Heard my first ad for the London flight this morning on Spotify. So at least that's something, I guess.

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.

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.

I've been seeing the ads for BA on my FB feed as well. Interestingly, I've also started seeing ads for Breeze (about time!)
Unfortunately, I'm seeing the same kinds of negative comments ("lol who wants to fly to Providence/Hartford?") on those ads as well.

Just for yucks, I ran a test booking for a flight from PIT-LHR departing Tuesday August 16 and returning Tuesday August 23rd on BA. The flight cost is $1338.

For a CLE passenger, they could fly to CLE - YYZ and then on to LHR on the same dates for $1127. If they drove to Toronto (which is what a lot of people I know did at least pre-covid) the non-stop AC flight roundtrip is $809.

The stats from February of this year got released on Transtats so I wanted to see what progress has occurred in the past couple months.

Same as last time, comparing the most recent 12 months of data (Mar 2021 to Feb 2022) to 2019's numbers and working out how much they're up/down from 2019. I'm also including how much has changed since Dec 2021. Doing the top 30 destinations from PIT this time.

1. ATL: 320,490 (481,718 - down 33.47%) 5.51% increase from Dec 2021
2. MCO: 245,297 (261,901 - down 6.34%) 7.46% increase
3. CLT: 230,660 (295,649 - down 21.98%) 2.17% decrease
4. ORD: 192,771 (335,347 - down 42.52%) 2.26% increase
5. DEN: 170,531 (213,006 - down 19.94%) 1.23% increase
6. DFW: 155,860 (177,181 - down 12.03%) 2.40% increase
7. FLL: 131,203 (118,340 - up 10.87%) 4.05% increase
8. MDW: 113,212 (172,473 - down 34.36%) 4.34% increase
9. TPA: 105,732 (130,127 - down 18.75%) 2.80% increase
10. RSW: 96,661 (73,674 - up 31.20%) 4.31% increase
11. PHL: 93,513 (146,040 - down 35.97%) 1.46% increase
12. PHX: 93,008 (107,037 - down 13.11%) 11.83% increase
13. BNA: 92,255 (89,711 - up 2.84%) 6.28% increase
14. LGA: 91,034 (185,731 - down 50.99%) 6.53% increase
15. LAS: 90,408 (120,163 - down 24.76%) 8.57% increase
16. BWI: 89,449 (110,536 - down 19.08%) 3.16% increase
17. IAH: 86,677 (122,096 - down 29.01%) 7.57% increase
18. DTW: 72,753 (118,807 - down 38.76%) 5.11% increase
19. BOS: 72,180 (211,723 - down 65.91%) 3.64% increase
20. MIA: 70,536 (57,043 - up 23.65%) 20.04% increase
21. MSP: 70,451 (101,858 - down 30.83%) 4.79% increase
22. EWR: 69,626 (162,283 - down 57.10%) 3.90% increase
23. IAD: 57,228 (89,152 - down 35.81%) 4.11% increase
24. DCA: 56,600 (72,033 - down 21.42%) 9.30% increase
25. MYR: 48,305 (32,590 - up 48.22%) 1.47% decrease
26. JFK: 46,981 (67,403 - down 30.30%) 11.98% increase
27. SRQ: 45,268 (15,993 - up 183.05%) 39.60% increase
28. SEA: 41,091 (50,971 - down 19.38%) 3.12% increase
29. STL: 30,800 (50,376 - down 38.86%) 8.82% increase
30. LAX: 25,654 (58,814 - down 56.38%) 5.17% increase

A few takeaways: BNA is now up from before the pandemic and MCO is sure to follow within the next couple of months. Alarmed to see CLT actually get worse. PHX had a massive boost over the last two months, though that'll almost certainly reverse course. Very surprised to see JFK and DCA show big increases as well.

"A new phase of an already-existing partnership between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) and CNX Resources Corp., a subsidiary of Canonsburg-based Consol Energy Inc., will vie to reduce carbon emissions and lower transportation costs by converting natural gas sourced from the airport's property into alternative fuels.

More specifically, CNX's proprietary technology claims to be capable of converting the on-site dry natural gas found on PIT's property into liquified natural gas, compressed natural gas or even electricity for different use, including as a hydrogen feedstock. Such a capability will then reportedly reduce the carbon emissions PIT produces as well as lower some of its operating costs, savings that in theory could be carried over and enjoyed by PIT's passengers and other customers.

"CNX views its innovative public-private partnership with PIT as the beachhead market to showcase this technology, and the associated economic development opportunities, through on-site development of low-cost and lower-carbon intensity natural gas derivative products," CNX President and CEO Nick DeIuliis said in a prepared statement. "We will produce, process and consume these natural gas-based products locally first, and, in doing so, unleash countless downstream economic opportunities and help jumpstart the hydrogen economy, leverage the region’s unrivaled work ethic, create family-sustaining jobs, better the region’s underserved communities and revitalize Appalachia’s middle class in a new, lower-carbon economic ecosystem."

The news comes following Gov. Tom Wolf's announcement earlier this week where he outlined plans for Pennsylvania to solicit a bid for some of the $8 billion available in federal funding for carbon capture hubs across the country, funding Pennsylvania plans to use, if awarded, for four hydrogen energy and carbon capture hubs.

According to PIT, the results of that announcement coupled with this expanded partnership announced Friday will bring even more partnership opportunities to the region's largest airport."
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... costs.html


I found these additional renderings of LBE's expansion, including casino room.

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/


Here's a good article that expands upon the new mineral lease agreement with CNX.
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/p ... 2205210026
Part of the new lease agreement is to cut existing royalties to the ACAA by 45%... but this in turn would allow CNX to drill more wells which would increase the total royalties. In theory. New wells would go down to the Utica Shale.


In economic development news, Fortune came out with their F500 list. Pittsburgh maintains 10 F500 headquarters, punching WELL above its weight compared to peer cities. 7 of the 10 rose in the rankings so that's good news.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... kings.html


In not so good news, job openings in Pittsburgh's tech sector ranked 80th in the US for growth percentage. In terms raw numbers, Pittsburgh ranked somewhere in the middle of the pack amongst peer cities and 31st overall in the US (Pittsburgh is the 27th largest MSA). Ignore the misleading headline:
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... burgh.html

April numbers are out. Total passengers are up 63%. cargo down 7%.
https://flypittsburgh.com/wp-content/up ... Report.pdf

Regarding the decrease in cargo, Cassotis gave a very Bidenesque response. That is, blame everyone and everything but themself.
"During ACAA's monthly board meeting, Cassotis cited global supply chain disruptions, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and inflation as the factors that contributed to the decline last month."
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... evels.html
While that's part of the story what she's omitting of course is PIT's loss of significant Unique Logistics capacity. Qatar Airways, Cathay Pacific, Euroatlantic, Hi Fly Malta, etc. These accounted for up to 10 large widebodies weekly at its peak.



Another Breeze schedule extension, so that means even more PIT cuts. There is a 5 week period that PVD and BDL are not served at all early next year (just like this year). The only service during that time will be 2x weekly to CHS. ORF remains eliminated. 2 weekly flights compared to 16 when they began. Breeze and PIT must be one of the biggest blunders by the ACAA in recent memory. There was so much potential; just look at the success they are having at PVD. But their launch here was such a head scratcher considering the complete lack of marketing and awareness in the community. The ACAA gave 100x more attention and publicity to the unvailing of a statue of someone no one has heard of than they gave Breeze's entry in to the market. I fully expect PIT to be the only city other than SAT to be dropped by MX and I suggest the ACAA get back to the business of air service development instead of all their pet side projects.



I had a look at Anna Aero's "The Route Shop" for the first time in a long time. PIT's page hasn't changed in years. But I did see that Zagreb, Croatia (ZAG) has PIT on their wish list. They claim that Pittsburgh has 120,000 Croatian descendants. This is 4 times more than Cleveland and even more than NYC and Chicago.
http://www.therouteshop.com/profiles/zagreb-airport/

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

Many will remember JAT Yugoslav Airlines had scheduled charters to PIT before the Balkans War, including to/from Zagreb and Dubrovnik. Croatia Airlines lacks suitable long-haul aircraft

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.

This Week in Pittsburgh History: Greater Pittsburgh Airport Opens (70 years ago)
https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/this-week-in-pittsburgh-history-greater-pittsburgh-airport-opens/

Carrier - - - # Flts - per timetable issued:
All-American - 14 - 4/27/52
Capital - - - - - 52 - 6/1/52
Eastern - - - - - 4 - 5/1/52
Northwest - - - 2 - 4/27/52
TWA - - - - - - 39 - 6/1/52

Total departures 111

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 !

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 !

Do you mean Slovenian? "Cleveland has always been a city with a significantly high Slovene population – the city had the largest Slovene settlement group in the US for approximately ninety years[4], and is now the city with the largest Slovene population outside of Slovenia."

https://globalcleveland.org/a-history-o ... ovenia.%20

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

Fun fact about that - Pittsburgh has more people of Croatian heritage (such as myself) than the 2nd biggest city in Croatia (Split)

Would looove a PIT-Croatia flight, but know that's never going to happen. Maybe the ACAA can spend a few million to get a charter there? All joking aside, it's hard enough to get direct flights to Croatia from the US - with only one being (EWR-DBV) AA operated PHL-DBV pre pandemic. When I went there in 2013 it was near impossible to even find a 2 stop itinerary. Most of the flights in and out of Croatia seemed to be via the Euro LCC's

Re MX, it sucks. I often forget they exist. Their timing and frequency sucks for PVD and BDL. So yeah, we/MX/the ACAA could do more to promote the flights, but timing and frequency changes would be nice too.

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?

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.

In fact, LH said one-stop to Bosnia was something they feel will help the new flight out as current options are 2-3 stop

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?

Probably a cargo charter flight

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?

Probably a cargo charter flight

While we're at it, I've taken PIT-SFO 3x now since it restarted, pretty much sold out every time. An anecdote, I realize, but if it's doing well hopefully we can get that second daily back. They had better times.

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/

You should probably prepare yourself for some disappointment on the EAS front.

JST has the opportunity to keep jet service, either with Skywest if they agree to a temporary reduction of service to one daily (how "temporary" is the big question), or with Contour, double daily to CLT. One of these 2 will win.

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/news/21268146/johnstown-airport-weighing-four-proposals-for-service-two-pitches-include-jets

CKB, LWB, and SHD will almost certainly go to Contour. Skywest isn't trying to hang on there and Contour is offering double daily jet service to CLT. All the other proposals are with single engine turboprops.

Cool Air is out of the running. Their proposal document was very sloppy (no indication of what aircraft they were planning to fly, or at what subsidy level) and it's unclear they actually have the required permissions to operate EAS flights.

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

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

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

Great to hear there is confidence in delivering strong summer loads. As the article mentioned, I think the real challenge is going to be the winter. With business travel still not completely back to 2019 levels, there will need to be increased winter tourism to fill the plane. One benefit is that summer fares are outrageously expensive, so some individuals may wait until the off season to travel on a lower fare.

"Pittsburgh International Airport decides against closing its longest runway"

Common sense prevails.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/d ... 2206070051

AC is dropping PIT-YUL at the end of October.

Looks like it is going seasonal; as of now showing a return on May 1 with a CR2. BWI-YUL also appears to be seasonal. When these routes were announced in 2017 they were announced as year round but I can't remember if they became seasonal before Covid hit.

Clearing and grading well underway for Cargo 4:

Nice photos, flyPIT. I wish a.net had a like button.

masseybrown wrote:

Nice photos, flyPIT. I wish a.net had a like button.

Thank you!

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.

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.

Just for sh*ts and giggles, MKE is no slouch where residents of Serbian and Polish heritage are concerned. I also worked with a Croatian native before the pandemic. Despite my old a.net handle, I've lived in Milwaukee for over 5 years.

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.

Zounds. I haven’t been in the airport in the evening for a couple years. Everyone closes down at 7 PM? Except Primanti’s who gives it another hour? 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:

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…

It was initially like that at MSY too.

Which really sucks, because while I understand they're aimed at departures (which generally stop there around 10pm), there's a steady stream of arrivals on multiple airlines (DL, AA, UA, NK, and WN) through around 2am.

Eventually, The Club (i.e. Priority Pass) decided to stay open until 9pm, when BA departs, so that's something.

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.

Absolutely. I'm not even sure it would make sense short term. The plan would have been to relocate the 10R/28L ILS systems to the Center runway. That alone would have been a project, to include recertification by the FAA and all the air carrier operations specifications to allow Cat II/III. Anecdotally I remember our highly paid airport CEO suggesting the land could have been used for commercial development.... a worse idea than locating "Neighborhood 91" where it is. Much better to keep it as is, this way they can always have two open during snow removal while the other two are cleared. I'm surprised it took them years to reach this conclusion.



Switching gears toward economic issues in the airport area, it seems the Shell cracker might be a dud as far as generating downstream development and jobs.
"When Shell's $6 billion ethane cracker plant was officially announced in June 2016, it was heralded as the anchor of what would become a new era of petrochemical development in the tri-state region. And while the commissioning of the Potter Township plant is a milestone in Beaver County, what it hasn't done, at least not yet, is led to any firm follow-on development.

“Quite frankly, I don’t think it will ever meet some of the wild expectations people had for this,” said Manning, who not only has long experience in Beaver County’s business community, but spent decades in the chemical industry including running Nova Chemicals’ plant in the region.

That goes too for the end users of the plastic pellets that the Shell plant will produce. There have been no new manufacturing plants that have sprung up in Pennsylvania, the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia or eastern Ohio to take the plastic pellets made by Shell and turn them into products. The Shell plant’s customers, many already within a day’s drive by truck or rail from Beaver County, apparently aren’t moving any closer. And there hasn’t been a move yet by other companies who want to move closer to the Shell plant to take advantage of better pricing or domestic firms that want to expand their operations."
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... mical.html

Kind of reminds me of when the Midfield Terminal was being built. All the economic forecasts, claims, growth, etc etc that never came to fruition. Again, it's gonna come down to the basics of having a local business environment that can attract businesses, jobs, and people. More on that in a bit.



Regarding economic growth prospects on the airport itself, I love to use GSO as an example because its a great one (reply #119). I recently came across this article about how they secured Boom supersonic. What a great story, lesson, blueprint (however you want to think about it) for PIT. The taxiway bridge down there cost $20 million, about the same as the grants used for what was initially the WTC at PIT, turned Neighborhood 91 which has created only a trickle of jobs.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/ ... -boom.html
Aviation related development on an airport, what a concept. Still waiting for the "numerous announcements" from a year ago regarding Neighborhood 91 development.



In what is the best news I've read all year:
"Gov. Tom Wolf called Pennsylvania’s corporate net income tax rate “appalling” in 2015, shortly after being sworn in as governor and vowed to reduce it. It’s still at 9.99%, second highest in the country. Now, in the waning days of his second and final term, Wolf has what may be his last shot to amend this part of the Tax Reform Code of 1971. The governor and General Assembly — the state Senate and House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats — all seek to lower the rate in the name of competitiveness in business attraction and retention.

The aim is to pass Pennsylvania’s 2022-2023 budget by the end of June with the corporate net income tax rate changes figured into it.

The unified effort across party lines has business leaders optimistic that, this time, the rate will be reduced.

“We believe that there is an opportunity to address this issue with a material immediate drop in the rate and a continued phase down, because policymakers, in a bipartisan manner, recognize that we need to be competitive post-pandemic for this business investment that will grow our tax base, economy and population,” said Matt Smith, president of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.

In February, Wolf unveiled a $43.7 billion budget calling for immediately reducing the corporate net income tax rate from 9.99% to 7.99%, with a path to 4.99% as quickly as possible to make Pennsylvania more competitive and expand the tax base to level the playing field for all businesses. In late April, the state House of Representatives approved a bill which would cut the corporate net income tax rate from 9.99% to 8.99% beginning next January, with further drops figured in with considerations to the amount of budget surplus. HB 1960 proceeded to the Senate. The Senate has a couple of bills of its own. On June 6, the Pennsylvania Senate Finance Committee voted to amend the Tax Reform Code to provide for a corporate net income tax reduction from 9.99% to 6.99% over a three-year-period.

Pennsylvania’s corporate net income tax rate is the second-highest in the country. New Jersey has the highest rate at 11.5%. North Carolina’s is the lowest at 2.5%. At present, 44 states plus Washington, D.C., levy a corporate net income tax, according to the Tax Foundation. Four states impose gross receipts taxes instead. Only two states, South Dakota and Wyoming, have neither."
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... -rate.html

It's loooooooong overdue PA get competitive with OH, IN,and other states.

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.

The issue wasn't closing a runway per see. You are correct in terms of overall excess capacity. The issue was closing THAT runway in particular. 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. I have long suspected (my opinion) that the choice of runway closure had more to do with opening up developable land between the airport parkway corridor and the airport itself than anything else. Developing that land for other purposes would line the pockets of the cabal that runs Allegheny County in the short term at the expense of the airport's long-term flexibility and interests.

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?

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.

In addition to all the valid points made by Delta28L, there is also a tangible difference for aircraft that are well below max takeoff weight. That is the ability to have a reduced thrust takeoff greater than if a shorter runway is used. The longer the runway, the more thrust can be reduced. This saves fuel, wear on the engine, and potential for engine failure. This in turn saves the airline on maintenance and money. This is for every flight with larger aircraft, not just the long haulers.

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.

At the lengths PITs runways are I don’t think that distance really matters.

At sea level, 3,200 m (10,500 ft) can be considered an adequate length to land virtually any aircraft. PIT isn’t at sea level obviously but it’s close enough that it should be fine for almost any situation if they were to get rid of 28L/10R. Maybe you miss our on some random one off that happens once a year or something but I’d guess the upkeep to keeping the runway open is more than any income lost on the rare cases it can’t handle something.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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

I was really surprised to see them start this new route with their largest plane. 228 seats to fill every day on this short route.

Does anyone know how the loads are so far?

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.

flyPIT wrote:

I said wet, not contaminated.

What do you think the latter means.......

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.

flyPIT wrote:

Not sure what you’re arguing here.

I just told you.

flyPIT wrote:

Why should PIT reduce its capabilities?

To save potentially millions.

flyPIT wrote:

They are trying extremely hard to market the airport to int’l freight operators,

Who isn't?

flyPIT wrote:

and this runway is a key selling point.

Not much of one

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.

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?

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?

Nothing. The chances of that space being usable for anything revenue generating is somewhere between zero and vanishing.

LAX772LR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

I said wet, not contaminated.

What do you think the latter means.......

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Levels of runway condition are dry/damp, wet, contaminated, and icy. Contaminated would be snow, slush, standing water. A wet runway is one with a shiny appearance during or after rain but due to crowning and grooving is not contaminated. It still has a detrimental impact on performance over a dry runway.

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.

"Not one of those", based on what? It happens every day around the world. "Negligible"? That extra 800' allows for an additional ~15,000-20,000 pounds.

LAX772LR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Not sure what you’re arguing here.

I just told you.

You told me you're ignorant of the topic, but keep digging.

Next are you gonna climb up in my 747 and tell me how to fly it too?

LAX772LR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Why should PIT reduce its capabilities?

To save potentially millions.

Versus lose out on future revenue.

LAX772LR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

They are trying extremely hard to market the airport to int’l freight operators,

Who isn't?

Who is closing their longest runway? How many airports have taken long runways and made them even longer?

LAX772LR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

and this runway is a key selling point.

Not much of one

Good thing people more knowledgeable than you are in charge of the decision.

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.

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.

Is there a report out on the study? I would love to read it.

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a report out on the study? I would love to read it.

I’m not aware of anything online.