Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
flyPIT wrote:London ads have been nonstop on my FB since about two weeks ago. Finally.
Interesting observation in the comments.. there are the usual naysayers (“until they leave again”, etc). Yet there are a good number of comments from Clevelanders stating that it’s great news that they can finally fly to London nonstop again.
I never understood why the ACAA stopped advertising in NE OH after Cassotis came in.
Robert1010 wrote:I always thought CLE had the most Croatians hence the National Home being in Eastlake , Oh, guess not anymore , also CLE is ……was 2nd most Serbian population behind Chicago !
flyPIT wrote:I was skeptical, but sure enough I found "It also has the largest [in the US] Croatian community at over 200,000 "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-ci ... population
MohawkWeekend wrote:You guys have the Croatians, Cleveland has the Serbians. I don't think they get along very well. JAT used to run charters to CLE too.
JamesRenard wrote:It's been a busy week at PIT with new and resuming services happening over three consecutive days:
Wednesday, AC resumed PIT-YUL
Thursday, SY started PIT-MSP
Friday, BA resumed PIT-LHR
One rather interesting flight landed at PIT yesterday a short time after BA. A Hi Fly A340-300 came in all the way from NRT. Anyone know what that was all about?
JamesRenard wrote:It's been a busy week at PIT with new and resuming services happening over three consecutive days:
Wednesday, AC resumed PIT-YUL
Thursday, SY started PIT-MSP
Friday, BA resumed PIT-LHR
One rather interesting flight landed at PIT yesterday a short time after BA. A Hi Fly A340-300 came in all the way from NRT. Anyone know what that was all about?
flyPIT wrote:EAS routes served by Skywest are up for bid. JST and CKB have a couple proposals for PIT service from Southern Airways and an unknown company calling itself "Cool Air". Interestingly, Southern is also proposing a PIT route from Shenandoah (SHD). It would be the first time we would have a link there since the US hub days. I hope Southern Airways wins all 3 of these.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2022/05/23/the ... s-leaving/
JamesRenard wrote:It's been a busy week at PIT with new and resuming services happening over three consecutive days:
Wednesday, AC resumed PIT-YUL
Thursday, SY started PIT-MSP
Friday, BA resumed PIT-LHR
One rather interesting flight landed at PIT yesterday a short time after BA. A Hi Fly A340-300 came in all the way from NRT. Anyone know what that was all about?
flyPIT wrote:A few encouraging bits of info regarding BA's return to PIT.
"British Airways has already signed a new seven-year lease that helps fund the airport’s $1.4 billion modernization."
"While Ms. Cassotis had no data on advanced bookings for the British Airways return engagement [bullshit], she said the airline seems to be “very happy” with what it’s seen so far.
The response for the summer has been even better than it was when the flight first launched in 2019, she said."
"The airport also has been working with freight forwarders to fill the belly of the plane with cargo. So far, that has proven to be beneficial, with the flight’s cargo space filled for months out, Ms. Cassotis said."
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206030070
masseybrown wrote:Nice photos, flyPIT. I wish a.net had a like button.
flyPIT wrote:"Pittsburgh International Airport decides against closing its longest runway"
Common sense prevails.
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206070051
stl07 wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:You guys have the Croatians, Cleveland has the Serbians. I don't think they get along very well. JAT used to run charters to CLE too.
And STL has the Bosnians. Mini Eastern Europe here in the midwest lol.
PITingres wrote:flyPIT wrote:"Pittsburgh International Airport decides against closing its longest runway"
Common sense prevails.
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206070051
Well, that's good. I could see how closing the runway made a certain amount of financial sense in the nearer term. Big picture and longer term, it had bad idea written all over it IMO.
PITingres wrote:Good grief. I’m surprised BA didn’t make a deal with at least one vendor to be wild and crazy and stay open until 9…
PITingres wrote:flyPIT wrote:"Pittsburgh International Airport decides against closing its longest runway"
Common sense prevails.
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206070051
Well, that's good. I could see how closing the runway made a certain amount of financial sense in the nearer term. Big picture and longer term, it had bad idea written all over it IMO.
LAX772LR wrote:PITingres wrote:flyPIT wrote:"Pittsburgh International Airport decides against closing its longest runway"
Common sense prevails.
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206070051
Well, that's good. I could see how closing the runway made a certain amount of financial sense in the nearer term. Big picture and longer term, it had bad idea written all over it IMO.
Why? I'm sorta surprised they didn't do it.
Airport can handle more than 6x its current throughput on 1 less runway, and any aircraft departing for Europe or LatAm would have no difficulty doing so off of the remaining two 10,000ft+ runways.
Flaps wrote:28L/10R is the longest, widest and best equipped runway that they have. Closing 28C/10C would have made much more sense. As the airport is trying to attract more military, cargo and overseas operations, closing 28L/10R was akin to shooting themselves in the foot.
LAX772LR wrote:Flaps wrote:28L/10R is the longest, widest and best equipped runway that they have. Closing 28C/10C would have made much more sense. As the airport is trying to attract more military, cargo and overseas operations, closing 28L/10R was akin to shooting themselves in the foot.
Again.... how?
What tangible difference do you think 3500m vs 3300m actually creates, in that regard?
Delta28L wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Flaps wrote:28L/10R is the longest, widest and best equipped runway that they have. Closing 28C/10C would have made much more sense. As the airport is trying to attract more military, cargo and overseas operations, closing 28L/10R was akin to shooting themselves in the foot.
Again.... how?
What tangible difference do you think 3500m vs 3300m actually creates, in that regard?
200m safety net should an aircraft needs an emergency landing. Aircraft can carry more freight and fuel on take off. Wider range of aircraft can land on the runway. Heavier aircraft mean more revenue if the airport charges by landing weight or takeoff weight. KPIT takes diversions should the East cost airports get held up by thunderstorms or any other reasons.
Delta28L wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Flaps wrote:28L/10R is the longest, widest and best equipped runway that they have. Closing 28C/10C would have made much more sense. As the airport is trying to attract more military, cargo and overseas operations, closing 28L/10R was akin to shooting themselves in the foot.
Again.... how?
What tangible difference do you think 3500m vs 3300m actually creates, in that regard?
200m safety net should an aircraft needs an emergency landing. Aircraft can carry more freight and fuel on take off. Wider range of aircraft can land on the runway. Heavier aircraft mean more revenue if the airport charges by landing weight or takeoff weight. KPIT takes diversions should the East cost airports get held up by thunderstorms or any other reasons.
LAX772LR wrote:Nonsense, at these lengths. If we were talking about a 2000m runway, then that additional margin would be significant.
Off the top of my head, I don't think Boeing nor Airbus makes an aircraft that can't opp full MTOW at 3300m, even at PIT's altitude (with typical assumptions in place). Using ACAPS on an A359 for example: it can be at MTOW, fully fueled for an 18hr trip to the other side of the world, at 2000ft elevation, with temps 5 above standard, and still need less than 3300m of runway.
flyPIT wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Nonsense, at these lengths. If we were talking about a 2000m runway, then that additional margin would be significant.
Off the top of my head, I don't think Boeing nor Airbus makes an aircraft that can't opp full MTOW at 3300m, even at PIT's altitude (with typical assumptions in place). Using ACAPS on an A359 for example: it can be at MTOW, fully fueled for an 18hr trip to the other side of the world, at 2000ft elevation, with temps 5 above standard, and still need less than 3300m of runway.
Plug those numbers in for a B744F at MTOW on a wet runway at ISA+10 (which is only 73 deg F at PIT’s elevation).
krod031 wrote:JamesRenard wrote:It's been a busy week at PIT with new and resuming services happening over three consecutive days:
Wednesday, AC resumed PIT-YUL
Thursday, SY started PIT-MSP
Friday, BA resumed PIT-LHR
One rather interesting flight landed at PIT yesterday a short time after BA. A Hi Fly A340-300 came in all the way from NRT. Anyone know what that was all about?
NK also started their PIT-EWR today on the 321
LAX772LR wrote:CF6-powered 744F at 397tonnes, contaminated, +17, at altitude: 3657m
I.e. you're not getting that no matter what PIT does.
...but who'd even fly that OUT from there? Chances are, any such freighter would be a part of a continental milk-run beginning in ANC/ORD and ending in DFW/ATL/MIA/LAX, as opposed to PIT sending any such aircraft over an ocean at MTOW.
flyPIT wrote:I said wet, not contaminated.
flyPIT wrote:Point being there can be common scenarios when 11,500’ of runway will get the job done but 10,700’ will result in reduced GTOW.
flyPIT wrote:Not sure what you’re arguing here.
flyPIT wrote:Why should PIT reduce its capabilities?
flyPIT wrote:They are trying extremely hard to market the airport to int’l freight operators,
flyPIT wrote:and this runway is a key selling point.
flyPIT wrote:LAX772LR wrote:CF6-powered 744F at 397tonnes, contaminated, +17, at altitude: 3657m
I.e. you're not getting that no matter what PIT does.
...but who'd even fly that OUT from there? Chances are, any such freighter would be a part of a continental milk-run beginning in ANC/ORD and ending in DFW/ATL/MIA/LAX, as opposed to PIT sending any such aircraft over an ocean at MTOW.
I said wet, not contaminated. Point being there can be common scenarios when 11,500’ of runway will get the job done but 10,700’ will result in reduced GTOW.
Not sure what you’re arguing here. Why should PIT reduce its capabilities? They are trying extremely hard to market the airport to int’l freight operators, and this runway is a key selling point.
To your final point, last year SpiceXpress of India and Cathay were operating in here from Asia. SpiceXpress would then often depart nonstop to DEL with A340s, and CX nonstop to HKG.
Jshank83 wrote:Also lets say they do remove [the runway], what else could that land then be used for to bring in more revenue that might make them more money than they are getting now?
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:I said wet, not contaminated.
What do you think the latter means.......
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:Point being there can be common scenarios when 11,500’ of runway will get the job done but 10,700’ will result in reduced GTOW.
The example you gave, is not one of those.
And as to my point, "negligible" wouldn't even begin to describe the frequency of occurrence where a mere 240m/800ft for runways over 3000, would mean the difference between ability to transport typical/expectant payload and not.
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:Not sure what you’re arguing here.
I just told you.
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:Why should PIT reduce its capabilities?
To save potentially millions.
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:They are trying extremely hard to market the airport to int’l freight operators,
Who isn't?
LAX772LR wrote:flyPIT wrote:and this runway is a key selling point.
Not much of one
Jshank83 wrote:You reduce capabilities when it saves you money.
Can the airport bring in more money than upkeep costs on an extra runway with that much extra length? Will that bring in enough extra cash to support it over anything that could just use one of the other runways? I would guess that whatever business they would lose over it would be smaller in income than the money they would save by not having to upkeep the runway anymore. Also lets say they do remove it, what else could that land then be used for to bring in more revenue that might make them more money than they are getting now?
flyPIT wrote:Jshank83 wrote:You reduce capabilities when it saves you money.
Can the airport bring in more money than upkeep costs on an extra runway with that much extra length? Will that bring in enough extra cash to support it over anything that could just use one of the other runways? I would guess that whatever business they would lose over it would be smaller in income than the money they would save by not having to upkeep the runway anymore. Also lets say they do remove it, what else could that land then be used for to bring in more revenue that might make them more money than they are getting now?
It's all been studied for years, and a (proper) decision made.
Jshank83 wrote:Is there a report out on the study? I would love to read it.