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...?

 

maybe this is where the money is going now, it does mention gainshare.
this was the site where the new hospital was earmarked for.
all the services and roads are completed.they are just removing the soil now, and its ready to go.
it must have been a huge blow with ,Holtec not coming.

Mayor of Doncaster, Ros Jones, said: “The Waterfront area represents a major development opportunity for the City of Doncaster. Doncaster Waterfront is one of the largest brownfield sites in the country with incredible potential for development. Remediation works are well underway and will set the groundwork for these future plans and unlock the incredible opportunities of this area, near to our beloved Minster and Doncaster Markets.
“The plans tie in with our aspirations for Doncaster to become a hub for digital technology, to attract investment, jobs and growth for the whole of Doncaster. Our aim is to link up the Waterfront with the ‘beating heart’ of our city centre linking city centre living, business, retail, culture and leisure activity together to provide a much more connected city centre, further enhancing the vibrancy of this area.”

The Waterfront remediation works are being funded by the UK Government, and through gainshare funding from South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA).

Yes one wonders. The airport and the Gateway East project had always been talked of as one entity by CDC and reading between the lines I think that the original Consultants had probably told them that the airport would struggle to 'stand alone' (in spite of the spin) and thus the plan was to 'subsidise' it in some way from Gateway East proceeds - although few people know for sure as the Business Plan has still not been made available for public scrutiny. The Government Subsidy Advice Unit stated that they were unable to determine a dividing line between the two and sent CDC away to re-write the plan - although it was spun by CDC as very much a positive. You could well be right - Coppard - for all the criticism he is receiving - does seem to be a fairly straight forward chap for a politician and it does seem that he is going to carefully balance the job opportunities available with gainshare development funds elsewhere against those by spending it all (and potentially much more going forward) on the airport depending of course what his Consultants have to say. Dan Fell is talking out of his ar*e and knows nothing of the aviation industry and quite rightly has been put in his place. I think Coppard's decision will be more objective in balancing the benefits as to where the money goes than the Chamber of Commerce or CDC from what we have seen. I don't envy him!

 

Yes one wonders. The airport and the Gateway East project had always been talked of as one entity by CDC and reading between the lines I think that the original Consultants had probably told them that the airport would struggle to 'stand alone' (in spite of the spin) and thus the plan was to 'subsidise' it in some way from Gateway East proceeds - although few people know for sure as the Business Plan has still not been made available for public scrutiny. The Government Subsidy Advice Unit stated that they were unable to determine a dividing line between the two and sent CDC away to re-write the plan - although it was spun by CDC as very much a positive. You could well be right - Coppard - for all the criticism he is receiving - does seem to be a fairly straight forward chap for a politician and it does seem that he is going to carefully balance the job opportunities available with gainshare development funds elsewhere against those by spending it all (and potentially much more going forward) on the airport depending of course what his Consultants have to say. Dan Fell is talking out of his ar*e and knows nothing of the aviation industry and quite rightly has been put in his place. I think Coppard's decision will be more objective in balancing the benefits as to where the money goes than the Chamber of Commerce or CDC from what we have seen. I don't envy him!

Gateway East is a Peel initiative too, so seems that it’s only convenient to kick at Peel in public. Behind closed doors? Well they must have re-engaged with them in order to get the lease agreed, but what would a deal look like whereby the financial success of Gateway East helps to subsidise the operation of an airport? I get the jobs aspect but how is it reliant on an airport? Are Peel expected to somehow cross subsidise the airport based on the success of Gateway East? If they thought that was possible they’d have done it themselves and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

So far we had Holtec express an interest, they don’t need an airport to enable the work they plan to do, they aren’t an aviation business and besides it looks like that’s on the back burner now anyway.

I just think they’d have a hard time convincing any independent financial analyst or consultant that there is a need for the airport and that it has value relative to the risk.

How much Gainshare is being allocated to the project rabbitfoot mentions?

 

Coppard has responded to Dan Fell as quoted in a YP article;

http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71...-sheffield-airport-reopens-mayor-says-5199252

Sounds a bit ominous, wonder whether his auditors too have found issue with the plan along with York Aviation and others?

Interesting to see this hasn't made the Facebook Fan page, shock! However Chadwick again, repeating the same "positive" updates he does every week to keep people interested maybe?

Its a YP article anyway so it will be rubbished, we all know they are in bed with LBA zzz

 

Interesting to see this hasn't made the Facebook Fan page, shock! However Chadwick again, repeating the same "positive" updates he does every week to keep people interested maybe?

Its a YP article anyway so it will be rubbished, we all know they are in bed with

Yes good he still only spins positive things on, very much all about feeding his ego “I have represented….” , “I have attended….”

I do like his vague bit of news “CDC and Munich are in talks with a number of different companies who are interested in opportunities that will be available when the airport opens”.

Yes one wonders. The airport and the Gateway East project had always been talked of as one entity by CDC and reading between the lines I think that the original Consultants had probably told them that the airport would struggle to 'stand alone' (in spite of the spin) and thus the plan was to 'subsidise' it in some way from Gateway East proceeds - although few people know for sure as the Business Plan has still not been made available for public scrutiny. The Government Subsidy Advice Unit stated that they were unable to determine a dividing line between the two and sent CDC away to re-write the plan - although it was spun by CDC as very much a positive. You could well be right - Coppard - for all the criticism he is receiving - does seem to be a fairly straight forward chap for a politician and it does seem that he is going to carefully balance the job opportunities available with gainshare development funds elsewhere against those by spending it all (and potentially much more going forward) on the airport depending of course what his Consultants have to say. Dan Fell is talking out of his ar*e and knows nothing of the aviation industry and quite rightly has been put in his place. I think Coppard's decision will be more objective in balancing the benefits as to where the money goes than the Chamber of Commerce or CDC from what we have seen. I don't envy him!

Oliver Coppard does seem to putting a sensible cap on. Credit to the man, if you look at his own Facebook page, he doesn’t ban people who disagree with him, and he makes plenty of replies. Plenty of people are airing views on his page about the potential waste of money this project may be, with some good arguments, and I’m sure he reads them.

 

So far we had Holtec express an interest, they don’t need an airport to enable the work they plan to do, they aren’t an aviation business and besides it looks like that’s on the back burner now anyway.

They may not an aviation business. But soo many companies which are not aviation businesses but rely on airports as one of the routes for moving/ receiving their products.

From my understanding is that Holtec would be potentially exporting by air their kits and equipment.
As they were planning on producing everything in kit formation to ship to location and fit together.

 

They may not an aviation business. But soo many companies which are not aviation businesses but rely on airports as one of the routes for moving/ receiving their products.

From my understanding is that Holtec would be potentially exporting by air their kits and equipment.
As they were planning on producing everything in kit formation to ship to location and fit together.

Their bid for the U.K. contract was the reason they cynically announced their intention to invest in the site at Doncaster. They’d not fly stuff in to DSA, they looked at the site as they were able to negotiate a good deal to put something there. There are so many companies that rely on JIT in the U.K. that are nowhere near airports, so that doesn’t fly. They told us that Gateway East would form part of a ‘sustainable aviation hub’, but so far the only ‘sustainable aviation’ company that has shown any interest is HAV and they intend to build their facility nowhere near the airport anyway, if it ever happens that is.

 

Here is the confirmation of the Airspace Change outcome being put into effect, might upset some but it was only a case of when.

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats...ons/aip-supplements/EG_Circ_2025_Y_113_en.pdf

 

Their bid for the U.K. contract was the reason they cynically announced their intention to invest in the site at Doncaster. They’d not fly stuff in to DSA, they looked at the site as they were able to negotiate a good deal to put something there. There are so many companies that rely on JIT in the U.K. that are nowhere near airports, so that doesn’t fly. They told us that Gateway East would form part of a ‘sustainable aviation hub’, but so far the only ‘sustainable aviation’ company that has shown any interest is HAV and they intend to build their facility nowhere near the airport anyway, if it ever happens that is.

Holtec is nothing to do with Just In Time. The factory was going to be designed that 50% for UK market and 50% for export. So it was the Exporting of products that they would either fly or sail and the site chosen had with ease of surface access to export routes from Docks and Airports.

So the location was important especially as Abnormal Loads routes would be required from the site.

 

Holtec is nothing to do with Just In Time. The factory was going to be designed that 50% for UK market and 50% for export. So it was the Exporting of products that they would either fly or sail and the site chosen had with ease of surface access to export routes from Docks and Airports.

So the location was important especially as Abnormal Loads routes would be required from the site.

They would not fly their products anywhere. If anything they’d ship to export markets. So it has absolutely nothing to do with whether DSA reopens or not, particularly when, as you state, abnormal load routes would be required for which air freight is not conducive.

They would inevitably, much like other renewables initiatives, operate to a JIT component structure because these facilities don’t make things from scratch, they’re usually a glorified assembly line. However even if those components are arriving by air it doesn’t necessarily mean it would be sufficient to require an airport next door.

It’s all irrelevant now anyway because they only announced this to win the contract and as it happens they didn’t. Because of this they’ve said their factory wouldn’t be as big and the timeline has shifted, or in other words it’s never going to happen.

So I ask again what has this got to do with DSA as an airport? They are not an aviation business who need to be located next to an airport, they might be more attracted to the rail links to the docks and the access to the motorway, but that’s not the same thing and isn’t something worth spending £150 million on.

 

Here is the confirmation of the Airspace Change outcome being put into effect, might upset some but it was only a case of when.

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats...ons/aip-supplements/EG_Circ_2025_Y_113_en.pdf

And apparently, this is great news, because the Mechanic says so.

 

And apparently, this is great news, because the Mechanic says so.

He’s also finally recognised the most recent YP article. Blame Coppard etc. No recognition of what Coppard is saying of course.

 

The replies are full of people saying ‘You know, I’m not 100% sure it will be open by spring 26’. REALLY!! What was it that made you finally realise that?

They’ve been fed rubbish for so long, but some reality is beginning to seep in. I wouldn’t like to be one of those who led them on when the decision is made in September.

 

The replies are full of people saying ‘You know, I’m not 100% sure it will be open by spring 26’. REALLY!! What was it that made you finally realise that?

They’ve been fed rubbish for so long, but some reality is beginning to seep in. I wouldn’t like to be one of those who led them on when the decision is made in September.

It’s also generated the usual anti LBA rubbish on his page not that it has anything to do with the article!

 

It’s also generated the usual anti LBA rubbish on his page not that it has anything to do with the article!

There’s a difference between the people radar refers to who feel like they may have been misled and the people you are referring to. The people you’re referring to are a bit dim and would say that about anything, a common theme on the mechanics propaganda page.

The replies are full of people saying ‘You know, I’m not 100% sure it will be open by spring 26’. REALLY!! What was it that made you finally realise that?

They’ve been fed rubbish for so long, but some reality is beginning to seep in. I wouldn’t like to be one of those who led them on when the decision is made in September.

Do you see it as though a positive decision isn’t likely in September?

I’m 50/50 on it. Coppard realises there are political implications for rejecting funding.

 

There’s a difference between the people radar refers to who feel like they may have been misled and the people you are referring to. The people you’re referring to are a bit dim and would say that about anything, a common theme on the mechanics propaganda page.


Do you see it as though a positive decision isn’t likely in September?

I’m 50/50 on it. Coppard realises there are political implications for rejecting funding.

There will also be political implications if, in the future, the airport fails and he has blown the gainshare budget on it, despite warnings that it would fail again. He, and the Labour party, have dug themselves a huge hole and jumped in with both feet but left themselves with no way out. Pretty typical of everything they do frankly.

 

Do you see it as though a positive decision isn’t likely in September?

I’m 50/50 on it. Coppard realises there are political implications for rejecting funding.

Genuinely not sure. If it was purely down to ‘due diligence’ and the approval of auditors, then I’d be a fairly confident ‘no’. But we have no idea how much wiggle room OC has in that area, and more importantly whether he wants to use it.

As I said the other day, everything he has said recently has had the effect of managing expectations downwards. It’ll ultimately be a question of what’s best for him politically, and I don’t know how that calculation looks.

 

Genuinely not sure. If it was purely down to ‘due diligence’ and the approval of auditors, then I’d be a fairly confident ‘no’. But we have no idea how much wiggle room OC has in that area, and more importantly whether he wants to use it.

As I said the other day, everything he has said recently has had the effect of managing expectations downwards. It’ll ultimately be a question of what’s best for him politically, and I don’t know how that calculation looks.

The aspect that tips the balance for me is how he’s laid it out to Dan Fell in a ‘wait to see what we’ve discovered’ kind of way. I wonder whether his findings will be a talking point during the next couple of months behind closed doors with the key stakeholders to say something along the lines - forget what you’ve been led to believe, the truth is the airport isn’t likely to be a success and maybe start to look for other ways of using the site.

There will be political repercussions either way, but his struggle will be getting his Doncaster colleagues on board with his way of thinking. Unfortunately the answer to the airlines question will always be a maybe until he’s given the money, then it’s down to the airlines to make those decisions. Therefore to say that the previous 17 years of operational evidence cannot be used is bonkers to me, because they’re still using the same old line that the previous lot charged too much but we know this is simply not the case at all.

 

He’s also finally recognised the most recent YP article. Blame Coppard etc. No recognition of what Coppard is saying of course.

I think only because someone else posted it - doubt it would have made it otherwise! It's been hijacked by one or two into the usual 'we hate LBA' tirade as of course YEP is an LBA supporter. However - a few more voices of moderation and common sense appearing on the page! The gentleman is trying very hard indeed but I sense he is starting to lose the battle.

 

There will also be political implications if, in the future, the airport fails and he has blown the gainshare budget on it, despite warnings that it would fail again. He, and the Labour party, have dug themselves a huge hole and jumped in with both feet but left themselves with no way out. Pretty typical of everything they do frankly.

I agree….I suspect the reason the due diligence is now taking longer than originally planned is because they are now working on how they mitigate the risks and issues which will have undoubtedly been found by the consultants. OC is now in too deep to not approve the funding given he would be going against both “current” Chancellor and PM.

Of course they won’t ever be fully able to mitigate the commercial risks and issues, this will be a political fudge and nothing they will do will change the private sectors negatively view of DSA…..

 

Here is the confirmation of the Airspace Change outcome being put into effect, might upset some but it was only a case of when.

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats...ons/aip-supplements/EG_Circ_2025_Y_113_en.pdf

The 'statement of need' filed by CDC/Cyrrus aviation last year appears now to have disappeared from the ACP. I read elsewhere that it has 'expired'?. Ah well - back to the drawing board!!