Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would It Make Sense For WN To Move To A At Cle?  
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2600 times:

If US were to fold, it would free up 4 gates at CLE's concourse A. These together with TWAs 2 gates would make 6 unoccupied gates in A. Would it make sense for WN to move to the nicer and newer concourse A and be able to expand?


This Website Censors Me
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

What's your point?


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

Not that it answers your question.

FLL started building "Con B" 6 months early then planed.
It will house WN giving it 9 gates. That is 5 more that it has now at "Con F"

Con B should open in mid summer.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineJaseWGTN From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

N766UA:

I don't have a "point"

Purely for information the map is. I didn't know where WN flew to/from CLE so I did some homework and just thought other people might be interested in seeing where they fly to/from CLE

Sorry  Sad


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Oh okay. No prob. I just thought you were trying to prove something.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3867 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Personally, I don't think it would make sense for WN to do this. They've already made it quite clear to CLE that they will not be adding additional flights until CLE gets its act together. WN currently has, I believe, 21 daily departures out of CLE and they already have 4 gates on the B concourse. That's only 5 departures per gate per day. They could easily double their number of daily departures out of CLE before their current 4 gates would be maxed out.

It costs money to move and right now, I think that mone could be better spent elsewhere.

LoneStarMike

User currently offlineMarc Kobaissi From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2508 times:


No.



User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

LoneStarMike's right.....the Cleveland Dept. of Port Control, which runs the airport, has to clean up its act in a big way. DPC has long been a dumping ground for political-appointee friends of mayors, who have proven incompetent to run airports. Principally, they treat the airlines arrogantly, keeping landing fees high, refusing to build additional gate space for new tenants, and generally dragging their feet in most business matters with the airlines. And of course the constant bungling of runway expansion.

If landing fees were lower, Southwest has made clear that they're interested in expanding at CLE. No big surprise there. They could probably easily run a station three times the size of what they have now, maybe bigger. It's enough to make one wonder if CO has quietly persuaded the city hacks to keep fees high, in order to discourage WN from expanding at one of CO's hubs. High landing and rental fees probably cost CO less, than would the lost yields from a big WN station.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

WN has a very nice set of gates on Concourse B, so why would they want to move to A, which they'd have to redo and renovate all over again? They should stay where they are.

It's enough to make one wonder if CO has quietly persuaded the city hacks to keep fees high, in order to discourage WN from expanding at one of CO's hubs. High landing and rental fees probably cost CO less, than would the lost yields from a big WN station.

Yeah, right!! You REALLY think CO his happy paying the 3rd highest landing fees in the country? Higher than at either EWR or IAH. Think again. If old Mike White doesn't impose these ludicrous fees on CO at CLE, then 1. you'd have a far better mix of mainline and RJ's at CLE for CO; 2. You'd have a 767 on CLE-LGW, and probably some 757's on other domestic routes and 3. You'd have already seen CLE with closer to 400 flights a day than the current 250 or so it now has.

Fact it that CO has been VERY upset with CLE ever since Mike White's hatchet-woman, Lovon Sheffield-McClain, walked in to Gordon's office, showed him the landing fees that CLE was proposing, and promptly got her ass kicked out of his office. Yes, WN would be able to expand, but doubling their flight to 40 a day will not seriously hurt CO in CLE if their hub is running 400 flights a day.



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Read about just how happy CO (and WN) are with CLE.

http://freetimes.com/issues/1009/features-coverstory.php3


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Concourse B is a dump. The security lines are miles long. A is wider, newer, and easier. In the best case scenario (competence overrules ignorance at CLE) and WN expands would a move be warrented?


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Having lived near Cleveland for four years in the early 1990's and flown both US Airways and Continental extensively during that time, I am very familiar with CLE and the A and C concourses. I also remember what C was like before it was remodeled.

Concourse A is just as much a dump as Concourse B. It has an awkward layout. It's only redeeming feature is that it has a view onto the runway and you can see planes take off and land quite well. The entire airport is badly in need of a makeover to match Concourse D. It is a compact airport but it is nothing to brag about. It has not changed much and it seems to be an afterthought in the minds of Cleveland's government.

The last time I flew through CLE was in 2000 from EWR, on my way to MSY. I recall that Terminal A has the international gate (I assume that the LGW flight used this gate for arrivals and will do so again when it is restarted in April), US Airways, US Airways Express, Metrojet (now gone), TWA, Skyway, and American Airlines and Eagle and that the sports teams also used it for their charter flights.

Concourse B houses United, United Express, Delta, the Delta Connection, and Southwest.

Concourse C is Continental, Northwest, and Concourse D is Continental Express.

Has any of this changed?

I remember the days when JAT (Yugoslav Airlines) flew to Cleveland.

ContinentalEWR



User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

You are correct, EWR. Remember Condor and LOT too?


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

I've been hearing some quiet rumors that CO is going to approach the city this year about renovating and expanding C for upcoming CO/COEX expansion. I still thin the first step for expansion by anyone in CLE is to lower the outrageous landing fees here.

User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

No doubt, CO doesn't like the high landing fees at CLE. Yes, I read the Cleveland Free Times article when you posted in the first time Alpha1, and I remember the wonderful meeting with Bethune to tell him about the higher fees.

But CO might seriously make more money with 250 flights a day at higher yields, than they would with 400 and a large WN presence.

If the landing fees were cut by say 60 or 70 percent, and WN ramped up from 21 to say 60 flights (very easy to imagine over a 2 or 3 year period), CO could be in big yield trouble. WN would likely add heavily on routes like BWI, STL, MDW, PVD/ MHT, MCO, TPA, FLL, PHX, LAS, BNA, HOU, and maybe ISP. Many of those city-pairs are flown heavily by CO from CLE, even if not always to the same airport.

This is of course a theory on my part. You could be completely right, Alpha; CO might make even more money with 400 flights a day and a larger WN presence. It all depends upon the calculus of per-seat yield versus pax traffic and runway fee for aircraft size, on various routes. Which I for one am not in a position to figure out.

But at least to my observation, such rational considerations don't always determine airline decisions about their business dealings with airports. They might apply very careful cost/ benefit calculations to individual routes and practice careful yield management on a route-by route basis. But airports seem to be a different matter.

WN is the one airline that can really ruin yields for the majors at just about any airport, and they are feared. Remember in Hard Landing, how Bob Crandall up and fled SJC simply at the *news* that WN was entering into that market heavily?

BTW, I agree about Concourse B--it's very cramped. Did CLE ever get the additional security-screening stations put in? The ones famously delayed by the 3-year process to move the adjacent Victoria's Secret merchandise-storage room? I remember waiting a long time at security at B in 1998 and thinking, they need more screening stations.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
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...
Why It Makes Sense For Airlines To Keep The A380 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 05:06:27 by WingedMigrator
It Does Not Make Sense For Airlines To Lose Money posted Fri Mar 18 2005 06:24:08 by Tonytifao
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:29:01 by JEdward
US To PTY On February, Does It Make Sense? posted Fri Jan 14 2005 15:26:59 by CM767
Ways For WN To Boost Profits? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 22:50:39 by Clickhappy
Possible For WN To Have 500 737s? posted Mon Jul 22 2002 00:31:40 by FlagshipAZ
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
How Long Would It Take For A King Air To Impact? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 17:47:04 by Lenbrazil
UAL To Make Bid For NW? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 16:16:08 by B777A340Fan
It's Airbus' Turn To Be Humble At Air Show posted Thu Jul 13 2006 08:24:20 by Leelaw