Doncaster Sheffield Airport to reopen?

mpthomson said:

As we've been through before, DSA offers them nothing but increased costs as the catchment population is entirely covered by MAN, EMA and LBA. There isn't a 'new' or untapped population/market. All flying from DSA would do would be to reduce loads on flights from the other three airports at the cost of extra fuel, fees, staff, airframes etc.

That's why they've never been interested.

Click to expand...

This was the gamble Peel accepted when they opened the airport initially. There is no strong independent market in South Yorkshire waiting to be exploited. It’s heavily fragmented and highly competitive with huge amounts of choice. The gamble Peel accepted was that they offered a better product than the competitors and that they’d therefore abandon other airports to focus on DSA. Except for TUI this failed.

The SY authorities have made a fatal miscalculation here and are wholly naive to the nuances of regional commercial aviation. @Killingworth is correct in that some airlines may take the bait if there is a significant financial incentive that removes the risk, or de-risks it to an acceptable level. However when we know that the money they do have might not even be enough to get the airport open I’m not sure where the many millions required annually to sufficiently cushion the risk will come from. It also opens the doors to legal challenge on anti-competition grounds.

An interesting article on the BBC today:

BBC News - Aspiring air traffic controllers learn the ropes - BBC News

Unfortunately my phone won't allow me to copy and paste the article here, hopefully someone else may be able and willing to do this!

Msq71423 said:

An interesting article on the BBC today:

BBC News - Aspiring air traffic controllers learn the ropes - BBC News

Aspiring air traffic controllers learn the ropes

Student controllers get to grips with the job at Doncaster Sheffield Airport ahead of its reopening.

www.bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately my phone won't allow me to copy and paste the article here, hopefully someone else may be able and willing to do this!

Click to expand...

There's optimism, but the trainees will be gaining transferable skils.

I am reminded of an old Yes Minister episode where they have a well staffed new hospital - but no patients or medical staff! All expense with none of the planned for medical outcomes.

Msq71423 said:

An interesting article on the BBC today:

BBC News - Aspiring air traffic controllers learn the ropes - BBC News

Aspiring air traffic controllers learn the ropes

Student controllers get to grips with the job at Doncaster Sheffield Airport ahead of its reopening.

www.bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately my phone won't allow me to copy and paste the article here, hopefully someone else may be able and willing to do this!

Click to expand...

The sim is basically e-waste that is useless anywhere else so they’ve most likely bought it from Peel for a song.

It is not ‘news’. What it is is a distraction, this news was released initially around the time it was leaked from a council briefing that the project is set to run out of cash in September and if the lease isn’t signed and Gainshare approved prior to the SYMCA board meeting in mid-September then it’s ’over Basically’.

Meanwhile the CAA have serious reservations regarding the Airspace Change proposal. They uploaded their full stage 2 assessment on 14th of this month only for it to be pulled from the portal within a couple of hours. I have a copy though, and it’s not looking good. Anyway, the CAA have confirmed that the council have met the procedural requirements to progress stage 3 consultation. So of course the council are using this news as a signal of ‘momentum! When in actual fact the consultation is likely to be useless because many of the CAAs concerns will not be allayed, not to mention the various stakeholders poised to challenge it! The removal of the assessment will only muddy the waters.

Complete farce. I only hope these recruits are able to complete their training and get jobs elsewhere.

What airspace are they trying to get back? Surely not everything it had before?

gabrielhj07 said:

What airspace are they trying to get back? Surely not everything it had before?

Click to expand...

They had three initial airspace design options. They’ve gone with the one that gives them a slightly smaller footprint, but the CAA’s issue isn’t the choice itself — it’s that they dropped one of the other options without providing a defensible rationale. Not a catastrophic finding, but it is a finding, and it shows the process hasn’t been as watertight as they’re trying to present.

The bit the press latched onto is the more serious one: the CAA calling the passenger forecasts ‘particularly speculative’ which, in CAA language, is basically ‘your numbers don’t stack up’. When the regulator uses that phrasing, it’s a polite way of saying the modelling isn’t credible enough to support the airspace case.

I agree that this is not 'news'. Someone has approved/ instructed the 'investment' of time/money/aspirations in this 'PR Opportunity'; they must be accountable to someone somewhere at some time. Perhaps it will 'pay off' !!

Is Government still giving encouraging noises? For instance what involvement has the Mayor of Gtr Manchester had in Manchester Airport. Greater devolution coming in to land?

BrianW said:

I agree that this is not 'news'. Someone has approved/ instructed the 'investment' of time/money/aspirations in this 'PR Opportunity'; they must be accountable to someone somewhere at some time. Perhaps it will 'pay off' !!

Is Government still giving encouraging noises? For instance what involvement has the Mayor of Gtr Manchester had in Manchester Airport. Greater devolution coming in to land?

Click to expand...

I think they’re hoping that a change at the top, plus greater focus on regional fiscal autonomy, might enable them to push this through without the significant scrutiny applied on the accountable financial officers. The S151 people tend to want to say yes to things like this, but it’s ultimately their liability if the financials don’t stack up, and in the case of DSA they certainly don’t!

I do believe Burnham will have a working relationship with Peel. I do believe Peel will not sugar coat it. If he chooses to back this lame horse then it will be for political optics in the knowledge that it might very well come back to bite him. I do expect they’ll find some more cash in September to keep things ticking over and maintain the outward sense of momentum. It should however be wrapped up pronto, but politics don’t do sensibility at times do they.

The SYMCA board meeting is on the 15th of this month, the agenda pack has been published and there is no decision listed on whether to sign off the Gainshare funding that is deadlocked. There is an update, talking about lack of a PMO and that there’s some external assurance work going on on behalf of SYMCA. However we were told via a leak from a council briefing that ‘if the funding isn’t released by the time SYMCA board meets on 15th September then it’s over, basically’. The Raytheon Radar order has an exit clause if 30th September. It’s my understanding that CDC are unlikely to be able to progress with this without the funding sign off, so the next 21 days might be crucial in this.

There is speculation in the local press that SYMCA are close to finalising a deal to purchase the airport from Peel.

stuartl said:

There is speculation in the local press that SYMCA are close to finalising a deal to purchase the airport from Peel.

Click to expand...

I would suggest, such is the way of public procurement, that they may be close to agreeing terms in principle for Coppard to bring to the board on the 27th October to propose the purchase of the freehold.

A couple of points here. The lease renegotiation has clearly stalled, they posted a decision on the lease on the 28th September after growing pressure for an update. What better way to soften the blow of the inevitable collapse of the lease negotiations by dangling the carrot of what many might see as the panacea? Too convenient for the political narrative to be anything else.

Also this might signify further delays as an entire new risk profile, due diligence, business case and associated scrutiny is completed.

Course all of this might have been completed already, but i find that unlikely. They could also have secured external backing, but that’s also something I find quite unlikely in the absence of any further informations.

So for now I’m putting this down as distraction tactics to soften what would otherwise have killed the project.

pug1 said:

I would suggest, such is the way of public procurement, that they may be close to agreeing terms in principle for Coppard to bring to the board on the 27th October to propose the purchase of the freehold.

A couple of points here. The lease renegotiation has clearly stalled, they posted a decision on the lease on the 28th September after growing pressure for an update. What better way to soften the blow of the inevitable collapse of the lease negotiations by dangling the carrot of what many might see as the panacea? Too convenient for the political narrative to be anything else.

Also this might signify further delays as an entire new risk profile, due diligence, business case and associated scrutiny is completed.

Course all of this might have been completed already, but i find that unlikely. They could also have secured external backing, but that’s also something I find quite unlikely in the absence of any further informations.

So for now I’m putting this down as distraction tactics to soften what would otherwise have killed the project.

Click to expand...

Plus the fact that a change in real estate ownership doesn’t and won’t change the huge elephant in the room, which is that it has zero interest from airlines, and the last 6mths or so of significant rises in the cost of aviation fuel make the market far more challenging, meaning that interest in DSA becomes less likely.

mpthomson said:

Plus the fact that a change in real estate ownership doesn’t and won’t change the huge elephant in the room, which is that it has zero interest from airlines, and the last 6mths or so of significant rises in the cost of aviation fuel make the market far more challenging, meaning that interest in DSA becomes less likely.

Click to expand...

Owning the land would change the risk profile though. If/when the airport fails for a second time, if you own the land then you can pull it all down and build 5000 houses on it- which is what the best outcome is always going to be for DSA.

I actually think buying the land from Peel Holdings is probably a more sensible way of going about things. John Whittaker didn't get to be a billionaire and didn't get to buy a £50m mansion in the Isle of Man by being a transparent and straightforward businessman to deal with. I fully expect that he would try and pull SYCMA's pants down in the terms of any lease- he's done it to the Isle of Man government several times recently, most recently with the shambolic £100m+ ferry terminal in Liverpool- which may explain why negotiations have stalled. At some point it's going to be better to just buy it off him and keep him out of the equation entirely.

Tetchytyke said:

Owning the land would change the risk profile though. If/when the airport fails for a second time, if you own the land then you can pull it all down and build 5000 houses on it- which is what the best outcome is always going to be for DSA.

I actually think buying the land from Peel Holdings is probably a more sensible way of going about things. John Whittaker didn't get to be a billionaire and didn't get to buy a £50m mansion in the Isle of Man by being a transparent and straightforward businessman to deal with. I fully expect that he would try and pull SYCMA's pants down in the terms of any lease- he's done it to the Isle of Man government several times recently, most recently with the shambolic £100m+ ferry terminal in Liverpool- which may explain why negotiations have stalled. At some point it's going to be better to just buy it off him and keep him out of the equation entirely.

Click to expand...

But just buying it off ‘him’ is going to be a bit tricky isn’t it, if the sums were talking about are vast. Peel aren’t going to let it go for a song, particularly if they’re refusing to budge on certain terms of the lease. So to me, unless there’s a significant shift in external investor support, this points to more political choreography to bury the fact that after over a year the renegotiations are still at an impasse. The alternative would be to wrap up the project which, as we know, is far too politically toxic. So something seems a little too convenient with this latest sensationalist news.

Two things of note though. The board meeting where all (well, some. They will complete some of the briefing away from the public and press) will be revealed is a day before the autumn budget where it is expected that further devolution packages for transport are expected. Could provide another large sum for Oliver Coppard to play with. However such significant land purchase would be a ‘key decision’, and we know Coppard has pushed for powers to overrule his financial officers. I’d expect he’d need support from the other three unitary authorities in South Yorkshire, so they might be asking what funding they stand to lose if they support this purchase.

This could be incredibly risky for Burnhams devolution. We’ve already seen the vast sums invested into Cardiff for arguably negligible return, as for Teesside, well that’s subject to a central government investigation as it seems to be a vehicle to just pump hundreds of £millions into with no return. Crucial difference between DSA and those two is that they never closed requiring the vast sums required to reopen them on top of the freehold purchase!

Teeside Airport (and to a lesser extent Cardiff) are the perfect example of how publicly owned assets which aren't needed can drain the public purse.

Leeds Bradford lost £6.6m this year on £62m turnover. The year before it made a profit, but only £479,000 on a similar t/o.

I understand LBAs loss is primarily due to the investment program currently being undertaken, but we can’t forget that costs have skyrocketed in tbf last couple of years and that’s adding pressure on airports. The key difference between LBA and MME is that one has vertical mass. CWL at least has the BA deep maintenance facility amongst other things, which will hold value. DSA would be starting from scratch in a more challenging industry than it ever saw in its 17 years of operation.

thejuggler said:

Teeside Airport (and to a lesser extent Cardiff) are the perfect example of how publicly owned assets which aren't needed can drain the public purse.

Leeds Bradford lost £6.6m this year on £62m turnover. The year before it made a profit, but only £479,000 on a similar t/o.

Click to expand...

LBA’s loss is almost entirely down to how the investment into the terminal etc repayments are structured. It increased passenger numbers again.

mpthomson said:

LBA’s loss is almost entirely down to how the investment into the terminal etc repayments are structured. It increased passenger numbers again.

Click to expand...

LBA is actually a vastly improved experience now and once the whole project is done it'll feel like a whole new airport.

mpthomson said:

LBA’s loss is almost entirely down to how the investment into the terminal etc repayments are structured. It increased passenger numbers again.

Click to expand...

Not according to their finance report. There was some impact due to loss of a concession, but they state the loss is due lrgely to increases in staffing costs. Minimum wage and NI increases Etc

Meanwhile the CAA's airspace change consultation to restore all the airport's previous Class D airspace protection continues apace, with scant recognition of the uncertainties around the project. The message seems to be "unless the protected airspace is in place, the airlines won't come"