GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

Trk1 wrote:

We have a massive problem in paying for the airport due to the COVID situation. We need to sell Burke ASAP to help pay for Hopkins expansion.
If we think that Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant will pay for this dream on. We are in bed with low cost carriers and will pay the price for it.

Burke is a landfill, nobody wants to buy that. I agree, the airlines should not pay for a new terminal. If the city moves forward with this moneypit idea, I expect CAK to return to the AirTran glory days.

Everything from the railroad tracks north is on a landfill. Do not be so sure if the entire Burke footprint was on the market that it would not make an excellent shoreline investment. Think BIG!

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

The IAB is dreary and NOT connected to the main terminal/services. That is not adequate. The Airport Amtrak stop may not be used heavily by air travelers, but on 'normal" weekends quite a few people board there for the Chicago-bound Hiawatha. I have no experience of it during the week.

I agree TRK1 think big, it couldn't be used any less productively than it is now, and everything the metroparks touches turns to gold for the most obvious use. The big problem is not the landfill, but that it has no connection to the rest of the city all the way from E9th to E55th. Unless that is somehow addressed, that would mean most of the park would be a car destination, which is not ideal conditions for a vibrant park.

As per usual, CLE has a mayoral election coming up, and not a peep about any airport issue, CLE or BKL, this is why the airports shouldn't be run by the city, too many other things to worry about.

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

I don't think you'll find many (maybe any) people who will agree with you that CLE is a perfectly adequate facility. It was built in 1956 before TSA, bomb detection devices, and 10 million passengers who start or end their trip in NE Ohio. Ohio needs a vibrant NORTHEAST Ohio. Just because Cleveland (the City) has problems doesn't mean the area doesn't deserve a better facility.

396,815 people live in Cleveland, 1,280,122 in the County. Cuyahoga County has the largest GDP of any county in Ohio and is alone larger than 13 US States's GDP. Thats not counting the 1.6 million other people who live in the SMSA.

CLE has to be its own district. There is no point in a plan because the Cleveland City Council will not be able to produce. Look at the debt and what we got for it. Terminal D.

Robert1010 wrote:

Does the plans include a new possible Amtrak stop? Maybe the IX can be turned into a cargo facility hub for someone , plenty of room for a ramp around perimeter.

Almost every major cargo operator has facilities within a stones throw of CLE. Personally I don't see anyone wanting or needing a cargo facility there.

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

No, MKE eventually needs a new terminal with a consolidated single 25 gate concourse (which can include 1-2 international gates). Not a high priority at the moment, but when air traffic begins to recover, this would be worth pursuing more than a dedicated international arrivals facility.

GSPSPOT wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

The IAB is dreary and NOT connected to the main terminal/services. That is not adequate. The Airport Amtrak stop may not be used heavily by air travelers, but on 'normal" weekends quite a few people board there for the Chicago-bound Hiawatha. I have no experience of it during the week.

Pax arriving there have a very quick and easy exit. If they are connecting, which is unlikely these days, they have to drag their checked bags over to the main terminal, using the sidewalk. When I worked at MKE, my airline would deplane at IAB and repo the AC back to the main terminal. When E closed, CBP could have been put there.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

I don't think you'll find many (maybe any) people who will agree with you that CLE is a perfectly adequate facility. It was built in 1956 before TSA, bomb detection devices, and 10 million passengers who start or end their trip in NE Ohio. Ohio needs a vibrant NORTHEAST Ohio. Just because Cleveland (the City) has problems doesn't mean the area doesn't deserve a better facility.

396,815 people live in Cleveland, 1,280,122 in the County. Cuyahoga County has the largest GDP of any county in Ohio and is alone larger than 13 US States's GDP. Thats not counting the 1.6 million other people who live in the SMSA.

Ask those same people if they are willing to pony up $50 more dollars every time they use CLE for a new terminal. I dont think you will find many (if any), willing to do that. The airlines at CLE are already paying far more than they should be. If costs are not brought under control, these airlines will head for the exits.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Agreed. It was a short-sighted approach (looking back now of course) as it was intended mainly for ERJs (when CO proclaimed it had essentially gotten rid of turboprops). Problem was this was mostly 50 seaters, expensive to operate, genuinely uncomfortable to fly in, and D was build pretty much around the spec of those types of planes at that time, and thus obsolete.

Concourse D might have been designed for 50-seaters, but it'd be perfectly well-suited for parking 76-seaters on both sides (or even small mainline aircraft) if the boarding walkways on the east side were removed and passenger loading bridges were added. There's probably room for 15-20 gates with loading bridges.

The bigger problem is that it's just inconvenient for O&D passengers -- passengers have to walk most of the way to the end of C and then through the connecting tunnel. At a time when CLE has a huge surplus of gates and will for the foreseeable future, there's no sense in using an inconvenient facility. And FWIW, at the time CO acquired all those ERJs, they were a huge upgrade from turboprops. The problem was that 50-seaters replaced mainline in many markets, and that was a poorer customer experience. CO/UA was operating 50-seaters in markets like IAH-ATL!

The times that I've used CLE, I've found it to be "perfectly adequate". Perhaps this is due to my view of an airport, which is a place where I get on and off of airplane and little more.

About a decade ago, the CRAA published a master plan for CMH. It had some big-ticket items:
- Crossover taxiway at the west end of the airfield. Complete.
- Reorganization of the roads in/out of the terminal to avoid stop lights on Stelzer Road. Complete.
- Terminal modernization. Complete.
- New long-term parking lot. Complete, though humorously closed due to COVID.
- Consolidated rental car facility, which is being constructed right now.

I can see how each of these improves the throughput of the airport and the customer experience. While I prefer the post-change experience, I'm not sure that this meant the prior configuration was "inadequate".

There were two items in the plan that have always left this central Ohio resident and taxpayer with a furrowed brow:
- Moving the south runway 500' further south. (This project is complete.) The justification for this monumental expense was...
- Wholesale replacement of the existing terminal with an X-shaped building between the two runways, on the west side of the parking garage. (The current terminal sits on the east side of the parking garage.)

There are only a few reasons why the terminal should be replaced, IMO.

(1) The existing terminal cannot meet capacity. The master plan cherry picked a specific day to demonstrate that the airport was out of capacity. Baloney.
(2) The existing terminal cannot meet a basic standard of quality for a given capacity. Lack of restrooms would be an example.
(3) The long-term cost of service will be lower with the new building. It wasn't clear then, nor is it now, that this will ever be true at CMH.

In short, I see CMH as "perfectly adequate" and oppose the enormous expense of building a completely new terminal unless the items above force the decision.

For me, the CMH story provides a lens through which to view CLE. I think the standard for "inadequate" should be high. Things like "IAB is not connected to the main terminal" might constitute inadequacy. Things like "the shopping that a modern airport needs" does not, in my opinion. Nor do narrow concourses or lack of moving sidewalks, IMO. My preference in central Ohio is for the CRAA to be conservative to keep costs low. If I lived in northeast Ohio, my preference would be the same.

TWA772LR wrote:

Serious question, is CLE too busy to just consolidate in C and D? Or even just C?

[quote=“Citrus1492”]In 2019, yes.[/quote]

Citrus, Reread the question. You missed it.

D is useless. The east side of the building was built for ground boarding turboprops. The east side has jet bridges, but the gate seating and parking footprint was designed for a 145. You’ll lose half the gates in order to reconfigure it, and as others say, D was designed for connecting, not for O&D traffic.

I think if B was closed/knocked down, there are enough gates on A and C to support current needs and them some. That’s why I think there will be a staged tear down and rebuild on the current footprint of A/C

ContnlEliteCMH wrote:

The times that I've used CLE, I've found it to be "perfectly adequate". Perhaps this is due to my view of an airport, which is a place where I get on and off of airplane and little more.

About a decade ago, the CRAA published a master plan for CMH. It had some big-ticket items:
- Crossover taxiway at the west end of the airfield. Complete.
- Reorganization of the roads in/out of the terminal to avoid stop lights on Stelzer Road. Complete.
- Terminal modernization. Complete.
- New long-term parking lot. Complete, though humorously closed due to COVID.
- Consolidated rental car facility, which is being constructed right now.

I can see how each of these improves the throughput of the airport and the customer experience. While I prefer the post-change experience, I'm not sure that this meant the prior configuration was "inadequate".

There were two items in the plan that have always left this central Ohio resident and taxpayer with a furrowed brow:
- Moving the south runway 500' further south. (This project is complete.) The justification for this monumental expense was...
- Wholesale replacement of the existing terminal with an X-shaped building between the two runways, on the west side of the parking garage. (The current terminal sits on the east side of the parking garage.)

There are only a few reasons why the terminal should be replaced, IMO.

(1) The existing terminal cannot meet capacity. The master plan cherry picked a specific day to demonstrate that the airport was out of capacity. Baloney.
(2) The existing terminal cannot meet a basic standard of quality for a given capacity. Lack of restrooms would be an example.
(3) The long-term cost of service will be lower with the new building. It wasn't clear then, nor is it now, that this will ever be true at CMH.

In short, I see CMH as "perfectly adequate" and oppose the enormous expense of building a completely new terminal unless the items above force the decision.

For me, the CMH story provides a lens through which to view CLE. I think the standard for "inadequate" should be high. Things like "IAB is not connected to the main terminal" might constitute inadequacy. Things like "the shopping that a modern airport needs" does not, in my opinion. Nor do narrow concourses or lack of moving sidewalks, IMO. My preference in central Ohio is for the CRAA to be conservative to keep costs low. If I lived in northeast Ohio, my preference would be the same.

The CRAA is proof an independent authority doesnt always run an airport better than a municipality. Not only does CMH not need a new terminal, they didnt need the lipstick on a pig cosmetic improvements that took 5 years to complete, only to be demolished a few years later. People don't fly to admire the facilities, they fly to get where they want to go. Increasing the costs to operate and travel for a pretty facility is foolishness. Airlines and customers will flock to the lowest cost airport.
CVG is also going thru the motions of a new terminal. CVG is pefectly fine in its current configuration. Their future is cargo, not pax.

Trk1 wrote:

Everything from the railroad tracks north is on a landfill. Do not be so sure if the entire Burke footprint was on the market that it would not make an excellent shoreline investment. Think BIG!

What better use for that land is there other than as an airport? You are on an aviation enthusiast website. In my opinion, I'd rather see the terminal tower demolished before closing Burke.

There are actually many citizens of the city (not necessarily in Ohio nor CMH), that are proud of flying in and out of their own city in a modern and beautiful terminal facility, and many are feeling dreary and sad when their city's airport is stuck in 1960's, crowded and run down. A beautiful new terminal building gives visitors a great impression of the place their visiting (imagine you just arrived in Japan or Dubai or Singapore), a old building that deserves to be torn down gives visitors a bad feeling about the place they are go step foot in (Imagine you just landed in Yemen or Congo).

I am just saying we all have perceptions and visions. It is bad enough to stuck in the 1960s. It is even worse if someone else have a grand vision and try to change things for the better, some force tries to drag it back.

Runway765 wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

No, MKE eventually needs a new terminal with a consolidated single 25 gate concourse (which can include 1-2 international gates). Not a high priority at the moment, but when air traffic begins to recover, this would be worth pursuing more than a dedicated international arrivals facility.

Well the plan is to reconstruct existing (now unused) Concourse E for international arrivals and common-use gates. It's at least partially funded already, but progress towards actual construction has been excruciatingly slow, even pre-covid.

I want an improved Hopkins. Burke is a money loser that comes from the same pot as hopkins. All focus should be on hopkins and if we could have developers create something of value at Burke we could create a way to take use some of the tax money for hopkins. We need to be creative. We have a great runway set up. We just need terminal and parking improvements.

chonetsao wrote:

There are actually many citizens of the city (not necessarily in Ohio nor CMH), that are proud of flying in and out of their own city in a modern and beautiful terminal facility, and many are feeling dreary and sad when their city's airport is stuck in 1960's, crowded and run down. A beautiful new terminal building gives visitors a great impression of the place their visiting (imagine you just arrived in Japan or Dubai or Singapore), a old building that deserves to be torn down gives visitors a bad feeling about the place they are go step foot in (Imagine you just landed in Yemen or Congo).

I am just saying we all have perceptions and visions. It is bad enough to stuck in the 1960s. It is even worse if someone else have a grand vision and try to change things for the better, some force tries to drag it back.

If they can complete their grand vision without stealing my money, good for them.

Trk1 wrote:

I want an improved Hopkins. Burke is a money loser that comes from the same pot as hopkins. All focus should be on hopkins and if we could have developers create something of value at Burke we could create a way to take use some of the tax money for hopkins. We need to be creative. We have a great runway set up. We just need terminal and parking improvements.

I worked at hopkins for 10 years. Yes it could use some repairs, especially the non passenger facing areas. Does it need to be leveled and built completely as a new facility? Absolutely not. I will predict that the Browns, Indians, and Cavs will leave Cleveland before Burke is closed.
Planting a bunch of trees and throwing some bike trails where Burke is now will generate about zero revenue.

TWA772LR wrote:

Serious question, is CLE too busy to just consolidate in C and D? Or even just C?

Absolutely yes. Unless you want to park 25 airplanes on an RON pad.

It’ll be a great day when they start tearing that old terminal down. I’ve got some fun memories there, but it’s easily the worst terminal in America now that LGA has a new building.

Citrus1492 wrote:

I worked at hopkins for 10 years. Yes it could use some repairs, especially the non passenger facing areas. Does it need to be leveled and built completely as a new facility? Absolutely not.

Completely disagree. The entire thing is WELL beyond its useful life.

I’m sure they’ll eff it up, though. They can’t even repair the revolving entrance doors they have now; pretty sure half of them have been broken and blocked off for well over a month, if not 2. The place is pathetic.

I take it the infrastructure for the existing CLE terminal has been built upon since the 1950's (no knock-downs and rebuild like you're seeing with LGA), making it one of the oldest terminal facilities today, though it has seen various renovations to allow for security requirement changes and modernizing architecture. Is this an accurate statement?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

There is nothing that can be done to repurpose D into a functioning terminal again? I guess not, given it was built for regional jets. What a waste.

The D gates were designed in a way that could be converted to mainline use. Lob off the ground-level D gates (or keep them if you're Allegiant/ULCC) and convert to jetways, reduce existing jetways to allow for mainline usage and voila. More mainline capacity. Add a landside link if people complain about the facility not friendly to those not connection.

IMO forward-thinking on the design firm. It's a shame so many people want to see that concourse demolished.

Snapshot of Google Earth with grounded UA 737s at Concourse D:

CLE Concourse D (Source: Google Earth)

N766UA wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

I worked at hopkins for 10 years. Yes it could use some repairs, especially the non passenger facing areas. Does it need to be leveled and built completely as a new facility? Absolutely not.

Completely disagree. The entire thing is WELL beyond its useful life.

I’m sure they’ll eff it up, though. They can’t even repair the revolving entrance doors they have now; pretty sure half of them have been broken and blocked off for well over a month, if not 2. The place is pathetic.

I interact with the city folks at the terminal every day and I will echo that statement. Lipstick on a pig.

chonetsao wrote:

There are actually many citizens of the city (not necessarily in Ohio nor CMH), that are proud of flying in and out of their own city in a modern and beautiful terminal facility, and many are feeling dreary and sad when their city's airport is stuck in 1960's, crowded and run down. A beautiful new terminal building gives visitors a great impression of the place their visiting (imagine you just arrived in Japan or Dubai or Singapore), a old building that deserves to be torn down gives visitors a bad feeling about the place they are go step foot in (Imagine you just landed in Yemen or Congo).

That's the view of someone looking to spend somebody else's money.

Runway765 wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Good for CLE! Geez, MKE can scarcely get a new International Arrivals facility off the back burner. At least we already have an Amtrak station at MKE (requires a shuttle to the terminal).

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

No, MKE eventually needs a new terminal with a consolidated single 25 gate concourse (which can include 1-2 international gates). Not a high priority at the moment, but when air traffic begins to recover, this would be worth pursuing more than a dedicated international arrivals facility.

That's a little more explicit than I was thinking, but working from that... If the project sees Federal money it's being paid for by all of us. Can anybody argue that this is one of the ten most urgent aviation projects in the country? More important than SEA's International Arrivals Facility? More important than LAX's passenger transit improvements?

It's not like state money is really free, either.

Otherwise it's funded by the airport, and debt service and op costs get put into lease costs or spread on a per passenger basis. Unless walls and roofs (roofs, not just ceilings) are falling in it's hard to argue that maintenance costs on old buildings exceed the costs of new buildings. What carriers are clamoring to pay more for better facilities at CLE, specifically?

I'm with the poster than declares 'inadequate' a high bar.

N766UA wrote:

It’ll be a great day when they start tearing that old terminal down. I’ve got some fun memories there, but it’s easily the worst terminal in America now that LGA has a new building.

Clearly you have not been to EWR Terminal A or B. Or MEM (although the B concourse is being replaced).

chonetsao wrote:

There are actually many citizens of the city (not necessarily in Ohio nor CMH), that are proud of flying in and out of their own city in a modern and beautiful terminal facility, and many are feeling dreary and sad when their city's airport is stuck in 1960's, crowded and run down. A beautiful new terminal building gives visitors a great impression of the place their visiting (imagine you just arrived in Japan or Dubai or Singapore), a old building that deserves to be torn down gives visitors a bad feeling about the place they are go step foot in (Imagine you just landed in Yemen or Congo).

And yet the quality of the airport has little impact on how desirable a given city is as a destination. LGA's woeful terminals didn't keep it from being the preferred airport for travelers to and from NYC. CDG is a pain-in-the butt but Paris is a glorious city to visit. Delta's terminal at DTW is a great facility but it doesn't make me more inclined to visit Detroit.

And if you gave passengers the choice between lower airport fees or a nice terminal, the vast majority would likely choose the former.

Citrus1492 wrote:

CVG is also going thru the motions of a new terminal.

LOLwut? CVG is really quite nice. Concourse A might be a little narrow but it still has moving walkways. The only minus is the need to walk/take the train to the concourses.

phatfarmlines wrote:

I take it the infrastructure for the existing CLE terminal has been built upon since the 1950's (no knock-downs and rebuild like you're seeing with LGA), making it one of the oldest terminal facilities today, though it has seen various renovations to allow for security requirement changes and modernizing architecture. Is this an accurate statement?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

There is nothing that can be done to repurpose D into a functioning terminal again? I guess not, given it was built for regional jets. What a waste.

The D gates were designed in a way that could be converted to mainline use. Lob off the ground-level D gates (or keep them if you're Allegiant/ULCC) and convert to jetways, reduce existing jetways to allow for mainline usage and voila. More mainline capacity. Add a landside link if people complain about the facility not friendly to those not connection.

IMO forward-thinking on the design firm. It's a shame so many people want to see that concourse demolished.

Snapshot of Google Earth with grounded UA 737s at Concourse D:

CLE Concourse D (Source: Google Earth)

Exactly. A repurpose of D is perfectly feasible. I went through D a couple of times and it was the best part of CLE at the time (a year or two before the dehubbing). Now I connected on C, and never saw B or A but I've heard they were the oldest/worst parts of the terminal at the time.

Buildings wear out. No one is suggesting CLE get a magnificent hall like you see in Singapore or even LGA. Who thinks a building 64 years old isn't well past it's useful life. People fly to northeast Ohio (because in spite of rumors to the contrary) 2.6 million people live here and fly more often then people in IND, PIT, CMH and CVG.

CLE and CMH are regional assets. You bet the State should help out specifically so airlines aren't priced out. Just like they did this week to grab 100's of jobs from Detroit's Rocket Mortgage with a huge job creation grant.

It's how business is done these days.

phatfarmlines wrote:

I take it the infrastructure for the existing CLE terminal has been built upon since the 1950's (no knock-downs and rebuild like you're seeing with LGA), making it one of the oldest terminal facilities today, though it has seen various renovations to allow for security requirement changes and modernizing architecture. Is this an accurate statement?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

There is nothing that can be done to repurpose D into a functioning terminal again? I guess not, given it was built for regional jets. What a waste.

The D gates were designed in a way that could be converted to mainline use. Lob off the ground-level D gates (or keep them if you're Allegiant/ULCC) and convert to jetways, reduce existing jetways to allow for mainline usage and voila. More mainline capacity. Add a landside link if people complain about the facility not friendly to those not connection.

IMO forward-thinking on the design firm. It's a shame so many people want to see that concourse demolished.

Snapshot of Google Earth with grounded UA 737s at Concourse D:

CLE Concourse D (Source: Google Earth)

Thank you. D was very nice after the renovation. The high ceilings and big windows almost distracted from the fact that you were about to hop on an express flight! I agree...It would be a shame to demolish such a nice and versatile building.

One of the plans is to reopen D while other concourses are demolished.

Trk1 wrote:

Everything from the railroad tracks north is on a landfill. Do not be so sure if the entire Burke footprint was on the market that it would not make an excellent shoreline investment. Think BIG!

If you want to "Think BIG!" then you should be thinking we must keep Burke. Every major city in the world has more than one airport. Burke plays a critical role in Cleveland whether you realize it or not and its a driver of economic development. Furthermore, we have plenty of lakefront land that for one reason or another is NOT developed and with better connectivity to the rest of Downtown--I'm talking about north of Browns Stadium. So we have lots of lakefront land available for development, but its not happening. Closing BKL would be a giant mistake.

greenair727 wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

Everything from the railroad tracks north is on a landfill. Do not be so sure if the entire Burke footprint was on the market that it would not make an excellent shoreline investment. Think BIG!

If you want to "Think BIG!" then you should be thinking we must keep Burke. Every major city in the world has more than one airport. Burke plays a critical role in Cleveland whether you realize it or not and its a driver of economic development. Furthermore, we have plenty of lakefront land that for one reason or another is NOT developed and with better connectivity to the rest of Downtown--I'm talking about north of Browns Stadium. So we have lots of lakefront land available for development, but its not happening. Closing BKL would be a giant mistake.

This guy gets it. Burke will be invaluable going forward.

N766UA wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

I worked at hopkins for 10 years. Yes it could use some repairs, especially the non passenger facing areas. Does it need to be leveled and built completely as a new facility? Absolutely not.

Completely disagree. The entire thing is WELL beyond its useful life.

I’m sure they’ll eff it up, though. They can’t even repair the revolving entrance doors they have now; pretty sure half of them have been broken and blocked off for well over a month, if not 2. The place is pathetic.

Those reloving doors were installed for the 2016 RNC convention. They can be removed at any time at virtually no cost.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

One of the plans is to reopen D while other concourses are demolished.

None of the concourses should be demolished, they are completely adequate for current pax air service levels at CLE.

In the current environment I doubt united would do any early out deal. The chances of bankruptcy are not zero, and they are not swimming with cash. Just keep paying the minimum just in case something crazy happens.

ScottB wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Agreed. It was a short-sighted approach (looking back now of course) as it was intended mainly for ERJs (when CO proclaimed it had essentially gotten rid of turboprops). Problem was this was mostly 50 seaters, expensive to operate, genuinely uncomfortable to fly in, and D was build pretty much around the spec of those types of planes at that time, and thus obsolete.

Concourse D might have been designed for 50-seaters, but it'd be perfectly well-suited for parking 76-seaters on both sides (or even small mainline aircraft) if the boarding walkways on the east side were removed and passenger loading bridges were added. There's probably room for 15-20 gates with loading bridges.

The bigger problem is that it's just inconvenient for O&D passengers -- passengers have to walk most of the way to the end of C and then through the connecting tunnel. At a time when CLE has a huge surplus of gates and will for the foreseeable future, there's no sense in using an inconvenient facility. And FWIW, at the time CO acquired all those ERJs, they were a huge upgrade from turboprops. The problem was that 50-seaters replaced mainline in many markets, and that was a poorer customer experience. CO/UA was operating 50-seaters in markets like IAH-ATL!

Definitely agree that when CO upgauged to ERJs it was a significant improvement over the turboprops which no one liked to fly but yes, the 50 seats were everywhere including in markets that they should never have been, and CO relied on them a lot for exactly the type of markets you point out, and this continued post-merger, for a time, further eroding the customer experience. I remember the access tunnel to D was pretty far into the C concourse, which yes, did make for long walks.

I worked at Hopkins too but I didn't explore the the electrical and heating systems, the roof or the foundations. I've also worked in construction management for the biggest company in Company in Cleveland. There comes a time with any facility(airports, steel mills and commercial buildings for example) that it does not pay to continue to fix or patchwork renovations.

For example, the Hillard Rd Bridge over the Rocky River is going to be torn down by the State and rebuilt. Rehabilitation was considered but it would only add 25 years to the lifespan. A new bridge 40 to 50. They made the wise decision to tear it down.

Sooner or later the terminal and concourses of Hopkins will need significant investment due to deterioration from NE Ohio weather and the wear and tear of daily use.

The whole idea of airports not getting Federal Funds may have gone out the window with the unprecedented massive direct Federal support of the airlines and airports during COVID With the chances of a trillion dollar Infrastructure bill better than ever, all infrastructure is most likely on the table.

Let's not forget about Richmond Road Airport. NY, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, all have much longer rides from downtown to the other airport in those cities. Chicago seems to be doing ok without Miegs.

Overall, BKL is not a good use of land for CLE, but it's not the first thing that needs redevelopment. I see the waste first hand regularly as I'm probably at BKL more than anyone except those who work there. I love the facility, always stop in when on a run for ice cold water and super clean restroom! JK. If CHI can live without Meigs, we can certainly live w/o BKL.

However, other things need to happen to build momentum, people and traffic, then the business case will be more compelling.
1) North of CLE Stadium development
2) Rumor Haslam will build new CLE stadium south of Tower City in 2029 when lease is up similar to Cowboys stadium for year round use.
3) Develop former CLE stadium area
4) Get the damn pedestrian bridge connecting downtown to the lakefront we've been talking about for 10 years done
5) Then, get to BKL once all the areas around it are humming.
6) Finally, most important, don't re-elect Mayor Jackson. He's shown no interest in developing the lakefront.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Definitely agree that when CO upgauged to ERJs it was a significant improvement over the turboprops which no one liked to fly

I must be one of the few who liked the old Brasilias. No muss, no fuss; you boarded and fifteen minutes later you were airborne.

GSPSPOT wrote:

Runway765 wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

MKE, just like CLE, is a perfectly adequate facility. The MKE IAB is right sized for the amount of international traffic. The Amtrak station there is used by almost nobody, just like Amtrak nationally.
Cleveland has so many problems, the airport isnt even in the top 100. I hope the city council and the airlines say NO to the new terminal.

No, MKE eventually needs a new terminal with a consolidated single 25 gate concourse (which can include 1-2 international gates). Not a high priority at the moment, but when air traffic begins to recover, this would be worth pursuing more than a dedicated international arrivals facility.

Well the plan is to reconstruct existing (now unused) Concourse E for international arrivals and common-use gates. It's at least partially funded already, but progress towards actual construction has been excruciatingly slow, even pre-covid.

Which is incredibly dumb and will barely be used, especially in the post-COVID travel world. It would be better to build a whole new unified terminal with a consolidated security checkpoint and one concourse. I'm thinking something like AUS, expect with a head terminal.

as739x wrote:

Robert1010 wrote:

Does the plans include a new possible Amtrak stop? Maybe the IX can be turned into a cargo facility hub for someone , plenty of room for a ramp around perimeter.

Almost every major cargo operator has facilities within a stones throw of CLE. Personally I don't see anyone wanting or needing a cargo facility there.

Not saying CLE had to be like MEM or SDF , maybe more like ILN , or FedEx in EWR ! UPS in PHL !!

masseybrown wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Definitely agree that when CO upgauged to ERJs it was a significant improvement over the turboprops which no one liked to fly

I must be one of the few who liked the old Brasilias. No muss, no fuss; you boarded and fifteen minutes later you were airborne.

Flew on one from MIA to MCO in 2000. Clear night. Was a lot of fun in the end, but I almost needed a valium to get through the experience. Took off between 2 747s.

Robert1010 wrote:

as739x wrote:

Robert1010 wrote:

Does the plans include a new possible Amtrak stop? Maybe the IX can be turned into a cargo facility hub for someone , plenty of room for a ramp around perimeter.

Almost every major cargo operator has facilities within a stones throw of CLE. Personally I don't see anyone wanting or needing a cargo facility there.

Not saying CLE had to be like MEM or SDF , maybe more like ILN , or FedEx in EWR ! UPS in PHL !!

I understand, but for whom? Everyone has large and small facilities not far. Don't get me wrong its a great idea and would be great for CLE. I grew up flying in and out of CLE and want to see it thrive.

Where do things stand with the IX? Must be a reason they are not building an all new terminal on the property, which I thought would be a good idea.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Who thinks a building 64 years old isn't well past it's useful life.

It should be clear by simple observation that CLE is not past its *useful* life. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

17 months ago I purchased a residence built in 1955. There are a few thousand homes in the same incorporation of similar or older. T+hese homes are selling so quickly right now that buyers cannot find inventory.

I've been to over 200 football games in a stadium 4.5 miles from my house, that opened in 1922. It's so useful that twice since 1989, the university who owns it has spent eight or nine figures to make it larger and/or improve its revenue generating abilities. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

There's a bridge in San Francisco that I bicycled across in the summer of 2018. It opened in 1937. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

Who thinks the age of a building is the primary determinant of its usefulness? Shouldn't we make big capital decisions using more details of far greater pertinence than age?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's how business is done these days.

Thankfully not. The details still matter.

ScottB wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

CVG is also going thru the motions of a new terminal.

LOLwut? CVG is really quite nice. Concourse A might be a little narrow but it still has moving walkways. The only minus is the need to walk/take the train to the concourses.

They're not planning on a new terminal just modernization. Basically connecting Concourse A to the main terminal so customs can exit into a non-secure area and expanding A to the west for more gates.

as739x wrote:

Where do things stand with the IX? Must be a reason they are not building an all new terminal on the property, which I thought would be a good idea.

It sounded as if the IX Center, the operator not the building, was done for last September when they cancelled all their shows. BUT, Airport Chief Kennedy reported to City Council that IX paid their back rent and is now current on all lease payments ($2,2 million a year). Their lease on the building runs through 2024, with a couple of 5 year renewal options IX, according to reports, has told their employees they plan to resume normal business as soon as COVID conditions allow.

ContnlEliteCMH wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Who thinks a building 64 years old isn't well past it's useful life.

It should be clear by simple observation that CLE is not past its *useful* life. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

17 months ago I purchased a residence built in 1955. There are a few thousand homes in the same incorporation of similar or older. T+hese homes are selling so quickly right now that buyers cannot find inventory.

I've been to over 200 football games in a stadium 4.5 miles from my house, that opened in 1922. It's so useful that twice since 1989, the university who owns it has spent eight or nine figures to make it larger and/or improve its revenue generating abilities. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

There's a bridge in San Francisco that I bicycled across in the summer of 2018. It opened in 1937. It's still in use; by definition, it's useful.

Who thinks the age of a building is the primary determinant of its usefulness? Shouldn't we make big capital decisions using more details of far greater pertinence than age?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's how business is done these days.

Thankfully not. The details still matter.

I assume you are talking about The Ohio State University football stadium. Funny but it seems they only kept the shell when it was refurbished for almost $200 million dollars ($286 million in 2021 dollars). And that's for a property that has a footprint maybe 20percent of CLE airport. So figure 800 million to compare apples to apples refurbishment. Details do still matter.

2001
Ohio Stadium is one of the most recognizable landmarks in all of sports. Built in 1922 at a cost of $1.3 million and refurbished in 2001 for slightly more than $194 million, the horseshoe-shaped stadium is a monument to college football.