member of the SaveDSA group (or even Chadwick himself) looking to cause some friction with people who have a solid understanding and interest of aviation because they have the nerve to question the narrative around DSA’s future viability with facts and figures.

This isn’t a LBA vs. DSA debate. It’s a debate around the viability of a business which has failed and could have a lot of taxpayer money wasted on it, of which we all contribute to through very high tax rates at the moment.

 

Taking away the debate about who commissioned the report as frankly it’s not really that important; it’s interesting to look over York Aviation’s client list on their website which includes the CAA, DfT, Transport for North, Ryanair and various airport groups including MAG.

I’d take any report they have done with a huge amount of credibility as it looks like most of the aviation industry do. Who were the consultants that CDC went to? Very easy in industries to find consultants who will do work telling you what you want to hear when you are paying them for it.

I’d hazard a guess @rabbitfoot that even though we welcome healthy debate, you may be a member of the SaveDSA group (or even Chadwick himself) looking to cause some friction with people who have a solid understanding and interest of aviation because they have the nerve to question the narrative around DSA’s future viability with facts and figures.

This isn’t a LBA vs. DSA debate. It’s a debate around the viability of a business which has failed and could have a lot of taxpayer money wasted on it, of which we all contribute to through very high tax rates at the moment.

I’d take any report they have done with a huge amount of credibility as it looks like most of the aviation industry do. Who were the consultants that CDC went to? Very easy in industries to find consultants who will do work telling you what you want to hear when you are paying them for it.
did LBA not pay?

 

it says it was done on the behalf of leeds /bradford airport.
all leeds based will swear by the report , while they slated the one CDC had done that was positive .
and honestly can anyone on here say they would not be biased.
and the mechanic was right who commisoned it!

Transparency will be key as Doncaster Sheffield Airport heads for reopening

Local leaders have shown great mettle in getting this far in the fight to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) but the real challenges lay ahead.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Leeds Bradford Airport has reported a return to pre-tax profit in its latest financial results, with passenger numbers surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Accounts recently filed with Companies House show a pre-tax profit of £202,000 was achieved in the year ending 31 March 2024, compared to a £2.3m loss in 2022/23.

Apparently they didn’t commission the report. It’s said that YA submitted it off their own volition which is supposedly on the back of a request from the SAU themselves as YA are the principle advisor to the civil service on matters airport related. In this instance the YP appear to have got it wrong, which only serves to play into the hands of Chadwick and his followers which presumably includes yourself.

Every airport made a loss in the period 2020-22/3 because they were playing catchup from the catastrophic events of the years previous. I don’t understand why you’d mention that other than to imply that it returned to profit when DSA closed, which is just a coincidence not a causal factor. Undoubtedly though LBA has gained in DSAs demise and I don’t think anyone would question that, but this is because the market for DSA wasn’t strong enough. A point YA make in their report as the market hasn’t failed it just doesn’t really exist in the first place - it’s already well served by the incumbent airports.

rabbitfoot, you’ve not made one convincing argument for the airport in all the time you’ve been on here.

 

Apparently they didn’t commission the report. It’s said that YA submitted it off their own volition which is supposedly on the back of a request from the SAU themselves as YA are the principle advisor to the civil service on matters airport related.

i was only reading what was written in the yorkshire post.
in the report does mean they are guessing when they say we understand ,they also got the year wrong?

Whilst the runway is of an adequate length, the runway last had pavement rehabilitation works carried
out in 2016/7 and we understand that this was only a relatively superficial resurface