Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:29 am

In response to some local media reports that said CO was actively pursuing closing the hub in CLE, CO issued the following statement today:

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES REFUTES REPORTS IT PLANES TO ELIMINATE CLEVELAND HUB

Houston, Sept 22, 2003- Continental Airlines (NYSE-CAL) today issued the following statement in response to media reports that the airlien will possibly close it's hub at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

"Continental Airlines is not planning to eliminate it's hub operations at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The airline has been gradually increasing service this year at Hopkins, our third largest hub and home to more thant 3,000 Continental and Continental Express employees. The airline will continue to adjust its schedule to accomodate seasonal changes in demand, ans it has doen since the hub operation began in 1988.

"For example, the aiarlien on Monday announced new, seasonal nonstop service to Daytona Beach and Sarasota, Fl, along with increased seasonal service to Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and West Palm Beach, Fl, San Juan, PR and Los Angeles. This year, Continental Airlines has introduced nonstop service from Cleveland to 15 cities. In total, Continental offers approximately 250 daily departures from Hopkins to nearly 80 cities.

"Cleveland Hopkins contineues to be the most improtant airport serving Northeast Ohio for its tremendous contribution to the regional economy. The City of Cleveland and Hopkins management have worked hard to reduce costs and to help make air service in Cleveland more productive for all air carriers.

"While the U.S. aviation industry has faced numerous challenges over the past several years, Continental believes that its route network, focused on hubs in Houston, New York, Cleveland and Guam, positions the airline for success."
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:38 am

"We will not cut benefits from OnePass, our industry-leading frequent flyer program, because we remain committed to rewarding our most loyal customers."

-- Gordon Bethune
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:43 am

IndustrialPate, stop being so anal over all of this.

And remember, the OnePass program CAN change at anytime, without out notice. God, but people like you are so cross. Get over it, already.
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:52 am

That quote was from last year, made just a couple weeks before CO made major changes to OP. My point was that if CO would lie about that, why wouldn’t they lie about their position on CLE?

BTW, I’ll re-qualify for NW Platinum in 2004 whether or not they match DL/CO’s 50% EQM. However, it pisses me off when my company pays almost $3K for a DTW-EWR-LGW ticket & I can’t upgrade it but meanwhile persons like Artysman brag they non-rev almost weekly to LGW, often in BF... “Work Hard, Fly Right.”

[Edited 2003-09-24 04:55:24]
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:54 am

So the quote was from last year. Big deal. Things change, or haven't you learned that yet? Apparently not, by the looks of it. But it's really pointless arguing with you on this-you'll stick to being pissed off. Fine by me.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic.
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:56 am

Things change, or haven't you learned that yet?

Things like that don't change in two weeks. CO press releases mean nothing. Bye-Bye Continental (from CLE), hello JetBlue/AirTran!

[Edited 2003-09-24 05:02:05]
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:01 pm

IndustrialPate, life doesn't stand still; neither do businesses. Do I think the situation will change in CLE in a few weeks? No. Could it? Of course it could-anything could happen in a matter of weeks, but maybe you're not smart enough to have figured that out.

Maybe you're stuck in neutral, and think the world doesn't change, but it does, so you can go be bitter about OnePass changing, and let it eat you up, but maybe if that's the case, you should take stock of what's really important in your life.
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:02 pm

didnt CO tell us coloradans that CO was here to stay back in 91?and pena(the mayor) goes and gets us to drink the kool aid and spend the money to build dia look what they did...they deserted den and thousands of employees,i know gordo was not running the mother ship at that time but, its just a matter of time before gordon closes cle as well. i recall they had a hub in iad back in the 80s didnt they??and moved it to cle when ua moved to iad from cle, sounds like a conspiracy to me
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
nickofatlanta
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 1:06 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:04 pm

Alpha 1 - you're the one who's impossible to argue with. Have you ever criticised CO? Even once? It just seems that any time someone criticises CO, you come along and insult them.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:08 pm

Speaking as someone who lives here in CLE, the CLE airport and the new airport director, the new mayor of Cleveland are doing everything to not only keep CO here and there hub in place, they are making improvements to the airport and have lowered fees associated with using the airport across the board for all airlines. So until something happens and I myself doubt it will change anytime soon, it will all be rumors so speculate away it makes a good read.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:12 pm

Maybe if CO actually added frequency to CLE, business travelers would find it attractive... no flights on Saturday to places such as St. Louis? Only two daily, poorly timed flights to Detroit? Up until recently, no year-round service to Seattle...
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:26 pm

...they deserted den and thousands of employees..

I suppose, since CO was losing like $100 million a year, and was doing so for a number of years, shouldn't have mattered?

Have you ever criticised CO? Even once?

Not often, but I have. I have to be honest and say that since Gordon got here, I think he's done a great job. I did critisize the way CO handled the buyback from NW, and thought it would bite us in the ass-and it did, money-wise after 9/11. I will critisize when I think it's warrented.

IndustrialPate, do you not think airlines study markets to death-probably too much, even? Carriers are not going to fly somewhere (with few exceptions like Florida or Vegas) where they don't think money will be made. If the numbers tell them you won't make money CLE-STL on saturdays, then they won't run them. I've seen some of the numbers for saturdays, when full schedules were run-they were atrocious, hence the reduction in service.

Since neither you nor I are privy to all the numbers, I think I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who do deal with those numbers on a daily basis, and adjust the schedules to where they think the money can be made.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:39 pm

Things like that don't change in two weeks. CO press releases mean nothing. Bye-Bye Continental (from CLE)

Does sound likely, IMO. Of course, they'll probably wrap in into a press release saying "Flights increased from CLE to MIA" (and in the fine print..."overall, we are eliminating 80% of all flights from CLE")

 Smile

Steve
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:43 pm

I'll give you that... but as long as I can remember, CLE's never had more than 200-250 daily departures for CO.

- - -

I think it's ridiculous that CO has threatened CLE. No doubt CO has an impact on CLE’s economy, but if CO were to leave, CLE would attract attention from JetBlue, AirTran (both airlines indicated interest in a Midwestern hub), etc. Perhaps the true reason many locals are flocking to CAK is because there’s better service (not just better fares). If that’s the case, who can blame them? CLE will do just fine w/o CO, and I’m certain the opposite’s true.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:46 pm

Does sound likely, IMO.

And, uh, of course, you're privy to some good inside info, right? Another armchair Quarterback who doesn't have a clue.  Laugh out loud

But if you can armchair QB, so can I. I think, for at least the next year or two, the CLE hub is in no jeopardy, save some unforseen event like, God forbid, another 9/11. In that time, it's most likely the economy will continue on a slow improvement. If the CLE hub is still struggling financially when the economy does rebound, and when yields go up, then CO may have no choice but to look hard at the future of the hub. However, if the CLE numbers improve along with the economy and the yields, then I don't think there's any cause for concern at the moment.

And again, for those of you who want things never to change, you're not being realistic. Companies who don't adapt and change will not survive. Change, in some form, is inevitable, so stop worrying about it, or bitching up a storm about it.  Smile
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:48 pm

alpha1,
do u really think co was losing $100 a yr back in the early 90s in den???the only other hub back then was iah....if they were losing that much money, frank and his posse would have pulled out long before that,co was making money in den, why did they do what they did to den by signing a contract to use the entire A concourseamd build that hanger which still has the co name on it in den then announce that we are going bk and cya???
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:51 pm

I think it's ridiculous that CO has threatened CLE.

How has CO threatened CLE in any way? This press release was put out in response to what CO obviously sees as erronious reporting. How is that a threat in any way, shape or form? I don't understand where you get that from.

As for the rest, there have been rumors that JetBlue is interested in coming to CLE, but with the still-high landing fees here, I don't think they'd consider more than a small presence here. And, if fees were to come down, that could only help CO be more viable in CLE, and spur new service. As for Airtran, they seem extremely pleased with their CAK operations, and there's been talk they're going to start up CAK-BWI in the near future.

Would SOME service be made up if CO/COEX left? Certainly. Would enough be made up to really cushion the blow of CO leaving. I doubt it. Looking at the history of carriers in CLE, if CO would leave, after UA did the same a generation ago, I don't think any other carriers would follow in their footsteps for quite a long time.
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:51 pm

alpha1
so u admit that cle is not the cash cow???how much are they losing in cle???if co would throw in a couple of euro flts i think it could work but until then??
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:58 pm

so u admit that cle is not the cash cow???

CLE has never been a "cash cow". I doubt many hubs right now are, among the majors, since most are bleeding money left and right.

how much are they losing in cle???

Right now? A lot. I saw the first half numbers, and they were bad, but the numbers were internal numbers, and I can't share them here. Sorry. The only person I shared them with is B747-437B, so he can vouch for me that it was a lot of money. Many of the employees were showed the numbers, and the numbers also indicate that the losses are decreasing.

if co would throw in a couple of euro flts i think it could work but until then??

A few flights to Europe might be sexy, and, if B-First does well, they will generate some profit, but they're not a cure-all. For all the majors, fares and yields need to rise to a level where profits can be maintained. When CO and other carriers are averaging summer load factors in the low to mid 80% range, that tells you neither fares nor yields are where they should be. There are rumors about CLE-AMS, but that won't, by itself, make the hub consistently profitable.
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:05 pm

How has CO threatened CLE in any way?

Bethune mentioning (more than once, I might add) that CO isn’t afraid of leaving CLE, especially if business travelers continued to fly ex-CAK to save a few bucks, is a threat IMO.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:13 pm

having been accepted to a flight planning job with CO in 1998, I was told that CLE was a "focus city" and most people in that dept (at the time) refused to identify CLE as anything more than that although we all know that it is a hub. I always found that a little odd. They were very hesitant whenever speaking about CLE. They knew IAH and EWR were the money makers. I turned down the job, but have always remebered those odd conversations.

Having said that, from someone who is very neutral to this "arguement," I doubt CO would just pack up and leave CLE anytime soon. Airlines don't walk away from any significant investment nowadays and it would be a PR nightmare if they went against their word now. Not to start another thread here, but where exaclty would they move all those flighst to. Last time I checked, IAH and EWR weren't exacly hanging out "For Rent" signs all over thier airports...
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:19 pm

Bethune mentioning (more than once, I might add) that CO isn’t afraid of leaving CLE, especially if business travelers continued to fly ex-CAK to save a few bucks, is a threat IMO.

I don't see it as a threat, so I guess we differ on that as well.  Smile

I saw it as one thing-a ploy to get the City of Cleveland serious about lowering landing fees. That statement followed shortly after some idiot in City Council said the fees shoudln't be lowered. Fees in CAK are much smaller than in CLE, and the CLE fees-something like the 4th highest in the nation, are just killing the carriers here. That was a gift from the idiot who was mayor up until a year ago. It's the reason WN has never expanded here, and one of the reasons why Airtran and JetBlue aren't here.

The city did lower-temporarily-landing fees by like 18%, or something like 70 cents per 1000lbs landing weight. The city and the carriers, especially CO, are discussing long-term landing fee cuts, and other ways to cut costs for the carriers at Hopkins.
 
kwbl
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:55 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:20 pm

Jusst because an airline says "we are committed to..." does not mean they willl do as they have "promised". 6 months (or less) prior to Delta's announcement that PDX would be closed as it's transpacific hub, DL said "we are committed to PDX being our Asian gateway and are looking to expand". We all know what happened shortly thereafter. IN fact, they even had applied for rights to China from PDX. As someone else mentioned, CO gave the same statements in Denver, AA in STL & SJC & RNO. Airlines are going to do what they think will make them more money so if a year down the road, CO thinks closing CLE as ahub will help their bottom line, they'll do it. Having said that, I do think CO needs to keep the CLE hub for critical mass and Cle seems to be a good fit for them.
 
Guest

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:21 pm

Not to start another thread here, but where exaclty would they move all those flighst to.

You mean planes? It's not a big deal -- CO could retire the MD-80 and park some of the B737 classics if they wanted.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:27 pm

You mean planes? It's not a big deal -- CO could retire the MD-80 and park some of the B737 classics if they wanted.

Easy to say, but we mostly fly 73G's, 738's and 739's out of CLE. There are a few MD-80's, 735's and 733's, but nowhere near as many as there used to be. Again, it would be a big deal, because if you close CLE, it leaves a huge void in the midwest that EWR, for all it's value to the CO system, can't make up for because of capacity constraints.

You make it sound so easy to just pull the plug on CLE, but without a more viable option-and show me one in the midwest right now-it would just mess up CO/COEX's system.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:29 pm

planes, flights, critical mass, service, markets, whatever you want to call you don't just shut a hub down, it involves a massive logistical chess game to re-allocate the ASSETS. HP closed the CMH hub and re-allocated some flying through their PHX and LAS hubs, Chautauqua signed with DL and resumed some of the old HP runs for them and added lots of Florida flying. Heck, my airport gained a DFW flight due to AA's STL reduction. I was just trying to point out that these decisions are like flipping a light switch. "OK, were done with CLE, lets close the hub tommorrow."
 
cdfmxtech
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 11:37 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:02 pm

I love this place. It was just a matter of time before everyone really had (or think they have) something to bitch about Continental for.
Now it is officially Airwhiners.net since no major US airline is safe from being flamed on the inetrnet.  Big thumbs up
 
deltaflyertoo
Posts: 1478
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 3:18 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:05 pm

With all due respect, CLE is the lamest hub of all the US airline hubs in the country. Just glancing the flight schedules in and out of there should give one a clue of how insignificant it is. Furthermore, somebody mentioned it would be a PR nightmare if the pulled out. For who? CO? WHo's going to notice? Here on the west coast, they have a very small presence, so nobody here is going to care, if they even know. This is not the type of story that is going to make the front pages of newspapers here.

Remember, as enthusiasts we pay attention. But most people, don't know what kind of plane they are flying and same with hubs. They won't remember tomorrow what hub they went through (unless they get stranded by some big T storm or blizzard) and as for CLE, they sure as hell won't remember that one!
So no, CO is not worried about PR, what we think, what the people of CLE thinks. CO knows it will be a month of discomfort for the 3000+ people they let go, some negative press, then everyone is over it, life moves on and EWR and IAH are even more on par w/ what AA and DL have at DFW and ATL. CO is keeping CLE around the same reason the other airlines are keeping their money loosing assets-simply put, they don't want to be the first to blink!
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:56 pm

You know, United sent their VP of Operations to Cleveland a while back to tell all the UA employees that CLE was there to stay as a hub. A year later it closed.
This Website Censors Me
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:01 pm

CO knows it will be a month of discomfort for the 3000+ people they let go, some negative press, then everyone is over it

My mom was layed off from Continental over 2 years ago and she's still bitter about it. It's not something you just "get over."
This Website Censors Me
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:14 pm

Just glancing the flight schedules in and out of there should give one a clue of how insignificant it is.

ROTFL. Deltaflyertoo, you don't put a schedule together to look sexy to an armchair quarterback like yourself. You put it togheter to make your operation work, and to make it profitable. Sure, it's be nice to have flights to HNL, CDG, FRA, and the like, but if it doesn't have a chance to be profitable, that kind of defeats the purpose. CLT may not be the sexiest destination, neither is BUF, but on the CO route system, they make money in CLE.  Laugh out loud

Furthermore, somebody mentioned it would be a PR nightmare if the pulled out. For who? CO?

It wouldn't be a PR nightmare, except in a hub city that closes, but it would be a logistics nightmare, and, whther you like it or not, a financial drain on the company, because 1. You will, in effect, have lost the millions of dollars you poured into the hub you're leaving, and 2. You'll need to spend million of dollars to start up a new hub, or to relocate aircraft and employees to other stations.

Here on the west coast, they have a very small presence..

And on that, you base all of your "knowledge". I find that amusing. Here in the Midwest, and on the east coast, CO has a very large presence, and closing a hub would be felt, even if it is a "lame" hub, as you so intelligently put it.

CO knows it will be a month of discomfort for the 3000+ people they let go.

Again, you're not informed correctly on this account. Some employees would be let go, especially newer one; some would retire, some would choose to stay in the smaller station, but when a hub closes like this, and using DEN and GSO as examples, many employees will transfer, and they can transfer damn near anywhere they want to in the CO system. If CLE would close, I could transfer, say to IAH. CO would pay me a stipend for moving expenses, and even give me a pretty generous amount of money toward the down-payment on a new home in IAH, since I'm a homeowner in CLE. That's what happened when DEN and GSO closed as hubs. CO greatly improved the relocation package after mechanics in LAX, who had to relocate in the early '90's because the MX base was closed, were given almost nothing by Lorenzo and Company to relocate.

My mom was layed off from Continental over 2 years ago and she's still bitter about it.

No it is not, but in the climate after 9/11, there's not much the airlines could have done, save cut everyone's pay, and that is a last option at CO, since we've been down that road so many times. Most people I know who got laid off, weren't happy about it, but most understood what was going on at the time. Hope your mom is doing better.
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:51 pm

Alpha1: Thanks. Actually, she's not so bitter about being layed off, it's more that she's angry they wouldn't take her back. See, they layed her off so she decided to finish up college. In the middle of it, they offered for her to come back and she had to decline. About 6 months ago she re-applied at Expressjet abd they actually hired her, but they called about 2 days later saying she wasn't eligable for re-employment. Why? Because of some obscure rule that you must give 2 weeks notice before you leave CO. Mind you she never heard of that rule and also she was applying for another airline really. 2 years after she got layed off she's still looking for a job....
This Website Censors Me
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 1:17 am

I think this thread is interstice about how CLE is a step away from being closed up as a hub, yet there is another thread about the step cuts coming to MEM courtesy of NW!!!! Yet CO is adding flights, even if it is seasonal. I think CLE as a hub is here to stay, and it might go through adjustments, like any business does and should to remain competitive. Tho I think the cuts coming to MEM are a sign of more to come for MEM.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
ncflyer
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:03 am

This is what I wonder. If CLE is a marginal hub at best, then what the heck is CVG for DL? That airport has terrible O&D (and unbelievably high fares, no WN), yet folks never talk about it being marginal. Somehow it is able to support flights to "glamorous" destinations in Europe, has a ton of widebodies, and flies to many destinations that CLE doesn't serve like Chattanooga or Asheville or GSO or Binghamton, or so forth. So, if CLE is a marginal hub, if the financial whizzes at CO say CLE can not support a full schedule on Saturdays, well what in the heck does CO know that DL doesn't?
 
LambertMan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:26 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:16 am

Well first CVG doesnt have outrageously high landing fees(Don't gimme that they are low crap, they aren't even though they lowered them they are still high). Second of all, look CO's fleet compostion compared to DL's. Widebodies are in greater quantities for DL. Another thing with CO is that they have 2 good O/D hubs that can support alot of widebody flights (IAH and EWR). Something that DL doesnt, they have ATL(obvoiusly can support fair number of widebodies due to megahub), CVG(uhh...overflow of widebodies from ATL) and SLC(same deal). Essentially, CVG can support those flights because they dont have 2 good hubs like CO does. EWR and IAH just eat up all the widebodies. CVG just gets lucky in my mind with the DL hub. There is also greater feed in CVG to fill those flights. Keep in mind that CLE did turn DL down in what I want to say the 70's for a hub......WOW, that turned out to be a mistake.  Big thumbs up

[Edited 2003-09-26 03:33:44]
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:21 am

Well first CVG doesnt have outrageously high landing fees(Don't gimme that they are low crap, they aren't even though they lowered them they are still high).

The Cleveland Free Times ran a scathing article on Hopkins Airport in July 2001, and it compared the landing fees in CVG vs. those in CLE. Back then, the fees in CLE were near $4.00 for every 1000lbs landing weight. In CVG, at the same time, the fees wer $0.96/1000lbs. Now, tell me again they aren't low. Even if they've gone up since then in CVG, which I imagine they have, they're still dirt-cheap compared to CLE.
 
LambertMan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:26 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:25 am

Ahh excuse me....I was referring to CLE when I said that. I meant CVG didn't have outrageously high landing fees. Plus, that goes completely against the point I was making. Big thumbs up
 
klwright69
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:28 am

"With all due respect, CLE is the lamest hub of all the US airline hubs in the country." And this is coming from a DL person?

First off, I have flown through DL's "hub" at DFW, and find it pleasant and quaint. It's like a visit to "Sleepy Hollow". I don't have flight activity levels off hand, but I don't find DL's "hub" in DFW any more impressive than CO's "hub" in CLE. It's the same kind of setup, "regional jet city" with a generous little sprinkling of mainline jet service.

I highly doubt CO will leave CLE any time soon. EWR is very congested already. IAH is already pretty enormous. No, EWR and IAH are not AA in DFW or DL in ATL, but they are potent hubs in the marketplace (thanks to removing the focus on DEN, such smart moves dismayed CO's competitors at that time). Leaving CLE now would leave CO with two hubs, which is insufficient critical mass for a hub carrier, no matter how "lame" CLE is. Probably the same reason DL keeps their hublet at DFW, nipping and gnashing at the heels of the colossal AA there. I think the only way CO would leave CLE would be if they found some other city that would be a gold-mine hub that no other carrier ever noticed, which seems unlikely.

Some here have said that CO will pull the plug on CLE like it did in DEN. Sure, they might pull the plug on CLE at SOME POINT in the future. But my, my, my comparing it to DEN just because the words sound familiar is utterly ridiculous. Hmmm...let's see.....the company leadership is different, the company culture is different, the route system is different (CO was stretched thin across four hubs, none of them were well-developed); CO's fleet is more streamlined and efficient and radically different now enabling a different market strategy (no more DC10's, A300s, 727, and only a few MD80's now) last and not least, maintaining their "historical committment" to DEN would have meant the end of the company (and some still seem to hold the closure of the DEN hub against CO... amazing). I doubt CO keeping CLE hub will trigger CO's demise. Goodness gracious, what will people come up with next....
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:30 am

What we have in CLE NOW is a Mayor who is working to make CLE and the airport better than they ever where. Yes landing fees have been lowered even if it was only for a short period of time, that in itself shows that the local government and the airport are working together for once.....
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:36 am

So that's it? IAH and EWR? Surely there is going to be another CO hub on the rise  Big grin
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:40 am

Surely there is going to be another CO hub on the rise.

Where, may I ask? STL? Not with a huge WN presence there. DEN? Not as long as UA is there, DEN, it's been proved, can't support two major hubs. MCI? Three airlines have tried that. Next. IND? Not enough O&D. PIT? Even if US went down the tubes there, it's too close to EWR.

The fact is, there's really nowhere else for CO to go right now. And the economic conditions aren't exactly ideal to closing/starting hubs right now.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:00 pm

Lambertman,
you do realize that Delta has the highest average seat count in the their domestic fleet of any US carrier? that doesn't come because Delta has ATL as the only hub that can support widebody aircraft. Delta has more widebodies in CVG and SLC than other carriers have in comparable hubs because Delta knows how to build hubs better than other carriers. Delta carries more flow traffic than any other carrier in the US and probably the world and they do it by taking cities that have relatively low local traffic bases and make them capable of supporting large amounts of air traffic. That's why Delta and Delta connection serve more domestic cities from CVG than AA or UA serve from ORD, NW does from DTW, CO does from CLE, or US does from PIT. It's why Delta can field 767's from CVG to Florida and the west coast where most other carriers use widebodies.

CVG does not overflow from ATL. A check of Delta's routemap will show that Delta serves a number of unique points from CVG that are not served at all from ATL. Atlanta is a city that has always had way more air traffic than a city of its size should have and alot of it is because Delta learned how to build hubs decades ago and still does it better than anyone else. That's why Delta's operation in ATL is considered the most profitable airline hub in the world by many industry analysts and why CVG and SLC have far more seats to more destinations than comparable cities. When it comes to international service and to serving top US business travel markets, other carriers certainly surpass Delta but Delta has mastered the game of carrying connecting traffic. Delta's hubs will last as long as Delta wants them to and if they shut them down it will only be because they have come up with an airport that is cheaper to operate in and at a city that has bigger local traffic.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:12 pm

WorldTraveler, the biggest reason DL has widebodies/757's in CVG and SLC has nothing to do with how "well" they build a hub; it has to do with the fact that they have to find somewhere to fly all the widebodies they have, and they can't fly every one of them out of ATL.

If CO had the widebodies that DL had, I guarantee you you'd see a lot more widebody/757 flying in and out of CLE: to places like CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO, FLL, IAH, LAX, EWR, SEA, just as DL does in CVG. But the fact is, DL is like 4 to 1 in the numbers of widebodies/757's in comparison to CO, so CO has to really prioritize which routes it's limited number of widebodies/757's operate out of. That's why you see the 753 utiilized differently from season to season, because CO simply doesn't have the size of DL to simply leave a 753 year round on CLE-LAS.
 
LambertMan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:26 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:16 pm

Nicely stated Alpha! Big thumbs up
And btw, I'm sure NW, AA, UA, or US knows how to build a hub. Yawn
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:20 pm

And also, all those widebodies are a double-edge sword. In good times, when seats are full AND yields are high, those widebodies/757's can be cash cows for carriers. But when times are lean, like post 9/11 and with an economy in the toilet, they can be cash pihranna's. One reason CO has weathered the storm better than, say DL, AA and UA is that CO's fleet isn't so dependent on widebodies, and CO hasn't had as many empty seats since the 9/11 horror as possibly DL has.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:21 pm

Well US might need a leason or two on hub building 101 as they seem to be struggling with one of there's at the moment.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:21 pm

WorldTraveler, the biggest reason DL has widebodies/757's in CVG and SLC has nothing to do with how "well" they build a hub; it has to do with the fact that they have to find somewhere to fly all the widebodies they have, and they can't fly every one of them out of ATL.

Not true Alpha 1. DL has done a better job of building the CVG and SLC hubs....which then require widebodies.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:27 pm

Not true Alpha 1. DL has done a better job of building the CVG and SLC hubs....which then require widebodies.

Actually, it is true, Yyz717. Do you think DL did not have an abundance of wide bodies in the late 70's, when CVG opened? Of course it did, and, without those widebodies, they never could have built CVG up into what it was today. If DL had a similar fleet to CO's, as CO's stands now, DL would not have the routes they posess today out of CVG. That's just a fact.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:32 pm

If Delta was simply dumping capacity in CVG and SLC, it would be apparent in their DOT filings based on average fare and load factor. Every indication is that CVG and SLC support the aircraft that Delta flies there and no industry analyst has ever doubted that. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise and share it with the rest of us, accept the fact that Delta is capable of building hubs better than anyone else.

I certainly didn't say that other carriers don't know how to build hubs - only that Delta does it better than anyone else. If you evidence to prove that any other carrier builds hubs (defined as airports that are primarily focused on serving connecting traffic rather than local traffic) better than Delta, then share it. The fact is that ATL is the busiest airport in the world in terms of passengers carried yet has one network carrier hubbing there (Airtran carries something less than 10% of ATL passengers) while ORD has two network carriers there plus is a much larger city. Returning to CVG and SLC, tell me any other airport in the world that has as many seats on as many flights to as many destinations as Delta provides in cities the size of CVG or SLC and I'll believe that another carrier is as good as Delta at hub building I have yet to see it.

Again, I have no problems with giving credit to a company for doing what they do well and Delta certainly has no shortage of problems but they do know how to build hubs and to make them operate profitably (of course, a relative term in today's industry).
 
zrs70
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 4:08 am

RE: CO Issues Statement On CLE

Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:34 pm

Which airlines have hubbed (or mini hubbed) in CLE in the past?

UA
NW
US

What did those carriers do wrong?
17 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2016

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 7BOEING7, airzona11, atlflyer, b377, Baidu [Spider], falstaff, javier787, jbs2886, LeCoqFrancais, PA515, PlanesNTrains, Teganuma, TNST3B, Tokushima and 295 guests