User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:13 pm

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!
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:13 am

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.
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:21 am

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!
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:37 am

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.
 
dnl65
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 5:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:09 am

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.
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:44 am

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"
 
ncflyer
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:53 am

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.
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:52 am

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"
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:29 am

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
rampkontroler
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:11 pm

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.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:35 pm

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.....
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:01 pm

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.
 
swacle
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:41 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:39 pm

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
 
ncflyer
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am

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. . . .
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:01 am

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.
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:49 am

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!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:58 am

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:27 am

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) .
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:49 am

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...
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:55 am

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.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:59 am

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 avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:04 am

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!
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:06 am

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 avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:12 am

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!
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:03 pm

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.
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 24):
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.

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 forum has as many enthusiasts saying the 757 is a turnoff as those that say folks don't care and all three points having been brought up many times, the future should be interesting.
 
cle757
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:28 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:44 am

CLE-LGW is already loaded in res starting May 5th 2007, with some good advanced bookings!
Cleveland the best location in the Nation
 
highflier92660
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:25 am

Granted The Plain Dealer writer's knowledge of airport runway design criteria and aircraft type, size and weight characteristics seemed to have been gleened from the back of a breakfast cereal box. But beyond that, the article suggests that the Hopkins runway extension is going to be headed into a political back burner unless powers-that-be (read Continental) don't force the issue.

At the dawn of the jet age in the late fifties, then airport director John Doyle begged, warned and pleaded that for Hopkins to be competitive in the international airport arena it would need 12,000 foot runways - remember those were the days if the old ground hog water-wagons. Instead the usual Cleveland compromise was put into place, and two generations later Hopkins still has the 9,000 ft. end result.

I would love for those in the loop, particularly Falcon84 and RampKontroler, to keep their ears open in the coming months to find out how this issue plays out.
 
ncflyer
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:13 am

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 happy. Maybe once it's done CO will be willing and able to bring more feed in here to support service such as Honolulu. . . .
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:32 am

Quoting Ncflyer (Reply 28):
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 happy. Maybe once it's done CO will be willing and able to bring more feed in here to support service such as Honolulu. . . .

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 Novemeber...
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting Mbm3 (Reply 23):
Unfortunately the timing of the LAX-HNL flight dictates a departure from CLE the evening prior

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-HNL, but there are just too many other larger fish to fry elsewhere and too few large jets to go around (and by larger fish, I mean higher yielding international routes)

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 27):
I would love for those in the loop, particularly Falcon84 and RampKontroler, to keep their ears open in the coming months to find out how this issue plays out.

Hopefully I can get in the loop myself soon. I (barring additional obstacles, as the hiring process takes forever) will be getting a job with the city, and while it's not in port control (water dept., actually), hopefully I can hear some things through the grapevine.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:27 am

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 30):
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-HNL, but there are just too many other larger fish to fry elsewhere and too few large jets to go around (and by larger fish, I mean higher yielding international routes)

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 destinations in the islands added to the schedule first, such as KOA and LIH from a west coast gateway.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 29):
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 Novemeber...

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-1 thru C-5 will commence.

The plan, as I understand it, will mean C-1 and C-2 won't ever becoming back, as that's the area that a new control tower for CLE is to be built on. CO will be taking over ownership of C-10 and C-8 from NW, and will be renovating those gates shortly after taking ownership of them.

And the de-icing pad is on schedule for opening this winter.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
new control tower for CLE

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...
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:30 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 33):
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...

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 like they were getting to paint in the J-Line at C-14 today, as the Jetway was back down to it's normal posltion, so it won't be long till 14 thru 7 is up and running. Although there still is some concrete that needs to be poured still, near the end of the current work by C-7.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
rampkontroler
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:54 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:05 am

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 by the elevators, it gets quite crowded. But more importantly, the controllers have complained for some time now that they have difficulty seeing the Southeast side of the field, especially behind the IX Jet Center. In addition, the TRACON is very crowded with no room for backup scopes.
Plus, the controllers want some additional height for the future longer runway ...(IF we ever get it!)
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting Rampkontroler (Reply 35):
Plus, the controllers want some additional height for the future longer runway ...(IF we ever get it!)


Sounds like they have a personal problem to me, dude.  Big grin

[Edited 2006-08-15 00:07:35]
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:07 am

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 24):
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.



Quoting Joeman (Reply 25):
Thanks for the good news.

I should say, thanks for the 8th year of good news since it began in 1999.
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:15 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36):
Sounds like they have a personal problem to me, dude.

It's Cleveland tower, their problems are vast and varying.  silly 
This Website Censors Me
 
swacle
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:41 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:11 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 38):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36):
Sounds like they have a personal problem to me, dude.

It's Cleveland tower, their problems are vast and varying.

Amen to that.
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
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:02 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 38):
It's Cleveland tower, their problems are vast and varying.

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 someone doesn't, he just refuses to speak to the person.
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:18 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 40):
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 someone doesn't, he just refuses to speak to the person.

Aren't there any basic across the board guidelines to follow or do controllers dictate policy?
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:28 am

Quoting Joeman (Reply 41):
Aren't there any basic across the board guidelines to follow or do controllers dictate policy?

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 itself. As a matter of fact, the idea of using less often does not mean more; it can lead to confusion and even runway incursions. I do know of several complaints over this jerk, but do not know their status.
 
MarkTPA
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:54 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:04 pm

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.
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:56 am

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 any diversions, I saw a few "new/interesting" things...

1) Two RegionsAir planes took off within fifteen minutes of each other, around 1800. Do they use "CorpEx" as a callsign? I couldn't hear it quite clearly enough.

2) A CO 737-900 arrived - first time I've seen a -900 in months.

3) Northwest brought in a DC-9(-30) at 2015 and turned it in half an hour.

4) Birdstrike at midfield at about 2000. A CO 737(-700?) smacked into one of a flock I'd watched hovering around the airport since 1800. Damage was limited to one of the running lights and one dearly departed sparrowhawk... And Runway 24L was closed for about 1/2 hour until ops cleaned up the glass and carcass.


redngold
Up, up and away!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:12 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 44):
. While we didn't have any diversions

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 continue the trip to EWR.

Quoting Redngold (Reply 44):
1) Two RegionsAir planes took off within fifteen minutes of each other

And what's even more amazing, is they were both ON TIME!  Big grin
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 44):
Do they use "CorpEx" as a callsign? I couldn't hear it quite clearly enough.

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 me Corpex sounds too much like corpse.  Sad
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:18 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 44):
3) Northwest brought in a DC-9(-30) at 2015 and turned it in half an hour.
4) Birdstrike at midfield at about 2000. A CO 737(-700?) smacked into one of a flock I'd watched hovering around the airport since 1800.

Danged 24 hour clock. I still have problems with 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Change those times to 2215 and 2200, respectively.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 46):
Corporate Express was Regions' original name.

That's what I gathered - but a far cry from the Junkstream 31s that the last "Corporate Express" flew as "Midway Connection."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 45):
CO 552 CMH-EWR landed in CLE at 1938

...about the time I turned off my scanner and left to do some end-of-the-day chores. I came back at 2200 to watch the heavies take off.
Up, up and away!
 
joeman
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:46 am

Quoting MarkTPA (Reply 43):
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.

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 needed another runway before further expansion could take place, reduction of course happened instead attributable to 9/11, and then there's the current reduced gate issue because of tarmac revitalization, and now Express bids are apparently shrinking.

That's a hell of a long time of rhetorik and patterns for so many CLE enthusiasts not to wake up to what it's minor role in the CO system truly is.

On the positive side, Regions Air is still trying to establish reliable service to West Virginia on CO behalf and there's Commutair expected to come to the plate to fill in Expressjet voids. Although enthusiasts wish Commutair might actually add destinations, and who knows if they might, it's unlikely to not be at the expense of loosing something else which prolongs the ever changing shuffle of schedules and destinations CLE's "hub" carrier offers.
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CLE Runway Extension Issues

Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:06 pm

Quoting Joeman (Reply 48):
On the positive side, Regions Air is ...

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 10-Q reports that the regional operators are now profitable for CO - not just for themselves.

2) CO is allowing/encouraging CommutAir to spend $37 million on new planes specifically for CLE; I don't think CommutAir would make that bet-the-company investment without some assurances that CO will be around to fill those planes.

3) CLE traffic is up about a million pax a year over 2003 and continues to grow, although at a slower rate.

4) CLE's 4Q/05 fare yield (16.91 cents) beats NYC (15.02 cents) and isn't far behind IAH (17.40 cents).

5) Smaller cities are requesting CLE service as opposed to alternative hubs. BFD, JHW, LNS, PKB, MGW, and CKB (have I got all those codes right?) in written DOT testimony asked for CLE flights in preference to PIT. This is not to pick on PIT; IAD, PHL, DTW, and CVG could have been reasonable alternatives but were NOT requested either.

There is a lot on the bright side if you want to see it. Of course all that could blow away in a UA merger.