Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 580 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3284 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.
Markus From United States of America, joined May 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3157 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.
Dan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3067 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.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
IAHERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 677 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2873 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.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2784 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.