November stats (Read 1,060 times)

[lysander]

Just released by CAA


DSA 35,389 down 17.9%
MAN 18,709,451 up 3.8%
HUY 17,249 up 6.3%
EMA 211,849 down 2.4%
LBA still to be released.

[elvis]

Dec 16, 2011 16:31:43 GMT lysander said:

Just released by CAA


DSA 35,389 down 17.9%
MAN 18,709,451 up 3.8%
HUY 17,249 up 6.3%
EMA 211,849 down 2.4%
LBA still to be released.

Down 17.9%!! Is it worth opening up the place in a morning for just 35,389 passengers.?
How many previous November figures have been this bad?
I hear that Durham Tees Valley is up for sale due to disastrous passenger numbers there. Peel's venture into airports has been a failure. No wonder SCA suffered in their hands!

[northern]

35,389 passengers does seem quite low, although is this really unexpected given both the month in question and also the amount of services that now fly to DSA. Hopefully things can only get better...

[lysander]

And with reductions in services announced by Thomson and Thomas Cook for 2012, I wonder who can, realistically, see a light at the end of the tunnel? Next year, according to those schedules thus far published looks like being an even worse year for passenger numbers than was this one...which was pretty awful.

[CS]

And with reductions in services announced by Thomson and Thomas Cook for 2012, I wonder who can, realistically, see a light at the end of the tunnel?

Not to mention the 6xweekly flights each way to be dropped by Ryanair. There will also be no flights to Belfast with FlyBE.

[11athersleynorth]

Not looking good is it. Can only hope that some additional services or a new operator can be attracted to the airport. But with LBA just up the road continuing to expand at a phenomenal rate, it doesn't look too likely.

[lysander]

Airlines, unless subsidised, will always fly routes where they can maximise profits.

[mainline]

Jan 5, 2012 13:45:11 GMT lysander said:

Airlines, unless subsidised, will always fly routes where they can maximise profits.

Absolutely and don't forget they want as little turn around as is possible, as whilst ever its on the ground - it ain't making money!

I hate to say it, but I foresee DSA going the same way as SCZ very soon!

[CS]

I cant mainline. An airport gives the owner significant political leverage on a local and national level. It remains to be seen whether VAS will be able to make the operation sustainable, but by most accounts they have bitten off more than they can chew when they bought in to the highly competitive UK market. You only have to look at their portfolio to see that their other airports do not suffer from significant local competition.

[lysander]

DSA came about on account of the redundancy of RAF Finningley...with its long runway and acres of land, ripe for development. In a similar vein to the redundant RAF Lindholme being promoted, some years earlier, as a civil airport... as was a completely new site on Thorne Moors. Doncaster MBC, naturally enough, encouraged the proposal with its promise of European Objective 1 funding to create thousands of jobs.The nascent SCA was given no real chance to prove itself, being brushed aside by a myopic Council which also saw the promise of jobs( years after closure not one single job has been created on the site). Were these job forecasts real or illusory?

The airport site at Finningley has 4 competitors...all within fairly easy access. The airport is neither well connected by road or rail and is at the extremities of its City region. Much of this was recognised at the time of the Public Enquiry and, arguably, since then conditions in the industry have become far worse.

To put it into context Meadowhall railway station has more passengers in a year than does DSA and whilst SCA was dedicated to the regional business traveller the best estimate of DSA's business travel market is just 5%.....A far cry from the' promised' levels of service the pundits were claiming for the scheme.

[northern]

Jan 7, 2012 11:04:58 GMT lysander said:

DSA came about on account of the redundancy of RAF Finningley...with its long runway and acres of land, ripe for development. In a similar vein to the redundant RAF Lindholme being promoted, some years earlier, as a civil airport... as was a completely new site on Thorne Moors. Doncaster MBC, naturally enough, encouraged the proposal with its promise of European Objective 1 funding to create thousands of jobs.The nascent SCA was given no real chance to prove itself, being brushed aside by a myopic Council which also saw the promise of jobs( years after closure not one single job has been created on the site). Were these job forecasts real or illusory?

The airport site at Finningley has 4 competitors...all within fairly easy access. The airport is neither well connected by road or rail and is at the extremities of its City region. Much of this was recognised at the time of the Public Enquiry and, arguably, since then conditions in the industry have become far worse.

To put it into context Meadowhall railway station has more passengers in a year than does DSA and whilst SCA was dedicated to the regional business traveller the best estimate of DSA's business travel market is just 5%.....A far cry from the' promised' levels of service the pundits were claiming for the scheme.

It must surely be remembered however, that DSA was and still remains the UKs newest commercial airport. It never had time to develop, before the recession took full hold.

[CS]

It must surely be remembered however, that DSA was and still remains the UKs newest commercial airport. It never had time to develop, before the recession took full hold.

Very true. However playing devils advocate here but some might say that Robin Hood has had plenty of opportunities to prove its worth in the form of short lived ventures by the likes of Easyjet.

My only concern is not of whether the airport will close or not, but of whether Vancouver Airport Services and Peel have the ability to take their airport to the next level and generate sustainable growth. If not then I cant see anyone chomping at the bit to own the place. The link road will provide real value to the shareholders in the form of viable development land, new flights due to increased accessibility will come a long way down the list, particularly if the rumours of an unwillingness to offer competitive fees to both incumbant and prospective operators are to be believed.

The Sheffield City Region deserves a successful regional airport, however unfortunately a half bakes attempt by the council in the form of Sheffield City Airport, and now the current situation at Finningley could mean that the region will lose out in the longer term due to increasing pressure from established local rivals. Any local loyalty goes out of the window when flights are cheaper and more frequent elsewhere, and certain dubious spending habits of potential customers (such as travelling for hours just to save £5 on the price of a seat) really makes the task of getting Robin Hood established an uphill struggle.

[lysander]

A few points. Firstly, whilst SCC first mooted the building of a "City" type stolport it was, in fact, the completely separate, Government sponsored, Sheffield Development Corporation who planned, found a developer and then took the initial credit for its building.....so blaming SCC for its "half-baked attempt" is grossly unfair. However, the Council's lack of interest in keeping the developer to the terms of the contract and keeping the airport open was fundamental in the decision to agree early closure. Secondly, SCA is/was the newest airport in the UK... built from scratch. Thirdly, the terms of the development agreement were so "soft" there was little, if any, encouragement for the developer/operator to make SCA successful...and, contrary to all the propaganda eminating from such sources as SCC, the Airport was actually, in its last years, making a profit out of GA and business aviation!

That the 42 acres of airport could be acquired for absolutely £zilch by a property devloper, has much to do with the current , sad position of aviation in the City region.

[CS]

I never really talk of this subject but here goes.

You are of course far more knowledgable on the subject than me so I appologise for any misunderstanding on my part. However I still believe the local authorities which supported the development of Finningley should be held accountable for at least being naive in the motives of the developers. Caroline Flint I seem to remember was one of those proponents whom didn't think to do any research into the develiopment of the Finningley Estate other than to support the number of jobs that would be created. There were many others too. Peel are clearly shrewd, and didn't miss a buck with this development either. As I have said before, its surprising how much support a private developer will garner in local and national politics when they propose such a huge investment in an economically underperforming area. £millions in EU funding, not to mention the invitation to get pretty much what they want out of the development. Just look at the relaxation and scrapping of some restrictions placed upon the site before it had opened.

Alot of questions will forever remain unanswered, but the worst point to all this is the continued problems with linking Sheffield with quality air services to nearby Europe.

[lysander]

I believe the absolute silence coming out of Central Government over recent requests for an investigation into all aspects of the closure of SCA speaks volumes. Timothy Kirkhope MEP has raised many questions, both here and in Brussels,and has also largely been met by silence.

I think your conclusions are not wide of the mark and the fact that SCC was effectively instructed to support DSA at the Enquiry is also worthy of some investigation.As you say, we are still left with the problem of linking the underperforming City Region by air to the near Continent. Who knows someone, someday might just ask the question about the future of air services in the region.