N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7991 posts, RR: 27 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1434 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?
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3641 posts, RR: 38 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1339 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.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1319 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.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1315 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.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1304 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.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1295 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.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1287 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.