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 12th Apr 2023, 20:10
  #1141 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Doncaster
Age: 41
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dsamole
I may need to reword that to "99.9% sure PEEL has zero intention of letting it go".
I'm guessing the terms of the lease will never be acceptable to the council either.
TimmyW is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2023, 20:49
  #1142 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by dsamole
99.9% sure PEEL has zero intention of letting it go without a fight. When approached by the first consortium (a group of TUI investors) PEEL we're quickly to throw them out claiming it wasn't a "serious offer". Then comes consortium number 2, and number 3 the "UAE".. from which they simply got the offer they wanted but rejected both on grounds of "we dont know the source of your funds". Simple, get out of jail free card. Now, PEEL are hoping that the CPO cannot be funded and gets thrown out thus leaving them with reason not to put in for redevelopment plans citing "no credible offers".

Yes the approach lights, runway lights and so forth are all being removed and placed into "storage".. which is probably being carried out by Harry Hudini LTD.
Wasn't the group of TUI investors led by a TUI Captain? The interested party from the UAE apparently pulled away after they were asked for proof of finances (and where it was coming from), they also ran to the Times a week before to say that they werenít all that bothered about buying anyway, and Peel werenít all that bothered about selling.

Iím sure you know more, but reading between the lines a bit I would guess that the offers that have been placed in front of Peel so far will fall way short of what Peel might deem reasonable for a large chunk of development land that they sunk a lot of capital into to make it into an airport. This I think is what is holding up proceedings. What have these people been valuing the site on? A loss leading airport most likely..

As far as Iím aware, no official announcement has mentioned any asking price, but I think itís reasonable to assume that a quarter of a £billion is what it would take for them to take anyone seriously. Unless you know otherwise?

Council must have some pretty bang to rights legal advice if they are to progress with the CPO, but Iím sure water off a ducks back to Peel who as always are keeping their cards close to their chest.
pug is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2023, 20:56
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 36
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
To be fair, there wouldn't be an airport to discuss without Peel. They can't be expected to give it away.
Everyone could remember them closing the restricted Sheffield City Airport but conveniently no-one could ever remember that DSA would not have existed if not for them. That's one of the many reasons I didn't buy into the idea they were deliberately running Teesside into the ground. I'm a little behind on this discussion but I'm guessing it's relatively widely accepted that DSA was a Covid-closure and not a pre-determined long term plan? I have no doubt Teesside would have suffered the same spur-of-the-moment fate had they not sold, but the sale itself is sufficient proof they weren't after the land - because they gave it up for a fraction of its value.
Cautious Optimist is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2023, 21:21
  #1144 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist
Everyone could remember them closing the restricted Sheffield City Airport but conveniently no-one could ever remember that DSA would not have existed if not for them. That's one of the many reasons I didn't buy into the idea they were deliberately running Teesside into the ground. I'm a little behind on this discussion but I'm guessing it's relatively widely accepted that DSA was a Covid-closure and not a pre-determined long term plan? I have no doubt Teesside would have suffered the same spur-of-the-moment fate had they not sold, but the sale itself is sufficient proof they weren't after the land - because they gave it up for a fraction of its value.
There are only so many times you can shift equity around and refinance a loss making venture before you have to call it a day. I think they have just exhausted all options for growth and realised their plan of being the airport of choice east of the Pennines didnít work out as planned, that allied with the airport being a perennial loss maker has basically sealed its fate.

That said, Peel are not an airport operator, they were chancers in the game who noticed a trend in the mid 90ís that was started by Easyjet and aided by BAE Systems with Liverpool and merely facilitated growth there after acquiring it. Tried to replicate this at MME and failed (and sued Bmibaby in the process), and their flagship at DSA opened probably ten years too late, by which time the competition had stolen a march on them.
pug is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2023, 07:59
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,937
Received 444 Likes on 270 Posts
"but rejected both on grounds of "we dont know the source of your funds"

Try opening a business bank account without telling them where the money is from - it's a legal requirement these days. The fact they wouldn't tell suggests it was either dodgy money or they had none.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2023, 18:03
  #1146 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Seen that not only are the approaches lights and concrete footings being completely removed, but also there are apparently trenches being dug which If true can only suggest all of the cabling and power supply is being removed too.

Anyone now think that perhaps Ros Jones is leading people up the garden path?
pug is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2023, 18:53
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,813
Received 197 Likes on 132 Posts
If they are on leased land, if they are terminating the lease they will have to return the land to it's original state. As somebpdy said earlier, in terms of re-instating the airport this is an insignificant cost.

I'd be more worried about who they would get to operate from there that would give it a sustainable future - pointless buying an airport that nobody wants to operate from
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2023, 19:04
  #1148 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
If they are on leased land, if they are terminating the lease they will have to return the land to it's original state. As somebpdy said earlier, in terms of re-instating the airport this is an insignificant cost.

I'd be more worried about who they would get to operate from there that would give it a sustainable future - pointless buying an airport that nobody wants to operate from
My point is that it is cheaper to remove it than it would be to reinstate it. Likewise the nav aids like ILS, which Iím led to believe can cost upwards of £3million per approach just to become operational. Then you will need the ATC equipment which I understand has been removed, necessary security equipment which must be into the £millions to purchase and install, Airfield fire fighting equipment again must be £millions. At a minimum you are probably talking over £20million to re-equip everything, not to mention recruiting and training staff. So yes, the approach lights probably arenít a significant cost in the grand scheme of things, but it all adds up.

Well I expect the council have appointed some yes-men as their subject matter experts, so itís likely they are more focussed currently on the legalities of retaining and ultimately acquiring the land rather than whether it actually is a viable venture. There is a large element of being pushed into a corner by people like Nick Fletcher MP who has done the equivalent of throwing a grenade into the crowd and stood back and watched, pushing people back into the firefight once or twice a week.

Might take some time for Ros Jones true motives to become clear, face value would suggest the Council are deadly serious about getting the airport reopened, nothing regarding any feasibility/viability studies have been released to the public short of a statement saying Ďwe believe the airport can be viableí, Iím sure Iím not the only one that finds such a statement problematic.
pug is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2023, 12:45
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pug
My point is that it is cheaper to remove it than it would be to reinstate it. Likewise the nav aids like ILS, which Iím led to believe can cost upwards of £3million per approach just to become operational. Then you will need the ATC equipment which I understand has been removed, necessary security equipment which must be into the £millions to purchase and install, Airfield fire fighting equipment again must be £millions. At a minimum you are probably talking over £20million to re-equip everything, not to mention recruiting and training staff. So yes, the approach lights probably arenít a significant cost in the grand scheme of things, but it all adds up.

Well I expect the council have appointed some yes-men as their subject matter experts, so itís likely they are more focussed currently on the legalities of retaining and ultimately acquiring the land rather than whether it actually is a viable venture. There is a large element of being pushed into a corner by people like Nick Fletcher MP who has done the equivalent of throwing a grenade into the crowd and stood back and watched, pushing people back into the firefight once or twice a week.

Might take some time for Ros Jones true motives to become clear, face value would suggest the Council are deadly serious about getting the airport reopened, nothing regarding any feasibility/viability studies have been released to the public short of a statement saying Ďwe believe the airport can be viableí, Iím sure Iím not the only one that finds such a statement problematic.
Agreed. But it's fair to say that a lot of information from such a feasibility study would have to be confidential while trying to negotiate a deal.
davidjpowell is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 07:59
  #1150 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Doncaster
Age: 41
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What if the land owners dont want the lights putting back in should the airport ever get close to reopening?

It seems a very permanent removal rather than just storage which is being claimed.
TimmyW is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 10:30
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Could they build on the land?
N707ZS is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 12:20
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,937
Received 444 Likes on 270 Posts
They'd need planning permission - from the Council - opens the door for all sorts of conflict of interest cases if the Council are trying to buy the airfield.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 13:43
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,813
Received 197 Likes on 132 Posts
Just CPO that field as well...
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 15:10
  #1154 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
Just CPO that field as well...
The proposed Article 4 Directive covers the land upon which the approach lights sit/sat on both ends. What it doesnít do though is prevent someone building something a bit further out on the approach. Although that may be unlikely, it appears the council in their wisdom have neglected to consider the wider approach clearance requirements.
pug is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2023, 21:28
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyW
What if the land owners dont want the lights putting back in should the airport ever get close to reopening?

It seems a very permanent removal rather than just storage which is being claimed.
Hopefully, the council has spoken to Walkers, and whoever owns the land on the opposite side. I was a bit perturbed at one of the postings which suggested the removal was perhaps more of a notification than an agreement with the Council.


davidjpowell is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2023, 07:59
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,937
Received 444 Likes on 270 Posts
" it appears the council in their wisdom have neglected to consider the wider approach clearance requirements."

How much of Yorkshire are they planning to CP?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2023, 09:23
  #1157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidjpowell
Hopefully, the council has spoken to Walkers, and whoever owns the land on the opposite side. I was a bit perturbed at one of the postings which suggested the removal was perhaps more of a notification than an agreement with the Council.
I would be interested to know whether this 'agreement' between Doncaster Council and Peel is in writing or a Gentlemen's Agreement in which case Peel can do what they like!
flybar is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2023, 10:52
  #1158 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
" it appears the council in their wisdom have neglected to consider the wider approach clearance requirements."

How much of Yorkshire are they planning to CP?
Well no, the whole point in the Article 4 Directive is to prevent any development on or destruction of airport related infrastructure. It covers the land on which the approach lights sit, but says nothing of land further out on the approach which will need to be kept clear for obvious reasons, not to mention various bits of equipment necessary for the ILS. Nit picking perhaps, but it would suggest that maybe they are being reactive rather than proactive.

I donít believe they were consulted about the approach lights being taken down, otherwise they would have mentioned it before it happened. Also, I wouldnít think equipment like that would take too kindly to being kept in Ďstorageí for too long.

Last edited by pug; 16th Apr 2023 at 11:02.
pug is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2023, 20:59
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Bawtry
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Someone needs to ask the question where the lighting towers have gone to be stored......
dsamole is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2023, 21:16
  #1160 (permalink)  
pug
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,388
Received 162 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by dsamole
Someone needs to ask the question where the lighting towers have gone to be stored......
Is this a loaded question? Iím guessing theyíre not being stored on site?
pug is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.