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

[GolfFox]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: A timeline of events - what challenges lie ahead for a 2026 re-opening? - Insider Media

The former Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) has been a major talking point for locals, politicians, and airline groups as the site looks set to potentially re-open in spring 2026 after being…

www.insidermedia.com

credible offer to buy by aviation company?

Suspect that Peel would have wanted at least what they expended upon it which clearly no-one was willing to pay with such a track record and such high risk. They are probably quite happy with the current situation having screwed the Council over and unloaded the financial millstone to them and are getting paid for having done so!

 

[White Heather]

Suspect that Peel would have wanted at least what they expended upon it which clearly no-one was willing to pay with such a track record and such high risk. They are probably quite happy with the current situation having screwed the Council over and unloaded the financial millstone to them and are getting paid for having done so!

And if/when it fails again, ans closes again, Peel will be paid for the remaining lease up to the next lease break, then get the airfield back to develop as they see fit with lots of cash heading their way snd a chastened council who will be only too keen to give planning approvals. It's just a waiting game for Peel but ultimately they'll get their money back and then some. I cant help wondering what they're thinking regarding CDC digging themselves deeper and deeper into this project. Their silence has been deafening.

 

[pug]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: A timeline of events - what challenges lie ahead for a 2026 re-opening? - Insider Media

The former Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) has been a major talking point for locals, politicians, and airline groups as the site looks set to potentially re-open in spring 2026 after being…

www.insidermedia.com

credible offer to buy by aviation company?

Credible offer to who? The only people able to judge a credible offer are the people selling. The article shows what Peel said and that included a reminder as to how much they’d invested in the site over the operational period. Someone might think a £1.00 is a ‘credible offer’ (for arguments sake, I’m not suggesting this was the offer) for a business that lost the company £250million. There was a ‘Middle Eastern Consortium’ led by some bloke from UAE involved in tourism or some such, but when asked as to the source of their funds they declined to negotiate further and ran to the media saying that ‘Peel are reluctant seller and we are a reluctant buyer’. I’m confident that throughout the life of DSA Peel were actively looking for investors to share the risk, only VAS took the challenge. I fully expect that the private sector rejected it long before Peel announced closure.

Then we had the threat of CPO because the council were desperately running around like headless chickens because they failed to act when they could have. CPO is a pointless and potentially harmful exercise, Peel have remained largely quiet throughout and I sense there has been a fair bit of good will (and some negotiating power) from Peels side to eventually end up in the situation where the Council have agreed a long term lease deal that is ‘commercially sensitive’ and therefore we aren’t allowed to know the details. Hasn’t stopped the council blaming the terms for the lack of private sector investment opportunities though!

Peel, if needed, would be able to turn the table on the Council should they need to. Legally CDC wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, they know this. Planning wise, the airport land does not have to be kept for aviation proposes if Peel can prove that aviation purposes are not a viable use of the land. This is something I also believe the Council have come to learn. Peel have remained silent but will have stacks of evidence to present should they ever need to.

There is talk that the lease has performance related terms included, not sure whether that’s true but it seemed to be alluded to in a Council document. Failure to reach a level of performance would see the lease agreement terminated and the land handed back to Peel. If this is true I would hope it becomes available for public consumption before the funding is approved.

 

[radar]

Planning wise, the airport land does not have to be kept for aviation proposes if Peel can prove that aviation purposes are not a viable use of the land.

I mean… after losing £10m/year for 18 years in private ownership, after CDC exploring all the private sector possibilities and coming up with nothing, if the only way to have an airport is to spend £145m of public money on it… then I don’t think it’s even a question as to whether it’s ‘viable’ or not.

 

[pug]

I mean… after losing £10m/year for 18 years in private ownership, after CDC exploring all the private sector possibilities and coming up with nothing, if the only way to have an airport is to spend £145m of public money on it… then I don’t think it’s even a question as to whether it’s ‘viable’ or not.

Ahh but some retired bloke who sits on the transport board (or something) for SYMCA says it doesn’t matter if it’s ‘viable’ or not… see that’s what we’re dealing with.

Anyhow, Vince Hodder seems to be getting stick again. For context, he was Chief Strategy Officer when Flybe had two jets based at DSA. He KNOWS what deal they were operating on.. He KNOWS the general poor performance of the flights from DSA.

 

[Bantamzen]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: A timeline of events - what challenges lie ahead for a 2026 re-opening? - Insider Media

The former Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) has been a major talking point for locals, politicians, and airline groups as the site looks set to potentially re-open in spring 2026 after being…

www.insidermedia.com

credible offer to buy by aviation company?

I think the big take-away from this article is the summing up from Charles Johnson:

Charles Johnson, Leeds Bradford’s head of planning development, told an Insider roundtable in March: “For airports to be successful they have to be commercially successful. To get investment they have to be a proven investable product. That's a hard thing to achieve. It doesn't matter how much public money you throw at something, it will ultimately fail.”

This neatly wraps up the whole issue with CDC's strategy with DSA, they don't have a proven investable product, so they don't have investment save their own which very finite. Soaking up year upon year of losses is not going to be sustainable, unless of course residents of Doncaster don't mind a spiral of increasing Council Taxes and decreasing services as CDC shovel everything down into their money pit in Finningley.

 

[White Heather]

I think the big take-away from this article is the summing up from Charles Johnson:


This neatly wraps up the whole issue with CDC's strategy with DSA, they don't have a proven investable product, so they don't have investment save their own which very finite. Soaking up year upon year of losses is not going to be sustainable, unless of course residents of Doncaster don't mind a spiral of increasing Council Taxes and decreasing services as CDC shovel everything down into their money pit in Finningley.

I'm sure the good residents of Doncaster won't be at all happy at spiralling Council Tax, especially when they still can't catch a plane from their beloved DSA to wherever they fancy.

Unfortunately for them, this folly is being driven by politicians who don't understand the aviation industry, so don't understand why DSA failed first time around, and they are in total denial regarding warnings that second time around it will fail again. These politicians are fixated on what is nothing more than a vanity project and their own ego trips.

How many warnings from industry experts do they need before they stop throwing public money down the drain?
The problem is that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who also knows nothing about aviation, has thrown her weight behind this, but as we all know here in Leeds, it'll be for very different reasons. She will see more flights from DSA as a path to less flights from her local airport at LBA, which she opposes, and I don't believe for a minute that she is really now changing her spots. Her declaration of support (for LBA) was a kneejerk response to being backed into a corner live on TV by the press, over her previous attempts to block a new terminal at LBA. She is responsible for the UK economy, yet has waded in to the DSA debate proclaiming support without anything tangible that demonstrates that DSA can ever be anything other than a loss making airport. Effectively, in an attempt to be seen to be boosting the economy she is supporting a process that will do nothing significant for the economy and will lead to higher Council Taxes locally.

It's all a political charade. Sadly, the South Yorkshire Mayor is aligned to the same party so irrespective of all the warnings, he will be under huge pressure to sign this off. If he pulls the plug he will be doing the Doncaster residents a favour, but it will probably end his career!

 

[pug]

I think the big take-away from this article is the summing up from Charles Johnson:


This neatly wraps up the whole issue with CDC's strategy with DSA, they don't have a proven investable product, so they don't have investment save their own which very finite. Soaking up year upon year of losses is not going to be sustainable, unless of course residents of Doncaster don't mind a spiral of increasing Council Taxes and decreasing services as CDC shovel everything down into their money pit in Finningley.

It ticks the boxes about investing for growth. Principles are simple and based on increasing investment, increasing growth, more money to put back into public services.

Like we’ve been saying on here though the investment needs to go in to viable projects. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect public investment in infrastructure projects in the north in the name of ‘levelling up’. But let’s be clear here, the single biggest leg up the M62 corridor needs is vastly improved high speed rail connectivity East/West and another motorway probably extending the M67 somehow so it can link up to the M1 in the Sheffield area. Increasing airport capacity in the hope that one day it might be needed is not the solution. Improved surface access to the current airport network is what’s really needed in my view.

 

[Aviador]

I have mentioned this before but in light of recent political events globally, it might not sound as far reaching to suggest the airport could reopen as part of a duel military/commercial airfield in much the same way many of the Spanish airports operate. The cost of maintaining the runway and ATC could be shared while the passenger terminal facilities could operate on behalf of Doncaster Council. If this option is ever explored it shouldn't include handouts to airlines. From a national security prospective it might be cheaper than potentially needing to develop new facilities elsewhere.

 

[White Heather]

I have mentioned this before but in light of recent political events globally, it might not sound as far reaching to suggest the airport could reopen as part of a duel military/commercial airfield in much the same way many of the Spanish airports operate. The cost of maintaining the runway and ATC could be shared while the passenger terminal facilities could operate on behalf of Doncaster Council. If this option is ever explored it shouldn't include handouts to airlines. From a national security prospective it might be cheaper than potentially needing to develop new facilities elsewhere.

I guess that would depend on how many of the RAFs mothballed airfields are still available and in a fit state for operations. I can't see the RAF sharing when there must be at least a dozen airfields still held on the MOD Estate.

 

[pug]

I guess that would depend on how many of the RAFs mothballed airfields are still available and in a fit state for operations. I can't see the RAF sharing when there must be at least a dozen airfields still held on the MOD Estate.

You have a number operating way under capacity, Wittering, Leeming, Leuchars and Honington are just four that spring to mind, Honington hasn’t been used for front line aircraft stuff for 30 odd years but it and another two mentioned have HAS onsite. Then if the US decide they want nothing to do with us any more you’d have Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Fairford all well equipped (albeit for US purposes). Not only are they purpose built military airfields, they also have the necessary infrastructure including domestic sites.

Then you have to consider whether it would ever be feasible or necessary to increase the number of aircraft and squadrons. I think it’s very far fetched at the moment to expect this will be necessary. The RAF relinquished its nuke capability decades ago. I also hope it never even comes close to the use of that sort of thing because then we’ll all be gone. I like to believe that even with limited NATO nuke provisions assuming US goes full isolationist, the threat of mutually assured destruction still exists.

Anyway, I don’t see any useful purpose for Finningley as a military airfield any longer, nor is it a viable dispersal airfield. It’s hard to predict what a modern WW3 would look like (it doesn’t really bare thinking about either) but we’re already fighting a cyber war that nobody seems to mention and that’s going on every day…

 

[rabbitfoot]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Council’s £363m lease payment agreement - and 2031 break clause - revealed

Council bosses have signed up to £363m in lease payments to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport - but can exit the arrangement in six years’ time through a break clause if the project “proves unviable”, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

 

[pug]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Council’s £363m lease payment agreement - and 2031 break clause - revealed

Council bosses have signed up to £363m in lease payments to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport - but can exit the arrangement in six years’ time through a break clause if the project “proves unviable”, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Behind a paywall. But £363 million works out to be around £2.9 million per year based on 125 years, however why then have the lease commitments increased recently? I can’t see this news helping with investor confidence though.

Break clause in 2031 seems too far away to me, I expect there will be other get outs much sooner but presumably these will include providing Peel with development rights etc..

I’m more concerned about Nottingham Tollerton at the moment. Another GA airfield soon to be built over.

Edit: Managed to read it in full.. but. Below is an excerpt;

Let’s not forget, the original plan had been to sign up a private operator to take over the airport and cover the full lease costs through a 50-year underlease.​

But given no operator could be found, the whole equation has changed since 2022.
Many will feel that throwing a substantial amount of money at an airport is not wise, especially if they see other services flagging.
Those in charge of reopening the airport need to make a compelling case of the wider economic benefits to people who otherwise won’t be using the airport should it reopen.

 

[White Heather]

So, they claim they will be operational from 2026. They also claim they will be profitable within 5 years, which just happens to be the same year they can bail out and terminate the lease. That's why they're desperate to be open by 2026. If they're not, they don't even have 5 years and by their own reckoning, they will still be loss making when the lease break comes around. If they dont take that lease break they are committed to either a good few more years to the next break, or bsikingnout mid term and paying Peel a fortune in penalties.

Except of course, the chances of being profitable after 5 years, or even 10 years are virtually nil. .

 

[pug]

So, they claim they will be operational from 2026. They also claim they will be profitable within 5 years, which just happens to be the same year they can bail out and terminate the lease. That's why they're desperate to be open by 2026. If they're not, they don't even have 5 years and by their own reckoning, they will still be loss making when the lease break comes around. If they dont take that lease break they are committed to either a good few more years to the next break, or bsikingnout mid term and paying Peel a fortune in penalties.

Exceot of course, the chances If bring profitable after 5 years, or even 10 years are virtually nil. .

It’s a good point that WH and something that I didn’t even consider. They’re clearly under pressure therefore to get a good 5 years to gauge viability in real terms. It might be why Dan Fell says that any further delays would jeopardise investor confidence, what he really means is stakeholder confidence but that’ll be hard to generate knowing how close the break clause is and the uncertainty involved in that considering the history of the place isn’t exactly inspiring.

I think Coppard will green light it in summer if Ros Jones is reelected. It will then be down to whether they can open in Spring 2026 or not, and I think we’re pretty unanimous on here that this is unlikely to happen.

Seen on the dried fruit forum that a Private Eye article has sourced a leaked document which shows that Teesside Airport will run out of money by June (presumably will require an injection of more public cash?).. If this is true things could get VERY interesting, particularly with the plans to reopen DSA using Teesside as some kind of blueprint, apparently the Teesside accounts are two months late being published.

 

[Seasider]

Can we have discussion about Teeside Airport in the appropriate thread please, it has deviated too much from DSA.

Thank you.

 

[Egyptian King]

Behind a paywall. But £363 million works out to be around £2.9 million per year based on 125 years, however why then have the lease commitments increased recently?

7 years equals £20.3m, rather similar to the 10 plus 10 that the Mayor has drawn

 

[pug]

To those saying that DSA should reopen to allow for an adequate oil spill response to what was hopefully an extremely rare event yesterday off the EY costs. First of all 2Excel do not currently have the U.K. oil spill response contract. Secondly travelling up from wherever they are currently based would not be an issue time wise would be negligible. Thirdly, the MCA contractors were praised on their rapid response time, helped im sure in no small part by the fact that they have both fixed wing and helicopter assets based at Humberside which is around 20 miles or so as the crow flies from the incident site.

So doesn’t really help your argument.

 

[752]

To those saying that DSA should reopen to allow for an adequate oil spill response to what was hopefully an extremely rare event yesterday off the EY costs. First of all 2Excel do not currently have the U.K. oil spill response contract. Secondly travelling up from wherever they are currently based would not be an issue time wise would be negligible. Thirdly, the MCA contractors were praised on their rapid response time, helped im sure in no small part by the fact that they have both fixed wing and helicopter assets based at Humberside which is around 20 miles or so as the crow flies from the incident site.

So doesn’t really help your argument.

Also ironic Chadwick is feeding his followers with the LBA night flying restrictions. The comments are hilarious, so thick. LBA are not going to lose 1.5 Million Pax to DSA. they never lost that much ever or gained...

He is controlling the narrative and trying to make it relevant for another LBA bashing but doesn't accept any form of DSA bashing.

the 2excel argument is hilarious, happens once in a blue moon and they steer that to a valid point for DSA to reopen (when HUY is closer) ok..

 

[GolfFox]

To those saying that DSA should reopen to allow for an adequate oil spill response to what was hopefully an extremely rare event yesterday off the EY costs. First of all 2Excel do not currently have the U.K. oil spill response contract. Secondly travelling up from wherever they are currently based would not be an issue time wise would be negligible. Thirdly, the MCA contractors were praised on their rapid response time, helped im sure in no small part by the fact that they have both fixed wing and helicopter assets based at Humberside which is around 20 miles or so as the crow flies from the incident site.

So doesn’t really help your argument.

Understand both 727 are u/s at the moment.