A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

[pug]

https://doncaster.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s53150/794RadarFlyDoncsater%20v2%20003%20002_Redacted.pdf

Interestingly this document suggests that the CDC have limited liability until 30th September 2026. Also confirms the agreement was signed early July and not as recently as has been announced in the press. Delivery doesn’t appear to be scheduled until September 27 and completion of acceptance tests November 27 with handover scheduled January 28. Pushes the narrative back a bit doesn’t it.

Expand powers for local authorities to buy closing airports, inquiry recommends

“The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.”

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

would Easyjet come to DSA mk2 ?
i would think it is far to early for them to even consider it.
also they seem to be cutting back , not expanding.
but if the government gave them some assurances it would remain open for a certain amount of time?

They went to DSA mk.1 and got poor loads and yields.

 

[Aviador]

Expand powers for local authorities to buy closing airports, inquiry recommends

“The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.”

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

Interesting article. You could easily argue that national policy, specifically high APD and business tax burdens helped drive DSA over the edge in the first place. Doncaster feels like the primary victim of those fiscal policies, so giving local authorities powers to buy up struggling infrastructure now feels like a reaction to a problem government tax policy helped create.

 

[pug]

Expand powers for local authorities to buy closing airports, inquiry recommends

“The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.”

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

Interesting article. You could easily argue that national policy, specifically high APD and business tax burdens helped drive DSA over the edge in the first place. Doncaster feels like the primary victim of those fiscal policies, so giving local authorities powers to buy up struggling infrastructure now feels like a reaction to a problem government tax policy helped create.

It’s a bit of a mismatch, a kneejerk reaction in fact. The SYMCA and other local authorities had the power to purchase DSA but didn’t, so this document appears to be nothing more than a talking shop with no practical solutions to the problems DSA faced and continues to face.

 

[Seasider]

@rabbitfoot Are you saying we should have public funded airports?

 

[White Heather]

Expand powers for local authorities to buy closing airports, inquiry recommends

“The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.”

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

would Easyjet come to DSA mk2 ?
i would think it is far to early for them to even consider it.
also they seem to be cutting back , not expanding.
but if the government gave them some assurances it would remain open for a certain amount of time?

Why would they go back when they have been there before, with a base, and had such poor loads they left again very quickly. They have said anyway there will be no new bases before 2030. Their profits are down significantly. They are in a fleet update programme with resultant uncertainties about aircraft available, and as you rightly point out, they are more likely to cut back in the short term at least.

In a nutshell, it is unlikely they would be willing to invest in a DSA base unless the incentives offered covered all their risks, and that isn't a situation that the airport can sustain indefinitely . When the incentives are gone, so are Easyjet in all probability. Your main hope is that Easyjet will know that at DSA they will pretty much have the place all to themselves.

 

[Bantamzen]

Expand powers for local authorities to buy closing airports, inquiry recommends

“The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.”

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk

would Easyjet come to DSA mk2 ?
i would think it is far to early for them to even consider it.
also they seem to be cutting back , not expanding.
but if the government gave them some assurances it would remain open for a certain amount of time?

Hmm, an inquiry called by the the South Yorkshire Mayor on allowing local authorities to take over failing assets like DSA, finds the government should allow them to do so, and presumably help them fund it? Who would have thought such a conclusion would be drawn?

The real question is why should the government give any financial support to failed private ventures like DSA, over say failed high street stores, or pubs, or leisure centres? The usual responses will be around the concept that airports "put the region on the map", "create global connectivity", and act as "a gateway for businesses around the world", when in reality a regional airport just acts as a place for people to travel to their holiday destinations, and contribute little to attracting new business and investment. Yes they create jobs, but so do shops and pubs and the like.

So should the government help failing businesses by allowing councils to pour money down big money pits? No, in my opinion they should not. They should only ever allow involvement where the loss of a business would substantially harm the local economy. Mr & Mrs Jones having to drive to Manchester to catch a holiday flight doesn't in my book constitute something that will harm the Doncaster / South Yorkshire economy.

 

[pug]

Hmm, an inquiry called by the the South Yorkshire Mayor on allowing local authorities to take over failing assets like DSA, finds the government should allow them to do so, and presumably help them fund it? Who would have thought such a conclusion would be drawn?

The real question is why should the government give any financial support to failed private ventures like DSA, over say failed high street stores, or pubs, or leisure centres? The usual responses will be around the concept that airports "put the region on the map", "create global connectivity", and act as "a gateway for businesses around the world", when in reality a regional airport just acts as a place for people to travel to their holiday destinations, and contribute little to attracting new business and investment. Yes they create jobs, but so do shops and pubs and the like.

So should the government help failing businesses by allowing councils to pour money down big money pits? No, in my opinion they should not. They should only ever allow involvement where the loss of a business would substantially harm the local economy. Mr & Mrs Jones having to drive to Manchester to catch a holiday flight doesn't in my book constitute something that will harm the Doncaster / South Yorkshire economy.

It’s a prestige thing. Nice to have an airport nearby to head off on your jollies from, but when you’re cost conscious and you can save a few hundred quid flying from a much bigger airport then the economics don’t stack up.

As we’ve established that airports aren’t usually economic generators on a macro level, looking at the in isolation they can provide interesting employment opportunities but when weighed up against other land uses like logistics of tech then the GVA argument is blown to pieces when considering the high fixed costs of maintaining an airport.

Always said it but they should have fought to save SZD and allowed Humberside to continue with the leisure ops. Im certain someting could have been done with SZD to enable it to handle slightly larger aircraft (admittedly not 73/320 variants) and it provided direct access to the centre of the city region it served. I suppose that’s not as attractive as ‘long runway’ though is it.

 

[Eusebius]

https://doncaster.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s53150/794RadarFlyDoncsater%20v2%20003%20002_Redacted.pdf

Interestingly this document suggests that the CDC have limited liability until 30th September 2026.

Right, so now we know: this ends next month.

"Should the grant agreement not be finalised and the project cease... This will limit the exposure of the Council to [REDACTED], providing the clause is exercised prior to or on 30th September 2026. After this date, the full payment will be due irrespective of the purchase going ahead."

So, on September 15: The SYMCA Board meets. If Peel Group has not surrendered the 20% turnover rent clause by this afternoon - which it won't - then the £160m funding is formally blocked. On September 30th the Raytheon break clause expires. This gives CDC 15 days between the formal collapse of the funding at the SYMCA meeting and the deadline to legally sever the £7.4 million radar contract.

 

[pug]

Right, so now we know: this ends next month.

"Should the grant agreement not be finalised and the project cease... This will limit the exposure of the Council to [REDACTED], providing the clause is exercised prior to or on 30th September 2026. After this date, the full payment will be due irrespective of the purchase going ahead."

So, on September 15: The SYMCA Board meets. If Peel Group has not surrendered the 20% turnover rent clause by this afternoon - which it won't - then the £160m funding is formally blocked. On September 30th the Raytheon break clause expires. This gives CDC 15 days between the formal collapse of the funding at the SYMCA meeting and the deadline to legally sever the £7.4 million radar contract.

I think there might be some movement with Peel you know, but it’s only a hunch.

Two ways it could go. One is they ask SYMCA for greater protections and support in taking over Haworth to do pretty much what they like with the area, and leverage more favourable planning rights the other is that they’re running down the clock and and taking advantage of the situation before Burnham has chance to implement more radical changes that could see Peel lose out longer term on the site.

From an affordability standpoint we were already told that lengthy delays would make the project unaffordable ‘under the current funding model’. That was over 12 months ago. The project has been delayed over 12 months.

My only question now is what will happen if on the 15th SYMCA do not release the funding? I can’t imagine they’ll just say ‘project over, sorry’.

 

[Eusebius]

I think there might be some movement with Peel you know, but it’s only a hunch.

Two ways it could go. One is they ask SYMCA for greater protections and support in taking over Haworth to do pretty much what they like with the area, and leverage more favourable planning rights the other is that they’re running down the clock and and taking advantage of the situation before Burnham has chance to implement more radical changes that could see Peel lose out longer term on the site.

From an affordability standpoint we were already told that lengthy delays would make the project unaffordable ‘under the current funding model’. That was over 12 months ago. The project has been delayed over 12 months.

My only question now is what will happen if on the 15th SYMCA do not release the funding? I can’t imagine they’ll just say ‘project over, sorry’.

Nah, this is the end of the road. It's dead and they know it. Did you see this the other day?

EasyJet to end all flights from major UK airport in January

Passengers have been offered a free transfer from an alternative base or a refund

www.independent.co.uk

If easyJet can't make the unit economics work at a functioning, established airport like LBA, the idea that they, or any other major carrier, would commit aircraft to a resurrected, heavily indebted DSA is absolute commercial fantasy. This is just pointless.

They'll dress the abandonment of the project up as a strategic pause, probably wittering about their intention to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order that they know they cannot afford, cannot legally win, and have absolutely no intention of actually executing. I believe it's known in political science as a Strategic Decoy.

It's just too expensive to continue to sit on the site with no prospect of ever making it work.

 

[pug]

Nah, this is the end of the road. It's dead and they know it. Did you see this the other day?

EasyJet to end all flights from major UK airport in January

Passengers have been offered a free transfer from an alternative base or a refund

www.independent.co.uk

If easyJet can't make the unit economics work at a functioning, established airport like LBA, the idea that they, or any other major carrier, would commit aircraft to a resurrected, heavily indebted DSA is absolute commercial fantasy. This is just pointless.

They'll dress the abandonment of the project up as a strategic pause, probably wittering about their intention to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order that they know they cannot afford, cannot legally win, and have absolutely no intention of actually executing. I believe it's known in political science as a Strategic Decoy.

It's just too expensive to continue to sit on the site with no prospect of ever making it work.

All true, but I can’t envisage a scenario that sees them admit that it’s the end. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out one way or the other. I do think Peel will make some concessions but like I say it will be in return for more protections and I’m not sure exactly what there is left to leverage from CDC/SYMCA at the moment. Coppard was a bit downbeat about it at the Burnham SY press day, but because of the summer break we don’t really have anything to gauge other than more ‘good news’ press releases.

Suppose in just a couple of weeks we’ll be able to see what’s happening with more clarity. The Grant Thornton findings aren’t available until October, so FlyDoncaster and CDC will be doubling over themselves to get this across the line before then, that’s a certainty.

I have a feeling that if the Gainshare remains deadlocked past September 15th they will simply reframe it by announcing ‘the project is moving into a new phase as we commence the search for private investors to join the project’. This will keep the project alive, they’ll perhaps have already changed the business case to reflect this. They’ll continue spending on it knowing they don’t yet have the funding to continue to full reopening (did they ever?) and it will persist for quite some time yet.