Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Doncaster Sheffield-3

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Doncaster Sheffield-3

Old 7th Sep 2022, 10:34
  #541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe TUI have approx 15 cabin crew per aircraft at a base for the B738 if that helps a bit
MARKEYD is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2022, 16:17
  #542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Ďbaseí is a very large word as far as an airline goes. They can vary between an aircraft that night stops and crew position in to the airport, to a location where there are staff permanently located that cover operations/crewing and engineering to varying degrees. Locations like Doncaster that have an annual variation of aircraft night stopping/seasonal operations are naturally smaller with fewer staff. Crews will come from where there is availability both in the numbers and appropriate type ratings, same for CC, and can be seconded/deployed away from their home base for periods of time. WZZUK base at DSA used crews whose primary Ďbasesí were at other airports, so no redundancies from the base due to redeployment back to original or alternate locations.

Nick Fletcher getting the PMís support and raising it in PMís question time with the new Transport Secretary wonít have done any harm today.
https://fb.watch/fouVsZSDNA/

And the signatures online now in excess of 103,000 with several thousand hard copy signatures to add.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 07:14
  #543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
New PM pledges to "protect" the airport:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...1-ADDEC8365446

Regional airports, including Doncaster Sheffield airport, are a vital part of our economic growth. I will make sure that the new Secretary of State for Transport is immediately on the issue.

I can tell that she is—she is already contacting people in Doncaster and Sheffield to make sure that we protect the airport and protect that vital infrastructure and connectivity that helps our economy to grow.
tartan 201 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 07:22
  #544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,253
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
...which is easy to say, harder to do. In all this heat and light, are there any concrete proposals as to how the airport operates at a profit?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 08:08
  #545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
...which is easy to say, harder to do. In all this heat and light, are there any concrete proposals as to how the airport operates at a profit?
The obvious way out is public ownership, but Truss and even more so JR-M are ideologically opposed to such a plan.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 08:25
  #546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,253
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
The obvious way out is public ownership, but Truss and even more so JR-M are ideologically opposed to such a plan.
Public ownership and then what? Continue to run at loss with a permanent subsidy from the taxpayer?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 08:45
  #547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
Public ownership and then what? Continue to run at loss with a permanent subsidy from the taxpayer?
Exactly, if its a money pit then there is no justification for public ownership. I didn't recommend such a course of action, just suggested that it may well be the only way of retaining a commercial airport at Finningley. The nub of the problem, is as has been said on previous occasions, in other threads, the UK simply has too many commercial airports and its debatable if DSA is one of those the UK perhaps doesn't require.

Could the passenger traffic find new homes? Yes of course it could - at LBA, MAN and EMA. Could cargo go elsewhere? Again, of course, EMA is a obvious location. There would require political will, and probably public money to prevent closure and with the current calls on the exchequer's resources one wonders if there is the political will and cash available given the current calls on the public purse, unless of course "levelling up" is really a priority for the new PM and her team. Personally I doubt it is.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 08:52
  #548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
...which is easy to say, harder to do. In all this heat and light, are there any concrete proposals as to how the airport operates at a profit?
Iím sure the first place any concrete proposal will be shared is on a forum full of wibble, foam and froth.
Anyone who thinks five weeks is an appropriate time span to get significant commercial investors signed up to any proposal, with even cursory appropriate due diligence, is clearly living on planet Peel.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 09:02
  #549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,253
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by jumpseater View Post
Iím sure the first place any concrete proposal will be shared is on a forum full of wibble, foam and froth.
Anyone who thinks five weeks is an appropriate time span to get significant commercial investors signed up to any proposal, with even cursory appropriate due diligence, is clearly living on planet Peel.
I agree, but there isn't any sign of anything other than petitions and questions in the House. I'm not expecting any negotiations to be done in public, just an indication that somebody has a plan on how to move forward.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 09:16
  #550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem is that the alternative to closing DSA isn't a void. It's a potentially thriving industrial estate offering an attractive selection of warehousing and logistics opportunities adjacent to the M1 corridor. Interested parties will undoubtedly argue that this will support more jobs than the operational airport, run at a profit, and bring in significant income to the local area (and councils) without burdening the public purse. We can argue about the extent to which this would hold true, but it will be a compelling argument for change and we know that the airport in it's present form is an unsustainable loss-maker.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 09:28
  #551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
Public ownership and then what? Continue to run at loss with a permanent subsidy from the taxpayer?
Potentially yes. Teessideand their Mayor have been absolutely blunt about the future of their airport. If it doesnít turn round in 15-20 years, and has to close then the land value they will accrue, will still far outweigh the purchase price of the site from Peel. So theyíre speculating and spending now to accumulate in the future regardless of whether the airport survives. Thatís likely to be a similar position for DSA in terms of land value.

If South Yorkshire councils played the same long game thereís a good business case for a similar purchase. Youíre not going to arrange it in less time than it takes to sell a two bed terraced house in Rossington though.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 10:07
  #552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
We can argue about the extent to which this would hold true, but it will be a compelling argument for change and we know that the airport in it's present form is an unsustainable loss-maker.
Some valid points. Too many contributors here and across the forum on airport matters are shallow thinkers. Airport = passenger terminal, with no passengers itís not an airport, therefore it canít make money.

Well in DSAís case taking your logistics point, with a repurposed terminal and no holiday/schedule traffic, you have a turn key 24/7 short to long range logistics centric airport for that industry. Not only does it have easy access to the M1 corridor, thereís the A1/M18/M62 links even closer. The terminal could be re-introduced 5-10 years down the line if the business case warrants it. In the meantime it can be used as a commercial space. If cargo only the terminal stands can service something like 5x 767ís simultaneously or multiples of 737ís and other cargo types. Remove the passenger terminal element you have an immediate massive financial saving apart from care and maintenance. Executive charter traffic can still use the airport with a small dedicated terminal giving speed and privacy/security for those clients. Take away Ďpassengerí flights you save a significant financial outlay immediately, and still have a unique facility for the north East Midlands. With no disrespect to LBA or HUY, neither of those sites could offer that same flexibility now, or in the future.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 11:17
  #553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,253
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
The Mayor's plan for Teesside is Peel's masterplan but with the taxpayer pumping in a large amount of public money (which has an opportunity cost) rather than getting funding from the private sector as Peel proposed by building houses on marginal airport land which had no impact on the airports operation.

My point was that there isn't any indication that ideas such as the logisitcs one above are being thought about or proposed (and is any politician going to shut a 'much-loved' passenger terminal ?). All we are getting in the media is "wibble, foam and froth" from self-publicists, with no sense that there is anything serious going on.

Much talk of DSA and its cargo record but apart from ad hoc charters, there's only been the twice weekly produce flights on a consistent basis. Is there really the demand for that scale of air freight operation (one thinks also of Manston here). The statement from Esken about the loss of the freighters from Southend said "the global logistics partner has now advised LSA that it will cease operations in line with a change of strategic focus from air freight to road-based cargo." - The global logistics partner is believed to be Amazon, though don't think it's ever been publically confirmed.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 18:10
  #554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too many contributors here and across the forum on airport matters are shallow thinkers. Airport = passenger terminal, with no passengers it’s not an airport, therefore it can’t make money.
I think that most of us on this forum recognise that an airport is a much bigger deal than a passenger terminal alone. DSA's issue is that it is a persistent loss-maker even taking full account of the range of ancillary activities across the site. The main fixed costs associated with running an airport do not relate to the terminal building. In order to maintain its status as a licensed airfield, runways, taxiways and navaids must be maintained to exacting standards, specialist staff must be employed to make this happen; an Airport Fire Service must be maintained - a very well equipped one if you're thinking B747 freighters; ATC provision must be maintained, robust site security is essential. Spare parts (eg. replacement runway lights) manufactured to aviation standards cost a fortune. High-spec equipment must be constantly checked and calibrated. Grassland must be maintained, bird activity controlled, wildlife kept away from runways etc. Regular inspections of runways and taxiways must happen on an approved schedule. All of this is so expensive that if you're going to keep it going, switching on the lights in your (existing) passenger terminal is the least of your worries. You might as well keep it open. The big cost savings arise from NOT having to maintain licensed airport infrastructure, and from NOT having to employ highly-qualified airport ops, ATC, security and AFS personnel.

What Peel need to assess is whether continuing to carry those high fixed costs makes financial sense. And they need to offset the opportunity cost of NOT redeveloping the site as a high-yield industrial estate against the financial burden represented by the ongoing licensed airfield commitment (set against income from aviation-related activity). Based upon their recent statements, the maths in this respect don't make for happy reading.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 20:49
  #555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 5,169
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm guessing the result of the consultation will not be announced until at least a week after it finishes on 16 Sept
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 14:21
  #556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 49
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
I think that most of us on this forum recognise that an airport is a much bigger deal than a passenger terminal alone. DSA's issue is that it is a persistent loss-maker even taking full account of the range of ancillary activities across the site. The main fixed costs associated with running an airport do not relate to the terminal building. In order to maintain its status as a licensed airfield, runways, taxiways and navaids must be maintained to exacting standards, specialist staff must be employed to make this happen; an Airport Fire Service must be maintained - a very well equipped one if you're thinking B747 freighters; ATC provision must be maintained, robust site security is essential. Spare parts (eg. replacement runway lights) manufactured to aviation standards cost a fortune. High-spec equipment must be constantly checked and calibrated. Grassland must be maintained, bird activity controlled, wildlife kept away from runways etc. Regular inspections of runways and taxiways must happen on an approved schedule. All of this is so expensive that if you're going to keep it going, switching on the lights in your (existing) passenger terminal is the least of your worries. You might as well keep it open. The big cost savings arise from NOT having to maintain licensed airport infrastructure, and from NOT having to employ highly-qualified airport ops, ATC, security and AFS personnel.

What Peel need to assess is whether continuing to carry those high fixed costs makes financial sense. And they need to offset the opportunity cost of NOT redeveloping the site as a high-yield industrial estate against the financial burden represented by the ongoing licensed airfield commitment (set against income from aviation-related activity). Based upon their recent statements, the maths in this respect don't make for happy reading.
Peel have made on paper a great deal of money having an agreed plan, based on the airport allowing the change of use on hundreds of acres of land from agricultural land to commercial and residential uses and offsets the losses in running a passenger terminal.

Now that they have the Gateway east plan in place perhaps they feel they can unlink that plan from the airport use. Time will tell how successful that is (my guess is very).
davidjpowell is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2022, 18:32
  #557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
I think that most of us on this forum recognise that an airport is a much bigger deal than a passenger terminal alone. DSA's issue is that it is a persistent loss-maker even taking full account of the range of ancillary activities across the site. The main fixed costs associated with running an airport do not relate to the terminal building. In order to maintain its status as a licensed airfield, runways, taxiways and navaids must be maintained to exacting standards, specialist staff must be employed to make this happen; an Airport Fire Service must be maintained - a very well equipped one if you're thinking B747 freighters; ATC provision must be maintained, robust site security is essential. Spare parts (eg. replacement runway lights) manufactured to aviation standards cost a fortune. High-spec equipment must be constantly checked and calibrated. Grassland must be maintained, bird activity controlled, wildlife kept away from runways etc. Regular inspections of runways and taxiways must happen on an approved schedule. All of this is so expensive that if you're going to keep it going, switching on the lights in your (existing) passenger terminal is the least of your worries. You might as well keep it open. The big cost savings arise from NOT having to maintain licensed airport infrastructure, and from NOT having to employ highly-qualified airport ops, ATC, security and AFS personnel.
This sort of makes my point

ďYou might as well keep it openĒ Youíve obviously never seen a heating bill for a terminal.. plenty of significant costs that can be saved by not running the terminal.

Your listing of stuff is no surprise to anyone familiar with CAP168, thatís what you need to run a licensed airfield. Anyone familiar with running an airfield and CAP168 will know the various cost savings that can be made and derogations available within those requirements. St Athan being a perfect example of a similar facility not having regular passenger flights. For example the runway inspection, anyone suitably trained can do that, eg a spare security person, or a fireman/ATC/ops. Not really a massive challenge.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2022, 18:33
  #558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iíll just leave this here.

https://southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/new...7-522f8ea491dc
jumpseater is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2022, 19:01
  #559 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Doncaster
Age: 40
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jumpseater View Post
And if Peel decline to extend the consultation period by several months while due diligence is carried out?

Also, are TUI and Wizz going to stick around waiting for something that may not happen?
TimmyW is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2022, 19:20
  #560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,253
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyW View Post
And if Peel decline to extend the consultation period by several months while due diligence is carried out?

Also, are TUI and Wizz going to stick around waiting for something that may not happen?
The local authorities play hard ball and imply to Peel that any development plans they may have for the site will be subject to prolonged scrutiny...

History shows that Peel will take the money and run.
SWBKCB is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.