• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Doncaster Sheffield Airport to reopen?

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,834
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It would be interesting to know why that estimated 1.8m chose Manchester rather than Doncaster.
We can only guess though.
I think one might have been no flights from Doncaster to where they wanted to go but I am guessing.
You got it in one at the end. Doncaster simply couldn't attract the routes that many people wanted, partly because there was already saturation at other nearby airports. If close to 2m people were still prepared to go to Manchester for their flights, why would an airline take the risk of duplicating them at Doncaster? If every flight left DSA full with clear demand for a lot more, then one or two airlines may have taken a further punt, but clearly they didn't.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
You got it in one at the end. Doncaster simply couldn't attract the routes that many people wanted, partly because there was already saturation at other nearby airports. If close to 2m people were still prepared to go to Manchester for their flights, why would an airline take the risk of duplicating them at Doncaster? If every flight left DSA full with clear demand for a lot more, then one or two airlines may have taken a further punt, but clearly they didn't.
It offered places I'd quite like to have gone for leisure, but not having to leave home or hotel before 5am or getting in after midnight. Very few flights seemed to be during the core of the day. I suspect the Eastern Europe market was dominated by family members flying between family homes at both ends at low fares set to use operators surplus capacity at otherwise unpopular hours.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,834
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It offered places I'd quite like to have gone for leisure, but not having to leave home or hotel before 5am or getting in after midnight. Very few flights seemed to be during the core of the day. I suspect the Eastern Europe market was dominated by family members flying between family homes at both ends at low fares set to use operators surplus capacity at otherwise unpopular hours.
That could well have been down to the operators looking to maximise their craft. Getting the first flights out early means they can usually get at least 2 full returns in to most European holiday destinations, its the same reason Manchester spits out so many budget airlines from 6am. Package holiday based flights in particular are often timed for early or late starts heading outbound for exactly this reason.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,237
That could well have been down to the operators looking to maximise their craft. Getting the first flights out early means they can usually get at least 2 full returns in to most European holiday destinations, its the same reason Manchester spits out so many budget airlines from 6am. Package holiday based flights in particular are often timed for early or late starts heading outbound for exactly this reason.
Yes it's the same at all airports. Doncaster was no different.

Referring to the chicken and egg - more people might have flown if destinations were offered that they wanted. Destinations that people wanted might have been offered if more people had flown.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
Yes it's the same at all airports. Doncaster was no different.

Referring to the chicken and egg - more people might have flown if destinations were offered that they wanted. Destinations that people wanted might have been offered if more people had flown.
DSA was rather dominated by Wizzair and it was dependent on a lot of business from EEC migrant workers, many of whom have now returned home, or become settled here.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,137
Location
Nottingham
That could well have been down to the operators looking to maximise their craft. Getting the first flights out early means they can usually get at least 2 full returns in to most European holiday destinations, its the same reason Manchester spits out so many budget airlines from 6am. Package holiday based flights in particular are often timed for early or late starts heading outbound for exactly this reason.
Some travellers like it too, because they get more time at their holiday destinations.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,834
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Some travellers like it too, because they get more time at their holiday destinations.
I have to admit I did just this back in September, leaving on an early flight from Manchester and coming back on an early evening one from Palma. It does feel like you squeeze that bit more out of your holiday by sacrificing a few hours sleep for the early start.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,237
Some travellers like it too, because they get more time at their holiday destinations.
When going abroad we like to get a morning flight so we arrive at a decent time. When leaving we prefer an middayish flight as we hate to have to hang around on the last day.
However, flights departing earlier than 07:00 do put us off. One flight I might have been interested in left at 05:30. I moved on!
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
It would be interesting to know why that estimated 1.8m chose Manchester rather than Doncaster.
We can only guess though.
I think one might have been no flights from Doncaster to where they wanted to go but I am guessing.
No guessing about it, Manchester has the flights and sheer number of destinations hence its ability to attract people from South Yorkshire in such numbers. It has that level of choice because as explained previously, airports in heavily populated cities have a gravitational pull that far exceed their own city boundaries. 75% of Doncaster’s catchment area is fields made up of sheep and cows. This is not the case for Manchester.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,237
No guessing about it, Manchester has the flights and sheer number of destinations hence its ability to attract people from South Yorkshire in such numbers. It has that level of choice because as explained previously, airports in heavily populated cities have a gravitational pull that far exceed their own city boundaries. 75% of Doncaster’s catchment area is fields made up of sheep and cows. This is not the case for Manchester.
Just a pity that a lot of people end up going to the airport they have to go to rather than the one they want to.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,834
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Just a pity that a lot of people end up going to the airport they have to go to rather than the one they want to.
I'd like Northern or Transdev to offer services from on my street outside my door, but they don't. Airports are incredibly expensive things to run, and airlines will only use ones that have the infrastructure and demand through them because aircraft are incredibly expensive things to run.

Looking back its really hard to understand just what the developers hoped would happen. Sheffield City opened at the wrong time, in the wrong place and for the wrong market. Doncaster opened hoping to take over Sheffield's market and scoop up some of the emerging low cost market but were already lagging behind Manchester and Leeds Bradford. Maybe if they had tempted Jet2 to them it could have been more successful, but once they had their base established at LBA it really was all over bar the shouting.
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
I'd like Northern or Transdev to offer services from on my street outside my door, but they don't. Airports are incredibly expensive things to run, and airlines will only use ones that have the infrastructure and demand through them because aircraft are incredibly expensive things to run.

Looking back its really hard to understand just what the developers hoped would happen. Sheffield City opened at the wrong time, in the wrong place and for the wrong market. Doncaster opened hoping to take over Sheffield's market and scoop up some of the emerging low cost market but were already lagging behind Manchester and Leeds Bradford. Maybe if they had tempted Jet2 to them it could have been more successful, but once they had their base established at LBA it really was all over bar the shouting.
I think to understand Peels determination you have to consider the industry trends at the time.

Deregulation in Europe gave rise to what were then called ‘low-cost airlines’. In the U.K. this was borne out by the creation of easyjet and the development of Ryanair from a small outfit flying banderantes to a major player operating Boeing 737’s. What they did in those early days was revolutionary in that they decided that operating from long established major airports came at a cost which was then passed on ultimately to the customer. Therefore, easyjet launched from Luton (then a small airport in comparison to today) and to serve the heavily populated North West they entered into agreement with then owners of Liverpool British Aerospace. With the success of easyjet at Liverpool accelerating growth from less that 0.5mppa to something like 2mppa in such a short space of time, the airport needed investment that was not available to BAe so they sold it to Peel. Peel then invested massive amounts in a new terminal and this was followed by the arrival of a Ryanair base too.

This change in focus from airlines paying airports lots of money to operate from them, to paying very little hut delivering volume from which other revenue streams could be explored was picked up by various regional airport operators and therefore the rise of the low-cost airline in the U.K. regions began to take off. There were however reluctant operators, airports like Manchester that had already developed critical mass in the traditional way was understandably reluctant to embrace this new fad. However, airlines like easyjet and Ryanair were opening bases at places like Newcastle, Bristol, Edinburgh etc and these airports were seeing phenomenal growth as a result.

By the mid to late 90’s Finningley was up for sale, what was to become MAG had assessed the site as a possible airport and determined that it was in fact not a viable proposition, they instead purchased the majority stake in Humberside and then went on to acquire East Midlands and Bournemouth from National Express instead. However; Peel, buoyed on by their successful formula at Liverpool, purchased the Finningley site from the MOD with the intention of redeveloping the site into an airport (there were plans mooted by the Government to transfer ownership to MoJ for development into a prison). They also purchased Teesside in 2003.

Sheffield City opened in 1997 and had KLM, Sabena, BA Regional and Aer Arran amongst others flying various regional and short international connections. However, with the downturn following 9/11 and the trend moving towards high volume low cost flights which the facilities at Sheffield City couldn’t handle, the authorities agreed to sell this to Peel (who were pursuing their Finningley plans) who were told that if they could prove a lack of viability they could inherit the land for £1.00. This they of course duly did. DSA plans went to public enquiry, eventually were a success and the airport opened in 2005 with ThomsonFly being the launch customer. They had managed to attract BMIBaby to Teesside on equally excellent terms.

Then it went wrong…

In the intervening years (2000 - 2005), airports like Manchester and Leeds had widened up to the low cost boom and decided to change their business models to accommodate that growth. Jet2 started at LBA in 2002, they then opened at base at Manchester and were followed by easyjet and Ryanair. This and the consolidation in the traditional IT Charter industry following increased competition from low-cost airlines meant that the market for newcomers was squeezed. Bmibaby pulled out of Teesside due to poor performance, the now opened DSA found that, despite getting an anchor tennant in Thomsonfly and later some success with Wizzair, the major players largely shunned them in favour of the more established airports with much bigger markets.

In essence what I’m saying is that the market that DSA was built for, and that Teesside was bought by Peel for, basically does not exist! These were well-intentioned projects that came about in a time of great uncertainty brought on by unprecedented growth that most experienced airport operators at that time thought would be a flash in the pan, and that ultimately failed because the airports they were supposed to offer an alternative to had wisened up and opened the floodgates.

This is the fact of the matter, people suggesting that Peel had somehow harboured ulterior motives and proved themselves out of the market are so wide of the mark it’s unreal. Perhaps the truth is just too unpalatable?
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
I think to understand Peels determination you have to consider the industry trends at the time.

Deregulation in Europe gave rise to what were then called ‘low-cost airlines’. In the U.K. this was borne out by the creation of easyjet and the development of Ryanair from a small outfit flying banderantes to a major player operating Boeing 737’s. What they did in those early days was revolutionary in that they decided that operating from long established major airports came at a cost which was then passed on ultimately to the customer. Therefore, easyjet launched from Luton (then a small airport in comparison to today) and to serve the heavily populated North West they entered into agreement with then owners of Liverpool British Aerospace. With the success of easyjet at Liverpool accelerating growth from less that 0.5mppa to something like 2mppa in such a short space of time, the airport needed investment that was not available to BAe so they sold it to Peel. Peel then invested massive amounts in a new terminal and this was followed by the arrival of a Ryanair base too.

This change in focus from airlines paying airports lots of money to operate from them, to paying very little hut delivering volume from which other revenue streams could be explored was picked up by various regional airport operators and therefore the rise of the low-cost airline in the U.K. regions began to take off. There were however reluctant operators, airports like Manchester that had already developed critical mass in the traditional way was understandably reluctant to embrace this new fad. However, airlines like easyjet and Ryanair were opening bases at places like Newcastle, Bristol, Edinburgh etc and these airports were seeing phenomenal growth as a result.

By the mid to late 90’s Finningley was up for sale, what was to become MAG had assessed the site as a possible airport and determined that it was in fact not a viable proposition, they instead purchased the majority stake in Humberside and then went on to acquire East Midlands and Bournemouth from National Express instead. However; Peel, buoyed on by their successful formula at Liverpool, purchased the Finningley site from the MOD with the intention of redeveloping the site into an airport (there were plans mooted by the Government to transfer ownership to MoJ for development into a prison). They also purchased Teesside in 2003.

Sheffield City opened in 1997 and had KLM, Sabena, BA Regional and Aer Arran amongst others flying various regional and short international connections. However, with the downturn following 9/11 and the trend moving towards high volume low cost flights which the facilities at Sheffield City couldn’t handle, the authorities agreed to sell this to Peel (who were pursuing their Finningley plans) who were told that if they could prove a lack of viability they could inherit the land for £1.00. This they of course duly did. DSA plans went to public enquiry, eventually were a success and the airport opened in 2005 with ThomsonFly being the launch customer. They had managed to attract BMIBaby to Teesside on equally excellent terms.

Then it went wrong…

In the intervening years (2000 - 2005), airports like Manchester and Leeds had widened up to the low cost boom and decided to change their business models to accommodate that growth. Jet2 started at LBA in 2002, they then opened at base at Manchester and were followed by easyjet and Ryanair. This and the consolidation in the traditional IT Charter industry following increased competition from low-cost airlines meant that the market for newcomers was squeezed. Bmibaby pulled out of Teesside due to poor performance, the now opened DSA found that, despite getting an anchor tennant in Thomsonfly and later some success with Wizzair, the major players largely shunned them in favour of the more established airports with much bigger markets.

In essence what I’m saying is that the market that DSA was built for, and that Teesside was bought by Peel for, basically does not exist! These were well-intentioned projects that came about in a time of great uncertainty brought on by unprecedented growth that most experienced airport operators at that time thought would be a flash in the pan, and that ultimately failed because the airports they were supposed to offer an alternative to had wisened up and opened the floodgates.

This is the fact of the matter, people suggesting that Peel had somehow harboured ulterior motives and proved themselves out of the market are so wide of the mark it’s unreal. Perhaps the truth is just too unpalatable?

Excellent summary. Just wish the efforts being made to make it work could be better focussed on more viable and useful projects. A fraction maybe on Humberside. I fear for Teesside's investment and wouldn't want to see Doncaster following that lead.
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
Excellent summary. Just wish the efforts being made to make it work could be better focussed on more viable and useful projects. A fraction maybe on Humberside. I fear for Teesside's investment and wouldn't want to see Doncaster following that lead.
Agree about Humberside. Problem is it doesn’t promise to be a major airport - cos it doesn’t have a super long runway. I know all of that I’ve just said is rubbish, but that’s how the local authorities see it. They genuinely seem to believe that DSA has the potential to be another Manchester and all that’s holding it back is an owner that ‘hasn’t explored all avenues for expansion’. It’s utter madness yet it’s not even getting challenged by anyone!!

What I find being involved in the industry is that airlines will not publicly state they have no interest in operating from x airport, they may not even state as much privately, the proof is in fact that they just do not and have not flown from there, and if they have they didn’t stay (for the most part), and that speaks volumes.

I’m hoping that pragmatism and common sense prevail on this. If DSA does reopen, and assuming that the likely scenario of it once again failing does indeed occur, we will not just lose one airport again but there is a high likelihood that Humberside will go to the wall, at least in terms of passenger carrying scheduled flights. Once they’re gone they will not be back.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,834
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I think to understand Peels determination you have to consider the industry trends at the time.

Deregulation in Europe gave rise to what were then called ‘low-cost airlines’. In the U.K. this was borne out by the creation of easyjet and the development of Ryanair from a small outfit flying banderantes to a major player operating Boeing 737’s. What they did in those early days was revolutionary in that they decided that operating from long established major airports came at a cost which was then passed on ultimately to the customer. Therefore, easyjet launched from Luton (then a small airport in comparison to today) and to serve the heavily populated North West they entered into agreement with then owners of Liverpool British Aerospace. With the success of easyjet at Liverpool accelerating growth from less that 0.5mppa to something like 2mppa in such a short space of time, the airport needed investment that was not available to BAe so they sold it to Peel. Peel then invested massive amounts in a new terminal and this was followed by the arrival of a Ryanair base too.

This change in focus from airlines paying airports lots of money to operate from them, to paying very little hut delivering volume from which other revenue streams could be explored was picked up by various regional airport operators and therefore the rise of the low-cost airline in the U.K. regions began to take off. There were however reluctant operators, airports like Manchester that had already developed critical mass in the traditional way was understandably reluctant to embrace this new fad. However, airlines like easyjet and Ryanair were opening bases at places like Newcastle, Bristol, Edinburgh etc and these airports were seeing phenomenal growth as a result.

By the mid to late 90’s Finningley was up for sale, what was to become MAG had assessed the site as a possible airport and determined that it was in fact not a viable proposition, they instead purchased the majority stake in Humberside and then went on to acquire East Midlands and Bournemouth from National Express instead. However; Peel, buoyed on by their successful formula at Liverpool, purchased the Finningley site from the MOD with the intention of redeveloping the site into an airport (there were plans mooted by the Government to transfer ownership to MoJ for development into a prison). They also purchased Teesside in 2003.

Sheffield City opened in 1997 and had KLM, Sabena, BA Regional and Aer Arran amongst others flying various regional and short international connections. However, with the downturn following 9/11 and the trend moving towards high volume low cost flights which the facilities at Sheffield City couldn’t handle, the authorities agreed to sell this to Peel (who were pursuing their Finningley plans) who were told that if they could prove a lack of viability they could inherit the land for £1.00. This they of course duly did. DSA plans went to public enquiry, eventually were a success and the airport opened in 2005 with ThomsonFly being the launch customer. They had managed to attract BMIBaby to Teesside on equally excellent terms.

Then it went wrong…

In the intervening years (2000 - 2005), airports like Manchester and Leeds had widened up to the low cost boom and decided to change their business models to accommodate that growth. Jet2 started at LBA in 2002, they then opened at base at Manchester and were followed by easyjet and Ryanair. This and the consolidation in the traditional IT Charter industry following increased competition from low-cost airlines meant that the market for newcomers was squeezed. Bmibaby pulled out of Teesside due to poor performance, the now opened DSA found that, despite getting an anchor tennant in Thomsonfly and later some success with Wizzair, the major players largely shunned them in favour of the more established airports with much bigger markets.

In essence what I’m saying is that the market that DSA was built for, and that Teesside was bought by Peel for, basically does not exist! These were well-intentioned projects that came about in a time of great uncertainty brought on by unprecedented growth that most experienced airport operators at that time thought would be a flash in the pan, and that ultimately failed because the airports they were supposed to offer an alternative to had wisened up and opened the floodgates.

This is the fact of the matter, people suggesting that Peel had somehow harboured ulterior motives and proved themselves out of the market are so wide of the mark it’s unreal. Perhaps the truth is just too unpalatable?
A great summary, cheers. This could with being painted on the walls at Doncaster Town Hall!

It is amazing just how many people think that Peel just poured hundreds of millions down the drain in order to make DSA not work! Almost as crazy as the number of people that think airlines should just rock up to DSA because the council wants an airport!
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
A great summary, cheers. This could with being painted on the walls at Doncaster Town Hall!

It is amazing just how many people think that Peel just poured hundreds of millions down the drain in order to make DSA not work! Almost as crazy as the number of people that think airlines should just rock up to DSA because the council wants an airport!
I hope whatever they are doing, they’re not following the blueprint laid out by Ben Houchen in Teesside. Eskern (Stobart) were appointed ‘private sector operator’ and it seems granted a share worth a fairly significant sum for the privilege. They got Loganair on board, who relatively quickly realised that there is no real desire for flights from Teesside to places like Dublin and Heathrow, transferred their one based aircraft to Newcastle and all but abandoned the airport save for a token route to Aberdeen. Eskern withdrew from their partnership after a very short time, leaving the airport a public sector concern (and by rights subject to FOI to enable scrutiny of accounts). So what does Houchen do next? Create a Teesside Airport charitable trust, which blocks access via FOI and thus leaves them able to do what they like without scrutiny.

Indeed, when Peel agreed to sell Teesside to TVCA, they did so with the leaving remarks of ‘you will need an investor with a LOT of capital to get anywhere with tuis project’. It’s safe to conclude therefore that this investor is in fact the public care of tax payer subsidies. It was said that when Wizz left DSA they had approached both Humberside and LBA to move to, Humberside said no. They moved to LBA but Teesside was offering to pay for them to run flights from there instead. Needless to say they didn’t.

I fear this same thing is likely to happen with DSA but if it does it will be on a much bigger scale than Teesside and will therefore require a lot more money pumping into it. Again, because people are so sure that Peel ran it into the ground there appears to be nobody willing to challenge the consensus .
 
Last edited:

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,982
Location
Wennington Crossovers
To me the east side of the Pennines should be served by Newcastle for the NE, Leeds (and Manchester as already happens) for Yorkshire and East Miss or Stansted for the rest. Most of the area is at low population density and it's madness expecting it to sustain three more small airports in the mix.

Also KLM might be able to make money from a daily Amsterdam circuit, but that will still mean that the airport's fixed cost per pax are high. It's analogous to having a north facing solar panel.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,237
A great summary, cheers. This could with being painted on the walls at Doncaster Town Hall!

It is amazing just how many people think that Peel just poured hundreds of millions down the drain in order to make DSA not work! Almost as crazy as the number of people that think airlines should just rock up to DSA because the council wants an airport!
It doesn't help that Peel closed the airport once the improved road access was completed.
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
To me the east side of the Pennines should be served by Newcastle for the NE, Leeds (and Manchester as already happens) for Yorkshire and East Miss or Stansted for the rest. Most of the area is at low population density and it's madness expecting it to sustain three more small airports in the mix.

Also KLM might be able to make money from a daily Amsterdam circuit, but that will still mean that the airport's fixed cost per pax are high. It's analogous to having a north facing solar panel.
Depends, if a small airport can cover its costs then why should it not be offering that service? Must remember that Humberside is doing what it does because it services the offshore and shipping industry, and KLM plays a vital part in that chain. Will it ever be a large airport? No. But there is no reason it can’t emulate the success of Norwich or Bournemouth.

It doesn't help that Peel closed the airport once the improved road access was completed.
Peel paid for a lot of that too, particularly phase 2. The business case for it was not to link the airport but to open up the land between the M18 and Rossington for development, which is what has happened.

You’re taking a very simplistic viewpoint here.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,832
It would be interesting to know why that estimated 1.8m chose Manchester rather than Doncaster.
We can only guess though.
I think one might have been no flights from Doncaster to where they wanted to go but I am guessing.
From Sheffield it was generally easier to get to Manchester than Doncaster. Even with the new link road, the road travel time from Sheffield city centre was comparable to both airports. Couple that with the lack of public transport options to Doncaster compared to Manchester and you end up with the largest population centre in the catchment area being split between the incumbent with the huge range of destinations and the upstart with a handful.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
Depends, if a small airport can cover its costs then why should it not be offering that service? Must remember that Humberside is doing what it does because it services the offshore and shipping industry, and KLM plays a vital part in that chain. Will it ever be a large airport? No. But there is no reason it can’t emulate the success of Norwich or Bournemouth.


Peel paid for a lot of that too, particularly phase 2. The business case for it was not to link the airport but to open up the land between the M18 and Rossington for development, which is what has happened.

You’re taking a very simplistic viewpoint here.

Ii may have escaped general notice that the link road was built across the much vaunted intended course of the very expensive ECML diversionary route, intended to bring users from as far as Newcastle and..... maybe even London. Adding that obstacle made an already unrealistic idea even less practical.
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
Ii may have escaped general notice that the link road was built across the much vaunted intended course of the very expensive ECML diversionary route, intended to bring users from as far as Newcastle and..... maybe even London. Adding that obstacle made an already unrealistic idea even less practical.
It is also in my view quite irresponsible for the local leaders to champion the approved rail link, which is of course the proposed station on the Doncaster-Lincoln line and not the ECML diversion that was quite rightly thrown out by Central Government for lacking viability. However this doesn’t stop the general public believing that the rail link for which funding is apparently granted is the one that would connect the airport to Newcastle and London, but the much less ambitious one which would also more than likely be a waste of money and would probably only result in gaining the dubious accolade of quietest railway station in the U.K. which ironically was held by Teesside airport before it.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
It is also in my view quite irresponsible for the local leaders to champion the approved rail link, which is of course the proposed station on the Doncaster-Lincoln line and not the ECML diversion that was quite rightly thrown out by Central Government for lacking viability. However this doesn’t stop the general public believing that the rail link for which funding is apparently granted is the one that would connect the airport to Newcastle and London, but the much less ambitious one which would also more than likely be a waste of money and would probably only result in gaining the dubious accolade of quietest railway station in the U.K. which ironically was held by Teesside airport before it.

And if I recall correctly still a fair hike from the terminal.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,237
Peel paid for a lot of that too, particularly phase 2. The business case for it was not to link the airport but to open up the land between the M18 and Rossington for development, which is what has happened.

You’re taking a very simplistic viewpoint here.
Why am I? I was referring to a post that mentioned "just how many people etc."
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,988
Location
Sheffield
Those not familiar with the area around the airport might be surprised to see how much development is taking place on the flat land to the south of Doncaster. The site of the airport is almost certainly now more valuable for that than air travel.
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
Why am I? I was referring to a post that mentioned "just how many people etc."
If I interpreted your post incorrectly then I apologise. But yes if people believe that FARRRS was built solely to connect the airport to the M18 using only public money then that doesn’t help, but this is the problem - those people are incorrect and they are looking at this in a simplistic way. Since the link road opened the airport has failed to hold on to the airlines that promised growth, so it stagnated. So it proves that the access (which is admittedly the best in Yorkshire to get to by road) actually was not in anyway helpful to the cause.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,272
To me the east side of the Pennines should be served by Newcastle for the NE, Leeds (and Manchester as already happens) for Yorkshire and East Miss or Stansted for the rest. Most of the area is at low population density and it's madness expecting it to sustain three more small airports in the mix.

Also KLM might be able to make money from a daily Amsterdam circuit, but that will still mean that the airport's fixed cost per pax are high. It's analogous to having a north facing solar panel.
Newcastle and LBA only have one runway though, with little room for expansion (functionally none in the case of LBA.)
If Newcastle reaches saturation (which it probably will at some point), who will then provide an alternative?
BA could conceivably pull out, but the low cost airlines will want to keep growing and Teesside could provide a ready alternative at that point.
With Humberside, that could be the same for LBA (which I think will reach saturation much sooner, personally, due to the constraints of the site, but that's just my opinion).
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
Newcastle and LBA only have one runway though, with little room for expansion (functionally none in the case of LBA.)
If Newcastle reaches saturation (which it probably will at some point), who will then provide an alternative?
BA could conceivably pull out, but the low cost airlines will want to keep growing and Teesside could provide a ready alternative at that point.
With Humberside, that could be the same for LBA (which I think will reach saturation much sooner, personally, due to the constraints of the site, but that's just my opinion).
It’s a misnomer to use runway capacity as a gauge of airport suitability when considering LBA and NCL. Neither will ever get to the point where a second runway is required, London Gatwick for instance, the busiest single runway airport in the work, handles something like 32 million passengers every year. It’s highly unlikely that Newcastle or Leeds Bradford airports would get close to a third of that number.

The £100million expansion of LBA due to commence in the coming weeks will see capacity increased to 7 million passengers per year upon completion of phase 3. That is almost double its current capacity. Similarly Newcastle is forecasting 9.4million passengers per year by 2035, and therefore has safeguarded land in order to meet this target.

When DSA was proposed, the industry and in particular the local airports highlighted the fact that there were already too many airports vying for the same business, and what was needed was not more runways, but more airlines to start using the existing capacity. This is more pertinent now than it was then, there are far fewer airlines operating into the U.K. now than there were back then.

Humberside serves a vital purpose away from the passenger traffic, it’s relative remoteness to the rest of the airport network means it could offer a viable alternative to those who may be prepared to pay a bit more to travel from their local airport. Teesside similarly, however it has less to a reason d’etre, and its population centres are closer in travel time to Newcastle and LBA.

Ultimately as we are dealing overwhelmingly with private sector business (airport and airlines), it is the market that determines where growth is achieved, and this must be facilitated accordingly. It’s no good trying to tamper with that by reopening a failed airport.
 
Last edited:

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,272
It’s a misnomer to use runway capacity as a gauge of airport suitability when considering LBA and NCL. Neither will ever get to the point where a second runway is required, London Gatwick for instance, the busiest single runway airport in the work, handles something like 32 million passengers every year. It’s highly unlikely that Newcastle or Leeds Bradford airports would get close to a third of that number.

The £100million expansion of LBA due to commence in the coming weeks will see capacity increased to 7 million passengers per year upon completion of phase 3. That is almost double its current capacity. Similarly Newcastle is forecasting 9.4million passengers per year by 2035, and therefore has safeguarded land in order to meet this target.

When DSA was proposed, the industry and in particular the local airports highlighted the fact that there were already too many airports vying for the same business, and what was needed was not more runways, but more airlines to start using the existing capacity. This is more pertinent now than it was then, there are far fewer airlines operating into the U.K. now than there were back then.

Humberside serves a vital purpose away from the passenger traffic, it’s relative remoteness to the rest of the airport network means it could offer a viable alternative to those who may be prepared to pay a bit more to travel from their local airport. Teesside similarly, however it has less to a reason d’etre, and its population centres are closer in travel time to Newcastle and LBA.

Ultimately as we are dealing overwhelmingly with private sector business (airport and airlines), it is the market that determines where growth is achieved, and this must be facilitated accordingly. It’s no good trying to tamper with that by reopening a failed airport.
That raises a point about the upgrades Gatwick have done to get to that stage and then the subsequent higher landing fees.
So I perhaps envisage a future where landing fees are much higher as LBA/Newcastle have higher passenger numbers, but not high enough to build a second runway (as you've pointed out, plenty of intensive 1 runway operations exist), so the low cost airlines start to divert a portion of flights elsewhere?
 

pug1

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2022
Messages
98
Location
Humber
That raises a point about the upgrades Gatwick have done to get to that stage and then the subsequent higher landing fees.
So I perhaps envisage a future where landing fees are much higher as LBA/Newcastle have higher passenger numbers, but not high enough to build a second runway (as you've pointed out, plenty of intensive 1 runway operations exist), so the low cost airlines start to divert a portion of flights elsewhere?
A couple of points.

So called low-cost airlines will pay what they need to pay to access markets. There is no one size fits all scenario here. Inevitably it costs a lot to operate into Gatwick and slots are at a premium, but they do this because it’s the second largest airport in the U.K. Heathrow is for the flag carriers, no airport outside of Heathrow will ever be able to charge what Heathrow charge.

The growth envisaged at Newcastle and Leeds Bradford will be primarily driven by these low-cost airlines. Landing and handling agreements are a two way street, but as I outlined previously, airports like LBA and NCL will agree terms with airlines individually, and typically on the basis of higher volume in passengers = rebates on aviation fees to recoup the revenue from passengers in retail and other ancillaries. So no, they won’t look to relocate. The airports increasing capacity will do so on the basis of growing high volume operators like easyjet, Ryanair, Jet2, and will be hoping that this increase in critical mass may help them entice the more traditional scheduled carrier too.

This high charges accusation that is levelled at Peel is a myth. They offered some of the most attractive support packages to airlines in order to build that critical mass required to generate ancillary revenue with a view to becoming profitable. Problem is that even with those support packages on offer they never managed to gain the level of business required, because Leeds, East Midlands, Manchester are far more attractive propositions. Wizz pay LBA more than they did DSA, but are said to be happy with the uptake there.
 

Top