Doncaster Sheffield-3
A ‘base’ 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 ‘bases’ were at other airports, so no redundancies from the base due to redeployment back to original or alternate locations.
Nick Fletcher getting the PM’s support and raising it in PM’s question time with the new Transport Secretary won’t 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.
Nick Fletcher getting the PM’s support and raising it in PM’s question time with the new Transport Secretary won’t 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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New PM pledges to "protect" the airport:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...1-ADDEC8365446
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.
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.
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.
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’m 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.
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.
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.
If South Yorkshire councils played the same long game there’s a good business case for a similar purchase. You’re not going to arrange it in less time than it takes to sell a two bed terraced house in Rossington though.
Well in DSA’s 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, there’s 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 767’s simultaneously or multiples of 737’s 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 ‘passenger’ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 49
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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).
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.
“You might as well keep it open” You’ve 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, that’s 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Doncaster
Age: 41
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, are TUI and Wizz going to stick around waiting for something that may not happen?
History shows that Peel will take the money and run.
