Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CLE Runway Extension Issues  
User currently offlineMbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.cleveland.com/business/pl...uyahoga/115519905469400.xml&coll=2

I am glad that they are still working on the project as I do think it will help CLE attract new cargo and passenger service. I did, however, get a chuckle out of the quote "The runway extension is needed so 747 and 757 jets that fly to international destinations, such as China, can land at Hopkins during certain weather conditions."

So I guess that we have a new destination for the CO 752s!  Smile


Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5460 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Strike One, Mr. Smith.

11,250 feet (the proposal was already cut from the original 11,500) is the minimum to allow MTOW for MD-11 and 747 freighter versions. A shorter extension is not a meaningful improvement over the existing 9000 ft.

It's got so "delay" is considered a positive step in government.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineMbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was not aware that 11,250 feet is the minimum for MD-11s or 747 & I certainly agree that it would be silly to do any less than the minimum required for MTOW.


Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting Mbm3 (Thread starter):
The runway extension is needed so 747 and 757 jets that fly to international destinations, such as China,

The problem they don't seem to get, is that CLE is under a "double triangle" of aviation traffic, hence the Oberlin flight control center is the USA's busiest. That is because just about all of the major carriers choose to fly out one of these airports within these triangles: first triangle, created between JFK, ORD, and EWR, and the second triangle extends between DTW, CVG, and BOS.

CO already does long-haul operations out EWR: the CLE-LGW/LGW-CLE flights are seasonal, and I have heard that these flights are only partially filled, not much of a money maker for CO.

So the problem is, even with a large, multi-million dollar runway expansion, I doubt it will pay for itself with larger jets and/or more long-haul operations.


User currently offlineDnl65 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

The critical aircraft for CLE is actually the 767-400 as the forecasts didn't predict any heavy freighter traffic at the time the length was determined.

User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

This is pretty standard. In government projects, if the bids are above a certain percentage of the government's (or, more likely, their consultant's) estimate, all bids are automatically rejected, their estimates are redone, and they try again. To guard against this, many engineers pad their estimates when preparing them for the government. Guess they didn't do that enough.

Wish the Plain Dealer could get facts strait. Its an 8,999ft runway.

Anyway, hope they can lure a cargo carrier after all this.

Plus, this should help CO stick around. If I remember right, the 10-year lease is contingent on this extension happening. If CLE doesn't do it, CO would have a legitimate claim to make the lease invalid. Not that I, like so many people on a.net, think CO wants to leave CLE at the first chance.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineNcflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 487 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

N231YE, is CLE somehow capacity constrained due to this double-triangle? I don't get it. . . I know it's busy airspace around CLE but so is the airspace in and around NYC due to 3 humongous airports and other large cities not so far away, yet somehow JFK keeps adding flights to all over the place.

User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 6):
N231YE, is CLE somehow capacity constrained due to this double-triangle? I don't get it. . . I know it's busy airspace around CLE but so is the airspace in and around NYC due to 3 humongous airports and other large cities not so far away, yet somehow JFK keeps adding flights to all over the place.

While I can't speak for him, I think he is referring to CLE being rounded by larger hubs, thus meaning new long haul service will go there instead of CLE. But I could be wrong.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):
and I have heard that these flights are only partially filled, not much of a money maker for CO

LGW has done extremely well from all accounts this summer.

It really doesn't matter how full coach class is; the driving force behind profitability of the route is BizFirst, and this summer, it has been full-with paid fares, most of the summer.

If BizFirst is filled CLE-LGW with alll full-fare customers, it makes a profit for the route ROUND TRIP and everything else is gravy after that.

It'll be back next year and there's a push for another international destination. They really need to fix up Customs first, from what I hear, until CO will seriously consider another route.


User currently offlineRampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
They really need to fix up Customs first, from what I hear, until CO will seriously consider another route.

Agreed. The customs facility at CLE leaves a lot to be desired! And all, (read: BOTH!) of the gates are usually filled with USA3000 birds. It would sure be nice if we had a couple more gates with customs capacities.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Quoting Rampkontroler (Reply 9):
And all, (read: BOTH!) of the gates are usually filled with USA3000 birds.

I really hate it when their ship beats 67 to customs.....


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5460 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3696 times:

If Smith is really thinking of shortening the extension, instead, could the airport use the full length of 6L-24R - to include the xxx-ed out 1000 feet at the north end? That would provide 10,000 feet, and perhaps could be used on an exceptional basis for the few flights that would need more than 9,000?

In that case, the airport could save the whole budget - not that I think this is a good idea.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineSWACLE From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):
and I have heard that these flights are only partially filled, not much of a money maker for CO

LGW has done extremely well from all accounts this summer.

It really doesn't matter how full coach class is; the driving force behind profitability of the route is BizFirst, and this summer, it has been full-with paid fares, most of the summer.

If BizFirst is filled CLE-LGW with alll full-fare customers, it makes a profit for the route ROUND TRIP and everything else is gravy after that.

It'll be back next year and there's a push for another international destination. They really need to fix up Customs first, from what I hear, until CO will seriously consider another route.

I was under the impression that CLE-LGW would not be back next year...this info came from a co workers brother who works over at CO here in CLE..claimed it was a "done deal", but you know how that goes...

Don/WN CLE



Aircraft Flown: SF3 DH8 DH4 328 ERJ CRJ CR7 CR9 E70 E75 D9S M80 712 72S 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 752 318 319 32
User currently offlineNcflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 487 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

The Plain Dealer had a really lousy article (as always their articles on CLE airport are lacking) suggesting that if LHR/Open skies is expanded, CO could cut CLE service to LGW, as 1) there weren't enough slots for CLE-LHR and 2) connecting passengers would be siphoned by DTW and other cities that would begin service to LHR. It was kind of a silly article, why wouldn't those passengers be siphoned off now. Then again CO seems more intent on expanding to small European cities from EWR than flying CLE-LGW year round or adding new CLE-Europe markets. That says something right there.

I wonder if rumors are starting from that article. . . .


User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 13):
Then again CO seems more intent on expanding to small European cities from EWR than flying CLE-LGW year round or adding new CLE-Europe markets.

Recent CO history shows that's a given despite all the rumors, speculation, postulization, bones thrown at CLE, and wishful thinking.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 11):
If Smith is really thinking of shortening the extension, instead, could the airport use the full length of 6L-24R - to include the xxx-ed out 1000 feet at the north end?

AFAIK, the reason why the "new" 6L/24R was built was not only to space it farther from 6R/24L, but also to build the runway farther to the southwest so that it no longer intersected with Runway 10/28. The extension plans include the same for Runway 6R/24L so that we will no longer have any intersecting runways at Hopkins.

The benefit of your idea is, of course, to save time and money; the drawback is that it leaves Hopkins to operate essentially as a single-runway airport when Runway 28 is in mandatory use (Lake Effect snowstorms and thunderstorm squall lines along the lakeshore.) Having the extension to Runway 6R/24L and moving the threshold to, say, Taxiway Whiskey, would allow simultaneous landings on 28 and departures on 24L no matter the MTOW.


redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

Quoting Joeman (Reply 14):
Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 13):
Then again CO seems more intent on expanding to small European cities from EWR than flying CLE-LGW year round or adding new CLE-Europe markets.

Recent CO history shows that's a given despite all the rumors, speculation, postulization, bones thrown at CLE, and wishful thinking.

Again, it goes back to one thing-and being a CLE employee, I don't like to say this-but you're talking the NYC market vs. the Greater Cleveland market. The largerst market in the world, literally, against a larger mid-sized market, to be honest.

Of course EWR will get the first dibs. That's as it should be, purely from an economic standpoint. And IAH beats out CLE as well in that regard.

CLE does fill an important domestic role in CO's system. I think any airline that doesn't have a good midwest hub can't be as successful.

As far as CLE-LGW, I've heard the opposite-that it will be back for next year, because it has more than held its own.

The biggest thing that would help CLE get an AMS or CDG, or even a HNL flight, is a little more critical mass. That hasn't been possible the last two years because of the apron work around C, which has limited CO's space, and I do not know if CO wants to put more flights in here, but it would go a long way to drive the feeder service that could help support such flights.


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 6):
N231YE, is CLE somehow capacity constrained due to this double-triangle? I don't get it. . . I know it's busy airspace around CLE but so is the airspace in and around NYC due to 3 humongous airports and other large cities not so far away, yet somehow JFK keeps adding flights to all over the place.



Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 6):
While I can't speak for him, I think he is referring to CLE being rounded by larger hubs, thus meaning new long haul service will go there instead of CLE. But I could be wrong.

That's correct. Sorry if I made it sound confusing, but needless to say, all of the major carriers do have a hub around Cleveland, thus there is no need for CLE to have Long Haul flights. I.E., NW has flights from DTW, AA from ORD, etc... And for CLE's own hub airline, CO, already utilizes EWR for trans-atlantic flights. Unless CO plans to relieve congestion from EWR and bring some flights to CLE, I doubt that CLE will become a major player in long haul flights.

Remember the proposed runway that was to be built atop the IX Center (yes...the runway proposal that that led Cleveland and Brookpark on a battle over the IX Center)? It was cancelled, due to the exact same reasons as I originally explained (the nearby hubs were actually stated in the reasoning).

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
LGW has done extremely well from all accounts this summer.

I read in a report that this flight provided only modest income, and there was talk that CO may discontinue that flight.

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 13):
The Plain Dealer had a really lousy article (as always their articles on CLE airport are lacking) suggesting that if LHR/Open skies is expanded, CO could cut CLE service to LGW, as 1) there weren't enough slots for CLE-LHR and 2) connecting passengers would be siphoned by DTW and other cities that would begin service to LHR.

That's true too (what you said, not the PD) .


User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 17):
I read in a report that this flight provided only modest income, and there was talk that CO may discontinue that flight

Little tid-bits are starting to surface like in the Plain Dealer report about how CO
couldn't or wouldn't keep the route going if LHR was opened further coupled with posts on this forum and whatever. Just like before 9/11, first the CLE-LGW route was doing "Jolly good" after the first full year of operation per the PD, then only modestly good, then only seasonal. I'll be pleasantly shocked if it isn't kissed good-bye...


User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Quoting Joeman (Reply 18):
'll be pleasantly shocked if it isn't kissed good-bye...



Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 13):
hen again CO seems more intent on expanding to small European cities from EWR than flying CLE-LGW year round or adding new CLE-Europe markets.

I'm sure the dedicated seasonal 757's for CLE-LGW can be better put to use on the EWR-Hooterville (Somewhere on Earth) route because of all that yield coming from about 16 seats.


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting Joeman (Reply 18):

I don't know the validity of the report (it wasn't based from the PD, it was an actual scholarly report), but you are right.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
The biggest thing that would help CLE get an AMS or CDG, or even a HNL flight, is a little more critical mass

You do bring up a good point, why doesn't CO have a CLE-HNL-CLE service?


User currently offlineMbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N231YE (Reply 20):

You do bring up a good point, why doesn't CO have a CLE-HNL-CLE service?

One major reason is a lack of suitable equipment. I have always thought that a weekly flight would do great, perhaps even several time per week in peak season. Unfortunately, there is not a spare 762 or 764 lying around and the only other alterntative would be a one stop via the west coast.



Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 13):
The Plain Dealer had a really lousy article (as always their articles on CLE airport are lacking) suggesting that if LHR/Open skies is expanded, CO could cut CLE service to LGW, as 1) there weren't enough slots for CLE-LHR and 2) connecting passengers would be siphoned by DTW and other cities that would begin service to LHR.

There was also talk that the article from the PD was simply rhetoric from CO to gain local opposition to a "slot-less" EU/LHR open skies deal. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if LGW got dropped, either.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 20):
You do bring up a good point, why doesn't CO have a CLE-HNL-CLE service?

1) Lack of widebodies
2) Plenty of service elsewhere (including CO's own via IAH, LAX, and EWR)
3) Not exactly plentiful O&D (although not to shabby for a city this size this far from Hawaii)
4) See #1

Some have hoped for one stop service via LAX (or some other west coast city) with a 752, but you can already do that (albeit with an aircraft change) at LAX, so what's the need?



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineMbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 22):
Some have hoped for one stop service via LAX (or some other west coast city) with a 752, but you can already do that (albeit with an aircraft change) at LAX, so what's the need?

Unfortunately the timing of the LAX-HNL flight dictates a departure from CLE the evening prior. You are correct that there is already a good amount of options to HNL via IAH and EWR but there are a variety of reasons why a CLE-HNL could work well, including better schedule, easier connections and the like.



Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5460 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting Joeman (Reply 18):
first the CLE-LGW route was doing "Jolly good" after the first full year of operation per the PD, then only modestly good, then only seasonal. I'll be pleasantly shocked if it isn't kissed good-bye...

Just to muddle the discussion with a few facts ...

LGW-CLE (reported by the Civil Aviation Authority of the UK)

Traffic for May, 06 (26 days of operation) 6,725 pax L/F 75.2%
Traffic for June, 06 (30 days of operation) 8,892 pax L/F 86.2%

Relying on above posts by CO employees, I'll assume the front cabin business is good. The June numbers indicate the flight is probably turning away business 2 or 3 days of the week.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
25 Joeman : Thanks for the good news. With the lack of an abundance of convenient connections to points beyond CLE coupled with the aircraft debate which this fo
26 Cle757 : CLE-LGW is already loaded in res starting May 5th 2007, with some good advanced bookings!
27 Highflier92660 : Granted The Plain Dealer writer's knowledge of airport runway design criteria and aircraft type, size and weight characteristics seemed to have been g
28 Ncflyer : When is the tarmac repair work supposed to be done? Once it's done-- that's my only hope for a CO expansion-- heck I'll even take a few bones to be ha
29 N231YE : As far as I know, the part of the tarmac in front of the C concorse is nearing completion. The central de-icing facility is supposed to be ready in N
30 GoCOgo : Oops, I must have been thinking of the schedule for that OGG 752 flight CO tried out of LAX. Anyway, I think there is a potential moneymaker in CLE-H
31 Mbm3 : I agree with you 100%. Honestly, for as much as I would personally love to have a direct flight to HNL from CLE, I would rather see other destination
32 Falcon84 : The final stage of the apron renovation around C will begin shortly, as the renovation between C-14 and C-7 is almost complete. Now, the last part, C
33 N231YE : I didn't know CLE was getting a new control tower. The current one was built in 1988, and doesn't seem that old, but that could be...
34 Falcon84 : Apparently, TSA doesn't like where that "ancient" tower is, for some reason. But that's what is allegedly going to be put there. By the way, it looks
35 Rampkontroler : I don't believe the new tower has anything to do with the TSA per se....the existing one is so small, that when you put the security guards up there b
36 Post contains images Falcon84 : Sounds like they have a personal problem to me, dude. [Edited 2006-08-15 00:07:35]
37 Joeman : I should say, thanks for the 8th year of good news since it began in 1999.
38 Post contains images N766UA : It's Cleveland tower, their problems are vast and varying.
39 SWACLE : Amen to that.
40 N231YE : I've heard about some idiot air traffic controller at CLE who demands that all information is to be said in one radio transmission. Otherwise, if som
41 Joeman : Aren't there any basic across the board guidelines to follow or do controllers dictate policy?
42 N231YE : While one is supposed to keep transmissions as short as possible to free up the radios, to deny any communication to anyone is technically wrong in i
43 MarkTPA : I havent heard of any expansion at CLE, in fact I hear that CO & Express Jet are shrinking the hub. I know the Express Bids are shrinking.
44 Redngold : Somewhat off topic, but then again, every CLE thread goes off topic eventually... Last night was a grand adventure in spotting. While we didn't have a
45 Post contains images Falcon84 : We did indeed have a diversion. CO 552 CMH-EWR landed in CLE at 1938 because both of the transponders were out. We have a 733 waiting here to continu
46 Post contains images MasseyBrown : Corporate Express was Regions' original name. As long as we're off topic, August 28th is the new whisper date for Bradford and Jamestown service. To
47 Redngold : Danged 24 hour clock. I still have problems with 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Change those times to 2215 and 2200, respectively. That's what I gathered - bu
48 Joeman : Maybe CO needs the runways extended for the ERJ's before any expansion back to levels they were in 1999 can happen. Back then and pre-9/11 they neede
49 MasseyBrown : There are several positive points: 1) It's reasonable to conclude that CLE, at the moment anyway, is profitable for CO, based on loads, yields, and 1
50 Joeman : Thanks, I need to be reminded.
51 Post contains images MasseyBrown : Joeman, sorry if I sound like a preachy cheerleader for CLE. I'm just a hardwired optimist; plus I had a great day today. I'll try not to do this ofte
52 Joeman : I wish you would. I'm a cheerleader too, and you have many insights and more knowledge of behind the scenes action. I just try to face what I think I
53 Falcon84 : Actually, we're pretty much back to the pre-9/11 levels of service in CLE. I don't have the exact numbers, but it's pretty close. The big difference
54 MasseyBrown : No, I don't have any special sources or knowledge about CLE aviation. Everything is based on public information and what I think are reasonable deduc
55 Joeman : Well, to both MasseyBrown and Falcon84, I appreciate your input.
56 SWACLE : I've seen one taxi past each and every morning for the last month or so while working our originators over at WN. It is Flt 1045, CLE-IAH departing a
57 Post contains images Redngold : Yah, you'd be lucky to find me out spotting at 0630...
58 GoCOgo : Of further CLE spotter note, a NW 757 just flew passed my house. Presumably, this is NW9960 out of DTW, most likely the Lions charter for their game t
59 MasseyBrown : Thought I'd revive this thread rather than start a new one about CO's fall CLE schedules. With the bulk of the ramp work done, it appears that CO is a
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...
CLE Still Planning Runway Extension posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:30:26 by CLE757
Fll Runway Extension For Heavy Aircraft posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:42:45 by Fll2993
CRW Runway Extension Nears Completion posted Fri Sep 29 2006 16:13:06 by KarlB737
Runway Extension? posted Wed May 10 2006 03:14:10 by MFEFlyer
Cost Of Runway Extension posted Fri Apr 14 2006 09:54:54 by Bestpilot
BHX Runway Extension posted Tue Jan 31 2006 14:25:25 by BHXDTW
YXX Runway Extension posted Thu Nov 3 2005 07:21:00 by Simpilicity
Airport Runway Extension At Klan Almost Done posted Thu Sep 29 2005 01:34:07 by KarlB737
DFW Prepares For Runway Extension This Week posted Tue Sep 6 2005 18:28:29 by KarlB737
Runway Extension At EWR? posted Wed May 19 2004 04:39:06 by Cory6188