If there was no commercial case for the original DSA to operate, I fail to see how anything has changed.
Half a dozen airlines tried it and none, besides TUI, succeeded. TUI alone couldn't keep the lights on.
My concern is that a reopening could be seen as nothing more than a vanity project, burning taxpayers money to the tune of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of pounds, running at a perpetual loss. The guarantees they'd have to provide prospective airlines would be incredibly burdensome if not downright eye-watering. I understand there's a lot of local support but kind words don't pay the bills and if the yields weren't sufficient to keep the cogs turning in the past, why would it change now? Cargo is one possibility but you already have the UK's largest air freight hub less than 60 miles down the road.
I'd rather see a solid plan for viability instead of agreeing to burn shedloads of cash upfront on the basis it might work this time.
I say this as someone who used DSA regularly in the past and supported the airport as much as possible. If it's viable, I'm all for it. If it's not, let's get real.
As someone who used DSA regularly you must be aware that when Peel stated that the airport wasn't commercially viable, this was their long-term aim and they did all that they could to reach that goal. They wanted the land, not an airport. Yes airlines came and went, but my belief is that it was the exorbitant charges by Peel that forced them out, not a failure to get bums on seats. Wizz withdrew purely to bolster their Luton (corrected) base and when they wanted o come back, Peel wouldn't negotiate with them. Wizz were a success at DSA. There's also the UPS hub that went to EMA in 2017/2018, that was meant to go to DSA but again Peel quoted massive costs. So it wasn't a failure of the airport, it was a managed closure by Peel. This can also be evidenced by the speed at which they got rid of the assets, they'd been planning it for a long time.