Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
And this requirement can only be met by plunging millions of taxpayers money into a commercial airport that cant sustain its own demand?
Theres no other existing airport able to support development of such a fighter?
Not to mention any such development would be in partnership with another country.
And this requirement can only be met by plunging millions of taxpayers money into a commercial airport that cant sustain its own demand?
Theres no other existing airport able to support development of such a fighter?
Not to mention any such development would be in partnership with another country.
Aircraft manufacturing in a deprived region that also facilitates limited commercial service isn't the worst idea, but again that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree with it.
If there is then it won’t be Airbus that builds it…
Trainers are an off the shelf option at this point in time, the likely contenders for the RAF (and most other western countries) have already been identified which will cover the next 2 to 3 decades, there’s no need for brand new airframe produced by a company with no experience in that field solely to give some viability to a non-viable airport.
If a fighter then those programmes as they affect the next twenty years are already under way and don’t require new manufacturing facilities from a company with no experience in that field on a non-viable airport which couldn’t be used for any civilian purpose alongside it.
Airbus are not a sole manufacturer of fighter jets. Any next generation fighter will be built in the U.K. by BAe Systems who already have ample factory capacity. Once again, do you not see why this might look like an extreme straw clutching exercise?
For an airport to be successful it needs tangible demand. All this talk of a sustainable aviation hub or even fighter jet manufacturing, neither of which exists, just proves the point that Peel made when they were forced to close it.
Airbus are not a sole manufacturer of fighter jets. Any next generation fighter will be built in the U.K. by BAe Systems who already have ample factory capacity. Once again, do you not see why this might look like an extreme straw clutching exercise?
For an airport to be successful it needs tangible demand. All this talk of a sustainable aviation hub or even fighter jet manufacturing, neither of which exists, just proves the point that Peel made when they were forced to close it.
I think this forum tends to be extremely pessimistic about DSA's chances.
Whatever makes it succeed or fail is yet to be seen, but the detractors (some of who make some very much valid points!) have still mostly failed to address the main point.
How else do you improve air links for South Yorks residents WITHIN South Yorkshire?
The funding framework doesn't permit spending externally and nor should it.
Fair enough if you believe it should be spent on local transport projects or something similar, but it still has to be spent in SY.
I think this forum tends to be extremely pessimistic about DSA's chances.
Whatever makes it succeed or fail is yet to be seen, but the detractors (some of who make some very much valid points!) have still mostly failed to address the main point.
How else do you improve air links for South Yorks residents WITHIN South Yorkshire?
The funding framework doesn't permit spending externally and nor should it.
Fair enough if you believe it should be spent on local transport projects or something similar, but it still has to be spent in SY.
The main point isn't how you improve air links within South Yorkshire, it is whether or not there is sufficient demand for air travel within South Yorkshire. This is the key point.
You could build all the airports you wanted there, but if airlines can't fill enough aircraft to make it worth their while they won't touch them with a bargepole. Aviation is very much a profit driven industry, with tight margins (especially for the budget / holiday carriers) and zero sentiment. They are not a public service, and have no need or desire to provide routes from every nook and cranny of the UK. What they look for are airports where sufficient footfall exists, or can be shown to exist. That's where DSA falls over badly, because in 17 years of operation it failed to do that. Different carriers tried, often with some handsome incentives, to make it work but they simply couldn't. Moreover in recent years both Manchester & Leeds Bradford have initiated expansion plans, which means capacity will open up at these proven sites so if airlines want to expand they have safe options to do so in. Why take a risk at DSA when you've got established bases and footfall at other airports?
DSA supporters have leaned heavily into the idea of build / re-open it and they will come. But this simply isn't how aviation works. The only airline that has even hinted at keeping an eye on things is TUI, and they have been shifting many of their holiday passengers from TUI Airways to other carriers such as Ryanair as demand has peaked, and even fallen on some routes. And this is a real problem at the moment, demand has plateaued and is even dropping in some areas meaning airlines and holiday companies are not exactly in the market for new airports. Doncaster Council have been deliberately tone deaf on this matter, they've had plenty of warning that this is a highly risky project at best and the total lack of any meaningful private investment has long been a red flag. If DSA was even a half decent prospect, there would be some big players looking to buy in, but there simply aren't any. Things really don't look for good it being successful, and a lot of public money may end up in a money pit.
By that logic, every other county also needs its own airport. So I assume you'll also be pushing for one each in North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire which will further reduce the patronage at DSA.
How else do you improve air links for South Yorks residents WITHIN South Yorkshire?
The funding framework doesn't permit spending externally and nor should it.
Fair enough if you believe it should be spent on local transport projects or something similar, but it still has to be spent in SY.
May as well replace 'South Yorkshire' with Powys or Cumbria as they also don't have an international airport.
If you don't have the population or business density to support an airport, or there are airports close enough to provide for the residents who do need to fly occasionally, it won't survive without constant subsidies.
I think this forum tends to be extremely pessimistic about DSA's chances.
Whatever makes it succeed or fail is yet to be seen, but the detractors (some of who make some very much valid points!) have still mostly failed to address the main point.
How else do you improve air links for South Yorks residents WITHIN South Yorkshire?
The funding framework doesn't permit spending externally and nor should it.
Fair enough if you believe it should be spent on local transport projects or something similar, but it still has to be spent in SY.
It’s not pessimistic, it’s realistic to anyone with an understanding of the industry.
There is no ‘main point’. There’s absolutely no need to improve air links for S Yorks residents, within S Yorks or anywhere else as they’re already well served by the surrounding established (and profitable) airports. Which is why it wasn’t viable previously. DSA is a solution desperately in search of a problem. Playing ‘fantasy airport’ with all manner of outlandish options that are simply never going to happen to fill a non-existent need just to reopen a non-viable airport doesn’t change any of this.
I think this forum tends to be extremely pessimistic about DSA's chances.
Whatever makes it succeed or fail is yet to be seen, but the detractors (some of who make some very much valid points!) have still mostly failed to address the main point.
How else do you improve air links for South Yorks residents WITHIN South Yorkshire?
The funding framework doesn't permit spending externally and nor should it.
Fair enough if you believe it should be spent on local transport projects or something similar, but it still has to be spent in SY.
I think everyone else has covered this off pretty well above. The proponents for reopening seem to ignore the previous 17 years of full operational history and performance. The airport opened during arguably the fastest growth period in the commercial aviation market the U.K. has ever seen, 2005 couldn’t have been a better time to open an airport due to the plethora of existing and new entrants to the airline market in the U.K. They got Thomsonfly in as their anchor tenant knowing, despite the PR spin in the run up to reopening, that the airport would be nothing more than a seasonal holiday airport with the hope that airlines would utilise gaps in the schedules for short hop business friendly destinations. The load factors on anything other than a package holiday flight to the med were dire, the CAA stats published monthly prove this. The big players shunned the airport or attempted to establish someting there due to attractive incentives but they failed to secure enough sales to ensure a profitable and growing operation could be achieved at DSA.
This problem hasn’t gone away. I know that the Council have ignored airline advice on the matter. Problem is that not much has been publicly stated (except for Michael Oleary) and are pushing ahead regardless because they are resting their political credibility on it and are therefore in my view withholding pertinent information from the public pertaining to the level of aviation demand for the airport. It isn’t going to end well, I do wonder whether they are going to strategically drop the Subsidy notification during the Christmas period in the hope that seasonal leave will result in a smaller window for realistic legal challenges. Would not surprise me because they have to publish the subsidy in full, you’d think they’d be in a rush to do this after all the bluster, still a few weeks on from the last vote and…. nothing.
The main point isn't how you improve air links within South Yorkshire, it is whether or not there is sufficient demand for air travel within South Yorkshire. This is the key point.
You could build all the airports you wanted there, but if airlines can't fill enough aircraft to make it worth their while they won't touch them with a bargepole. Aviation is very much a profit driven industry, with tight margins (especially for the budget / holiday carriers) and zero sentiment. They are not a public service, and have no need or desire to provide routes from every nook and cranny of the UK. What they look for are airports where sufficient footfall exists, or can be shown to exist. That's where DSA falls over badly, because in 17 years of operation it failed to do that. Different carriers tried, often with some handsome incentives, to make it work but they simply couldn't. Moreover in recent years both Manchester & Leeds Bradford have initiated expansion plans, which means capacity will open up at these proven sites so if airlines want to expand they have safe options to do so in. Why take a risk at DSA when you've got established bases and footfall at other airports?
DSA supporters have leaned heavily into the idea of build / re-open it and they will come. But this simply isn't how aviation works. The only airline that has even hinted at keeping an eye on things is TUI, and they have been shifting many of their holiday passengers from TUI Airways to other carriers such as Ryanair as demand has peaked, and even fallen on some routes. And this is a real problem at the moment, demand has plateaued and is even dropping in some areas meaning airlines and holiday companies are not exactly in the market for new airports. Doncaster Council have been deliberately tone deaf on this matter, they've had plenty of warning that this is a highly risky project at best and the total lack of any meaningful private investment has long been a red flag. If DSA was even a half decent prospect, there would be some big players looking to buy in, but there simply aren't any. Things really don't look for good it being successful, and a lot of public money may end up in a money pit.
I don't disagree that it may fail, but Manchester or Leeds Bradford do not deserve money that is allocated to SY being spent on them, and if this is what local voters want, then that is democracy for you!
By that logic, every other county also needs its own airport. So I assume you'll also be pushing for one each in North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire which will further reduce the patronage at DSA.
SY is much more densely populated than surrounding counties, and the poor siting of Yorkshire's existing main commercial airport doesn't help connectivity.
I would point out that Lincolnshire has Humberside, Teesside International is very close to the North Yorks border and Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire (I think) all set up EMA together, so it's not like this is the Republic or rural Scotland where counties have less than 200k population on average.
If you were to propose spending the money on electrifying SY's rail network, I think it's a worthy proposal, but local voters would have to approve this first.
I think everyone else has covered this off pretty well above. The proponents for reopening seem to ignore the previous 17 years of full operational history and performance. The airport opened during arguably the fastest growth period in the commercial aviation market the U.K. has ever seen, 2005 couldn’t have been a better time to open an airport due to the plethora of existing and new entrants to the airline market in the U.K. They got Thomsonfly in as their anchor tenant knowing, despite the PR spin in the run up to reopening, that the airport would be nothing more than a seasonal holiday airport with the hope that airlines would utilise gaps in the schedules for short hop business friendly destinations. The load factors on anything other than a package holiday flight to the med were dire, the CAA stats published monthly prove this. The big players shunned the airport or attempted to establish someting there due to attractive incentives but they failed to secure enough sales to ensure a profitable and growing operation could be achieved at DSA.
This problem hasn’t gone away. I know that the Council have ignored airline advice on the matter. Problem is that not much has been publicly stated (except for Michael Oleary) and are pushing ahead regardless because they are resting their political credibility on it and are therefore in my view withholding pertinent information from the public pertaining to the level of aviation demand for the airport. It isn’t going to end well, I do wonder whether they are going to strategically drop the Subsidy notification during the Christmas period in the hope that seasonal leave will result in a smaller window for realistic legal challenges. Would not surprise me because they have to publish the subsidy in full, you’d think they’d be in a rush to do this after all the bluster, still a few weeks on from the last vote and…. nothing.
Perhaps you're right, it may well fail. But if Doncaster/SY residents genuinely wish for the money given to them to spent on the airport, then that is what should be done.
I don't disagree that it may fail, but Manchester or Leeds Bradford do not deserve money that is allocated to SY being spent on them, and if this is what local voters want, then that is democracy for you!
SY is much more densely populated than surrounding counties, and the poor siting of Yorkshire's existing main commercial airport doesn't help connectivity.
I would point out that Lincolnshire has Humberside, Teesside International is very close to the North Yorks border and Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire (I think) all set up EMA together, so it's not like this is the Republic or rural Scotland where counties have less than 200k population on average.
If you were to propose spending the money on electrifying SY's rail network, I think it's a worthy proposal, but local voters would have to approve this first.
Perhaps you're right, it may well fail. But if Doncaster/SY residents genuinely wish for the money given to them to spent on the airport, then that is what un should be done.
I’m not sure whether you’re actually being serious now. Neither LBA or MAN will get a penny of SY public money spent on them as a result of DSA not being funded. That really isn’t how it works.
SY certainly isn’t more densely populated than West Yorks, having a little over half the WY population in a an an area only 25% less in size. Humberside is only viable (and profitable) because it has offshore heli flights to rigs going from there, not something that DSA could provide, it has very little other commercial traffic and Teesside is another money pit that has never made a profit in its entire commercial existence for exactly the same reasons that DSA was never profitable.
EMA has been privately owned since 1993 and has a vastly larger catchment population than DSA and is far better located in terms of central motorway and rail access which is why it’s a) the UK’s largest cargo hub and b) profitable.
I don't disagree that it may fail, but Manchester or Leeds Bradford do not deserve money that is allocated to SY being spent on them, and if this is what local voters want, then that is democracy for you!
SY is much more densely populated than surrounding counties, and the poor siting of Yorkshire's existing main commercial airport doesn't help connectivity.
I would point out that Lincolnshire has Humberside, Teesside International is very close to the North Yorks border and Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire (I think) all set up EMA together, so it's not like this is the Republic or rural Scotland where counties have less than 200k population on average.
If you were to propose spending the money on electrifying SY's rail network, I think it's a worthy proposal, but local voters would have to approve this first.
Perhaps you're right, it may well fail. But if Doncaster/SY residents genuinely wish for the money given to them to spent on the airport, then that is what should be done.
It will fail. Well it’s in fine saying that it’s what Doncaster/SY residents want, that’s questionable because the situation is fluid and just a check on the Council social media pages would suggest support is waning. However the main problem with the ‘Doncaster SY population support’ is that they are being misled to believe that the problems with DSA 1.0 were of the owners making. They’ve chosen not to share crucial information that blows the myth that Peel mismanaged it apart. Why? Why when you have people believing that the prices of flights were high because Peel set the airport charges that way, and Ros Jones being quoted as saying that was the problem with the previous business model, well that’s misleading the public!
How much support would there be when the public realise the interest from airlines isn’t really there? The cargo flights they’re told will form the mainstay of the operation, what happens when they don’t materialise? What about when public services in Doncaster are affected when the CDC have to make up the shortfall due to their reckless spending on this one project? Why when the SYMCA completed ‘high grade robust due dilligence work’ that discovered the 9:1 ROI was way overly excessive, and that it could actually be a net cost to the region, why do they then insist on still quoting the 9:1 ROI figure? How much are the public being swayed by this misleading narrative?
I think it’s time you admitted you’ve drank the kool aid.
Some of the money is from HM Treasury funded by taxpayers nationally so it is absolutely not fine for this to be wasted on the reopening of an airport that has been shown not to be financially viable.
Some of the money is from HM Treasury funded by taxpayers nationally so it is absolutely not fine for this to be wasted on the reopening of an airport that has been shown not to be financially viable.
Particularly when their politicians aren't willing to be honest with them about what a lost cause it actually is. If people were actually being told what a waste of money it will be I'm fairly sure they'd be wanting it spent on something useful instead.
It will fail. Well it’s in fine saying that it’s what Doncaster/SY residents want, that’s questionable because the situation is fluid and just a check on the Council social media pages would suggest support is waning. However the main problem with the ‘Doncaster SY population support’ is that they are being misled to believe that the problems with DSA 1.0 were of the owners making. They’ve chosen not to share crucial information that blows the myth that Peel mismanaged it apart. Why? Why when you have people believing that the prices of flights were high because Peel set the airport charges that way, and Ros Jones being quoted as saying that was the problem with the previous business model, well that’s misleading the public!
How much support would there be when the public realise the interest from airlines isn’t really there? The cargo flights they’re told will form the mainstay of the operation, what happens when they don’t materialise? What about when public services in Doncaster are affected when the CDC have to make up the shortfall due to their reckless spending on this one project? Why when the SYMCA completed ‘high grade robust due dilligence work’ that discovered the 9:1 ROI was way overly excessive, and that it could actually be a net cost to the region, why do they then insist on still quoting the 9:1 ROI figure? How much are the public being swayed by this misleading narrative?
Some of the money is from HM Treasury funded by taxpayers nationally so it is absolutely not fine for this to be wasted on the reopening of an airport that has been shown not to be financially viable.
I don't disagree that it may fail, but Manchester or Leeds Bradford do not deserve money that is allocated to SY being spent on them, and if this is what local voters want, then that is democracy for you!
So the argument has changed from 'it'll be a commercial succes' to 'it can be made to work if other companies relocate' to 'it'll fail, but SY residents voted for a politician to pour money down the drain so thats what they should be allowed to do'.
So the argument has changed from 'it'll be a commercial succes' to 'it can be made to work if other companies relocate' to 'it'll fail, but SY residents voted for a politician to pour money down the drain so thats what they should be allowed to do'.
I'm not convinced that it will automatically fail.
It may do, but even if it does, that's what was voted for.
There are far worse recent electoral decisions (without getting too political on this section of the website!) that have been made, and yet we still respected them.
I don't see why this should be any different.
Peel's efforts to make this go included encouraging the various authorities to fund the Great Yorkshire Way from the M18 making the airport more accessible by road. It did.
Their further suggestion to build a diverted track off the ECML was never a realistic economic proposition as can be seen by looking at an OS map - for just one thing it would cut across the newly completed Great Yorkshire Way to the airport. It really was too fanciful to suggest many thousands of passengers would come by train from places asa far away as London and Edinburgh and all places in between, but they hoped others would spend their money to do it, not theirs.
As with Sheffield Airport, Peel will come out winning however it goes.
I'm not convinced that it will automatically fail.
It may do, but even if it does, that's what was voted for.
There are far worse recent electoral decisions (without getting too political on this section of the website!) that have been made, and yet we still respected them.
I don't see why this should be any different.
It will, either before it reopens (hopefully, to save wasting too much) or not too long after when they realise yet again that the market simply can’t support an airport. I could sympathise with the other political decisions you’re alluding to wholeheartedly, but this is different. This is the squandering of the entire Gainshare pot for almost 30 years, with the shortfall being guaranteed against the tax paying public of Doncaster. This is all to save political face because believe me the faces of this campaign like Ros Jones have been at the receiving end of some blunt but vital home truths from airline execs and cargo heads alike. They know this yet they’re not telling anyone. It’s not reasonable to draw parallels with things like Brexit in this instance.
Much as I don’t want DSA to go ahead, I also don’t want to see the tax payers of Doncaster being left wanting due to a political promise that backed every local politician into a corner through fear of becoming persona non grata. I know a couple of influential people within SYMCA who were scared to silence over it, they’ve seen the papers that they want to keep private* and they have said none of it stands up to scrutiny. Something the former chair of the scrutiny committee at CDC themselves said.
*why have we still not seen a detailed and costed business plan? Mentions of commercial sensitivity just don’t cut it, that’s what redactions are for! This whole thing is being driven by myth and a misplaced belief that things will somehow be different next time. They won’t.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Peel's efforts to make this go included encouraging the various authorities to fund the Great Yorkshire Way from the M18 making the airport more accessible by road. It did.
Their further suggestion to build a diverted track off the ECML was never a realistic economic proposition as can be seen by looking at an OS map - for just one thing it would cut across the newly completed Great Yorkshire Way to the airport. It really was too fanciful to suggest many thousands of passengers would come by train from places asa far away as London and Edinburgh and all places in between, but they hoped others would spend their money to do it, not theirs.
As with Sheffield Airport, Peel will come out winning however it goes.
This is not completely accurate, yet it’s something the reopening proponents often reference. The vast majority of the funding for the FARRS scheme (GYW) came from private sector consortium including Peel, I think around 30% was from some regional development fund. The justification was never to link up the airport, it was to open up the employment zone between Rossington and the M18. Something it achieved.
The second phase, that linking up Parrots Corner to the Finningley estate, was SY regional funding made up with a contribution from CDC. That was £10m. The fanciful rail link was quite rightly dismissed at initial feasibility review by DfT. It’s not stopped CDC banging the drum for resurrecting it though. Thats also only going to go one way!
When Peel acquired Sheffield City they had tried to get Flybe in there. Flybe said no. The airfield was an excellent GA facility that should never have got into the hands of a company with competing interests, but it did. People bought the idea that with DSAs long runway there’d be flights across the globe. They didn’t stop to think that a catchment area as sparsely populated and economically inactive as DSAs would struggle to attract double digit loads on a daily 70 seater to Dublin…
Oliver Coppard must be kicking himself (or his predecessor) for actively meddling in the outline deal Sheffield Uni had with Peel to build a campus on the DSA site, instead offering £14million in incentives to invest in the Runway Park (formerly Sheffield City Airport). Some might say that was one of the actions that precipitated the demise of DSA 1.0. That and the £20million equity share that was on offer that SYMCA financial advisors said was a non starter due to the fact that DSA would never become profitable. Somehow it’s more palatable to spend ten times that amount (and the rest!) to resuscitate it.
The main point isn't how you improve air links within South Yorkshire, it is whether or not there is sufficient demand for air travel within South Yorkshire. This is the key point.
I think the main point is really in two parts: is there sufficient demand in South Yorkshire, and is DSA going to be the one to meet that demand?
I think that there is the demand within South Yorkshire for air travel. There are 1.4 million people in South Yorkshire.
The real question is whether DSA is the correct solution. And its location is a big problem for that. From Barnsley, for instance, it is about 30 miles to both Leeds/Bradford and DSA, and only 40 to Manchester. Airport. It's similar in the south of Sheffield, 30 miles to DSA, 40 to Manchester, or 50 to East Midlands.
DSA is in a competitive marketplace and there are more established airports available in close proximity to it. That's why it will fail. It's not that there's no demand for air travel in South Yorkshire, its that the people who live in South Yorkshire already have plenty of options.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Particularly when their politicians aren't willing to be honest with them about what a lost cause it actually is. If people were actually being told what a waste of money it will be I'm fairly sure they'd be wanting it spent on something useful instead.
Nail and head! It feels like the South Yorkshire version of Tees Valley, swap Ben Houchen for Ros Jones. As someone who would benefit, less than a mile from the airport, it would be great for the options. However, NOT at the costs of paying a supplement year in and year out on council tax (plus my children's council tax).
It will, either before it reopens (hopefully, to save wasting too much) or not too long after when they realise yet again that the market simply can’t support an airport. I could sympathise with the other political decisions you’re alluding to wholeheartedly, but this is different. This is the squandering of the entire Gainshare pot for almost 30 years, with the shortfall being guaranteed against the tax paying public of Doncaster. This is all to save political face because believe me the faces of this campaign like Ros Jones have been at the receiving end of some blunt but vital home truths from airline execs and cargo heads alike. They know this yet they’re not telling anyone. It’s not reasonable to draw parallels with things like Brexit in this instance.
Much as I don’t want DSA to go ahead, I also don’t want to see the tax payers of Doncaster being left wanting due to a political promise that backed every local politician into a corner through fear of becoming persona non grata. I know a couple of influential people within SYMCA who were scared to silence over it, they’ve seen the papers that they want to keep private* and they have said none of it stands up to scrutiny. Something the former chair of the scrutiny committee at CDC themselves said.
*why have we still not seen a detailed and costed business plan? Mentions of commercial sensitivity just don’t cut it, that’s what redactions are for! This whole thing is being driven by myth and a misplaced belief that things will somehow be different next time. They won’t.
It’s genuinely not about ‘outlooks’, it’s about understanding the dire financial prospects for this airport (if it ever reopens) and the existing factors that make this the case as opposed to goal post moving and ever more outlandish scenarios that could make it viable.
I don't disagree that it may fail, but Manchester or Leeds Bradford do not deserve money that is allocated to SY being spent on them, and if this is what local voters want, then that is democracy for you!
But is it what Doncaster voters want, remembering that it is Doncaster's share of the Gainshare that is being used, and any losses will ultimately be down to to Doncaster Council (and by proxy Doncaster Council Tax Payers) to cover?
Frankly Doncaster Council have been far from transparent in all of this, some might even suggest they haven't been honest. The projections for the airport going into profit went from year 5, to sometime before 2050. The cost originally started at the £160M Gainshare fund amount, to them already needing to borrow at least another £50M and there's probably a lot more than that to come. The one thing that has been very noticeable on social media discussions is that support seemed to rapidly wain when news started to break that the cost was starting to spiral, and it would be unlikely that any commercial operations would start much before 2028. So I'd contest that this is what voters want at all, they really weren't asked any more than "Would you like your airport back". I'm sure if the council had been more upfront, the feedback would have been very different.
SY is much more densely populated than surrounding counties, and the poor siting of Yorkshire's existing main commercial airport doesn't help connectivity.
I would point out that Lincolnshire has Humberside, Teesside International is very close to the North Yorks border and Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire (I think) all set up EMA together, so it's not like this is the Republic or rural Scotland where counties have less than 200k population on average.
I'm always amused when people claim that LBA is poorly situated, yet even when DSA was open LBA grew whereas DSA stumbled along on far lower numbers before slowly dying. So clearly people still somehow managed to choose LBA over DSA. That's because it is situated close to the most densely populated areas of Yorkshire. For all it's motorway links, and being close (but not actually connected) to the ECML, DSA sits in one of the lesser populated areas of Yorkshire. And of course at an almost equal distance to the most populated areas is Manchester which serves both holiday and long haul markets. DSA was never going to work, and never will because quite simply because there is just never going to be the footfall to attract enough carriers. Doncaster Council's business case for DSA is almost identical to the original one for DSA, a case that clearly was no where near strong enough.
Most of what support there is for DSA is from people in the immediate area who remember how quiet DSA was, and how quickly they could get from car park to gate. But that doesn't work well with how airports work, they want them full of punters spending their hard earned on parking, duty free, and refreshments in the terminal before spilling onto fully loaded craft. DSA couldn't and didn't deliver close to what was needed to be profitable. And despite what Doncaster Council claim about the airport delivering external investment, which would cover any losses, there is little to suggest that a handful of bucket and spade flights can ever deliver that. Doncaster Council have this lofty dream that having their airport back will see long haul carriers flooding in (well they have a long runway don't you know), full of wealthy business people carrying big bags of money, looking to set up shop in and around the city. When in reality passengers falling off any flight at DSA would be tired families, and holiday makers just wanting to get home. And they are hardly going to be bringing in the billions Doncaster councillors dream of.
I think the main point is really in two parts: is there sufficient demand in South Yorkshire, and is DSA going to be the one to meet that demand?
I think that there is the demand within South Yorkshire for air travel. There are 1.4 million people in South Yorkshire.
The real question is whether DSA is the correct solution. And its location is a big problem for that. From Barnsley, for instance, it is about 30 miles to both Leeds/Bradford and DSA, and only 40 to Manchester. Airport. It's similar in the south of Sheffield, 30 miles to DSA, 40 to Manchester, or 50 to East Midlands.
DSA is in a competitive marketplace and there are more established airports available in close proximity to it. That's why it will fail. It's not that there's no demand for air travel in South Yorkshire, its that the people who live in South Yorkshire already have plenty of options.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
John Whittaker is an incredibly rich man for a reason. He's always been very good at playing local politicians off as complete mugs.
1.4 million people is interestingly about the amount of footfall DSA had at it's peak. That was nowhere near enough to keep it alive. And besides the aviation industry doesn't think in terms of county borders, South Yorkshire is close enough to three major airports as it stands. There's no-one saying "oh we haven't got an airport for the 1.4 million in South Yorkshire", because frankly where passengers originate from isn't a massive concern. It'll be there somewhere in their data I'm sure, although I'm struggling to find anywhere where it is surfaced, but airlines know that many people will travel for a couple of hours or more to reach an airport if the cost and availability of flights is right.
The only remotely feasible way for DSA to actually be the right solution, would be if one of LBA or EMA somehow failed. They then might be able to mop up some of the capacity lost elsewhere, although with Manchester expanding at a pace they could potentially still make that difficult, especially in the winter season. But this isn't going to happen. I know that there are some DSA supporters who suggest that "they" should could LBA and use DSA instead, although these supporters are never very clear on who "they" are that would have the authority and finances to actually do this.
@Bantamzen LBA is a pain to get to for anyone not in Leeds or the ‘Golden Triangle’. But that’s where most of the money is and therefore the highest propensity to fly this side of the Pennines happens to be in the immediate LBA catchment area.
When people try justify DSA it doesn’t seem to be through some untapped market demand, it seems to be ‘well LBA is rubbish, MAN is awful, I don’t like the drive over the Pennines’ etc. They just can’t seem to grasp that the airlines just didn’t see a need to serve it, if anything they actively avoided it because of significant market overlap. You’re correct when you say that DSA was a pleasant experience, but it’s because it was so quiet it couldn’t really have been anything else. Ultimately it was never a viable commercial entity, and it’s stated benefits under public ownership will never be met when the airport is so quiet again.
Most of what support there is for DSA is from people in the immediate area who remember how quiet DSA was, and how quickly they could get from car park to gate. But that doesn't work well with how airports work, they want them full of punters spending their hard earned on parking, duty free, and refreshments in the terminal before spilling onto fully loaded craft.
Airport planning is based on how busy an airport is 90% of the time. Therefore during peak times the airport experience can be less than ideal. Huge amounts are being invested into LBA as we speak, with phase 2 Regen under way. Being a poor experience is ironically a nice problem to have. There’s no doubting that DSA was an efficient and pleasant experience (so much for that mismanagement theory, eh!), but it was never going to work in a hyper competitive market where bums on seats is the bottom line.
Airports aren’t just there to look after passengers, they’re there to primarily look after the airlines because without them there would be no passengers! To that end there is no disconnect. It’s like me being annoyed about having a 60 mile drive to the nearest John Lewis, why can’t they just put one in my village to make it more convenient for me? Does that mean there is a disconnect between what I want and the John Lewis strategy? Possibly, but I’d be called unreasonable wouldn’t I.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
