TriJetFan1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 8 Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5706 times:
Hi all CLE fans, just wondering how the rumors about the CLE-AMS and CLE-CDG are doing, if they are any closer to reality. And I heard something about pacific rim routes from CLE on here, I dont remember wich thread it was but I was just wondering whats going on with that. Thanks, post any CLE info or thoughts!
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12006 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5516 times:
Wish it was true, tho most likely a rumor, being from CLE can an ERJ145ER make that distance. JUST KIDDING. I feel in time we will see growth in CLE, especially now that PIT is downsizing quicker than a bride on Jenny Craig before her wedding.......
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 449 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
trijetfan, that pacific rim stuff was the biggest non-rumour I've ever seen. CLE issues a press release www.clevelandairport.com (the worst airport website imaginable) stating that a 2000 foot runway extension would ENABLE service to the Pacific Rim. Doesn't mean a darn thing without an airline stating they would do it. . . maybe a cargo flight. But it's a non-rumour.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4957 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5448 times:
You won't see any significant growth at CLE for a long time to come--their landing fees are still astronomical, which is part of the reason CO doesn't route more 757s or any 767/777 flights through there.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 449 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5425 times:
You know, everyone talks about landing fees, but what about terminal rental fees for gates and check-in, that's got to figure in to the costs as well, but it never gets a mention. I'm pretty convinced that if CLE were such an expensive place to operate, CO would have been long gone. It's not like the O&D is so stellar, and Gordon watches his pennies and that's why CO has done better than most.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5366 times:
all CLE fans, just wondering how the rumors about the CLE-AMS and CLE-CDG are doing...
Still just rumors, as far as I can tell, and probably at least a year off-maybe until 6L/24R (is that right? ), is fully expanded over 11,000. And it won't be both, unless the economy really takes off. It would be one or the other. My money is on AMS.
And I heard something about pacific rim routes from CLE on here..
The only think viable in the "rim" would be HNL on the eastern end of that "rim", as it were. Anything else, I don't think CLE has the traffic to support. I still think a HNL a few times a week would be packed all the time.
Kim777fan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5171 times:
WN couldn't have found the landing fees and other costs all THAT exhorbitant.
But that's something the airport authority may need to work out with CO if they want to get that flight to HNL and or OGG. With CO's impending membership in Sky Team, maybe CLE would also want non-stop flights to Sky Team gateway airports like CDG and AMS without having to connect through EWR. A little flexibility could bring a lot of benefits, especially as more and more customers are looking to avoid connecting through ORD on UA or AA.
CLE and CO need to be flexible to sieze on an opportunity to possibly steal some of that traffic away from ORD.
Kim777fan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3291 times:
"They can only support the LGW services during the summer!!"
Maybe, but what would be a bigger destination for Clevelanders, HNL/OGG in the Fall/Winter/Spring or LGW in the summer?
Also, LGW doesn't provide the connection opportunites that AMS would with Sky Team partner KLM hubbed there (along with CSA, another Sky Team member), or CDG with connections to AF flights (and OK again).
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
Bascially not adding anything new, but here we go.....
CLE-LGW will return to year round service, the question is not IF but WHEN. We may see 4 times per week service on the route for the Winter 2005 schedule (ie, schedule effective 1st November 2005), or we may not, nothing has been decided yet, except that CO would like to operate the CLE-LGW route 12 months per year as soon as practical.
CLE-AMS or CLE-CDG is talked about, but nothing concrete, these routes will not happen unless and until CO is full and active member in SkyTeam, and even then nothing is certain. It will be one route or the other, CO will not open both routes up as there is not enough O & D traffic to support the routes and CO is not going to go into competition with itself by diverting traffic away from EWR to feed the CLE flights. If it does happen, my bet would be on AMS, AMS is a great airport for European connections and CO has a better relationship at the moment with KL than it does with AF even if KL and AF are technically one company. If either of these routes are opened, it will be flown with a CO 757 with multiple airline codes.
CLE-Pacific is not going to happen anytime soon - simply not enough traffic and CO does not have the aircraft to allocate to the route. As pointed out, there has been talk of a weekly CLE-HNL flight, say a 767 operating EWR-CLE-HNL, but even that is a long shot. With CO recently announcing the HNL-NGO route, which will be flown daily with a 764, and CO having filed for a daily IAH-EWR-Lagos flight with a 762, plus next summer may finally bring another IAH-Europe flight (could be F R A or Madrid - depending on who you talk to), CO simply does not have any widebody capacity to spare.