PIT cargo flights...no CLE

https://blueskypit.com/2020/09/21/pit-w ... w.linkedin

A few of you ridiculed me when I said get some government $$ to work on CLE. Quoted below:

Last fall, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded PIT an $18.69 million BUILD grant to support the construction of a 75,000-square-foot cargo processing facility and an adjacent surface parking lot to expand air cargo operations.

Any reason this cannot be done with the IX Center?

Did I see a C-17 sitting on the ramp today? My car is so small you can't see the field completely from Brookpark Rd. Also an F-15 just flew over at around 6000 feet southbound. To early for a flyby at the Yankee - CLE game.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Did I see a C-17 sitting on the ramp today? My car is so small you can't see the field completely from Brookpark Rd. Also an F-15 just flew over at around 6000 feet southbound. To early for a flyby at the Yankee - CLE game.

Presidential debate is in town tonight as well

They must be running a combat air patrol because the F-15 is back. They have a pretty distinctive roar even that high up.

Saw Delta 767-400 landing today at around 1350. See that it's heading to San Diego so it must be the Yankee's flight out. Wonder who gets the FC seats and who has to sit in Coach?

Looks like UA to lay off "only" about 40 CLE-based flight attendants (of about 300 at domicile).

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2020 ... eland.html

Hope you are registered for the next CLE Master Plan public information workshop. It is on Wednesday, October 14 at 6:00. Register here: https://rsandh.zoom.us/webinar/register ... MsJw4BsSug

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Did I see a C-17 sitting on the ramp today? My car is so small you can't see the field completely from Brookpark Rd. Also an F-15 just flew over at around 6000 feet southbound. To early for a flyby at the Yankee - CLE game.

The F-15Cs were from the Massachusetts ANG based at BAF and were indeed combat air patrols. KC-135s out of PIT, MKE and WRI were also up supporting the fighters.

The airport gave a few more details about Wednesday's 2nd virtual Master Plan meeting. It looks like it could be quite interesting.

"This meeting will include the public’s first glance at preliminary alternatives, and the opportunity to provide suggestions for the future of CLE."

Register here: https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/workshops.php

CLEguy - I wasn't able to attend but tried to look at the renderings(and presentation) on the website. Wouldn't work for me - is there any way you could post the 3 terminal renderings? Thanks

Runway28L wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Did I see a C-17 sitting on the ramp today? My car is so small you can't see the field completely from Brookpark Rd. Also an F-15 just flew over at around 6000 feet southbound. To early for a flyby at the Yankee - CLE game.

The F-15Cs were from the Massachusetts ANG based at BAF and were indeed combat air patrols. KC-135s out of PIT, MKE and WRI were also up supporting the fighters.

Thanks for the info.

CLEguy wrote:

The airport gave a few more details about Wednesday's 2nd virtual Master Plan meeting. It looks like it could be quite interesting.

"This meeting will include the public’s first glance at preliminary alternatives, and the opportunity to provide suggestions for the future of CLE."

Register here: https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/workshops.php

Interesting presentation, they narrowed the terminal options down from 6 to 3. #1 and #2 use parts of the existing physical plant with new terminals/parts and #6 is completely new.

Here's the PD article about the meeting that lists the 3 preferred options, and has a pic of the entirely brand new terminal (option #6):

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2020 ... ocess.html

I have screen shots, but the quality is not good. They said they would post the presentation, but I could not find it on the master plan website.

I couldn't find it either.
I actually like the option 6 but i can't imagine CLE will need 2 concourses anytime soon . If they started with just the one with the terminal (24 gates), I can see how they could keep the airport running while it was being constructed.

It's unfortunate, but I think we can all agree that history will repeat itself and the city will choose alternative #1. It's the cheapest and is basically a copycat of the masterplan from 10 years ago.

I was personally a huge fan of #4 but of the 3 they chose to continue with, I am hoping for #6. A completely new facility is needed. No more lipstick on a pig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a7z636mypc

It was tricky to find but here ya go.

Thanks - not sure why they didn't like 3. It stretches out where cars can drop off people which is the major hang up now. Plenty of airports have 2 terminals (ORD comes to mind) and this one is a pretty short walk. And who connects and changes concourses? Seems that they would be able to keep the existing roadways and parking facilities which would save a bunch of money.

corn4ahead wrote:

It's unfortunate, but I think we can all agree that history will repeat itself and the city will choose alternative #1. It's the cheapest and is basically a copycat of the masterplan from 10 years ago.

I was personally a huge fan of #4 but of the 3 they chose to continue with, I am hoping for #6. A completely new facility is needed. No more lipstick on a pig.

I agree that #1 is the probable choice, not just because the city is frugal, but because the airlines won't want to see a huge increase in rents and fees for a 'vanity' project. Until NEO shows some positive population growth, I don't know how you can make a reasonable case for anything more expensive.

It's also not clear to me how #1 handles the real need for a much better FIS arrangement. Although it's probably somewhere in the plan, they didn't specifically address it in the formal presentation. Maybe it came up in the Q&A.

masseybrown wrote:

corn4ahead wrote:

It's unfortunate, but I think we can all agree that history will repeat itself and the city will choose alternative #1. It's the cheapest and is basically a copycat of the masterplan from 10 years ago.

I was personally a huge fan of #4 but of the 3 they chose to continue with, I am hoping for #6. A completely new facility is needed. No more lipstick on a pig.

I agree that #1 is the probable choice, not just because the city is frugal, but because the airlines won't want to see a huge increase in rents and fees for a 'vanity' project. Until NEO shows some positive population growth, I don't know how you can make a reasonable case for anything more expensive.

It's also not clear to me how #1 handles the real need for a much better FIS arrangement. Although it's probably somewhere in the plan, they didn't specifically address it in the formal presentation. Maybe it came up in the Q&A.

They did admit that #1 will have the most costly on-going maintenance and replacement cost. I prefer 6 and 2 in that order. Also, it's way to early to address the specifics of a better FIS, but it was brought up that it will be addressed in whichever scenario is chosen. Dir. Kennedy said it all comes down to financing and what the airlines are willing/able to afford. He also stressed that NO tax dollars will be used to support a new/renovated terminal.

"Restarting nonstop year-round service between Cleveland and Cancun on December 19"

https://hub.united.com/2020-10-16-unite ... 28755.html

My favorite surprise of the call was that one of the questioners brought up the dated Sheraton greeting everyone who drives in to the airport land. Is it the most important issue for CLE to deal with-- not even close-- but it's so symbolic of the tired-ness of the overall facility. There was broad acknowledgement (I felt) of the panelists of the issue.

Ditto there seemed to be broad acknowledgement that a rental car facility 2 miles away is not a keeper. I didn't realize it but pre-covid the facility was really bumping up against capacity issues so something needs to be done once passengers return to the 10MM level.

And another positive surprise, DIrector Kennedy was realistic about the current financial state of the airlines, but he seemed to be optimistic that all the airlines are at the table agreeing something needs to be done, he suggested they have skin in the game in funding the plan itself.

My disappointment was that a lipstick on the pig option is alive and well. While they could say this option is a 100% rebuild, just doing it in place, the way to cut costs on such an option as the years pass by is to say things like "eeeeh, let's rebuild Concourse B and leave the rest for later" or "ehhh if we rebuild the concourses we can make due with the current ticket lobby." Too many outs.

Midwestindy wrote:

"Restarting nonstop year-round service between Cleveland and Cancun on December 19"

https://hub.united.com/2020-10-16-unite ... 28755.html

At the same time, they cancelled CLE-SFO, which is a disappointment. Business travel is apparently a lot more discretionary than even businesses thought. UA must figure they will do better competing with the ULCCs in CLE than parking the planes. Their fixed costs in CLE (the rent on Concourse D) must make the variable cost of adding flights not much more than fuel and crew.

rent on Concourse D was written off by United in 2018

Trk1 wrote:

rent on Concourse D was written off by United in 2018

I think that means from a balance sheet not actual payments. Why would UAL pre-pay the mortgage without any gain?

Trk1 wrote:

rent on Concourse D was written off by United in 2018

Which didn't make the payments go away. Their big problem right now is cash burn; so they might as well get something (low cost incremental flying) for their big monthly payment to CLE.

Second thought: I wonder if a pre-covid UA would have accepted a "net present value" single payment scheme to settle the issue. I really need to take somebody from airport finance out drinking some day.

The airlines may not like the idea of footing their share of the bill of a new terminal, especially given their current financial state with Covid. That all being said, CLE is in a position to play hardball if they want.

To state the obvious, UA hasn’t been exactly kind to CLE over the years. And CLE is a big enough market that AA or DL (and UA) are all going to continue to serve it to their core hubs regardless if they have to pay their share of a new terminal or not. I guess my point is, yeah the airlines might not like it, but what does CLE have to lose by making them foot the bill to serve a new terminal?

Sure a few LCCs may jump ship back to CAK, but the legacies aren’t going to leave CLE, and (excluding the recent UA opportunistic adds that may not stick), there isn’t a lot of frivolous flying from CLE that stands to be lost. CLE should just play hardball, build new, and make the airlines foot the bill anyway.

This is why I like Option 3 - they could build a new terminal that would serve D and a renovated C. ( C absolutely needs a moving walk way cause its too damn long). The costs would not over whelm the airlines (unlike 6) and if airtravel doesn't come back soon, live with it and use the existing terminal for A and B. DTW done this for years.

Here's a sample of the question & answer session that I found most interesting:

• There is no need for a crosswind runway (14/32) in winter and lake effect snow events—does not meet FAA threshold; snow removal services need to do a better job (also, no new runway capacity is needed, just a few taxiway relocations)
• The RTA station will be integrated into any new terminal
• The Ground Transportation Center (now under construction) will remain in place or move to a more central location
• Intent is to move the Rental Car Center to the landside campus and eliminate need for shuttle buses
• Restrooms will be addressed in any and all concepts
• Concourse D will likely not be demolished before 2027 as it may be needed for interim gate capacity during a rebuild
• International arrivals will be addressed (as well as space for diversions which is currently sufficient)
• There is no reason to acquire land east of Rt. 237 (as Concept 4 was rejected)
• Expansion flexibility will be included in all terminal alternatives
• The master plan process will be completed in a relatively quick 16 months, then costs need to be estimated, then financing arranged (not a great time for airline finances) and final architectural designs finalized, before any actual construction begins
• One attendee noted that we need a “signature facility” and urged the airport to “think big” and not to settle for “just good enough.” I agree!

kavok wrote:

The airlines may not like the idea of footing their share of the bill of a new terminal, especially given their current financial state with Covid. That all being said, CLE is in a position to play hardball if they want.

To state the obvious, UA hasn’t been exactly kind to CLE over the years. And CLE is a big enough market that AA or DL (and UA) are all going to continue to serve it to their core hubs regardless if they have to pay their share of a new terminal or not. I guess my point is, yeah the airlines might not like it, but what does CLE have to lose by making them foot the bill to serve a new terminal?

Sure a few LCCs may jump ship back to CAK, but the legacies aren’t going to leave CLE, and (excluding the recent UA opportunistic adds that may not stick), there isn’t a lot of frivolous flying from CLE that stands to be lost. CLE should just play hardball, build new, and make the airlines foot the bill anyway.

In addition to the US3 carriers, I would also probably expect WN to remain at CLE as WN has served CLE for over 28 years. WN also still has CLE-STL nonstop service, which doesn't currently have any nonstop competition. There are also a few more nonstop routes such as CLE-AUS/MCI/SAN that could be added by WN once demand is back to normal levels with AUS, MCI, and SAN being three of the top destinations that are no longer served nonstop out of CLE.

I also do not expect WN to re-enter CAK as
(a) WN was only serving CAK in addition to CLE in Northeast Ohio due to the former FL presence at CAK,
(b) WN had been serving CLE for over 18 years at the time that the WN-FL merger was announced in September 2010, and
(c) WN would probably have never served CAK if the WN-FL merger hadn't taken place.

I had also previously mentioned AS possibly adding CLE-SEA nonstop service with the lack of CLE-SEA nonstop service on a non-ULCC being a huge hole in both markets prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

B6 also would probably continue to serve CLE in addition to AA, DL, UA, and WN, and there are a few more nonstop routes such as CLE-LAX/JFK/EWR that could be added by B6 once demand for domestic air travel recovers with B6 having recently added nonstop service to LAX, JFK, and EWR from other B6 destinations.

jplatts wrote:

kavok wrote:

The airlines may not like the idea of footing their share of the bill of a new terminal, especially given their current financial state with Covid. That all being said, CLE is in a position to play hardball if they want.

To state the obvious, UA hasn’t been exactly kind to CLE over the years. And CLE is a big enough market that AA or DL (and UA) are all going to continue to serve it to their core hubs regardless if they have to pay their share of a new terminal or not. I guess my point is, yeah the airlines might not like it, but what does CLE have to lose by making them foot the bill to serve a new terminal?

Sure a few LCCs may jump ship back to CAK, but the legacies aren’t going to leave CLE, and (excluding the recent UA opportunistic adds that may not stick), there isn’t a lot of frivolous flying from CLE that stands to be lost. CLE should just play hardball, build new, and make the airlines foot the bill anyway.

In addition to the US3 carriers, I would also probably expect WN to remain at CLE as WN has served CLE for over 28 years. WN also still has CLE-STL nonstop service, which doesn't currently have any nonstop competition. There are also a few more nonstop routes such as CLE-AUS/MCI/SAN that could be added by WN once demand is back to normal levels with AUS, MCI, and SAN being three of the top destinations that are no longer served nonstop out of CLE.

I also do not expect WN to re-enter CAK as
(a) WN was only serving CAK in addition to CLE in Northeast Ohio due to the former FL presence at CAK,
(b) WN had been serving CLE for over 18 years at the time that the WN-FL merger was announced in September 2010, and
(c) WN would probably have never served CAK if the WN-FL merger hadn't taken place.

I had also previously mentioned AS possibly adding CLE-SEA nonstop service with the lack of CLE-SEA nonstop service on a non-ULCC being a huge hole in both markets prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

B6 also would probably continue to serve CLE in addition to AA, DL, UA, and WN, and there are a few more nonstop routes such as CLE-LAX/JFK/EWR that could be added by B6 once demand for domestic air travel recovers with B6 having recently added nonstop service to LAX, JFK, and EWR from other B6 destinations.

Agreed. To be blunt, there are many airports that strive for lower operating costs in order to appease the airlines, and to incentivize the airlines to maintain some flights that may not otherwise exist. Other than a few LCCs (excluding WN) and the opportunistic flights recently added by UA, there are relatively few CLE flights truly at risk of being dropped if the operation costs increased significantly.

So with that being the case, there is nothing stopping the airport from increasing the operating costs, and using that to fund a good portion of a new terminal. Of course that cost will indirectly get passed onto the passengers, but at least the region would have a better gateway for making first impressions to visitors. Again the airlines may not like it, but as mentioned there are relatively few frivolous routes that would be at risk should operating costs go up at CLE.

CLE to CUN NS on UA Saturdays only returns December 19. via 737-800. Waiting for SJU to return perhaps when cruises get going again.

I think the majors including SW will be against a big build out. LCC's have plenty of other places they can fly to and make a profit. We need to be careful. Kansas City did the new terminal with a regional bond levy. We should give that a try to get plan 6 as presented.

Further, CLE is not PreCovid PIT or IND where they have to keep AA/DL happy to keep a TATL flight. They are also not a UA focus city, and probably never will be. So no need to appease UA either.

So with that being the case, there is nothing stopping the airport from increasing the operating costs, and using that to fund a good portion of a new terminal. Of course that cost will indirectly get passed onto the passengers, but at least the region would have a better gateway for making first impressions to visitors. Again the airlines may not like it, but what are they going to do? They aren’t going to drop a market the size of CLE from their network.

And while you could go the bond route, why go that route and only tax the residents of NE Ohio, when instead you can increase operating costs and effectively tax anyone who uses the airport instead.., which is arguably both a fairer tax, and it is a tax partially paid for by non-residents flying into CLE.

The problem with going "Big" is the airport already has a high debt load (how's that buying the IX Center working out?) . The County is tapped out from building the Convention Center and the Hilton Hotel. Sharing the tax burden with the surrounding counties isn't going anywhere because the airport is owned by the City of Cleveland and they aint giving up control and patronage any time soon.

In the post-COVID-19 world, the airlines will want cheap.

Please note the attached airport employment costs. We dropped to about 14.5 for 2019 according to Mr. Kennedy. We are the highest of non hub airports.
If we really raise the amount too much we will have fewer flights by all airlines. We will have to raise them of course to expand but we must be careful. That is why a bond levy would help. Remember we are an airport that has most of the departures from people that live in Northeast Ohio. If we want a completely new terminal we need to have some taxpayer equity in the program. If not the reality is we will get one of the plans other than plan 6.

I hate to say it but unless the Federal Govt implements a large infrastructure program and pays a big chunk of the cost, nothing is going to happen.

The Airlines are broke. Let's see what happens to service at PIT and MCI when the bill comes due for their billion plus overhauls.
Cleveland won't use tax dollars for the airport ( see what happens with their school levy in a few weeks). The County is tapped out.

Mohawk is spot on

Airlines are currently broke. But there's nothing that says work on a new terminal has to happen now. Any such work could begin in a few years, which by then global commercial aviation will hopefully be back or at least on the path to recovery. And, of course, we could do exactly what we did after the last master plan, which is absolutely nothing. After all, the master planning process is required by FAA---it is not something that CLE leadership decided to do because they wanted a better airport. But hopefully something positive will come out of it. And if so, we could do all three things for funding---airlines, regional bond issue, and federal matching funds.

But how do regional bonds work? Who would pay it? Would it be assessed to say Cuyahoga and the six surrounding counties? Or all counties in NEO? People in Youngstown may not go for it as half of them fly out PIT. Even people in Summit--most of whom use Hopkins--will complain citing they use CAK instead which isn't true. Would the residents of each county vote or will the levy or bond just be assessed?

The problem is Cleveland owns the airport (like Chicago does with ORD). The City closely guards these assets - other examples are the Water System and Muni Light. Until the City lets go of that control, a regional funding approach is most likely off the table.

A couple of trillion dollar Federal Infrastructure stimulus is the best near term hope.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The problem is Cleveland owns the airport (like Chicago does with ORD). The City closely guards these assets - other examples are the Water System and Muni Light. Until the City lets go of that control, a regional funding approach is most likely off the table.

A couple of trillion dollar Federal Infrastructure stimulus is the best near term hope.

I agree with your stimulus/Federal funding comments Mohawk, and have said them myself on this forum. I disagree with the ''airlines are broke" comments as this project is 3-5 years from hitting their pockets. We have no idea what that demand looks like, but I do feel the CAK is the one that will lose a good portion of their 1mm PAX to CLE and CLE will be buffered. Maybe DL, WN, etc. don't even go back.

The next few years are going to be interesting. All airports are going to have a heck of a time paying off their bonds without revenue. CAK's terminal expansion for example. Which is one of the reasons why the Dem's want more aid for the States and City governments. If one of the majors files CH11 all it's airport leases can be modified (and reduced). Let's hope it's not UA which would stick CLE with an unpaid mortgage.

fun2fly wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The problem is Cleveland owns the airport (like Chicago does with ORD). The City closely guards these assets - other examples are the Water System and Muni Light. Until the City lets go of that control, a regional funding approach is most likely off the table.

A couple of trillion dollar Federal Infrastructure stimulus is the best near term hope.

I agree with your stimulus/Federal funding comments Mohawk, and have said them myself on this forum. I disagree with the ''airlines are broke" comments as this project is 3-5 years from hitting their pockets. We have no idea what that demand looks like, but I do feel the CAK is the one that will lose a good portion of their 1mm PAX to CLE and CLE will be buffered. Maybe DL, WN, etc. don't even go back.

Well, after 10 or 20 years on the site, I might have one right. Then came the $1mm offer to DL.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2020 ... -back.html

fun2fly wrote:

Well, after 10 or 20 years on the site, I might have one right. Then came the $1mm offer to DL.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2020 ... -back.html

Remember when Myers Industries a year or so ago said it was going to move to Cleveland from Akron? And then cancelled the move when Akron begged them to stay. One of Myers' gripes was CAK service levels, and I've heard they still aren't happy. If CAK loses DL, it gives Myers a new excuse to relocate closer to CLE. And if Akron loses one of its major players, some others may get restless, too. We'll see if the million is enough for DL.

Offering $1M now? How is that really beneficial to the airport at this time? Somebody should tell CAK about COVID and its impact to air travel.

greenair727 wrote:

Offering $1M now? How is that really beneficial to the airport at this time? Somebody should tell CAK about COVID and its impact to air travel.

CAK has always been aggressive in luring carriers, that's how they got to 1mm pax and a new terminal. With that being said, if DL was going to go back, then take the $1mm, if not pass. Feels desperate by CAK to do it at this time.

DL has really grown CLE and I'm sure would rather add another ATL or BOS flight to CLE vs. two daily to CAK. Their corporate contracts team has done a nice job securing business post UA in CLE.

CLE put out September numbers. 296,684 total pax, down slightly from August, which was 315,149. A September decline is normal. Cargo, however, keeps going up. 15,858K pounds, up from 14.027K pounds last September.

Any idea why there's an HA A330 in Cleveland right now? Came in from LAS last night around 9pm. Doesn't look like a diversion, rather a scheduled flight from Vegas. HA712 is the flight number.

Edit: did some research and looks like it's the Raiders' charter plane. Looks like they flew from LAX to LAS, maybe for a night of fun before heading to CLE

CLESpotter95 wrote:

Any idea why there's an HA A330 in Cleveland right now? Came in from LAS last night around 9pm. Doesn't look like a diversion, rather a scheduled flight from Vegas. HA712 is the flight number.

Is it the charter flight for the Raiders? That's what I would assume but why would they be flying from Vegas and why would it be HA?

Most likely the Raiders vs. Browns inbound flight. Cool one to see in CLE for sure.

CLESpotter95 wrote:

Edit: did some research and looks like it's the Raiders' charter plane. Looks like they flew from LAX to LAS, maybe for a night of fun before heading to CLE

Raiders are in Vegas, not LA.

Went up this morning to catch it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_jac ... ed-public/