A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

[White Heather]

Anyone else find it a bit strange that Ros Jones has not released any statement online promoting the commencement of the ACP consultation? In fact she’s posted nothing about the airport since 24th July and that was just about the meet the buyer event.

Maybe she’ll post something later. Or maybe she’s trying to distance herself from it a bit too now? Who knows, but Chadwick is going into over drive about it again as if the CAA want to pick through thousands of survey submissions from Doris from Bawtry who supports it ‘cos jobs and flights to Benidorm’.

What we might regard as a tactical withdrawal?

 

[pug]

What we might regard as a tactical withdrawal?

Not sure, it’s just odd that pretty much every local MP has shared it but she’s not mentioned it at all and neither has Coppard. Perhaps some words have been spoken following Coppards meeting with Burnham on Friday. Words like ‘no new money’ perhaps?

She’s now shared it, presumably after a prompt.

 

[pug]

https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/doncaster-airport/dsa-airspace/supporting_documents/dsa-aviation-interest-consultation-document-v10-onlinepdf

The document is on there for anyone interested. They are forecasting a grand total of 3 daily flights on average in 2028, that’s passenger and freight. This is apparently to rise to 17 flights per day by year 10.

Not only may this raise some eyebrows in CAA land regarding proportionality, but if that’s a beguine forecast (even if a little low call/base case) I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially?

 

[White Heather]

https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/doncaster-airport/dsa-airspace/supporting_documents/dsa-aviation-interest-consultation-document-v10-onlinepdf

The document is on there for anyone interested. They are forecasting a grand total of 3 daily flights on average in 2028, that’s passenger and freight. This is apparently to rise to 17 flights per day by year 10.

Not only may this raise some eyebrows in CAA land regarding proportionality, but if that’s a beguine forecast (even if a little low call/base case) I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially?

Lets hope all the staff have some good books to read while twiddling their thumbs awaiting the next aircraft movement. Sounds typical of a single based aircraft but I honestly can't see anyone basing there and the 3 movements may not even be of significant size.

 

[Snackbar]

https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/doncaster-airport/dsa-airspace/supporting_documents/dsa-aviation-interest-consultation-document-v10-onlinepdf

The document is on there for anyone interested. They are forecasting a grand total of 3 daily flights on average in 2028, that’s passenger and freight. This is apparently to rise to 17 flights per day by year 10.

Not only may this raise some eyebrows in CAA land regarding proportionality, but if that’s a beguine forecast (even if a little low call/base case) I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially?

https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/doncaster-airport/dsa-airspace/supporting_documents/dsa-aviation-interest-consultation-document-v10-onlinepdf

The document is on there for anyone interested. They are forecasting a grand total of 3 daily flights on average in 2028, that’s passenger and freight. This is apparently to rise to 17 flights per day by year 10.

Not only may this raise some eyebrows in CAA land regarding proportionality, but if that’s a beguine forecast (even if a little low call/base case) I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially?

I think the simple answer to “I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially” is it doesn’t!!
I also suspect there will be a fair amount of political blow back from a disgruntled local population who still expect a new Manchester airport on their doorstep!! These folks don’t bother read the facts or deal with the detail but simply go with the Mechanics and other DSA fanatics soundbites…..When the flights to Dubai, New York etc that they seem to think are all just waiting to get straight into DSA never materialise there are going to be some very disappointed locals!!

 

[pug]

I think the simple answer to “I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially” is it doesn’t!!
I also suspect there will be a fair amount of political blow back from a disgruntled local population who still expect a new Manchester airport on their doorstep!! These folks don’t bother read the facts or deal with the detail but simply go with the Mechanics and other DSA fanatics soundbites…..When the flights to Dubai, New York etc that they seem to think are all just waiting to get straight into DSA never materialise there are going to be some very disappointed locals!!

It’s escalation of commitment. People are so far into it now that they’ll accept pretty much anything that results in Airport = Open.

 

[Egyptian King]

https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/doncaster-airport/dsa-airspace/supporting_documents/dsa-aviation-interest-consultation-document-v10-onlinepdf

The document is on there for anyone interested. They are forecasting a grand total of 3 daily flights on average in 2028, that’s passenger and freight. This is apparently to rise to 17 flights per day by year 10.

Not only may this raise some eyebrows in CAA land regarding proportionality, but if that’s a beguine forecast (even if a little low call/base case) I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially?

A group post on FB said the original said 27,400 a year best case @White Heather 17 a day is nowhere near 27,400

 

[pug]

A group post on FB said the original said 27,400 a year best case @White Heather 17 a day is nowhere near 27,400

It’s nowhere near affordable. Meanwhile the phrase ‘at pace’ seems to be permeating. I’m not sure how they’ll justify those lower levels to be honest. Also the most confusing aspect is that we’re led to believe that there will be base interest from the start, so with that in mind it’s either all or nothing - i.e it either starts with a higher baseline or it starts with a very low baseline and doesn’t move upwards until/unless there is a base commitment. Theres really no inbetween. The CAA will know this. TUI might stick a couple of W patterns in, Ryanair might be persuaded (with very preferential rates) to do something similar to MME and have a handful of flights. Wizzair might be convinced to go back also with a handful of flights. None of that will pay the bills, none of it will lead to further commitment. If anything it will do the opposite, and they’ll pull out soon as the freebies end.

I expect the CAA will know this too. The airport are hedging their bets on these ‘tentative discussions’ leading to something tangible. History has proved otherwise. Tough one to argue really, particularly as the CAA have already highlighted the ongoing geo political instability and the impact that’s having on growth in air travel in the regions. Fully expect other airspace users will have compelling reasons to object on this basis alone.

At a glance there are other problems with the document too. 2022 was not the airports busiest year, in movements terms I believe that was 2018/19 when FlyBe had their base in full swing. As we know that was ended in 2019 with the consequential drop off in passenger numbers. The wizzair base, announced in 2020, was also dropped in 2022 (not a full year of operation). This is a discrepancy that some may wish to pick apart, because it shows the ‘growth’ patterns in a different light to what really happened.

Other worthy observations.

MAI are mentioned as ‘consultants’ who completed the forecast modelling for a 2026 reopening. They don’t appear to have bothered to revisit the modelling in light of the delays.

No mention of Trax International or Cyrrus in this document, not sure whether this is standard practice. @radar any ideas? It may be that FlyDoncaster want to keel this in-house, they’re no longer using those consultancy firms, or instead are using previously compiled evidence by them as their own for continuity? I would have thought standard practice to credit but I guess that’s agreed between the sponsor and their consultants.

 

[GolfFox]

I think the simple answer to “I’m not sure how that stacks for them financially” is it doesn’t!!
I also suspect there will be a fair amount of political blow back from a disgruntled local population who still expect a new Manchester airport on their doorstep!! These folks don’t bother read the facts or deal with the detail but simply go with the Mechanics and other DSA fanatics soundbites…..When the flights to Dubai, New York etc that they seem to think are all just waiting to get straight into DSA never materialise there are going to be some very disappointed locals!!

I will have a look at the proposed airspace volume reduction when I have some uninterrupted time and hopefully log on to the aviators on-line briefing and stick my two penneth into the Aviation side of the consultation in due course. However, with a forecast 3 arrivals and 3 departures in 2028 I cannot see with the best will in the world how that would justify any CAS that was equitable to all users. Even the 10 year projection is modest at best!!

 

[pug]

I will have a look at the proposed airspace volume reduction when I have some uninterrupted time and hopefully log on to the aviators on-line briefing and stick my two penneth into the Aviation side of the consultation in due course. However, with a forecast 3 arrivals and 3 departures in 2028 I cannot see with the best will in the world how that would justify any CAS that was equitable to all users. Even the 10 year projection is modest at best!!

One of the clarifications the CAA requested in the now deleted assessment appraisal was that of the impact on GA traffic flows - the sponsor doesn’t appear to have taken this into account adequately, in their words it’s ‘unclear’.

Well worth reviewing and submitting your views based on that alone. I have yet to, but will do in due course. I’m in two WhatsApp groups from two different GA outfits in the area both highlighting the issues with GA being concentrated within a relatively small area East of the Trent and north of Hibaldstow. Since the DSA ACP withdrawal the effective ‘training area’ has expanded quite significantly. I find it inconceivable that CAS, should it be re-implemented and even on a smaller footprint, would allow for such use. The number of forecast movements, themselves ‘particularly speculative’ are arguably disproportionate for all options.

 

[752]

3, all this for 3 arrivals and departures. Wow. What a waste of time, money, taxes and resources. It’s not worth getting out of bed for. I can’t imagine it even being a x1 based unit, airlines rarely base x1 unit due to cost / not offering enough flexibility for customers. Wonder if 3 is a generous figure also.

 

[pug]

3, all this for 3 arrivals and departures. Wow. What a waste of time, money, taxes and resources. It’s not worth getting out of bed for. I can’t imagine it even being a x1 based unit, airlines rarely base x1 unit due to cost / not offering enough flexibility for customers. Wonder if 3 is a generous figure also.

Have a look at the aircraft type predictions too. Some bizarre suggestions like by Y10 0.8% of all movements will be on A380 aircraft. In year of implementation (2028) 9.1% of all movements will be on ATR 72-600 cargo fit - in other words three flights per week. The only U.K. cargo operator utilising these was West Atlantic, they have retired this fleet and now operate a pure 737 400f and 800f fleet. There are some ATR Cargo aircraft utilised in European domestic network, but that’s also irrelevant. FedEx do use them, but they’re currently flying into MME. The figures are already outdated or just simply based on wishful thinking.

The E190 one is equally interesting. We know there aren’t many operators of such aircraft, so one suspects they may be referencing KLM - or even Eastern. Going by their figures there will be one such flight every 2 weeks in 2028 rising to three per week in Y10. I’m not sure those service levels could compete with what’s currently on offer elsewhere.

The move to a greater proportion of 73MAX and A32NX is just a reflection of airline wide modernisation.

No wonder the CAA have called their forecasts ‘particularly speculative’. In fact I’d suggest they’re just being diplomatic! These are modelled on placeholders based on average UK/European traffic flows they are not based on realistic forecasting models. I expect the CAA have already seen through this, hence their concerns.

 

[Stagman]

Up the road on Teesside. The Mayor has had his monthly Q&A on BBC Radio Tees this morning between 0900-1000hrs.

There were a couple of questions about Teesside Airport. Mayor Ben Houchen gives some really good detailed explanations about airport and more importantly the airline industry. Some valid points that would make Mayor Ros Jones quake in her boots at the reality of the airline industry.
Programme time question features 3:28:30 to 3:36:00

Amy Oakden - 05/08/2026 - BBC Sounds

Trusted local news and sport, information and advice, and great music.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[pug]

Just uploaded one of the docs (added to the ACP 4th August) to a free AI source and asked it what it makes of it - no front loaded questions.

Main_Consultation_Documents_-_Appendix_A_-_Overview_of_CAP1616_process_to_date.pdf

PDF
This document shows how FlyDoncaster are justifying option 3. What do you make of it?

Here’s the straight, structured, aviation‑focused assessment of how FlyDoncaster/CDC are justifying Option 3 in the CAP1616 Appendix A you shared — and whether that justification actually stands up to scrutiny.

No politics, no emotion — just the operational and regulatory logic.(As always, confirm details with trusted sources.)

Takeaway​

Option 3 is being justified almost entirely on process compliance and integration with MTMA, not on traffic demand, safety necessity, or credible operational forecasts.The document presents Option 3 as a technical optimisation, but the underlying reasoning is thin and heavily dependent on modelling assumptions that the CAA has already described as “particularly speculative.”

1. The justification is procedural, not operational​

The document repeatedly emphasises:

• CAP1616 compliance
• design‑principle scoring
• integration with MTMA
• systemisation
• containment within CAS

But it does not demonstrate:

• a credible level of traffic requiring CAS
• realistic airline interest
• realistic cargo activity
• realistic fleet mix
• realistic operational complexity

This is a major gap.

The CAA will notice.

2. Option 1 was rejected because NATS refused to support it​

This is important.

The document states:

“NATS NERL stated that they cannot support Option 1… for a number of reasons.”

This is the real reason Option 1 died — not because Option 3 was better.

NATS’ refusal forces CDC into a narrower set of viable options.

Option 3 is essentially the only option left that:

• fits MTMA modernisation
• uses PBN containment
• reduces controller workload
• aligns with CAA policy

This is not a strong justification — it’s a constraint.

3. Option 0 (no CAS) was dismissed on circular logic​

The document says Option 0 was rejected because:

“it did not meet the objective… which is to re‑establish controlled airspace.”

This is circular:

• The objective is “re‑establish CAS.”
• Therefore any option without CAS is rejected.

This is not an evaluation — it’s a predetermined outcome.

It avoids the real question:

Does DSA actually need CAS for the level of traffic forecast?

The document never answers that.

4. The FOA justification relies on extremely speculative traffic forecasts​

The FOA compares Option 2 and Option 3 using:

• noise
• emissions
• fuel burn
• tranquillity
• biodiversity
• economic benefit
• GA impact
• MTMA integration
• safety

But all of these depend on traffic forecasts that the CAA has already criticised as:

“particularly speculative.”

If the traffic forecasts are weak, the FOA is weak.

If the FOA is weak, the justification for Option 3 is weak.

5. The NPV difference between Option 2 and Option 3 is negligible​

The document shows:

• Option 2: £554.7m
• Option 3: £541.9m

A difference of 2%.

The document admits:

“This cannot be used alone to make a decision.”

This is correct — because the difference is trivial.

So NPV does not justify Option 3.

6. The noise differences are also negligible​

The FOA noise tables show:

• Option 2 better in some contours
• Option 3 better in others
• Differences of 8–18% in small contour bands
• Overall TAG difference of ~2%

The document admits:

“It is very difficult to draw a conclusion between the two options.”

So noise does not justify Option 3.

7. The real justification is MTMA integration​

This is the only area where Option 3 clearly outperforms Option 2.

Option 3:

• uses Radius‑to‑Fix
• is more systemised
• reduces controller workload
• aligns with future MTMA design
• contains tracks more tightly
• reduces CAS volume

This is the strongest argument — and the only one that is genuinely defensible.

But it is airspace‑network optimisation, not airport‑specific necessity.

8. What the document ​

It never addresses:

• whether DSA’s traffic forecasts justify CAS
• whether the fleet mix is realistic
• whether airlines have expressed interest
• whether cargo operators exist
• whether GA impacts outweigh benefits
• whether Option 3 is proportionate to actual demand

These omissions are significant.

Clean synthesis​

FlyDoncaster/CDC justify Option 3 primarily on:

• MTMA integration
• PBN containment
• systemisation
• compliance with CAP1616 policy

But the justification is weakened by:

• speculative traffic forecasts
• circular rejection of Option 0
• NATS’ refusal forcing Option 1 off the table
• negligible differences between Option 2 and Option 3
• lack of evidence that CAS is proportionate to demand

Option 3 is not being chosen because it is objectively better —it is being chosen because it is the only option that fits CAA/NATS policy constraints while still allowing CDC to pursue CAS.

If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side regulatory critique of Option 2 vs Option 3 using CAP1616 option analysis.

It’s also ready the Full Options Appraisal but it’s a big document so provided me with a snapshot that isn’t too different from the above.

One thing it’s flagged is the circular reasoning. Statement of need said it’s to re-establish CAS, so option 0 has been rejected because it means not establishing CAS. In AIs words ‘CAS is required because we decided that CAS is required’. Therefore there appears to be no proportionality test - which I take to mean what would option 0 look like on an operational level?

Ultimately the conclusion therefore is that it expects this will be challenged hard on proportionality and necessity.

If anyone has time have a read through. I’ve not managed to yet but I think AI provides a reasonable summation.

 

[pug]

Up the road on Teesside. The Mayor has had his monthly Q&A on BBC Radio Tees this morning between 0900-1000hrs.

There were a couple of questions about Teesside Airport. Mayor Ben Houchen gives some really good detailed explanations about airport and more importantly the airline industry. Some valid points that would make Mayor Ros Jones quake in her boots at the reality of the airline industry.
Programme time question features 3:28:30 to 3:36:00

Amy Oakden - 05/08/2026 - BBC Sounds

Trusted local news and sport, information and advice, and great music.

www.bbc.co.uk

Has a listen to that, I don’t think there’s all that much in there that Ros would understand nor make her quake in her boots. I also think it’s overly simplified in the way he discusses yield management and the adaptive pricing of tickets. However he does admit it’s more complex than he appreciates.

Teesside have obviously done some advanced ticket tracing analysis. Sadly though, I have seen these types of outward marketing and detailed marketing analysis attempts filed away in the never to be looked at again drives at one particular airline. Yes they might prick ears up, yes they’re expensive undertakings (the software is costly!) and they do tend to surprise people. However airlines are fundamentally conscious of cost and putting aircraft in bases here there and everywhere increases cost exponentially which becomes a zero sum game when trying to manage sales and ensuring profitability. Fundamentally it’s why DSA struggled, why MME struggles after the low-cost boom killed off the IT Charter market - and why Humberside suffered a similar fate (though had DSA never happened then TUI would have a base there now). TUI are the last bastion of fly in charge a premium and fly out. So when Houchen uses the analogy of 1000 seats and 3000 people interested, it’s oversimplifying the logic and undermines the fact that naturally the catchment area of Teesside, bounded by two much bigger airports, is quite limited and therefore the scope of increasing the number of seats exponentially ultimately results in a saturated market and return to consolidation at the bigger airports. Humberside has an objectively larger catchment area which is far less ‘harvested’ than that of Teessides - least that’s the case whilst DSA doesn’t exist.

The low-cost model made some airports (LPL being the prime example) but it killed others.

 

[752]

Can somebody have a word with Ros and co.. let’s recap what’s going on with the airlines at the moment:

Norse for sale - doesn’t look great for them
Wizz - reported losses for this quarter
LoganAir - shutting SOU, domestic flying reduced
EasyJet - sold to an American asset firm..
Jet2 & Ryanair cautious / slow expansion
TUI nothing significant, cuts here and there in flying.

So who’s going to take the risk to fly DSA? Some airlines will be lucky to be here next year.

It’s a tough time for the industry and to open an airport with planned 3 flights a day (I’m sure that’s generous) is honestly mental

 

[White Heather]

Can somebody have a word with Ros and co.. let’s recap what’s going on with the airlines at the moment:

Norse for sale - doesn’t look great for them
Wizz - reported losses for this quarter
LoganAir - shutting SOU, domestic flying reduced
EasyJet - sold to an American asset firm..
Jet2 & Ryanair cautious / slow expansion
TUI nothing significant, cuts here and there in flying.

So who’s going to take the risk to fly DSA? Some airlines will be lucky to be here next year.

It’s a tough time for the industry and to open an airport with planned 3 flights a day (I’m sure that’s generous) is honestly mental

At best, the 3 flights a day are (if they are lucky) likely to be something like Emerald to Belfast/Dublin on ATRs. I doubt it would even be 3 daily at weekends.

 

[Finger66]

Maybe it's a relaunch of Links Air with a J31 operating 3 or 4 rotations a day. With a 100% LF that a max of 152 pax a day. They seriously do need to get real - there is absolutely no future in this vanity project

 

[752]

At best, the 3 flights a day are (if they are lucky) likely to be something like Emerald to Belfast/Dublin on ATRs. I doubt it would even be 3 daily at weekends.

I still doubt Emerald, in memory they tried and failed on DUB.

Oh and to add to the list, European Air Cargo have gone bust & Eastern.. no doubt these 2 could easily of been persuaded in ££..

 

[White Heather]

I still doubt Emerald, in memory they tried and failed on DUB.

Oh and to add to the list, European Air Cargo have gone bust & Eastern.. no doubt these 2 could easily of been persuaded in ££..

Wasn't it Emerald's predecessors on the Aer Lingus franchise that tried and failed before? Stobart?

Maybe even Aer Arann before that?

You may well be right though. Frankly, in the current situation with aviation, it is difficult to see any airline being particularly interested, although opening DSA is taking so long, the situation may be better (or even worse) by the time it does. IF it does.