New Tower For CLE

oflanigan · Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:55 pm

Ground Breaking was today. EMAS and RY 10/28 construction should end in the coming months.

http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/s...e.html?feed=122520&article=9265153

as739x · Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:20 pm

Is this not the second new tower at CLE in the last 15 years?

And what does the 10/28 construction consist of? extension?

nutsaboutplanes · Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:22 pm

Hasn't traffic at CLE fallen and don't we anticipate further pull-downs in the future? Does this seem like money well spent?

oflanigan · Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:40 am

Well in the NEXTGEN structure I believe CLE can be critical. Having a new tower built in the next 5 years will permit new technology and could perhaps validate the NEXTGEN concept. Remember up to a couple years ago, YNG, TOL, MFD, YNG, and CAK were to combine to CLE for a Consolidated TRACON. The new TRACON being constructed will be huge, and would permit future expansion whether or not it includes the consolidation of smaller TRACONS. So money well spent I believe so.

Almost every air traffic facility has seen some reduction in traffic. To just sit back and wait for the system to collapse around us would be crazy.

For runway 10/28. EMAS installed at both ends to improve safety and repaved. No length added. Maybe new approach lighting as well.

[Edited 2011-10-17 17:43:23]

izbtmnhd · Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:30 pm

Quoting as739x (Reply 1):

Didn't the original tower stand for decades? Now two new towers in around 20 years. Could have been a better plan?

Quoting Nutsaboutplanes (Reply 2):

"We" anticipate? Who's we? The forumers on this board? Seriously? If I had a nickel for every time an a.netter "expert" predicted that CLE was supposed to lose hub status over the last decade and then did not, I'd be living in Aruba right now. Even Boyd has started changing his tune about CLE lately. Miracles can happen!

As ignorant as some comments are on here about cities in NE Ohio (and some are astoundingly ignorant), CLE isn't on ther verge of closing. You are right about the operation being drawn down but the airport still had 194,000 arrivals and departures in 2010. The tower is also NextGen equipped. The idea is to upgrade nationwide, no?

flyinryan99 · Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:21 pm

Quoting as739x (Reply 1):
Is this not the second new tower at CLE in the last 15 years?

Quoting izbtmnhd (Reply 4):
Didn't the original tower stand for decades? Now two new towers in around 20 years. Could have been a better plan?

While TOL has been trying to get a new tower for 25 years and it still hasn't been fully funded...at least it's planned and should be built within the next 10 years...

What a waste of money...

izbtmnhd · Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:56 pm

Quoting flyinryan99 (Reply 5):

The US Govt. in action. Why build something once when you can knock it down and rebuild at 4x the cost a few years later! And the Occupy crowd wants more of this!!! Hahaha.

bcoz · Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:27 pm

The current tower has to be over 20 years old. I remember it being built when I was a kid. I'd say it went up in the late 80s. Maybe 87 or 88?

tb727 · Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:31 pm

Quoting bcoz (Reply 7):

The current tower has to be over 20 years old. I remember it being built when I was a kid. I'd say it went up in the late 80s. Maybe 87 or 88?

That's what I was thinking, it was right around 87-89, somewhere in there. I still think of it as the "new" tower when I see it, how time flies.

izbtmnhd · Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:43 pm

Quoting bcoz (Reply 7):

I think you are right, time flies. Even still IAD operated their original tower from '64 until '08-'09. I'm thinking CLE's tower might have had a fairly short shelf life. And wasn't the pre-late 80's tower the truly 'original' tower: the first ATC tower ever built. Or was there one between the late-80's and the original?

[Edited 2011-10-18 07:44:53]

[Edited 2011-10-18 07:45:51]

mbm3 · Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:14 pm

While this is great news for my home airport, I would have been much happier to see that they got funding to start a new FIS facility to replace that embarrassment in Terminal A. I'm confident that we could support a non-stop to Frankfurt but the thought of a full 763 disembarking through the current facility makes me cringe - and I know that has been an issue when other international flights were considered.

Back to topic, is this going to be built on the west side of the field near NASA?

cle757 · Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:47 pm

Quoting mbm3 (Reply 10):
Back to topic, is this going to be built on the west side of the field near NASA?

Its right next to the airport fire station/fedex area.

Quoting mbm3 (Reply 10):
While this is great news for my home airport, I would have been much happier to see that they got funding to start a new FIS facility to replace that embarrassment in Terminal A. I'm confident that we could support a non-stop to Frankfurt but the thought of a full 763 disembarking through the current facility makes me cringe - and I know that has been an issue when other international flights were considered.

I agree 100%

N766UA · Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:31 am

Quoting Nutsaboutplanes (Reply 2):
Hasn't traffic at CLE fallen and don't we anticipate further pull-downs in the future? Does this seem like money well spent?

Remember, not only is it a new tower, but a brand new TRACON which will also absorb approach facilities from nearby airports like CAK and MFD. That said, traffic at CLE isn't falling any faster than any other airport, only airliners.net forum members anticipate a pull-down, and the tower in place has had a lot of issues (like leaking in the winter). It's warranted.

oflanigan · Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:58 am

CLE is a great Midwest hub. Hopefully United will continue to agree. How come the costly delays at the other hubs cant convince some to move traffic to these other hubs to alleviate congestion. The infrastructure is already present, airport improvements continue, yet the threat is to move traffic out. I just don't get it.

izbtmnhd · Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:47 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 12):

The new tower is fine and I understand the additional TRACON facilites, it's just surprising that the FAA couldn't come up with a plan to build a bigger tower in the first place instead of having to build out two towers in 25 years. Was is because the facilites of the pre-late 80's tower were so bad they had build it then? Before '87 was CLE using the orginial Municipal Airport tower or was there a tower between Muni and the late-80's rebuild? And is 25 years a normal 'shelf-life' of a tower?

Or was this new tower just a function of NextGen and the TRACON consolidation?

mbm3 · Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:49 pm

Quoting izbtmnhd (Reply 14):
Or was this new tower just a function of NextGen and the TRACON consolidation?

It is my understanding that one of the factors for moving the tower to a new location was to allow for additional terminal growth, including a potential new FIS facility.

atct · Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:53 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 12):
has had a lot of issues (like leaking in the winter). It's warranted.

Show me one that doesnt...

atct

AADC10 · Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:16 am

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 13):
CLE is a great Midwest hub. Hopefully United will continue to agree. How come the costly delays at the other hubs cant convince some to move traffic to these other hubs to alleviate congestion. The infrastructure is already present, airport improvements continue, yet the threat is to move traffic out. I just don't get it.

Unfortunately for CLE, ORD is a much better Midwest hub. Decreased traffic and the new runway at ORD has greatly reduced delays there. The new infrastructure may come back to hurt CLE. After the UA agreement ends, UA is likely to cut flights at CLE. The costs of the new runway and tower will have to go into the landing fees of fewer flights. The higher fees make CLE less appealing, leading to even fewer flights and still higher fees, a death spiral.

The relatively recent "old" tower probably had to be replaced because it did not have a good view of the new runway.

fun2fly · Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:40 am

Quoting mbm3 (Reply 15):
It is my understanding that one of the factors for moving the tower to a new location was to allow for additional terminal growth, including a potential new FIS facility.

Will the current tower be demolished? It sure had a lot of issues with it towards the end, especially with the leaking roof. Does anyone know if this will result in a workforce expansion at the facility due to the consolidations?

Regarding the new FIS, not sure this is in the short term plans. The city is in dire straights and current leadership is not at liberty to pay. CLE>FRA would make some sense w/the LH connections (more than LHR or CDG did in the past). Ricky Smith is a good director and if it can be done, I'm sure he's the best shot at making it happen. It would take quite a bit of commitment from UA or maybe Obama's job plan.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
Unfortunately for CLE, ORD is a much better Midwest hub. Decreased traffic and the new runway at ORD has greatly reduced delays there. The new infrastructure may come back to hurt CLE. After the UA agreement ends, UA is likely to cut flights at CLE. The costs of the new runway and tower will have to go into the landing fees of fewer flights. The higher fees make CLE less appealing, leading to even fewer flights and still higher fees, a death spiral.

Say what you want. UA could have taken 20% of the flights out by now and maybe more w/the economy provision in the agreement w/the AG. They did not. Why? Probably because they make money. There are still 10-12mm people per year that want to travel at CLE and some carrier will fill the demand if UA does not.

bcoz · Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):

Unfortunately for CLE, ORD is a much better Midwest hub. Decreased traffic and the new runway at ORD has greatly reduced delays there. The new infrastructure may come back to hurt CLE. After the UA agreement ends, UA is likely to cut flights at CLE. The costs of the new runway and tower will have to go into the landing fees of fewer flights. The higher fees make CLE less appealing, leading to even fewer flights and still higher fees, a death spiral.

The relatively recent "old" tower probably had to be replaced because it did not have a good view of the new runway.

I don't know about you, but from the standpoint of a customer, I'd connect at CLE rather than ORD any day of the week! UA's T1 facilities at ORD (Concourses B and C) are, IMHO, starting to show their age... And then you have the cluster that is the UAX ops in T2...

Again, I'm just talking about this from purely a customer/traveler's POV.

greenair727 · Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting AADC10:
=Unfortunately for CLE, ORD is a much better Midwest hub. Decreased traffic and the new runway at ORD has greatly reduced delays there. The new infrastructure may come back to hurt CLE. After the UA agreement ends, UA is likely to cut flights at CLE. The costs of the new runway and tower will have to go into the landing fees of fewer flights. The higher fees make CLE less appealing, leading to even fewer flights and still higher fees, a death spiral.

Quoting fun2fly:
Say what you want. UA could have taken 20% of the flights out by now and maybe more w/the economy provision in the agreement w/the AG. They did not. Why? Probably because they make money. There are still 10-12mm people per year that want to travel at CLE and some carrier will fill the demand if UA does not.

Furthermore (to fun2fly), in addition to being a much preferred airport at which to connect for many than ORD (and EWR, though at a lesser extent), CLE is still a global 'hub' of business (and medicine/health) and thus a major destination in its own right. PWC did a study a few years ago and the Cleveland economy is larger than that of Johannesburg, Vancouver, Lisbon, Berlin, Brussels, and many other major markets. Plus, Cleveland is weathering the recession better than many other cities (LA and NY included). I think by the next census (2020), we'll see real population growth in the CLE service area.

highflier92660 · Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:38 pm

Including the one about to be built, wouldn't that make a total of three control towers from the 1950s to the present? The first modern tower was built in the mid-1950s commensurate with the CLE airport dedication plaque near Concourse B, the second in the late 1980s and this will be the third. In fifty-five years the runway configuration has changed significantly enough to warrant this new tower.

masseybrown · Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 18):
. Does anyone know if this will result in a workforce expansion at the facility due to the consolidations?

According to plans, the TRACON positions will expand from 15 to 22. That won't end unemployment and may not even represent a system-wide net gain, but it is local growth. Plus with the additional 120 feet of height there should be some more work for elevator repairmen.

bonusonus · Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:40 pm

Quoting Nutsaboutplanes (Reply 2):
Hasn't traffic at CLE fallen and don't we anticipate further pull-downs in the future? Does this seem like money well spent?

However, Cleveland center is the busiest ATC zone in the country IIRC.

izbtmnhd · Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:46 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):

1. The Feds are paying for the tower so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "costs".
2. CLE already had the 2nd highest landing fees of any major US airport just a few years ago. Ricky Smith, the CLE airport director, has been working hard to finding ways to reduce the amount charged for airlines in fees and has succeeded somewhat.
3. The "new" ORD operates well unless the are thunderstorms or wind or snow or low vis. Things have improved but I still see ORD pop up a lot on the OIS page. Ironically, I'm pretty sure the ATC tech upgrades and TRACON redesign would help ORD since a ton of flow comes through Cleveland sector heading for the Chicago area airports.
4. I think if you asked most business travellers, they'd rather connect at a place like CLE over ORD or EWR any day of the week. Is this even open for debate?

izbtmnhd · Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:53 pm

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 21):

Where was the originial tower from 1930 located? Is marked anywhere at the airport?

RDUDDJI · Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:38 pm

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 23):
However, Cleveland center is the busiest ATC zone in the country IIRC.

The center is, not the TRACON or ATCT.

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 13):
CLE is a great Midwest hub. Hopefully United will continue to agree. How come the costly delays at the other hubs cant convince some to move traffic to these other hubs to alleviate congestion. The infrastructure is already present, airport improvements continue, yet the threat is to move traffic out. I just don't get it.

Supply and demand. Operating redundant hubs will not last forever...just ask CVG, MEM, PIT, STL, etc.

izbtmnhd · Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:42 am

Quoting rduddji (Reply 26):

So a TRACON redesign dosen't help overall flow? I find that hard to believe. There's also NextGen that is driving this.

And, again, considering CLE is operating at almost 80% O&D, this idea of 'redundancy' passed around by some amuses me a bit.

toltommy · Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:08 pm

Quoting flyinryan99 (Reply 5):
While TOL has been trying to get a new tower for 25 years and it still hasn't been fully funded

But we have the most senior woman in Congress, and she brags about all the money she brings back to the district. Of course, since she never uses the airport itself, it's not really a concern for her is it?

Given the amount of traffic at TOL these days, a new tower, especially the one planned, is a colossal waste of money and should be scrapped totally. TOL could go to uncontrolled status these days and not be an issue. Sad....

mmedford · Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:19 pm

I don't see why the place needs a new tower. The current tower is only 20 years old, fix the roof...rehab the tower.

Move the tracon elsewhere, a tracon doesn't need windows or it's own radar facilities. That can be all done via T1s to remote sites.

Nextgen is focused towards automation; why not get the ERAM network operational? It would start reducing the need for enroute controllers/positions.

highflier92660 · Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:37 pm

Quoting izbtmnhd (Reply 25):
Where was the original tower from 1930 located? Is marked anywhere on the airport?

Here is some interesting historical information I found. The original Cleveland terminal and control tower were located on the east side of the airport in the same approximate location as portions of the present airline terminal and tower. Unfortunately the control tower, terminals and hangers of the 1930s were all razed to make way for the 1950s replacement. Somewhat myopic for aviation history in my opinion. http://Clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/150

nutsaboutplanes · Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:39 pm

Quoting rduddji (Reply 26):
Supply and demand. Operating redundant hubs will not last forever...just ask CVG, MEM, PIT, STL, etc.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp....its not like it hasn't happened before....plenty of good, recent examples to choose from.

oflanigan · Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:42 pm

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 28):
And, again, considering CLE is operating at almost 80% O&D, this idea of 'redundancy' passed around by some amuses me a bit.

I agree and that was kinda my point earlier. People rather connect through CLE like others said. And with the local market supporting CLE why not try to actually make it work.

Quoting Nutsaboutplanes (Reply 31):
The original Cleveland terminal and control tower were located on the east side of the airport in the same approximate location as portions of the present airline terminal and tower.

Correct. Some of the interior parts of the "new" present day tower connect with parts of the old. Mainly interior stairwells and office space.

Its funny how some people say just move the TRACON. Focus on NEXTGEN. Automation Automation. Well guess what the FAA has been doing that, spending your tax dollars and failing at it. And in the end it will take Air Traffic Controllers to fix the issues not bureaucrats. Splitting the facility or not improving the facilities controllers use while focusing on NEXTGEN technology only is dumb. The DOT IG's recent report highlights that.

mmedford · Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:53 pm

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 32):
Its funny how some people say just move the TRACON. Focus on NEXTGEN. Automation Automation. Well guess what the FAA has been doing that, spending your tax dollars and failing at it. And in the end it will take Air Traffic Controllers to fix the issues not bureaucrats. Splitting the facility or not improving the facilities controllers use while focusing on NEXTGEN technology only is dumb. The DOT IG's recent report highlights that.

AS with you; I work for the same agency & organization... I didn't say focus on Nextgen. I personally think the concept is flawed. But the technologies that have stemmed from the NextGen umbrella do hold some weight.

One of those being ERAM; the a/c could have the capabilties to do it. Why not push forth and take TCAS to the next level? Mode-S has proved the communication of RAs is possible; Why not let the airplanes figure out direct routes and avoidence of each other?

I can never see removing controllers from the Tracon/Atct level, but enroute?

oflanigan · Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:05 pm

Well Enroute will always remain the higher skill set. Just ask them. In their opinion TRACONS need to be consolidated into Mass Control Facilities or the new phrase Integrated Control Facilities. And some day it will happen. Towers will eventually be farmed out. Long after we are gone of course.

I agree that the future is technology but excluding controllers and pilots from the equation has ruined the NEXTGEN concept. Its slowly changing through collaboration. Much like in the cockpit, we need new towers, tracons and centers to validate technology. Airlines upgrade aircraft and equipment, lets upgrade the whole NAS, and validate the technology of the future.

atct · Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:12 pm

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 23):
However, Cleveland center is the busiest ATC zone in the country IIRC.

Its #3 or 4 last I checked. It lost the #1 status about 5 years ago.

atct

masseybrown · Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:30 am

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 30):
Unfortunately the control tower, terminals and hangers of the 1930s were all razed to make way for the 1950s replacement.

Don't get nostalgic for the old terminal. It was one big room more or less, smaller in floor space than a modern supermarket, with ticket counters around the wall and seating in the center. Outside was an outdoor fenced area and six or maybe eight gates, literally swinging gates in the fence, spaced circularly for DC-3's to park. If something bigger than a DC-3 came in they just parked it a little farther away so there would be room. Not at all great in cold or rainy weather. Does CLE get any of that weather?

joeman · Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 am

Quoting Nutsaboutplanes (Reply 31):
Quoting rduddji (Reply 26):
Supply and demand. Operating redundant hubs will not last forever...just ask CVG, MEM, PIT, STL, etc.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp....its not like it hasn't happened before....plenty of good, recent examples to choose from.

Not hard to grasp..it's only been repeated about 57 million times on this forum, the examples above are real, history repeats and if/when UA stops calling the CLE operation a hub and at whatever point in time they do, the a.netters who "predict" such stuff can prance and finally rejoice in having called it over a 10-20 year span....

So why don't your crystal balls predict when?

And anyone who thinks commercial aviation will mirror the same as what we have today in another 20 years is obviously not studying their history...nothing is forever....

flyinryan99 · Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:43 pm

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 28):

Given the amount of traffic at TOL these days, a new tower, especially the one planned, is a colossal waste of money and should be scrapped totally. TOL could go to uncontrolled status these days and not be an issue. Sad....

Not gonna happen. It isn't a waste of money as you have the 180th on active duty and need immediate releases. In fact, the plan was for TOL TRACON to go to the new CLE TRACON but has since been changed to staying at TOL because of this reason. The F16s can't get "waiting for release" when needing to intercept an airplane. While air traffic out there has declined, there is still reason for a control tower at the airport. Non pilots don't understand...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net