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...?

 

Notice that the ACP has been updated again today, with the ‘potentially affected area’ on the map now expanded to effectively reflect the previous airspace as was under Peel. They will of course now be pushing the narrative that the Scampton zone is now gone, but still.. Seems they’re intending to ask for what they had before. Wonder how this will go down. The BGA look poised to challenge!

Pug sorry can you please explain whats BGA means?

I was under the impression that the airspace previously held was way too big for DSA ops if I'm correct? Surely applying for the same amount is ludicrous behaviour / already setting themselves up for the CAA rejecting?

 

Pug sorry can you please explain whats BGA means?

I was under the impression that the airspace previously held was way too big for DSA ops if I'm correct? Surely applying for the same amount is ludicrous behaviour / already setting themselves up for the CAA rejecting?

British Gliding Association, a thorn in the side of any ACP. They had previously pressed the CAA on the DSA issue when DSA was still operational, as the CAA themselves said on a post implementation review in 2017 that the size of airspace awarded was inefficient given the number of movements that ended up materialising.

DSA 2.0 will argue that it was safe, however that doesn’t mean it fits within modern airspace modelling rules/principles as it was originally implemented in 2008.

Because they’re starting from scratch, the consultation period alone could extend well beyond the planned timeline outlined last week!

 

British Gliding Association, a thorn in the side of any ACP.

Don’t forget the microlight, paragliding and paramotor people, as well as the rest of the alphabet soup of GA pilots’ bodies. Many of them see ACPs as a blood sport, and take great satisfaction in shooting them down.

 

Don’t forget the microlight, paragliding and paramotor people, as well as the rest of the alphabet soup of GA pilots’ bodies. Many of them see ACPs as a blood sport, and take great satisfaction in shooting them down.

Yes, I seem to recall the backlash from the LAA when HUY (under MAG) had the audacity to commence ACP for Class D. Far less restrictive and more in line with the CAS at Teesside in terms of the footprint, alas it was dropped in 2009 when the financial crisis had started to bite anyway and seemingly never to return except for when NOTAM for temporary Class D is issued.

Seems the MTMA modernisation may cause issues. Any ideas @radar

 

Notice that the ACP has been updated again today, with the ‘potentially affected area’ on the map now expanded to effectively reflect the previous airspace as was under Peel. They will of course now be pushing the narrative that the Scampton zone is now gone, but still.. Seems they’re intending to ask for what they had before. Wonder how this will go down. The BGA look poised to challenge, amongst others, some might suggest they’d have a good argument if the proposal is to reinstate as-was. There are also a lot of other ACP projects ahead of them in the queue…

Their presentation to CAA in Sept 2025 included their preferred option to 'do nothing' and their argument was to simply re-instate what went before because it was 'demonstrated it operated safely'. That, I am sure is down to attempted mitigation of the anticipated cost for a new and more efficient design. Reading between the lines the CAAs point in 2017 was that it should be able to operate safely but using less airspace more efficiently. There was a significant waste of resource as I recall reading that of the traffic handled by the DSA Approach unit (in Liverpool) only 15% of it was actually landing at DSA, the rest were a variety of transits. You would think that point would not be lost on CDC themselves in the pursuit of efficiency. Whilst crossing clearances were fairly readily forthcoming - which of course they would be as there was nothing happening in the zone most of the time - it was sometimes inconvenient and inefficient and a smaller footprint would have readily facilitated 'self routing' to avoid the zone and certainly been less restrictive.
I noticed that CDC were also requesting that they be exempted from the integrated modernisation of Northern Airspace and be allowed a 'stand alone' airspace which will be neither integrated or modern!
All eyes I'm sure will be on how the CAA handle this - once bitten, twice shy?) There will be some very angry ATC units if this is pushed to the front of the queue disregarding all the hassle that others are currently having in getting proposals accepted by the CAA!!!

 

Their presentation to CAA in Sept 2025 included their preferred option to 'do nothing' and their argument was to simply re-instate what went before because it was 'demonstrated it operated safely'. That, I am sure is down to attempted mitigation of the anticipated cost for a new and more efficient design. Reading between the lines the CAAs point in 2017 was that it should be able to operate safely but using less airspace more efficiently. There was a significant waste of resource as I recall reading that of the traffic handled by the DSA Approach unit (in Liverpool) only 15% of it was actually landing at DSA, the rest were a variety of transits. You would think that point would not be lost on CDC themselves in the pursuit of efficiency. Whilst crossing clearances were fairly readily forthcoming - which of course they would be as there was nothing happening in the zone most of the time - it was sometimes inconvenient and inefficient and a smaller footprint would have readily facilitated 'self routing' to avoid the zone and certainly been less restrictive.
I noticed that CDC were also requesting that they be exempted from the integrated modernisation of Northern Airspace and be allowed a 'stand alone' airspace which will be neither integrated or modern!
All eyes I'm sure will be on how the CAA handle this - once bitten, twice shy?) There will be some very angry ATC units if this is pushed to the front of the queue disregarding all the hassle that others are currently having in getting proposals accepted by the CAA!!!

Well any perceived favouritism or willingness for the CAA to circumvent their own procedures would probably open it up to a judicial review. I’m sure MAN and LBA in particular will be watching this with interest as the routings will need to take into account the demand for improved efficiency at those busier airports. A redesign at this stage could push the current timescales well beyond the 2027 target, and I suspect there will be several challenges to overcome before the CAA decide whether to approve or send back for redesign. Must be a huge cost for what is likely to be negligible return, but as with everything else in this venture, what’s new?

 

Seems the MTMA modernisation may cause issues. Any ideas @radar

Possibly. This is a major, ongoing project to rework the airspace and arrival/departure routes around Manchester, Liverpool and LBA. It’s all very well CDC saying that the old DSA airspace worked fine - that may be the case but the airspace it previously connected to is changing and this might present problems for integrating the routes. Or, there’s a chance it might work in their favour if sorting out DSA’s airspace is seen as something that needs to be done quickly in order to allow the larger modernisation project to proceed.

 

Possibly. This is a major, ongoing project to rework the airspace and arrival/departure routes around Manchester, Liverpool and LBA. It’s all very well CDC saying that the old DSA airspace worked fine - that may be the case but the airspace it previously connected to is changing and this might present problems for integrating the routes. Or, there’s a chance it might work in their favour if sorting out DSA’s airspace is seen as something that needs to be done quickly in order to allow the larger modernisation project to proceed.

My understanding of FASI-North is that it will need to take more airspace to enable separation and allow for more environmentally friendly CDA’s with narrower ultimate approach routings but resulting in less level offs etc.. is this the case? If this is so then I envisage that it might require a complete redesign of the DSA routings perhaps taking into account the now more free airspace north of Lincoln? I.e bringing DSA traffic in from the South East?

 

Today, the South Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce have written to the CAA asking for the old airspace back according to the Doncaster Free Press. Won't be long before they wheel out the old petition and asking for the Secretary of State to call it in, memories like goldfishes.

 

Today, the South Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce have written to the CAA asking for the old airspace back according to the Doncaster Free Press. Won't be long before they wheel out the old petition and asking for the Secretary of State to call it in, memories like goldfishes.

In that case then it basically confirms they’re taking the do nothing approach. Risky as if the CAA reject that it will be back to the drawing board resulting in very lengthy delays.

Link to the article if anyone is interested.

Business leaders back council calls for old DSA airspace to be reinstated

Business leaders in South Yorkshire have again thrown their weight behind Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) in a letter supporting the reinstatement of the site’s former airspace used before closure.

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

Clearly suggests they’re playing a ‘reinstate with modernisations’ strategy. Whether it’ll fly, who knows? Certainly they’ll have objectors poised given the contention amongst some quarters of the previous airspace. Let’s face it, commercially it’s a failure so quite how that could be justified again is beyond me, just because it was safe missed the point entirely. Safe perhaps but arguably pointless.

 

@pug , you don't seen to realise how important the mechanic is, he has just posted that he has written to the CAA saying he approves the CDC design of the airspace, wonder what EMA and LBA think now he has approved the airspace design. @White Heather maybe you can ask Mr Hodder.

 

@pug , you don't seen to realise how important the mechanic is, he has just posted that he has written to the CAA saying he approves the CDC design of the airspace, wonder what EMA and LBA think now he has approved the airspace design. @White Heather maybe you can ask Mr Hodder.

Either he or the Council appear to have possibly misunderstood the meaning of stakeholder. From what I gather the council will have needed to send this to any affected party, be it on environmental or noise grounds, or indeed other airspace users. Just because a car mechanic says he approves (well he wasn’t going to say otherwise was he) does not mean that the CAA will take any notice whatsoever. If anything it could add to the admin time as the CAA will have to trawl through it all as part of the process. They’re more than likely going to get bombarded by his sycophants again, not least because this is a technical phase with a deadline of yesterday. Awkward !

 

Don’t forget the microlight, paragliding and paramotor people, as well as the rest of the alphabet soup of GA pilots’ bodies. Many of them see ACPs as a blood sport, and take great satisfaction in shooting them down.

As a paraglider pilot and therefore at the bottom end of the aviation food chain we have to fight for scraps in the ACP process!

But a few years ago (pre and post the introduction of CAP1616) it did sometimes feel like a blood sport. Particularly if sponsors made engagement difficult by ignoring stakeholders views and/or providing inaccurate information. Some failed partly because of this (Farnborough and Leeds Bradford ACPs spring to mind).

However as the CAP1616 process has evolved, we have found engagement to be much easier and paragliding clubs have often been able to negotiate access through CAS with LOAs (Letters of Agreement).

And back in 2007 when the DSA (or RHADS as it was known) CAS was being propopsed, there was great cooperation between the airport and my paragliding club which resulted in two LOAs.

These allowed us to fly from our home sites in Derbyshire in a north-easterly direction via the Upton corridor (west of the airport) and in an easterly direction via the Worksop corridor (south of the airport, around Netherthorpe and Retford).

 

As a paraglider pilot and therefore at the bottom end of the aviation food chain we have to fight for scraps in the ACP process!

But a few years ago (pre and post the introduction of CAP1616) it did sometimes feel like a blood sport. Particularly if sponsors made engagement difficult by ignoring stakeholders views and/or providing inaccurate information. Some failed partly because of this (Farnborough and Leeds Bradford ACPs spring to mind).

However as the CAP1616 process has evolved, we have found engagement to be much easier and paragliding clubs have often been able to negotiate access through CAS with LOAs (Letters of Agreement).

And back in 2007 when the DSA (or RHADS as it was known) CAS was being propopsed, there was great cooperation between the airport and my paragliding club which resulted in two LOAs.

These allowed us to fly from our home sites in Derbyshire in a north-easterly direction via the Upton corridor (west of the airport) and in an easterly direction via the Worksop corridor (south of the airport, around Netherthorpe and Retford).

Thanks for your insight from a paraglider perspective. I’ve not seen anything from the LAA on this (though I’m sure they’ve had input), but the BGA seem to be prepared to challenge it based on proportionality and historic under performance, I think other airports could have an issue with it if it conflicts with their own modernisation plans. I do wonder why the ‘potentially affected area’ map was changed on the day of the technical feedback phase ended on the same day if the change.

Should find out in February some time as to whether this progresses to stage 3 or is sent back for redesign.

 

Looking at the Mechanic's recent replies to comments on the fan page, somebody questioned about the passenger figures and it needing to be high / reach a required level to turn a profit (as we all know) and the mechanic has shot it down stating pax numbers are not as important as important as some people seem to think and cargo is the way forward

Absolutely astonishing about this narrative being swung.. firstly passengers are mainly the soul reason airports turn a profit with parking, passenger spend being the main driver for this (Ancillary revenue). Cargo do not bring any extra income to the airport.

Thirdly which cargo airline would actually have a serious set up there? EMA look to have them all signed up..

It's quite evident the council are wanting to open the airport and realised the only half arsed interested parties are a few adhoc charter cargo flights.. what's the point.

 

Looking at the Mechanic's recent replies to comments on the fan page, somebody questioned about the passenger figures and it needing to be high / reach a required level to turn a profit (as we all know) and the mechanic has shot it down stating pax numbers are not as important as important as some people seem to think and cargo is the way forward

Absolutely astonishing about this narrative being swung.. firstly passengers are mainly the soul reason airports turn a profit with parking, passenger spend being the main driver for this (Ancillary revenue). Cargo do not bring any extra income to the airport.

Thirdly which cargo airline would actually have a serious set up there? EMA look to have them all signed up..

It's quite evident the council are wanting to open the airport and realised the only half arsed interested parties are a few adhoc charter cargo flights.. what's the point.

Well there are a couple of problems here.

One is the shift in focus away from passenger flights which, we’re told, will be happening anyway (by Ros Jones), but that now to Chadwick they’re not important because freight is where it’s at. I don’t think the majority of people supporting this will think that, and in certain that if there was tenable freight interest in the airport the private sector would have swooped in an taken it on by this point.

The other issue I’m seeing is how the statements made to the LDRS on behalf of Ros Jones are framing the narrative. They are saying that if the CAA don’t grant the airspace then the airport will be limited to ‘just one or two operators’. Inherently what they’re saying is that only one or two operators have not stipulated a form of CAS as a pre requisite before entering into any meaningful discussions, however it’s been written to read like the CAA are limiting the airport to just ‘one or two operators’. Clearly the CAA are just doing their job and protecting the interests of all airspace users and those who would be impacted by any changes. However in politics it’s always helpful to have someone to blame, and the CAA are the latest fall guy.

Meanwhile other surrounding airports are growing, have received hundreds of millions in private investment, and are not showing signs of internal bickering whilst using a car mechanic as their primary PR source.

 

Interestingly ive just seen on linked in 'Irlam Associates' is visiting DSA today, look to be a aviation recruitment company.

One or two operators I still think is optimistic.

Majority of people supporting the airport want flights to ALC not freight flights.. when will this penny drop?!

 

Interestingly ive just seen on linked in 'Irlam Associates' is visiting DSA today, look to be a aviation recruitment company.

One or two operators I still think is optimistic.

Majority of people supporting the airport want flights to ALC not freight flights.. when will this penny drop?!

Well the latest LinkedIn post I’ve seen is actually a comment by the Local Democracy Reporter at YP with their link to the statement made by the chamber of commerce over the ACP. It’s by an aviation consultant who appears to have quite a lot of experience and I will post verbatim as a quote with no link because it’s LinkedIn.


‘Three Chambers of Commerce, no less? In that case, we should totally ride roughshod over due process and safety assessments because Bev’s Beauty Palour and Donny’s Doner Kebab shop owner has signed a letter!’

 

I see @pug Transport Secretary have told Doncaster MP she will have to see Mayor Oliver Coppard for the M18 money

 

I see @pug Transport Secretary have told Doncaster MP she will have to see Mayor Oliver Coppard for the M18 money

If that’s the case I think we all know how likely that upgrade is. Does that therefore mean that the ‘airport city’ concept will have to be scaled back on planning grounds? We were told it’s vital weren’t we?

I suppose there are far more pressing projects that are actual capacity now, speculative investment can get to the back of the queue.