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

[Stagman]

Ros Jones in Yorkshire Post interview saying "We are not going to commit to agreeing to a ten year lease until we meet all the requirements."

 

[pug]

Ros Jones in Yorkshire Post interview saying "We are not going to commit to agreeing to a ten year lease until we meet all the requirements."

Ominous. I thought she was all about building momentum to instil confidence? Are Peel really likely to blink first? Do they really care in the grand scheme of things? They do need CDC and SYMCA on side for their Gateway East project to bear fruit, but I think they’ll run rings around CDC and may possibly want to see expressions of interest from airlines or this elusive freight partner that prove there is some genuine interest where there wasn’t before. Successful airport = increased land value. Failed airport = poor value and lethargic growth prospects.

 

[752]

Currently with how the industry is (and a war going on) I cannot see any airlines giving a sniff of commitment and investment. Airlines need to tread carefully and not make risks that will result in a loss of investment. Setting up a new base costs millions. 2028, hopefully things will calm down, but will the industry look a lot different to what it does today? Yes. Will there be even less airlines? Yes. Will any want to reduce their presence at major UK airports to risk DSA?…. I highly doubt it and if any do, need to have a word with their commercial teams. (Of course unless CDC cover all costs which would be even more comical). Poor Doncaster, already branded a sh*t hole is only going to get worse because of this.

 

[rabbitfoot]

there will be no legal challenge, other airports will look at the bristol / cardiff ruling.
and it was unanimous.
it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

 

[pug]

there will be no legal challenge, other airports will look at the bristol / cardiff ruling.
and it was unanimous.
it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

Not remotely true. True to form though, It ‘was’ common practice was it? Shame they have no money to do this then, isn’t it.

 

[Stagman]

In Yorkshire Post

2031 break clause removed.

2036 targets:
Passengers: 1 million
Cargo: 13,000 Tonnes

2041 targets:
Passengers: 1.4 million
Cargo: 41,000 Tonnes

2056 targets:
Passengers: 2.3 million
Cargo: 41,000 Tonnes

 

[pug]

In Yorkshire Post

2031 break clause removed.

2036 targets:
Passengers: 1 million
Cargo: 13,000 Tonnes

2041 targets:
Passengers: 1.4 million
Cargo: 41,000 Tonnes

2056 targets:
Passengers: 2.3 million
Cargo: 41,000 Tonnes

But in the same article Ros Jones claims those targets would be easily exceeded anyway. Meanwhile Coppard has stipulated that the airport is only viable if it achieved eves 2.3mppa by Y19.

 

[rabbitfoot]

Not remotely true. True to form though, It ‘was’ common practice was it? Shame they have no money to do this then, isn’t it.

wrong again pug . read the report , and cardiff legal defence was just that

the Welsh government argued that it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

In its ruling, published on Tuesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said: "Bristol's application for a declaration, a quashing order and a recovery order is dismissed."

"This judgment is unanimous."

In welcoming the decision, a Welsh government spokesperson said: "We welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling that our investment in Cardiff Airport is lawful and can continue on its current terms.

so its not remotely true. please do not make false statements , and mislead people

 

[pug]

wrong again pug . read the report , and cardiff legal defence was just that

the Welsh government argued that it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

In its ruling, published on Tuesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said: "Bristol's application for a declaration, a quashing order and a recovery order is dismissed."

"This judgment is unanimous."

In welcoming the decision, a Welsh government spokesperson said: "We welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling that our investment in Cardiff Airport is lawful and can continue on its current terms.

so its not remotely true. please do not make false statements , and mislead people

See the problem here, rabbithoof, is that you’ve unsurprisingly read the headline but not picked up on the nuance of the BRS vs CWL case. You see the reason it was unanimously waved off is because CWL is a going concern with access to credit. That is to say it’s an active airport, has continued to be an active airport and as such the subsidy rules that apply do not in the case of DSA. Even the SAU was far more damning of the DSA submission than they were of the case if CWL, as we now know the business case has changed yet again.

DSA has no grounds to argue market failure. Subtle difference. That is not to say that a hypothetical legal challenge would succeed against DSA, but it is a completely different kettle of fish as the baseline is 0.

Like I say it’s irrelevant anyway, FlyDoncaster do not and will not have access to sufficient funding to underwrite airline losses. It failed at CWL already and it failed at DSA. Far more likely that this will result in a damning public enquiry than it will ever get to the point where a legal challenge will be raised on the subsidy issue.

 

[Speedbird1]

wrong again pug . read the report , and cardiff legal defence was just that

the Welsh government argued that it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

In its ruling, published on Tuesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said: "Bristol's application for a declaration, a quashing order and a recovery order is dismissed."

"This judgment is unanimous."

In welcoming the decision, a Welsh government spokesperson said: "We welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling that our investment in Cardiff Airport is lawful and can continue on its current terms.

so its not remotely true. please do not make false statements , and not mislead people

It sets a precedent in one area only. It’s highly likely that if it distorts competition the ruling could easily go the other way. I imagine Leeds would have learnt from the ruling to understand their possible case and not make the same mistakes Bristol did.

Also where is this cash coming from? CDC? Gainshare? That cash doesn’t even cover the reopening! Do you understand how far £100m goes when fully underwriting a route?

Cardiff will have burnt through that cash easily within 5 years and then what? Back to square one when the airlines withdraw without the cash. Just as happened with Flybe at DSA

 

[Eusebius]

Also where is this cash coming from? CDC? Gainshare? That cash doesn’t even cover the reopening!

The financing does not pencil, unless there's something wrong with my pencil or they have some other sources of funding that they are keeping secret.

I understand the plan is to increase the number of staff to 200 by the end of the year. Let's take £45,000/year as a conservative average cost per head. That's £9m a year. Base rent is £3.3m rising to £5m a year. That's £12.3m rising to £14.3m every year.

Over the ten year budget period CDC are loaning FDL £128m. It's loaded up front and then reduces, nevertheless that averages £12.8m a year. £128m sounds like a large sum of money but in fact only just about pays the wages and covers the rent. £12.8m a year is the local swimming pool not an international airport!

The underlying assumption has to be that FDL will become wildly profitable immediately when passenger flights resume in 2028 and stay wildly profitable indefinitely.

A realistic time table for the ACP etc takes you to 2030 and it is very difficult to envisage airlines operating from the site before 2031-32.

So where does the huge profit required to keep the show on the road come from? Or where is the huge shortfall going to come from?

 

[GolfFox]

Ros Jones in Yorkshire Post interview saying "We are not going to commit to agreeing to a ten year lease until we meet all the requirements."

Confusing as they are still paying the rent. The current lease is being re-negotiated but the current agreement is not suspended?

wrong again pug . read the report , and cardiff legal defence was just that

the Welsh government argued that it was common practice for airports to provide up-front payments to airlines.

In its ruling, published on Tuesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said: "Bristol's application for a declaration, a quashing order and a recovery order is dismissed."

"This judgment is unanimous."

In welcoming the decision, a Welsh government spokesperson said: "We welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling that our investment in Cardiff Airport is lawful and can continue on its current terms.

so its not remotely true. please do not make false statements , and mislead people

The critical issue seemed to be that Cardiff was a 'going concern'. DSA is not quite the same. Nearby airports will no doubt decide whether it is worthwhile. Maybe they will, maybe they won't - we can speculate until the cows come home but it will not affect reality.

 

[Eusebius]

Confusing as they are still paying the rent. The current lease is being re-negotiated but the current agreement is not suspended?

She doesn't know what she's saying, I think she means the 5 year passenger threshold has been moved back to 2036, so they've got 10 years to hit 1 mppa.

The article is ridiculous. Jones says the forecasts are pessimistic and easy to beat. If they are so easy to beat, why did the council just spend months desperately renegotiating the 2036 passenger target down from 2.3 million to just 1 million?

Mind you, she's only recently conceded that passenger flights won't restart in spring 2026.

She talks out of her bottom.

 

[GolfFox]

The financing does not pencil, unless there's something wrong with my pencil or they have some other sources of funding that they are keeping secret.

I understand the plan is to increase the number of staff to 200 by the end of the year. Let's take £45,000/year as a conservative average cost per head. That's £9m a year. Base rent is £3.3m rising to £5m a year. That's £12.3m rising to £14.3m every year.

Over the ten year budget period CDC are loaning FDL £128m. It's loaded up front and then reduces, nevertheless that averages £12.8m a year. £128m sounds like a large sum of money but in fact only just about pays the wages and covers the rent. £12.8m a year is the local swimming pool not an international airport!

The underlying assumption has to be that FDL will become wildly profitable immediately when passenger flights resume in 2028 and stay wildly profitable indefinitely.

A realistic time table for the ACP etc takes you to 2030 and it is very difficult to envisage airlines operating from the site before 2031-32.

So where does the huge profit required to keep the show on the road come from? Or where is the huge shortfall going to come from?

I suspect this is precisely what Grant Thornton the Council auditors have 'red flagged' for the second time with quite severe criticism of the financial governance, the very high risk (in their opinion) and scathing criticism of the lack of aviation experience on the board together with no commercial experience in rolling out such a complex project. Surprisingly, there was no mention of this in the meeting the other day so if Cllr Charity - Chair of Scrutiny or whatever he is - chooses to ignore this then he and his colleagues become equally complicit together with the current 'cabal'. Not a position you would think they would want to place themselves in!

 

[pug]

She doesn't know what she's saying, I think she means the 5 year passenger threshold has been moved back to 2036, so they've got 10 years to hit 1 mppa.

The article is ridiculous. Jones says the forecasts are pessimistic and easy to beat. If they are so easy to beat, why did the council just spend months desperately renegotiating the 2036 passenger target down from 2.3 million to just 1 million?

Mind you, she's only recently conceded that passenger flights won't restart in spring 2026.

She talks out of her bottom.

The Irony in her statements that this dilly dally has knocked confidence, she can barely string a coherent sentence together. I know the people doing the hard yards (Christian Foster excepted) will be far more articulate and capable of dealing with stakeholders, but Ros Jones is the face of the project and the financing of it. Shes been allowed out to make herself look silly again.

My suspicions are, given that SYMCA are leading the discussions with Peel, they have been correctly appraised by their chosen consultants of the true risk with regards modelling forecasts.

DSA could achieve over 2mppa relatively rapidly if it attracted two or three big named carriers with sufficient volume and scalability. Conversely it could not, or it could but as in the case of the previous incarnation it could lose an airline partner and have its passenger throughput slashed by 50% over night! Same can be said for their freight ambitions.

These are the real risks, and they do need to look at historical performance which is one reason Grant Thornton have flagged it as Red.

Talking of Grant Thornton, their evidence submitted to the CAT helped Cardiff win their case against Bristol. Their evidence that FlyDoncaster is high risk can be used by LBA against them. Again not to say that it would be successful, but it shows there are fundamental differences.

 

[Eusebius]

I suspect this is precisely what Grant Thornton the Council auditors have 'red flagged' for the second time with quite severe criticism of the financial governance, the very high risk (in their opinion) and scathing criticism of the lack of aviation experience on the board together with no commercial experience in rolling out such a complex project. Surprisingly, there was no mention of this in the meeting the other day so if Cllr Charity - Chair of Scrutiny or whatever he is - chooses to ignore this then he and his colleagues become equally complicit together with the current 'cabal'. Not a position you would think they would want to place themselves in!

You can only get so far with the figures in the public domain, but they don't appear to be even vaguely plausible. For a bit of context, Leeds Bradford are spending over £100m just to extend the terminal building a bit in their LBA:REGEN project. Doncaster's voting taxpayers are invited to believe that what's effectively a new international airport can be designed, built and commissioned on £128m. That is a joke. Furthermore, they need to be fully certified and open for Easter 2028 - airlines signed, passenger operations commenced, and generating considerable revenue for the model to be even remotely credible.

It is essentially just a fantasy. I'm not convinced they can afford to even get it open.

 

[Statto]

LBA certainly aren’t spending £100m on the extension. I think the figure quoted was closer to £30/£40m. Nor was it extended ‘a bit’ - its a very sizeable increase in space. For the £100m in total they are also completely gutting and redesigning what was the existing terminal. And 2 new stands were built last year too. I don’t think it provides any meaningful insight into the DSA project which so far as I’m aware doesn’t need any structural work; it’s going to be mostly equipment and fixtures and fittings ?

Presumably anything that needs replacing is because Peel took it out and sold it, suggesting at the very least there will be a carrying asset value to the equipment the council have to provide. E.g, security scanners, baggage systems etc could be sold in the event of early lease termination

 

[pug]

You can only get so far with the figures in the public domain, but they don't appear to be even vaguely plausible. For a bit of context, Leeds Bradford are spending over £100m just to extend the terminal building a bit in their LBA:REGEN project. Doncaster's voting taxpayers are invited to believe that what's effectively a new international airport can be designed, built and commissioned on £128m. That is a joke. Furthermore, they need to be fully certified and open for Easter 2028 - airlines signed, passenger operations commenced, and generating considerable revenue for the model to be even remotely credible.

It is essentially just a fantasy. I'm not convinced they can afford to even get it open.

They can most likely get it open, as Statto says the building work at LBA is quite extensive and FlyDoncaster are needing a sizeable front load for their ‘big ticket items’ which could, if costs escalate, be sold on. However we were told this was part of the reason the council would face bankruptcy in the event of loan being rescinded so I’m not sure how much weight I place on that.

Where I’m not convinced they’ll be able to survive is through subsidising the losses. I can’t see how they’ll generate enough revenue through the site to get anywhere near break even and, as with most forecasts, they can only be based on the now and not the tomorrow etc.. I think £9m in annual losses is highly conservative considering we now know that the ACP has only just entered Stage 3 as a Level 1 design after their attempts to fast track the process have failed. This process is expected to take in another year prior to further progression by the CAA and that assumes no significant stumbling blocks, LBA are poised to challenge at this stage.

 

[Eusebius]

LBA certainly aren’t spending £100m on the extension. I think the figure quoted was closer to £30/£40m. Nor was it extended ‘a bit’ - its a very sizeable increase in space. For the £100m in total they are also completely gutting and redesigning what was the existing terminal. And 2 new stands were built last year too. I don’t think it provides any meaningful insight into the DSA project which so far as I’m aware doesn’t need any structural work; it’s going to be mostly equipment and fixtures and fittings ?

Presumably anything that needs replacing is because Peel took it out and sold it, suggesting at the very least there will be a carrying asset value to the equipment the council have to provide. E.g, security scanners, baggage systems etc could be sold in the event of early lease termination

I just quoted what it says here:

LBA:REGEN | Leeds Bradford Airport

LBA:REGEN at Leeds Bradford Airport delivers a £100M terminal extension and refurbishment, increasing floorspace, retail, seating, baggage reclaim capacity, and lounges. Upgraded facilities, new restaurants, and modernised arrivals enhance comfort and efficiency for all passengers.

www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk

"we’re investing over £100m to extensively regenerate our existing terminal"

It doesn't matter, I was just saying £128m to cover all capital and operational expenditure on a new international airport project over a decade looks inadequate. It's £12.8m a year on average. Wages and rent alone are going to be £10-15m a year.

I only know what's in the papers etc so it's hard to figure out what's really happening.

 

[pug]

I just quoted what it says here:

LBA:REGEN | Leeds Bradford Airport

LBA:REGEN at Leeds Bradford Airport delivers a £100M terminal extension and refurbishment, increasing floorspace, retail, seating, baggage reclaim capacity, and lounges. Upgraded facilities, new restaurants, and modernised arrivals enhance comfort and efficiency for all passengers.

www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk

"we’re investing over £100m to extensively regenerate our existing terminal"

It doesn't matter, I was just saying £128m to cover all capital and operational expenditure on a new international airport project over a decade looks inadequate. It's £12.8m a year on average. Wages and rent alone are going to be £10-15m a year.

I only know what's in the papers etc so it's hard to figure out what's really happening.

You’re right to question it. I think Statto might have been a bit pedantic.

I’ve seen the floor plans and glossy terminal revamp pics and to give them credit it does look a bit better than it did previously. Of course you need airlines to bring the passengers through it to actually use it but credit where it’s due. It was a nice airport to use, and I did support it when it was open by using it when flights I wanted were on offer. I do however remember being one of 25 people (I was in a group of 5) heading to Berlin with Flybe for a mates 40th long weekend. 25 people on a 110 seat E-jet. It was very cheap too. Thanks Peel!