Doncaster Sheffield-3
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,288
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leader of the Save DSA campaign group, Mark Chadwick, was positive about the outcome of the meeting and told GB News: “We’re now waiting on Peel to give us a lease, if we get a lease, we get our airport open. The information that we’ve got from the council with different operating models shows that the airport can make profit, which has proved Peel wrong.
he hasn't proved anybody wrong, at 2m it makes a massive loss
he hasn't proved anybody wrong, at 2m it makes a massive loss
I’d like to know what these operating models are. Is one of them building houses on the runway and having puddle jumpers flying from a grass strip ala the Doncaster Airport of days gone by? Til they decided to turn that into a business park of course, ‘cos it made more money that way.
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh but not if they charge the airline operators £20.00 per passenger they won’t… How’s that for an operating model?
I’d like to know what these operating models are. Is one of them building houses on the runway and having puddle jumpers flying from a grass strip ala the Doncaster Airport of days gone by? Til they decided to turn that into a business park of course, ‘cos it made more money that way.
I’d like to know what these operating models are. Is one of them building houses on the runway and having puddle jumpers flying from a grass strip ala the Doncaster Airport of days gone by? Til they decided to turn that into a business park of course, ‘cos it made more money that way.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,288
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like any model it all depends on the assumptions
It's no surprise the people that the Council hired came up with a model that showed it could be (note COULD) be profitable.
A lot of airlines have run their own models and decided differently. Since they run airlines for their living and the Council don't I think we can guess which is more likely to be correct.
It's no surprise the people that the Council hired came up with a model that showed it could be (note COULD) be profitable.
A lot of airlines have run their own models and decided differently. Since they run airlines for their living and the Council don't I think we can guess which is more likely to be correct.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 49
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of vested interests etc. Couple of points.
1. The SYAC priorities will be different to commercial operators. They see the value that an airport brings to the greater area.
2. The commercial operator may not see the same value, but it sounds like the public authorities recognise that and have assumed some form of subsidy, at least in the early days.
3. Net Zero was according to Peel a deciding factor. Not sure if yesterdays U turn helps or hinders.
4 We can speculate whether a different commercial operator will do better. Time will tell, but if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I'd suggest they know more than random people on PPRUNE.
5. I assume that the head lease, and the commercial lease will have tenant break clauses. There is no real downside to Peel to having a chunk of development land back after a failed model.
I'm now slightly nervously, cautiously optimistic.
1. The SYAC priorities will be different to commercial operators. They see the value that an airport brings to the greater area.
2. The commercial operator may not see the same value, but it sounds like the public authorities recognise that and have assumed some form of subsidy, at least in the early days.
3. Net Zero was according to Peel a deciding factor. Not sure if yesterdays U turn helps or hinders.
4 We can speculate whether a different commercial operator will do better. Time will tell, but if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I'd suggest they know more than random people on PPRUNE.
5. I assume that the head lease, and the commercial lease will have tenant break clauses. There is no real downside to Peel to having a chunk of development land back after a failed model.
I'm now slightly nervously, cautiously optimistic.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 1,288
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of vested interests etc. Couple of points.
1. The SYAC priorities will be different to commercial operators. They see the value that an airport brings to the greater area.
2. The commercial operator may not see the same value, but it sounds like the public authorities recognise that and have assumed some form of subsidy, at least in the early days.
3. Net Zero was according to Peel a deciding factor. Not sure if yesterdays U turn helps or hinders.
4 We can speculate whether a different commercial operator will do better. Time will tell, but if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I'd suggest they know more than random people on PPRUNE.
5. I assume that the head lease, and the commercial lease will have tenant break clauses. There is no real downside to Peel to having a chunk of development land back after a failed model.
I'm now slightly nervously, cautiously optimistic.
1. The SYAC priorities will be different to commercial operators. They see the value that an airport brings to the greater area.
2. The commercial operator may not see the same value, but it sounds like the public authorities recognise that and have assumed some form of subsidy, at least in the early days.
3. Net Zero was according to Peel a deciding factor. Not sure if yesterdays U turn helps or hinders.
4 We can speculate whether a different commercial operator will do better. Time will tell, but if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I'd suggest they know more than random people on PPRUNE.
5. I assume that the head lease, and the commercial lease will have tenant break clauses. There is no real downside to Peel to having a chunk of development land back after a failed model.
I'm now slightly nervously, cautiously optimistic.
2. Until we know who the favourites actually are we cannot really comment, but their market consultation feedback clearly states that the burden of risk will fall firmly on the local authority. It is one thing gaining interest and another entirely in getting commitment. Still believe the council are being naive. Also there is no firm commitment from Peel towards a lease other than to say they have been in meaningful discussion.
3. Not really as this is subject to whoever gets voted in at the next election. Costs will increase, but this was not the de facto reason for Peel to make the decision to wind up the business. It was a combination of factors which you would do well to not ignore.
4. Well clearly they are not, as they are asking for the costs to reopen the airport and a yet to be determined period of ongoing subsidy to be provided by the Council.
5. I agree.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 49
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 originally interested parties. 8 put proposals in place.
Doncaster Council now selected 4 most promising proposals to take to formal Tender.
Peel / Council negotiating and seem to be at a point where a commercial deal is feasible.
No news on whether Mr Coppard is going to get his cheque book out, or work with Central Government and apply for funding from available pots.
In terms of progress, I'd suggest steady and positive but far from definite.
Doncaster Council now selected 4 most promising proposals to take to formal Tender.
Peel / Council negotiating and seem to be at a point where a commercial deal is feasible.
No news on whether Mr Coppard is going to get his cheque book out, or work with Central Government and apply for funding from available pots.
In terms of progress, I'd suggest steady and positive but far from definite.
When you see the amount of money being pumped into Teesside..arguably in a worse position than DSA..
and how successful they are planning to be..maybe there is hope?
and how successful they are planning to be..maybe there is hope?
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't quite say Teesside has ever been in a worse position than DSA. What makes you think that.
I can tell you Teesside was never closed and never stripped of every aviation asset and staff member.
I meant when both were operating a year or so before Covid…DSA seemed? Much healthier.
Passengers,freight and ancillary’s.
Space,longer runway and pe built hangarage…
Passengers,freight and ancillary’s.
Space,longer runway and pe built hangarage…
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 originally interested parties. 8 put proposals in place.
Doncaster Council now selected 4 most promising proposals to take to formal Tender.
Peel / Council negotiating and seem to be at a point where a commercial deal is feasible.
No news on whether Mr Coppard is going to get his cheque book out, or work with Central Government and apply for funding from available pots.
In terms of progress, I'd suggest steady and positive but far from definite.
Doncaster Council now selected 4 most promising proposals to take to formal Tender.
Peel / Council negotiating and seem to be at a point where a commercial deal is feasible.
No news on whether Mr Coppard is going to get his cheque book out, or work with Central Government and apply for funding from available pots.
In terms of progress, I'd suggest steady and positive but far from definite.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DSA
Passengers 1,286,720
Aircraft Movements 22,335
Revenue £11.708m
Loss £10.553m
Teesside
Passengers 139,448
Aircraft Movements 16,389
Revenue £7.745m
Loss £1.737m
Thanks Harold..seems a strange comparison? How on earth did DSA loose so much money?
But correct me if I’m wrong..didn’t Teesside loose the same ..or similar..last year?
But correct me if I’m wrong..didn’t Teesside loose the same ..or similar..last year?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be on the wrong thread here but Teesside probably only lost around £5m in real terms, the rest can be attributed to Covid hangover. It will be interesting to see the next accounts, as it will be the first set where that excuse no longer applies
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the dark side
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contrasts between the two airports, using the figures provided by Harold are very interesting.
DSA lost £8.20 per passenger handled, whilst Teesside lost £12.45
On the other hand DSA had an income of around £9 per passenger whilst Teesside had £55.50
The DSA figure would reduce even further when the significant income from cargo flights is excluded (although Teesside also has income from Draken etc)
DSA lost £8.20 per passenger handled, whilst Teesside lost £12.45
On the other hand DSA had an income of around £9 per passenger whilst Teesside had £55.50
The DSA figure would reduce even further when the significant income from cargo flights is excluded (although Teesside also has income from Draken etc)
DSA has 9 times the number of passengers but less than twice the Revenue - there's the issue - it could only charge give away prices
I live four miles from Teesside, unfortunately my most recent flights have been from Newcastle, Leeds and Doncaster. Am I one of their passengers? Under that principle all of their passengers could be Teesside passengers as its in the middle.
Last edited by N707ZS; 22nd Nov 2023 at 15:45.
