Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Burke Lakefront, Cleveland  
User currently offlineCleco From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 569 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Burke Lakefront is so much closer to downtown Cleveland that KCLE, yet their are no scheduled airlines into and out of KBKL. Is there just no market out of Burke or is their a regulation/legislation that prevents a scheduled service?


EMBRY-RIDDLE BABY
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2132 times:

I've noticed that some sports charters operate out of BKL, as I was looking on Flytecomm earlier tonight and noticed a Midwest Airlines charter (for the Atlanta Hawks) was operating out of BKL later on tonight.

User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2118 times:

This if often discussed in the local area. BKL is located in downtown and is very easily accessible. I often wonder how well scheduled service at BKL would do. Take the following scenario. CO could run regional jet (or prop service) on a shuttle type schedule to CLE. Business people downtown and even eastsiders could use BKL to connect at Hopkins. This would be similar to EFD-IAH service for CO. NW could offer regional serice to DTW, UA regional service to ORD, and US regional service to PIT.

Now, the problems. The facilities at BKL aren't there to handle scheduled commercial traffic, nor is there adequate parking. Parking could be solved with the municipal lot across the street and some additional parking added and facilities would have to built. I think it would be nice to see, but I'm skeptical as to how well it would do, especially considering from downtown Cleveland to CLE it's only 11.5 miles. Although that can be a very long 11.5 miles during rush hour and inclement weather.

Oh yeah, some people want to turn it into a park and residential highrises. That's a whole different topic though...


User currently offlineMats From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 629 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2117 times:

My understanding is that wind problems were particularly problematic for Burke. Back in the 70's, Wright Airlines flew frequently from Burke to Columbus and other nearby cities. Comair also once offered service from Burke to Detroit (and perhaps to their Cincinnati hub.)

User currently offlineFlyboeingjets From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Wrong. I work and fly at BKL. There is plenty of parking available in the front of the terminal...5.00 to park. Also there isn't a "wind problem" at BKL...it deals with normal crosswinds that are associated with being next to a body of water. I just saw Midex take off...new colors MD-81.

User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

I think you information is a little misleading regarding the parking. I never said parking wasn't available. I said there wasn't adequate parking. There's a big difference. Now, the parking in front of the terimals in no where near adequate. It also serves as parking to the USS Cod, Hornblowers, and overflow from the Rock Hall, Science Center, and Mather Museum (not that it's supposed to be for that, but that's what people use it for). Anyway, back to my point. There isn't adequate parking at BKL for scheduled passenger operations.

User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

You are in the exact same situation we are in DEN with APA being Right next door and untouched by airline service. Like Centennial, it could be that your runways aren't strong enough to handle the traffic. Also, you don't have a terminal, same situation again as here at Centennial.

DLKAPA


User currently offlineRiddlePilot215 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Burke is well equipped to handle passenger traffic, abeit the terminal is a bit small and outdated. But the real main problems are all the tall obstructions off the end of the main runway 6L/ 24R, and the fact that 6L is only a localizer backcourse makes it even trickier. We must not forget about the Clevelanders who like to sail in the summer and early fall, or the fact that BKL is incredible close to some very noise sensitive areas.


God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
User currently offlineFlyboeingjets From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

FFKid- Ok, yes, it is true the lot serves all of those other locations, but it is still a very small amount of cars present on a typical day. For regional jet 121 ops at BKL, it would be plenty adequate except for football Sundays or other busy days. In that situation, pax would be like everyone else in downtown and have to work hard to find a parking spot. Arguably the bigger issue at hand would be A) getting Coex to give up their exclusive operational rights to the airport, and B) updating the lower levels of the terminal to accomodate modern and secure 121 operations.

Riddle- The LOC BC 6L no longer exists. There is now a full ILS 24R (DA of 856 (273 AGL) with 1 NM viz, LOC 24R gets you down to 1160 with 3/4 NM viz. A standard 3 degree glideslope was finally installed after the CPP plant removed 5 smokestacks that would have encroached into the signal path. Reason for the higher than standard viz requirements on the full ILS is because of a remaining tall smokestack that is just to the left of the localizer course....if you want to go all the way down to 856, you had better have the stack in sight and be right on the localizer. In terms of obstructions in the area, yes, there are plenty of cranes and shipmasts to be aware of, but these would only become an issue if an aircraft knowingly went below what would be considered a normal glidepath to the runway threshhold.
Regarding noise, it is usually not too much of a factor because the standard IFR divergent departure from the airport is a turn to 350, climb to 2000, putting you over Lake Erie. It is only in rare instances where aircraft get assigned fly runway heading (and therefore possibly encroach on noise sensitive areas such as Bratenahl). The reason for the divergent departure procedure is because we are directly under the final approach path for CLE Rwy 24s. Aircraft inbound to CLE when conducting visual approaches are instructed to cross downtown no lower than 3000....the BKL departures are at 2000, this provides the standard 1000' vertical separation for within a terminal environment.
Regarding runway strength, again, it's not an issue. The airport regularly receives assorted sports charters in aircraft ranging in size up to the 757-200, and on a daily basis receives everything from a BBJ to a Cub.



User currently offlineClewatcher From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 245 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Just to let anyone know, There was an Airbus A32x parked at BKL this morning, An Air Canada, But the title was removed, all you can tell what airline it was, was its tail, dark blue with a red leaf. I didnt get the reg #. but does anyone know why this plane is here?


-Raymond
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Is it a sports charter, the Browns had a Monday night football game last night?


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinePotomac From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 713 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

probably the toronto raptors into play the cavs.....

User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Continental Airlines owns the landing rights at KBKL, so any startup would have to be approved by them.

They are the main reason there's been no passenger airline activity at BKL... since Continental established their hub at CLE. Of course, charters can come in any time, and BankAir and other check runners fly in and out daily.

I really think Continental would do well to offer ExpressJet service from BKL to the following locations: DET, MDW, LGA, DCA, LUK, and CMH. Get some intracity government/business traffic moving from downtown Cleveland to other center-city airports. I think they'd have to use Continental Express rather than Continental Connection just because business travelers would probably not like B1900s (Commutair/CO Connection) or C401s (Cape Air/CO Connection.)

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineORD747CLE From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

I'm all for Continental starting RJ service out of BKL, but do you think it's realistic for them to start this to the cities you mention? I'd love to see it, and it would be a great boost for the economy, but I don't think we'll see it any time soon.

Ord747Cle


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Continental Airlines owns the landing rights at KBKL, so any startup would have to be approved by them

Will you explain how this is?

Thanks



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Sure. Both airports (CLE and BKL) are owned by the Port Authority of the City of Cleveland. When Continental negotiated with the City about creating a hub here in Cleveland, it also got the rights to have "yeah/nay" over any passenger operations at BKL.

So far it's been "nay."



Up, up and away!
User currently onlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

I doubt we'll EVER see RJs from BKL. They have no maintenance facilities there and no employees. To work such a plan would mean repositioning 3, 4, 5, or more RJs to BKL every morning. No airline would want to do that. Also, you'd have to move CO employees from CLE to BKL and I'm sure most of them don't feel like going through rush hour traffic to get to work at Lakefront. With the airlines as strapped for cash as they are on top of the fact that cleaning up and working through all the red tape at BKL would be very tough and expensive, I think the odds are heavily in favor of not having anything to do with Burke.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineThomacf From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1752 times:

The city is very up in the air on this issue. Bringing commercial traffic into the heart of the city could help fill alot of empty office space downtown that has gone to the suburbs. This has crushed its main purpose of being a corporate airport. The flip side is to develop the land hoping that will attract more people and acitivity to the city. The idea of turning it into parkland however is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. BKL could have seen alot of traffic if Flight Options (second largest fractional airline) would have gone there. Flight Options tried to open up shop there after being run out of CLE and the city said no, so they went to CGF instead.

One problem that has plagued the idea of commercial service is the departure route when taking off from 24R and 24L. If CLE is busy, that traffic is arriving right over top. Any plane departing BKL is ordered out of Lake Erie and must come over the top adding time to trips (CMH,CAK,DTW etc...) and defeating the purpose of convienance.

If Cleveland was a larger market BKL could be really special.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cleveland's Burke Lakefront DC-9 Today posted Mon Dec 9 2002 03:07:54 by Big777jet
Burke Lakefront / Destination One Update posted Fri Oct 20 2006 15:38:45 by MasseyBrown
Burke Lakefront Airport Future In Doubt posted Tue Nov 9 2004 07:15:29 by FrequentFlyKid
Burke Lakefront "International" Airport? posted Tue Nov 27 2001 02:26:47 by Kcle
Boeing 757 @ Burke Lakefront (BKL) Right Now! posted Sat Aug 4 2001 02:21:37 by Boeing757fan
Say, "Bye Bye," Burke Lakefront! posted Mon Jul 16 2001 04:38:04 by Kcle
Cleveland Burke: Why No Airlines? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:42:15 by SBNair3022
Propeller Death At Cleveland-Burke posted Tue Jan 28 2003 21:07:01 by Redngold
My Toilet Tunes Cleveland Ctr.- NO Joke posted Thu Jul 20 2006 22:54:08 by Skoker
Cleveland BKL Gets New Comml Service posted Tue Jul 18 2006 14:26:03 by MasseyBrown