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.

They weren't even different operating models, they were base, optimistic and pessimistic, the guy literally doesn't know what operating models are

Operating models, projections, whatever. Surely if the Council are pursuing a tender to appoint one of these 15 interested investors who are chomping at the bit to run the airport, it will be up to the winning bidder to determine the direction the airport may or may not go in? Didn’t the briefing document last week state this? Does this not also therefore render the Councils own projections invalid, whatever the method they used to create them?

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.

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. Will they? We know that to reopen the airport with the same level of service as offered previously will have high overheads. The value they have determined is based on an airport that serves the business community, what is the value of an airport that services predominantly outbound tourism and ad-hoc freight that EMA don’t want? So their conclusions are at odds with reality, and their assumptions rely on external factors largely outside of their control as alluded to by Asturius56. Its value to them is in gaining votes, nothing more.

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.

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.

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?

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…

I can't find anywhere that it is stated that the four invited to tender have committed to using the site as an airport.

2019-20 Accounts

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?

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

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 has 9 times the number of passengers but less than twice the Revenue - there's the issue - it could only charge give away prices

Funding is going to be the issue. The SYMCA will be contributing very little, so DMBC will be going cap in the hand to the Government.