Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Vote Of Confidence For CLE  
User currently offlineNcflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 471 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2698 times:

Yes I know another CLE thread. Kellner was in Cleveland yesterday and said "if you like the past 10 years in CLE, you'll really like the next 10 years." There was strong suggestion that once runway is complete, CLE will see an increase in service. He said CLE benefits from having much stronger local traffic than PIT and CVG. But he made it quite clear that growth would come from RJ's-- as it would across the industry.

So here's my question. Why should a measley 2,000 foot runway extension on top of the new runway already built make a bit of difference for CLE's capacity to handle little RJ's? I can say of all my time flying out of CLE I can't remember having to wait more than 4 or 5 for takeoff or having much of a holding pattern-- it's not in the same universe as say ATL or CVG, yet those airports seem to have no problem adding flight after flight. It just feels like CLE wasted its money building a longer airport in the day of the RJ. Yet apparently it was important for CO and their RJ plans?? I don't get it.

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMarkus From United States of America, joined May 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

I think it also has to do with the separation BETWEEN the two parallel runways. This increase in distance, although not enough to allow simultaneous landings, will allow for an increase in traffic per hour into and out of the airport...thus increasing the number of allowable banks at the airport (for CO). Also, the 2,000ft increase will allow for larger aircraft (ie. intl flights) which will ultimately be fed by the increase in RJ traffic.
Cheers,
Markus


User currently offlineNcflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

but the 2 parallel runways are already there, with or without the extra 2000 feet.

No mention of extra international service to CLE. Seems like the only thing on the table is making the LGW flight year-round. It doesn't seem like that's what the 2,000 feet will buy either.


User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Well, it wont make that much difference, 2000 extra feet or not. We had a loaded AN-225 land , and then take off with relative ease, So I think a 772 or 744 could make it. But more RJs, fuck someone has a fetish.


-Dan



A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

This increase in distance, although not enough to allow simultaneous landings...

Maybe not quite, but they're damn close to simultaneous now. I've seen quite a few aircraft pairs touch down on opposite runways within a few seconds of each other.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Maybe not quite, but they're damn close to simultaneous now.

Is CLE perhaps in a situation like SFO, which allows simultaneous landings during good weather, but not bad weather?

Aaron G.


User currently offlineIAHERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 677 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Cleveland runs well on a nice day when aircraft can visually see each other and the airport 10 miles out thus providing their own seperation from each other. This allows the controllers to provide less spacing and turns the airport into a more or less parallel arrival operation like CVG. The planes still need a mile from each other making landings on the parallels about 30 seconds apart. When the visibility goes down, it's back to landing on one and using the other for departures with 4-5 miles spacing between arrivals.

IAHERJ



Actually flown: EMB-120 EMB-145 B717 B737 B757 B767
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

This increase in distance, although not enough to allow simultaneous landings...

I'm a witness to the contrary. I do see planes take off and land simultaneously. Actually, let me correct that, the landings arean't simultaneous, but I've seem them come in, staggared 15 or 20 seconds apart, so it's nearly simultaneuous. That's a lot more traffic you can handle in one hour-causes less delays, and lets CLE handle more traffic. Of course, in more inclement weather, they won't land two at a time.

but the 2 parallel runways are already there, with or without the extra 2000 feet.

Yes, but I think the extra footage on the runways will allow CO to run more larger planes in CLE, like 762's, or even 764's to perhaps LGW, HNL, CDG or AMS, etc, and of course, the parallel runways will allow, in VFR or even marginal VFR conditions, almost-simultaneous landings which can increase the RJ and mainline feed into CLE for such flights.

CO has a lot of cargo business between CLE and LGW, but they have to take it overland to EWR, then to LGW, because CLE's runway's can't really handle long-range traffic with widebodies right now. Put that extra 2000ft on the main runway, and a 762 or 764-with loads more cargo space, makes CLE-LGW with one of those aircaft emminently more attractive, and may even offset the fact that CO can probably not fill 25 B/F seats on a 762 or the 35 on a 764, which can drive profits on Trans-Atlantic routes.

So the length isn't important for RJ traffic, but it can help feed larger aircraft on such routes as LGW, and a CDG or an AMS, which, in turn, can use widebodies instead of a a 75B to operate with .

Here's the article from the Friday CLE Plain Dealer on Larry Kellner's visit.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/108452724789790.xml


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...
Another Vote Of Confidence For United posted Wed Oct 27 2004 07:21:45 by Mattnrsa
Lehman Bros. Gives Boeing Mixed Vote Of Confidence posted Thu Jun 10 2004 23:46:29 by AvObserver
CommutAir/CO Ink Deal For CLE Flight Expansion posted Mon May 1 2006 22:28:52 by Falcon84
Some Good News For CLE And CO? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 16:16:38 by CLE757
More New CO Service For CLE posted Wed Apr 9 2003 22:26:49 by CLEfan
Length Of Time For Miles To Post To A FFacct posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:37:08 by ASTROJET707
CO MSY-LAX Nonstop..for Three Days!? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 07:37:00 by MSYtristar
Silverjet Signs Letter Of Intent For $37 Million posted Wed Sep 20 2006 11:47:25 by 777ER
LHR Out Of Bounds For Photogs? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 21:55:54 by EZYAirbus
AA Orders 104 Set Of Winglets For 757 posted Wed Jul 19 2006 21:59:29 by NYC777