avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:20 pm

pmanni1 wrote:
CLE-MKE: 74%
I wonder how long WN will keep this around. Odd spoke to spoke pairing to begin with.


I don’t forsee this route being cut. It performs rather well considering its running 2x daily. Southwest also has a monopoly on the route — they’d be stupid to get rid of it.
 
plinth857
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:37 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:28 pm

greenair727 wrote:
^Interesting, thanks. LGA stands out for all airlines as surprisingly low LF. Perhaps the high capacity accounts for this, sustained by relatively high fares? Also surprising was United Airlines: CLE-SFO: 70%. Why so low? What's not surprising: United Airlines: CLE-BOS: 78%--and they drop the route.....as this is, after all, UA.


Interestingly, LGA now appears as a common connection point when I search for itineraries on Delta. It's appeared before, but at a substantially higher price. Now it is the same cost as connecting in ATL or DTW, which hasn't been the case for the past few years.
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:30 pm

greenair727 wrote:
^Interesting, thanks. LGA stands out for all airlines as surprisingly low LF. Perhaps the high capacity accounts for this, sustained by relatively high fares? Also surprising was United Airlines: CLE-SFO: 70%. Why so low? What's not surprising: United Airlines: CLE-BOS: 78%--and they drop the route.....as this is, after all, UA.


Re LGA, agreed, they seem to have reached an equilibrium, I’m curious if they’re making money on this route, DL flies 70 seaters (with F class), UA flies 50 seaters and AA has the 44 seaters deployed; I fly this route a few time a month, fares (for reg economy) seem to be consistently 250 if booked 2-3 weeks in advance, 350 for 1-2 weeks out and 450 for close in bookings across carriers. Given the frequency stability (ex seasonal adjustments) we’ve seen over the past few years I suspect performance is pretty good.
1.4mm and counting...
 
ncflyer
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:29 pm

LGA loads seem to be low any time they are posted in a discussion group-- I remember seeing them in the PIT forum and same story. I guess the airlines have determined-- or consumers have demanded-- that the LGA be served with frequent service, even if we are paying for a lot of empty seats. What's surprising to me is that DL doesn't blow away AA and UA on load factor to LGA. Their planes are about 100x nicer and they are now the frequency leader.

It being March it's not surprising that Florida kills it on all airlines. It's been written here and elsewhere that F9 is beating NK in CLE but NK has some damn nice load factors too that is good to see. I've never understood why AA to MIA has lower capacity than CMH/PIT/IND, these numbers make me wonder that even more.
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:53 pm

^94% on CLE-MIA on AA is respectable. Remember, for CLE-Southern FL there are quite a few options.
 
plinth857
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:37 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:32 pm

greenair727 wrote:
^94% on CLE-MIA on AA is respectable. Remember, for CLE-Southern FL there are quite a few options.


It's too bad that many of those flights are on the E145. I was just on a MIA-CLE leg... 3 hours is a long time to be on one of those (and they don't have wireless available). Sometimes, it's on an E175, but not often enough, if you ask me!
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:43 pm

avtcle wrote:
March 2019 numbers are out! Here's a list of CLE LF's

03-2019
American Airlines
CLE-MIA: 94%
CLE-CLT: 91%
CLE-DFW: 82%
CLE-PHL: 83%
CLE-ORD: 75%
CLE-JFK: 71%
CLE-LGA: 67%


Appreciate the numbers, avtcle.

AA is sure having its problems lately. They admit trouble with their mechanics; based on recent experience, I think the rampies are in on it, too. Despite this I fly them DCA-CLE, where the planes seem near-full even though they always use DCA's dreaded Gate 35X - a cattlecar bus from the terminal to the plane. Statistically, their loads on this route are usually no better than the low-80s, although it's another high fare route.
 
SgtBarone
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:20 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:04 pm

avtcle wrote:
pmanni1 wrote:
CLE-MKE: 74%
I wonder how long WN will keep this around. Odd spoke to spoke pairing to begin with.


I don’t forsee this route being cut. It performs rather well considering its running 2x daily. Southwest also has a monopoly on the route — they’d be stupid to get rid of it.

Quite a few corporate connections between the two cities, especially Eaton, Rockwell Automation, and Johnson Controls. Probably one of the main reasons WN instantly picked up the route after UA dropped it. One of my friends works for Rockwell and she said that employees are ferried between the two cities constantly for training, meetings, etc.
AGP ATL BCN BNA BOS CLE CLT DCA DEN FLG FLL FRA IAD IAH JAX LAX LGB MAD MCI MDW MKE MUC PHX RDU RSW SEA SJU SLC SNA TPA
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:56 pm

SgtBarone wrote:
avtcle wrote:
pmanni1 wrote:
CLE-MKE: 74%
I wonder how long WN will keep this around. Odd spoke to spoke pairing to begin with.


I don’t forsee this route being cut. It performs rather well considering its running 2x daily. Southwest also has a monopoly on the route — they’d be stupid to get rid of it.

Quite a few corporate connections between the two cities, especially Eaton, Rockwell Automation, and Johnson Controls. Probably one of the main reasons WN instantly picked up the route after UA dropped it. One of my friends works for Rockwell and she said that employees are ferried between the two cities constantly for training, meetings, etc.


Actually Southwest added CLE-MKE twice-daily while UA* was stil operating it with CRJ's twice daily. And it was added during the tight-fleet period in later 2017 when Southwest was adding virtually no new flying anyplace.

And then to the surprise of many United did not quickly cancel the CRJ's as soon as WN announed like they did when Southwest announced CLE-STL. United continued to run the CRJ for several months after Soutwhest started in spite of the lower fares WN brought.

A.net has countless posts where someone asserts that becaue Company X has something in two different cities that nonstop service is obviously justified based on business travelers, but it would appear this is actually one where it is true. There are countless city pairs around the country in the 250-500 mile range which lost nonstop service as hubs closed which nobody picked up. CLE-MKE appears to have ample local demand to make it worth not just someone serving it but two airlines actually having fought a bit over. .
 
VetteDude
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:41 am

I'm pretty sure WN cut one of the MDW flights around the time they started MKE. They are at full capacity at MDW, so my theory has always been that the CLE-MKE flights are reliever flights to that region. Seems to be popular enough and it's a route I've flown quite a few times now, I would be sad if it ever went away.
 
pmanni1
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:21 am

knope2001 wrote:
SgtBarone wrote:
avtcle wrote:

I don’t forsee this route being cut. It performs rather well considering its running 2x daily. Southwest also has a monopoly on the route — they’d be stupid to get rid of it.

Quite a few corporate connections between the two cities, especially Eaton, Rockwell Automation, and Johnson Controls. Probably one of the main reasons WN instantly picked up the route after UA dropped it. One of my friends works for Rockwell and she said that employees are ferried between the two cities constantly for training, meetings, etc.


Actually Southwest added CLE-MKE twice-daily while UA* was stil operating it with CRJ's twice daily. And it was added during the tight-fleet period in later 2017 when Southwest was adding virtually no new flying anyplace.

And then to the surprise of many United did not quickly cancel the CRJ's as soon as WN announed like they did when Southwest announced CLE-STL. United continued to run the CRJ for several months after Soutwhest started in spite of the lower fares WN brought.

A.net has countless posts where someone asserts that becaue Company X has something in two different cities that nonstop service is obviously justified based on business travelers, but it would appear this is actually one where it is true. There are countless city pairs around the country in the 250-500 mile range which lost nonstop service as hubs closed which nobody picked up. CLE-MKE appears to have ample local demand to make it worth not just someone serving it but two airlines actually having fought a bit over. .


Walk up fares for today for one way CLE-MKE are $199. Whereas CLE-MDW are $264 and CLE-STL are $312. 2 weeks out CLE-MKE are just $101. Doesn't seem profitable.
 
VetteDude
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:03 pm

pmanni1 wrote:
knope2001 wrote:
SgtBarone wrote:
Quite a few corporate connections between the two cities, especially Eaton, Rockwell Automation, and Johnson Controls. Probably one of the main reasons WN instantly picked up the route after UA dropped it. One of my friends works for Rockwell and she said that employees are ferried between the two cities constantly for training, meetings, etc.


Actually Southwest added CLE-MKE twice-daily while UA* was stil operating it with CRJ's twice daily. And it was added during the tight-fleet period in later 2017 when Southwest was adding virtually no new flying anyplace.

And then to the surprise of many United did not quickly cancel the CRJ's as soon as WN announed like they did when Southwest announced CLE-STL. United continued to run the CRJ for several months after Soutwhest started in spite of the lower fares WN brought.

A.net has countless posts where someone asserts that becaue Company X has something in two different cities that nonstop service is obviously justified based on business travelers, but it would appear this is actually one where it is true. There are countless city pairs around the country in the 250-500 mile range which lost nonstop service as hubs closed which nobody picked up. CLE-MKE appears to have ample local demand to make it worth not just someone serving it but two airlines actually having fought a bit over. .


Walk up fares for today for one way CLE-MKE are $199. Whereas CLE-MDW are $264 and CLE-STL are $312. 2 weeks out CLE-MKE are just $101. Doesn't seem profitable.


And you know that how??? Please let us know the per seat variable costs as well as fixed costs to operate this flight so we know how you came up with the determination that it's unprofitable. Thank you.
 
pmanni1
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:51 pm

VetteDude wrote:
pmanni1 wrote:
knope2001 wrote:

Actually Southwest added CLE-MKE twice-daily while UA* was stil operating it with CRJ's twice daily. And it was added during the tight-fleet period in later 2017 when Southwest was adding virtually no new flying anyplace.

And then to the surprise of many United did not quickly cancel the CRJ's as soon as WN announed like they did when Southwest announced CLE-STL. United continued to run the CRJ for several months after Soutwhest started in spite of the lower fares WN brought.

A.net has countless posts where someone asserts that becaue Company X has something in two different cities that nonstop service is obviously justified based on business travelers, but it would appear this is actually one where it is true. There are countless city pairs around the country in the 250-500 mile range which lost nonstop service as hubs closed which nobody picked up. CLE-MKE appears to have ample local demand to make it worth not just someone serving it but two airlines actually having fought a bit over. .


Walk up fares for today for one way CLE-MKE are $199. Whereas CLE-MDW are $264 and CLE-STL are $312. 2 weeks out CLE-MKE are just $101. Doesn't seem profitable.


And you know that how??? Please let us know the per seat variable costs as well as fixed costs to operate this flight so we know how you came up with the determination that it's unprofitable. Thank you.

That was stated as opinion not fact. Who knows maybe it's gangbusters profitable. Selling $59 tickets just 4 weeks out could be profitable but its unlikely.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:41 pm

pmanni1 wrote:
Walk up fares for today for one way CLE-MKE are $199. Whereas CLE-MDW are $264 and CLE-STL are $312. 2 weeks out CLE-MKE are just $101. Doesn't seem profitable.



The fares you're finding on CLE-MKE are simliar to or better than what LA Basin to the Bay Area have, and many of those city pairs are a bit longer than CLE-MKE. Here's a bunch of baybasin markets including some Southwest monopolies to compare to CLE-MKE being $199 walk up and $101 a couple weeks out.

Today / Tomorow
$184 LAX-SFO
$163 LAX-SJC
$185 LAX-OAK
$221 SNA-OAK
$208 SNA-SFO
$176 SNA-SJC
$132 LGB-OAK
$145 LGB-SJC
$176 BUR-SJC
$203 ONT-SJC
$203 ONT-OAK

Late July -- about two weeks out
$85 LAX-SFO
$86 LAX-SJC
$85 LAX-OAK
$120 SNA-OAK
$113 SNA-SFO
$77 SNA-SJC
$65 LGB-OAK
$79 LGB-SJC
$77 BUR-SJC
$106 ONT-SJC
$106 ONT-OAK

I don't think Southwest is out to ax these routes -- from all indications California has largely been a huge success over the past 25 years. Some routes do better than others and competitive pressures can always tinge potential profits, but it appears pretty likely Southwest can make money on these fares for a 300-400 mile segment.

So what's the deal with CLE-MKE being a bunch cheaper than CLE-MDW? A couple of points.

1. It's entire possible that CLE-MDW is solidly more profitable than CLE-MKE. But that in no way makes CLE-MKE unprofitable. The city pairs an airline serves have a broad range of financial returns.

2. A key misisng piece of the puzzle which fares don't tell you is traffic composition.
CLE-MDW flights feed scores of connecting flights to dozens of cities so there is a mix of local-fare passengers and connecting passengers
CLE-MKE flights have few if any good connecting feed on either end so they are probably mostly people paying the local fare

It's great that Southwest gets $264 for CLE-MDW today or tomrorow, but here's what the CLE-MDW seat brings in on connecting trips over MIdway if you do a quick & dirty pro-rate based on mileage
$155 of the $370 CLE-MDW-OMA walk up fare
$122 of the $476 CLE-MDW-DEN walk up fare
$159 of the $368 CLE-MDW-MCI walk up fare
$154 of the $295 CLE-MDW-MEM walk up fare
$47 of the $313 CLE-MDW-LAX walk up fare....one of the CLE-LAX routings with this fare is a MDW connection

Those are all a lot less than the $199 walk-up CLE-MKE fare. Some a whole lot less. They are cacluated just on mileage and airlines probably use a more complex way to split revenue on connecting lights, especially when the two segments are of very different lengths.. But they illustrate a point, and even if you monkey with the ratio there's only so much you can do to make CLE-MDW be allocated more. For that $313 CLE-LAX fare it would take incredible mental gymnastics to see how CLE-MDW could be allocated much more than $100, and even that might be far too generous.

It's not that there are zero thru and connecting passengers on any CLE-MKE or MKE-CLE segement, but the opportunities are far fewer and are often superceded by Southwest nonstops. Tomorrow's CLE-MKE at 7:15am is sold out. It continues on to St Louis but there's a CLE-STL nonstop which overlaps in half the time. Same with the one good CLE-MKE-DEN connection tomorrow which is overlapped by a CLE-DEN nonstop. Again it's not that CLE-MKE is 100% local passengers but with so few good connecting options at either end the portion of locals is high.

Now none of this ensures CLE-MKE is profitable, and in the dead of winter when flights are often half-empty they had better have retained most of the $199 business traffic and are having a harder time finding leisure demand. But guessing performance invoves more than local fare levels and load factor becuase traffic composisition can make total revenue a whole lot different than what one would expect, good or bad.
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:34 pm

Nice analysis, knope2001. There's more at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Alliances

on the economics of international codesharing and it's similarities to domestic hub-and-spoke models. Basically, in a three city A-B-C consideration, the A-C traffic may or may not be profitable, but that traffic allows the fares for A-B and B-C to be higher because it reduces capacity in the non-stop markets, raising profitabiliity overall. It seems to me your CLE-MDW price data shows how WN makes this work.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:51 pm

masseybrown wrote:
Nice analysis, knope2001. There's more at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Alliances

on the economics of international codesharing and it's similarities to domestic hub-and-spoke models. Basically, in a three city A-B-C consideration, the A-C traffic may or may not be profitable, but that traffic allows the fares for A-B and B-C to be higher because it reduces capacity in the non-stop markets, raising profitabiliity overall. It seems to me your CLE-MDW price data shows how WN makes this work.


Thanks, and thanks for link. Interesting perspective that filling some seats with connecting trafffic keeps the fares higher on local traffic because there are fewer open seats for local demand. Basic supply/demand I suppose. But to me it's more that you aim to optimize revenue on the local market by adjusting price, and what extra capacity their is you sell for connections. Perhaps two sides of the same coin.
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:55 pm

A bit of a hiccup in Frontier's PUJ expansion...
STL-PUJ: Mon/Wed/Sat [Ends August 10, 2019, Resumes December 20, 2019.]
CLE-PUJ: Sun/Tues/Thurs [Ends August 8, 2019, Resumes December 22, 2019]
CVG-PUJ: Fri [Ends August 30, 2019]

Route suspensions likely due to unrest in the Dominican Republic. Tourists seem to forget pretty quickly.
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:49 pm

avtcle wrote:
A bit of a hiccup in Frontier's PUJ expansion...
STL-PUJ: Mon/Wed/Sat [Ends August 10, 2019, Resumes December 20, 2019.]
CLE-PUJ: Sun/Tues/Thurs [Ends August 8, 2019, Resumes December 22, 2019]
CVG-PUJ: Fri [Ends August 30, 2019]

Route suspensions likely due to unrest in the Dominican Republic. Tourists seem to forget pretty quickly.


The locals also wise up pretty quickly after the tourists leave, St. Croix and Jamaica being two examples.
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:44 pm

^What happened in St. Croix and Jamaica?---I can't remember!
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:14 pm

greenair727 wrote:
^What happened in St. Croix and Jamaica?---I can't remember!


Incidents with tourists, petty crime, intimidation, etc. Nothing major - just enough to scare the tourists and their money away. The local governments turned it around in a couple of years.
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:22 pm

Ah, thanks. Is DR seeing rising crime and the like? I haven't been following DR/PUJ at all.
 
swacle
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:41 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:43 pm

greenair727 wrote:
Ah, thanks. Is DR seeing rising crime and the like? I haven't been following DR/PUJ at all.


There have been about a dozen unexplained/mysterious deaths in the past 6 months with 8-9 of them in the last 5 or so weeks. Statistically nothing abnormal (IIRC the stat is 980 Americans die abroad every year with 19 of those occuring in the DR) but the circumstances around them have been suspicious.
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
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:39 am

Yikes. I'm certainly not going there! In other news, a barbershop has opened on Concourse C.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/small-b ... al-airport
 
joeman
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:04 am

I see the thread entitled "Next wave of TATL per Boyd Group" excludes CLE
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:33 pm

I’d trust the statistics over a “glorified guesser.” Cleveland has proven demand to travel between Cleveland and Europe. In 2018 57,000 passengers traveled between Cleveland and Reykjavik — a very impressive figure. And those passengers were connecting to Europe using the limited options that Reykjavik provided. Imagine how the demand would skyrocket with a flight to DUB or LHR with hundreds of connection options onward to Asia, Australia, etc. 57,000 yearly passengers is a 100% profitable number if service is being provided by one carrier. The KEF market was over saturated and prices were too low, which is ultimately why both failed. They were quite literally at war with each other over Cleveland’s limited demand. While they both did well Load Factor wise, the prices were artificially low. Let’s not forget though — both WOW and Icelandair had planned to return to CLE in 2019, showing that they saw promise and money in the market.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevel ... utType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevel ... utType=amp
 
joeman
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:51 pm

avtcle wrote:
I’d trust the statistics over a “glorified guesser.” Cleveland has proven demand to travel between Cleveland and Europe. In 2018 57,000 passengers traveled between Cleveland and Reykjavik — a very impressive figure. And those passengers were connecting to Europe using the limited options that Reykjavik provided. Imagine how the demand would skyrocket with a flight to DUB or LHR with hundreds of connection options onward to Asia, Australia, etc. 57,000 yearly passengers is a 100% profitable number if service is being provided by one carrier. The KEF market was over saturated and prices were too low, which is ultimately why both failed. They were quite literally at war with each other over Cleveland’s limited demand. While they both did well Load Factor wise, the prices were artificially low. Let’s not forget though — both WOW and Icelandair had planned to return to CLE in 2019, showing that they saw promise and money in the market.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevel ... utType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevel ... utType=amp


Glad you pointed out that intro fares were low for the basic half year period. Can't get over certain low fare justifications elsewhere sometimes associated with defending turf I guess like in this case:
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/c ... 091355.php
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:52 pm

^I wouldn't say that FI failed at all. Their cancellation of CLE was due to the Max8. But, I agree, a CLE-LHR or -AMS would do very well, daily and year round.
 
ncflyer
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:37 pm

My cleveland fan-dom agreed whole heartedly that there is latent demand for Europe (much of it is now driving to PIT DTW YYZ and even ORD— and yes I know many people who’ve driven to all those places for overseas flights) but my brain says UA/CO only had half baked service to Europe during the hub days. Can’t work with a hub but can now?
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:14 pm

ncflyer wrote:
My cleveland fan-dom agreed whole heartedly that there is latent demand for Europe (much of it is now driving to PIT DTW YYZ and even ORD— and yes I know many people who’ve driven to all those places for overseas flights) but my brain says UA/CO only had half baked service to Europe during the hub days. Can’t work with a hub but can now?


CO service to LGW/LHR was successful for many years. Operated from 1999-2009. 2008-2009 was the beginning of the recession, which took a huge toll on air travel, especially in Cleveland. Passenger numbers for LGW & CDG service in 2008 were good (CO said they matched bookings for the same routes in Houston and Newark), however skyrocketing oil prices and operational costs simply no longer made the service viable. Given our current economic position European service from Cleveland would thrive.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1465
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:46 pm

avtcle wrote:
ncflyer wrote:
My cleveland fan-dom agreed whole heartedly that there is latent demand for Europe (much of it is now driving to PIT DTW YYZ and even ORD— and yes I know many people who’ve driven to all those places for overseas flights) but my brain says UA/CO only had half baked service to Europe during the hub days. Can’t work with a hub but can now?


CO service to LGW/LHR was successful for many years. Operated from 1999-2009. 2008-2009 was the beginning of the recession, which took a huge toll on air travel, especially in Cleveland. Passenger numbers for LGW & CDG service in 2008 were good (CO said they matched bookings for the same routes in Houston and Newark), however skyrocketing oil prices and operational costs simply no longer made the service viable. Given our current economic position European service from Cleveland would thrive.


I also always thought if CO offered CDG service only for that same time period using AF's extensive connection network (sky team back then), it would have been more successful and maybe even survived the recession.
 
joeman
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:57 pm

avtcle wrote:
ncflyer wrote:
My cleveland fan-dom agreed whole heartedly that there is latent demand for Europe (much of it is now driving to PIT DTW YYZ and even ORD— and yes I know many people who’ve driven to all those places for overseas flights) but my brain says UA/CO only had half baked service to Europe during the hub days. Can’t work with a hub but can now?


CO service to LGW/LHR was successful for many years. Operated from 1999-2009. 2008-2009 was the beginning of the recession, which took a huge toll on air travel, especially in Cleveland. Passenger numbers for LGW & CDG service in 2008 were good (CO said they matched bookings for the same routes in Houston and Newark), however skyrocketing oil prices and operational costs simply no longer made the service viable. Given our current economic position European service from Cleveland would thrive.


References that CO couldn't make CLE-LGW/LHR work had become so tiresomely repetitive on this forum and always conveniently excluded the fact that it operated for a decade as avtcle points out. Long time to figure out it apparently wasn't viable. At the dawn of hub reductions, I clearly remember CO starting to publically whine they weren't getting enough feed and the PD pointing out potential connections weren't exactly very well timed specifically giving at least DAY as an example. All in for the half baked service to Europe reference, I agree with all suppositions in the above comments and also know people that have driven as far as YYZ to save $500 for European service.

Remarkable that our Bay area friends can travel nonstop roundtrip to CDG for less than a roundtrip CLE-YYZ in that link above in earlier post. Enjoying the overall post hub fare reductions though.
 
ncflyer
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:25 pm

I used the words “half baked” not because it didn’t last a decent number of years, but because it was never year round…the season was short.

CLE yyz fares are absurdly high and the irony is AC often has the lowest fares to Europe and Asia. Really fits in with the earlier discussion here about pricing for local vs connecting demand.
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:31 pm

ncflyer wrote:
I used the words “half baked” not because it didn’t last a decent number of years, but because it was never year round…the season was short.

CLE yyz fares are absurdly high and the irony is AC often has the lowest fares to Europe and Asia. Really fits in with the earlier discussion here about pricing for local vs connecting demand.


The route actually did operate year-round for 4 years — from 1999 until 2003. However transatlantic travel after 9/11 took a huge hit and the route was soon downgraded to seasonal. Continental directly cited the slow in air travel due to 9/11 and the skyrocketing cost of fuel due to unrest in the Middle East.
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:07 pm

UAX Service from Cleveland to Tampa returns on December 7, 2019 this year! Really surprised to see all the expanded and returning winter routes especially in the wake of the MAX grounding — barring that it is back in service by then.
 
jplatts
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:13 pm

avtcle wrote:
UAX Service from Cleveland to Tampa returns on December 7, 2019 this year! Really surprised to see all the expanded and returning winter routes especially in the wake of the MAX grounding — barring that it is back in service by then.


UA already has some used A319's, A320's, and 737-700's on order, and UA also isn't facing as big of a plane shortage as AA and WN are with UA having used narrowbody planes on order and with UA having fewer 737 MAX planes than AA or WN.
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:18 pm

jplatts wrote:
avtcle wrote:
UAX Service from Cleveland to Tampa returns on December 7, 2019 this year! Really surprised to see all the expanded and returning winter routes especially in the wake of the MAX grounding — barring that it is back in service by then.


UA already has some used A319's, A320's, and 737-700's on order, and UA also isn't facing as big of a plane shortage as AA and WN are with UA having used narrowbody planes on order and with UA having fewer 737 MAX planes than AA or WN.


Specifically, I believe 19 used 737-700s are due for delivery next winter. It's interesting to see UA paying some attention to the CLE market. I think the airport's rebound in numbers of pax must have been a real surprise - for lots of people, not just UA.
 
corn4ahead
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:48 pm

masseybrown wrote:
jplatts wrote:
avtcle wrote:
UAX Service from Cleveland to Tampa returns on December 7, 2019 this year! Really surprised to see all the expanded and returning winter routes especially in the wake of the MAX grounding — barring that it is back in service by then.


UA already has some used A319's, A320's, and 737-700's on order, and UA also isn't facing as big of a plane shortage as AA and WN are with UA having used narrowbody planes on order and with UA having fewer 737 MAX planes than AA or WN.


Specifically, I believe 19 used 737-700s are due for delivery next winter. It's interesting to see UA paying some attention to the CLE market. I think the airport's rebound in numbers of pax must have been a real surprise - for lots of people, not just UA.


The fact that CLE has a 737 maintenance base on the field might have something to do with this. Last night there were 8-10 737s in the hangars/on the maintenance ramp. So it makes sense that UA directs a lot of 737s here.
 
avtcle
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:21 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:19 pm

So I flew from STT-IAD-ORD-CLE last week, and after some closer analysis of the hemispheres magazine (that I took from the plane of course!) United still has San Juan listed as a destination from Cleveland on their July 2019 revised route map. I wonder if they plan on bringing this route back at some point?
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:44 pm

^What a routing from STT to CLE. Re SJU, the Maria-related issues appear to be fixed in many places and I know some people who came to Cleveland from PR because of Maria are now going back. So perhaps normalcy is returning and UA's flight can be profitable again. However, I hope some of those who moved to Cleveland from PR stay here.
 
VetteDude
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:45 am

I started flying UA occasionally, and got a chance to board at C23 (one of the "innovation gates"). My verdict is not a huge change. Much longer line to the gate, which I supposed helps with gate lice, and the furniture and extra power outlets are an improvement. I do think its a little clunky how they put a big drywall box around the typical round supports in the banjo just so they could add some extra monitors for flight information.

Edit: I forgot the announcement mentioned the self serve kiosks, and I did think those looked very nice. I'm not sure exactly what they can be used for and how much they overlap (100% ?) with the UA mobile app, however.
 
greenair727
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:47 am

^what are gate lice? Or is that a typo?
 
VetteDude
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Cleveland Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:55 am

greenair727 wrote:
^what are gate lice? Or is that a typo?


I guess the term is mostly used among the DL flyers over at FT. People who crowd right in front of the entrance to the line before their group is boarding so that they can rush the gate as soon as their group is up. It's a feedback cycle, I'll admit to "gate licing" when I need to make sure I get an overhead bin spot and everyone is already in a huge cluster in front of the line.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos