Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3192 times:
Times change and so do needs. Right now we just need to finish the new runway, then extend the other. One thing at a time. Hizzoner White had a lot of grand plans, but they weren't very realistic in terms of the timing anyway.
I'm glad Mayor Campbell is taking another look at this with a fresh perspective. Now that we've bumbled along for several years with bid fiascos, unilateral decisions by Hizzoner about the deicing facility, and problems with environmental concerns, some new eyes and new ideas are step in the right direction.
Granted, I'm *not* opposed to airport expansion; on the contrary, I wish we could have a better facility. I think that they have a good idea, though, to improve the terminal first. Right now the open, bright Concourse D seems to be out of place when compared with the dark main terminal. They need to make the main terminal more friendly and hospitable. Maybe they could even put in a moving sidewalk out to the end of Concourse C!
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
The runway was never needed in the first place. It was a ruse by Mike White as a way to get a new Convention Center built downtown, nothing else.
The city should pour the money either into 1. Massive improvements of Concourses A, B and C, or, if they have the imagination, 2. Build an entirely new terminal on the site of the IX Center. There's plenty of room for a state-of-the-art terminal, plenty of parking and a new hotel on that site.
I think the idea of a 3rd runway is DOA now. Thank goodness.
And Redngold, apparently C can't support the weight of a moving walkway as-is. It would take a lot of reinforcement to make that possible. Plus, it would need to be drastically widened.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 450 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3123 times:
Hurray, CLE has a terrible terminal, aside from D (I do like D, but the distance to main terminal is quite ridiculous for such a small airport.) Love the idea of building a new state of the art terminal at IX center, it may be the only hope-- hopefully a terminal that includes walkable rental cars so you don't have to drive to Columbus to the facility-- but that may be too grand for CLE's financial situation.
I wonder how much Mok's comments are colored by fear that CO will bolt town, making CLE even more of a point-to-point town that it is today.
I recognize the airline industry is at a real nadir right now, but I sure am second guessing the $1B spent on a new runway able to support the heavies, given the tenuous situation with Continental.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3091 times:
Ncflyer, don't "hurray" anything yet. That's just the musings of a front-line CO Grunt But I think it'd be a damned good idea. I wish the city could somehow move up the time to do something with the IX Center, but I doubt that could happen. Either way, the city should make a bold move to keep CO in CLE for the forseeable future, and upgrading the facilities, tied in with reduced landing fees just might help matters.
I still think, on a side note, the CLE hub isn't dead, as many here keep on writing. Gordon wouldn't have come to CLE to try to rally support if the deal to dump CLE had already been made. The quicker end of the war, and the fact that fuel prices didn't go through the roof was a Godsend to the carriers, and it may help CLE in the long run.
In either event, CLE should spend their time and effort in improving the facilities, instead of planning runways that won't be needed.
By the way, coming home from BNA the other day, actually saw my first similtaneous landings-a CO 73G and I believe a UAX CRJ. Nice to see that in CLE.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 450 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
alpha1, you may be on to something-- you are right in that my hurray is a wee bit premature. Mok, I assume knows what he's doing, and this could be part of his grand plan to secure CO's future by equaling the superior new facilities in CVG, PIT, and DTW.
I've been a little bearish on CO's future in CLE, I just don't see how a hub can make it with so few frequencies to major business centers. To my way of thinking, economies of scale are critical to a hub, at least when times are good, and CLE is one of the 2 or 3 smallest hubs in the country.
CLEfan From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 299 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2985 times:
Right now, it makes good sense to hold off on planning for the new runway, but they should plan any new use for the IX center land with the possibility of building a new runway in the future. Terminal work is necessary, and should be done, but I think a new terminal would be too expensive right now. New air frieght areas would be a huge improvement too. What the Port Authority should really look at is building a new airport for Cleveland, either on an artificial island on Lake Erie or in Lorain County. The current site is landlocked and future growth will be very difficult and constrained. Now is the time to look to the future and build a new airport with plenty of room for expansion that Clevelanders will be proud of.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2973 times:
CLEfan, 6L24R cost over a half billion to construct, if I'm not mistaken, and can you imagine, in 11 years, the cost of a third, very unnecessary runway? Put the land to good use. Build a new terminal.
I'm all for building a new airport, but no one in this area had either the political vision or guts to propose such a facility. I favor southeast Lorain County to build it. Putting it on the lake would be a weather nightmare, and putting it between CAK and CLE puts it well within the secondary snow belt, and more WX. Southeast Lorain County had tons of land to use, without uprooting a good number of people. The only entity I would see opposing such an airport out that way would be Oberlin College, but you'd blow by them pretty quickly.
The next best thing would be a new terminal on the site of I-X. But again, that's a distant prospect, both in terms of time and possibilities. Next to that, the best thing is to completely redo and expand the 3 old concourses, making them more accessble to each other, putting in more and better concessions, moving Customs to Concourse C, and making a fast-rail link between the terminal and the rental car area.
CLEfan From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 299 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Build something on the IX Center site, but who knows what will happen 11 years down the road. CLE might need the extra capacity, and we might find ourselves in the same boat several years from now as we were before, fighting with Brook Park for the land to build a new runway. When the IX center comes down, build something that will improve the airport, but try not to take away the option of building a runway there too. They just need to be flexible in their plans.
A new airport in Lorain would be great, but it would require a multicounty airport authority most likely. They should at least start researching possible sites for future consideration.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 47 Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
The "airport on an artificial island" won't ever happen in Cleveland. Period. The environmental costs would be terrific and the opposition would be fierce. Hong Kong and Japan got away with it because they don't have the strict environmental laws or bureaucracies that would jam up the project for years. Plus, BKL has been adding landfill since God knows when, and it's almost finished, but it's going to take 15, yes, FIFTEEN years for the fill to settle so that it can support a new runway. You can forget the island idea.
Ravenna Arsenal has been suggested as an optimal location. If the military were to vacate that land (and that is a BIG if), it would put the airport well spaced between Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown. Ravenna is not in the snow belt.
Soku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
A new terminal yes that would be great, but why not give terminal B a makeover first. Throw in a few windows, take up the duct tape, and that'd be great. A new runway puh-lease what are the chances CLE is gonna need capacity being sourounded by CVG DTW and PIT (if US Air stays). Oh ya a new terminal would mean kepping the fees high espceially when that place makes no money, and they are already as high as they are now.
CLEfan From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 299 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
Ravenna would be a good place, plus it is right by I-80. US Military is turning the land over to the Ohio National Guard though, so that might be out. The land would have to be leveled there though. I'm about 10 miles away from Ravenna, and its kind of hilly. Taking the flat farmlands in Lorain might be easier, more convenient, and most importantly cheaper. 480 could be extended to the new airport for better access, but you are getting farther and farther away from the eastside, who might be more likely to drive to Canton than go to the westside.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4424 posts, RR: 35 Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2941 times:
CLEfan, that's the functional problem I see with a new Cleveland airport--there really isn't a convenient place to put it. The lake is out for the reasons Redngold mentioned. Both Lorain County and Ravenna are a long way from a large portion of metro Cleveland's population. More people would find it worthwhile to drive to CAK, and in turn Uncle Gordon would whine all the louder. Hopkins is extremely well located, however landlocked it is.
Plus, financially this is no time to build a new airport. Hopkins' fees are of course too high as it is, and fees at a new Cleveland airport would only be higher. Plus, the State of Pennsylvania and Allegheny County are about to eat $675 million of Pittsburgh Airport debt that David Siegel dumped in their laps through the bankruptcy court. They will do *anything* to get rid of any portion that debt--and that could easily include making a nine-figure offer to Continental.
As long as Hopkins remains Cleveland's airport, it's not really worth it to Continental to head for Pittsburgh with its smaller O & D base, whatever PA offers them. Fixing up Hopkins' dated terminal, and finishing the existing new runway, is probably the best option. And lower the fees!
Is the old 9L-27R still going to be lengthened to 12,000' as planned?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2928 times:
DCA-ROCguy, haven't had the chance to share a thread with you in a while. How've you been, my friend?
I DO feel that it would be very convenient, weather-wise, and accessibility-wise, to put it in southeast Lorain County. It's really not that far from most east-side locations coming down I-90 to I-71 to I-480/SR20. It's less than 40 minutes from the suburbs like Euclid and such. That's not unreasonable at all. Plus it's away from the primary and secondary snowbelts.
And unlike most other locations, a much smaller number of people would have to be uprooted.
And you are correct, DCA-ROCguy, the economics don't favor building an airport. I hadn't heard about the landing fees coming down, so if CLEfan is right, that's about 72 cents per every 1000 lbs landing weight. That's substantial. That will take some burden off CO, and might even get WN to expand finally-that's been their biggest gripe about CLE since they located there. They need to come down further, though, to be more competitive.
The biggest reason CO won't relocate the hub from CLE is, as DCA correctly states, the economics of the time. Now, CLOSING CLE could be a possibility in the future, but I think any drastic move like that, barring an economic collapse in the U.S., is at least a year, maybe more, in the future. If business picks up, and CO stop bleeding cash, CLE is not in as dire straits as peole think.
And yes, DCA, 6R24L is slated to go to just under 12,000 feet-I believe in '06 or so. 6L24R is slated to go to around 9,000 in a few years.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4989 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2877 times:
Moving walkways ... my recollection is that they were in the plan for Continental's modernization of Concourse C, but got canceled when Continental declared bankruptcy in the middle of the project. Concourse C was then completed at the minimum possible expense - which is why the gate configuration at the far end is oddly disjointed as well as a couple gates short of the original plan.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
The joke was, back when C was finished, CO's press released called it a "World Class" facility. That was Lorenzo for you-do it on the cheap, but act like you really put out for it.
C would have to be almost doubled in width to accomoadate a decent moving walkway system. I've already gone through one renovation on C, and working thorugh it was a nightmare. Really not looking forward to having to do it again.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2849 times:
I'm all for building a new airport, but no one in this area had either the political vision or guts to propose such a facility. I favor southeast Lorain County to build it.
A new airport would be fantastic, Alph....but your location means, what? Nearly a hundred mile roundtrip for folks from Mentor and the far east side? It'll never fly.
Hopkins cannot expand north into the residential areas. It cannot move south into Berea or west because of the Rocky River canyon (and...more residential areas.)
That leaves east. Ford Plant. East is the answer, but a pretty signifigant chunk of the local economy is standing in the way. Still, when compared to the costs of a new airport, a forward thinking pol would come up with a way to give CLE a vast new airport, and Ford a shiny new factory somewhere else. (maybe "we'll build it. But you've got to double employees")
Cleveland is such a perfect spot for a hub, too. It's very nearly a commuter flight to the east coast, and a much more preferable launching spot to Europe than Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta...even DTW and CVG. And, though others don't like to admit it, when combined with the Akron-Canton population metro, Northeast Ohio is the 13th largest customer market in America.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4424 posts, RR: 35 Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2827 times:
DCA, OUr crosswind runway is 10/28 and cannot be lengthened any further. We have NASA at one end and a huge Ford engine plant at the other, neither of which are moving in the foreseeable future redngold
Sorry, Redngold, I posted that late last night after too much yummy comfort food at a nearby diner--I meant the old 5L/23R. I know all about the, um, obstacles to expanding 10-28. Maybe a ramp up the side of the Ford plant?
Good to hear from you too Alpha1. I've been busily writing my dissertation--finished the first third of it last week.
Maybe SE Lorain County would work for a new airport, but it would be a haul from Lake County. If SE Lorain is flatter than Ravenna, which is rolling as CLEfan notes, it would probably be much cheaper to build there than Ravenna. The cost of moving the Ford plant--there are no doubt probably some good brownfield sites in the area--would probably be the same as a whole new airport. And it would keep the excellent Hopkins location. But a massive Hopkins eastward expansion would probably cause thermonuclear NIMBY issues.
And for now, the new Hopkins runway will be a big help. I look forward to my next trip to CLE in July, Alpha, when I can see those beautiful parallel landings for myself.
25 Thomacf: I don't think we'll see a new airport in CLE for many years. Two years ago I had a good talk with a CO Cpt. that I feel makes the most sense. BKL can
26 Gnomon: Many have forgotten, in the blitz of media reports about bleeding airlines, about the impact of airlines' economic woes on airports. It makes sense to