greenair727 wrote:

ncflyer wrote:

It’s really a wonder to me why CLE doesn’t use every single communication to the public to remind them that a master facility plan is coming. I’m really glad they are doing it (finally!) with this news item— it should have been done in every single release about the $4 fee. The time to get public support behind an improved terminal is now.

Why do you place so much emphasis on the master plan? 1. It is required by FAA to complete---it doesn't mean the city will do ANYTHING in the plan except have it. Look how much has been done from the last master plan. 2. If its done in 2021-2022, that means implementation is 2022-2032 or so---but again NOTHING has to be done. So the master plan is meaningless for the current situation. If the city wanted to fix the issue, they could do so today; if they were genuine about the master plan, that means they would address the problem in 2024or 2025 which is wait too long to fix a very simple issue that very airport in the country has already done.

The last master plan was almost entirely based on CLE being a UA hub. Why would you expect anything from it to be implemented? It’s practically worthless now, and became worthless almost immediately after it was released when UA pulled the plug. A new plan, which will be geared toward CLE’s new emphasis on O&D traffic, can give the city proper guidance on what exactly needs to be built/fixed.

Right on SgtBarone. The time to think big is with the upcoming master facility plan. And the time to let the public know what’s coming is today and tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day and so forth.

With hindsight, with the loss of the hub, it’s perhaps a bit of good luck that the last plan was incremental.

Judging by yesterday’s article on cleveland.com and a new one today on Crain’s the airport is catching on to the need for setting the public’s expectation, so I’m encouraged. The master plan is finally getting little tickler mentions in the articles.

Behind a paywall but here’s the Crains article.
https://www.crainscleveland.com/governm ... rop-policy

What stands out is that evidently Jackson Made the call and city council members are upset they weren’t informed until they read about it on cleveland.com.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/02 ... uncil.html

New PD article much more informative. Sounds like the shuttles— including offsite parking and hotels— will soon be dropping off at the terminal again until a ground transportation center is built. As you’ll see in the article, the all powerful CLeveland Clinic has spoken.

Looks like G4 just announced CLE-BNA !

Robert1010 wrote:

Looks like G4 just announced CLE-BNA !

Meh, a new city would be nice. But an add is an add I guess.

Cleveland.com article: https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019 ... ville.html

Nice to have another option to a city served by a single airline

Nice seasonal add. Part of a 19 route announcement from this morning.

ncflyer wrote:

Because every time the airport misses a chance to communicate to the citizens of NEO that Hopkins is in desperate need of a major overhaul (not another incremental project like the RNC project or a $3mm ground transportation center) to solve its myriad facility problems it is a lost opportunity. The last master facility plan only had design enhancements for the UA hub, and much/most of it was never implemented. IF I thought a KSU school of architecture design competition would get that discussion going amongst the community I’d be all for that too, but right now the master facility plan seems to be the best hope. Whatever it takes. Enough with the tweaks. Best I could tell from reading it, MCI used their master facility plan to accomplish what CLE needs to do— set the groundwork for change— which they are about to accomplish

Somewhere in the great hereafter, the late Joe Morbito who established Kent State University's School of Architecture probably agrees whole heartedly with your proposal. If there are enough like-minded airport advocates like you ncflyer, critical mass will be reached and a major overhaul of Cleveland Hopkins can go forward. As for Joseph F. Mobito, outside of his classroom at Taylor Hall he was not an Eero Saarinen. His crowning achievement was a Sparkle Market located near the university.

Anyone know about the AC Rogue 763 that came from ROC?

swacle wrote:

Robert1010 wrote:

Anyone know about the AC Rogue 763 that came from ROC?

Did it actually land here? No record of it landing in ROC or departing CLE and it sure ain't on the ground here anywhere. Flightaware glitch? Maybe it picked up a reroute around weather?

Probably right , was just going by this !



https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ROU ... /KROC/KCLE

I heard Allegiant is resuming several routes to/from CLE that were suspended due to aircraft shortages, likely caused by the retirement of their MD-80s. Returning this week are JAX and SAV. Later this month PGD, PIE, SFB return.

Looks like BKL operations declined 10.5% in 2018. CLE and CGF could certainly absorb the traffic. I have mixed feelings about closing BKL. Certainly it sits on prime real estate, although there is some talk that it might be difficult to build on. There are really no viable development plans for such a large swath of land; there is just no demand for such land in a stagnant/shrinking city like Cleveland. I could see it initially turned into a large park, but it certainly wouldn't be a very welcoming place for many months of the year. Not sure what the best solution might be.

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-he ... ao_WJZP6MU

Everything the MetroParks touches turns to gold! Edgewater is brilliant.

Some of the stats in that article are mind blowing. 100,000 total movements in 2000, 34,000 in 2018? General aviation from 52,000 to 14,000 in that period? 38 take offs and landings a day. It’ll be even worse in a full year without LEBron.

^Careful. That author is biased and out to close Burke. He has written other factually incorrect articles about Burke in the past that support his desire to close BKL. He reports the general aviation number ONLY. Yes, that has declined. But air taxi operations are up 25% in the years he uses for comparison: 2000 and 2018. And a single plane of up to 60 pax is certainly more pax than a 1-4 people in a general aviation aircraft. BKL had 8,876 air taxi operations in 2000 and had 11,095 in 2018. For context, it had 10,559 in 2016 and 9,983 in 2017, so over the past few years, the number is INCREASING. He also states that CGF could handle all of BKL's traffic, which, of course, is not possible given the short runway at the County. I'm surprised Scene ran such poor reporting.

Some things we know:

1) A good piece of BKL is able to be built on. See the existing terminal, corporate hangar, high school and past proposals (museum, outlet mall) that tell you there is land available. The rest could be a park (see #2).
2) As ncflyer states, give it to the Metro parks. They do turn things into Gold. Edgewater is the perfect example.
3) The city is broke, needs more police and the schools are terrible. Why not take the people and costs of running BKL to a better use?
4) A combo of CGF and CLE could easily handle this volume and lower the operating costs of both of those facilities making the region more competitive, spur growth and building most likely.

What we suspect:
1) BKL costs the city $ and is not a profit center.
2) CLE city does not want to lose the airshow.
3) No one in CLE ever saw what Mayor Daley did in Chicago. It CLE could get 1/8th of that development on it's lakefront, it would be a huge win.

The one thing the scene writer does point out properly, it would take 10 years and it will take different leadership with vision. And that my friends, is not a CLE strong suit. If you need full evidence of that, take a look at the "bridge connecting downtown to the lakefront" that's been on the drawing board for 10 years. If we can't build a pedestrian bridge that is mostly accepted as a good civic idea for the region, how in the world would CLE pull of a strategic, controversial plan to close BKL? The current mayor will undoubtedly pass this hot potato to another regime.

fun2fly wrote:

Some things we know:

1) A good piece of BKL is able to be built on. See the existing terminal, corporate hangar, high school and past proposals (museum, outlet mall) that tell you there is land available. The rest could be a park (see #2).
2) As ncflyer states, give it to the Metro parks. They do turn things into Gold. Edgewater is the perfect example.
3) The city is broke, needs more police and the schools are terrible. Why not take the people and costs of running BKL to a better use?
4) A combo of CGF and CLE could easily handle this volume and lower the operating costs of both of those facilities making the region more competitive, spur growth and building most likely.

What we suspect:
1) BKL costs the city $ and is not a profit center.
2) CLE city does not want to lose the airshow.
3) No one in CLE ever saw what Mayor Daley did in Chicago. It CLE could get 1/8th of that development on it's lakefront, it would be a huge win.

The one thing the scene writer does point out properly, it would take 10 years and it will take different leadership with vision. And that my friends, is not a CLE strong suit. If you need full evidence of that, take a look at the "bridge connecting downtown to the lakefront" that's been on the drawing board for 10 years. If we can't build a pedestrian bridge that is mostly accepted as a good civic idea for the region, how in the world would CLE pull of a strategic, controversial plan to close BKL? The current mayor will undoubtedly pass this hot potato to another regime.

The city being broke and needing more police has nothing to do with Burke. In fact, the City just raised its income tax within the past 2 years, in order to better fund police and schools. They always want more, more, more, yet nothing changes when they get more.

Also, Burke is not some prime lakefront property. It's decently far from the core of downtown, and developing that land would take a lot more work than just closing the airport and slapping up some apartments on it. We are talking billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements and related developments to spread downtown over to that area. Not feasible in a city as poorly run as Cleveland. Let's finish the innerbelt project first - that's supposed to wrap up in what, 2035? In fact, that's so poorly managed that I doubt most people even know there is an innerbelt project.

Time to close Burke--use proceeds to fix Hopkins

Trk1 wrote:

Time to close Burke--use proceeds to fix Hopkins

Maybe that's what the master plan will recommend? That would be a novel finding.

What I want more than anything is for the city/airport to be more forthcoming on the pros and cons of closing it. If they are lobbied heavily by the Clinic, let's say for organ transplant and patient transportation, be transparent, the public might find that compelling.

VetteDude, good point on the development costs, but a lakefront park of some kind, while not free, would be a heck of a lot cheaper than putting buildings, water lines, etc. on the property, no? Too bad CLE doesn't have the growth of a Denver, I've read they did a great job redeveloping Stapleton (if memory serves the company formerly known as Forest City played a big part in that).

All, in terms of the financial comments-- if I'm not mistaken, the airports have to stand alone financially. The city can't use airport proceeds to fund schools and police, nor can city taxes be used to fund the airport. I believe this is an FAA requirement of some kind, to prevent airports from being neglected and milked as cash cows. So if Burke is a financial drain, and it were to close, this would benefit Hopkins, which could use it. . . . .

I’m not against Burke development, but I am against doing it now. First, it doesn't lose much money (less than $2 million?). Next, there are acres of property that can be more easily developed at much lower cost to the city all over town. Third, the FAA gets a big payoff if BKL closes. Fourth, the city would be giving it away today AND it would require a big infrastructure investment to lure a developer. MUCH better for the city to wait,let demand build, and Sell for lot more in maybe ten years.

Off topic, you can’t really call the city stagnant any more. Growth over the last two years has been just short of booming. It would not be surprising to see population growth for the MSA when the 2018 numbers come out next July. Industrial properties are being built ON SPEC this year - I can’t remember when that happened last. These are the best of times, not that you will ever hear it from the press or Jackson City Hall.

masseybrown wrote:

Off topic, you can’t really call the city stagnant any more. Growth over the last two years has been just short of booming. It would not be surprising to see population growth for the MSA when the 2018 numbers come out next July. Industrial properties are being built ON SPEC this year - I can’t remember when that happened last. These are the best of times, not that you will ever hear it from the press or Jackson City Hall.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Very few industrial/WH buildings in Cuyahoga greater than 100k sq. ft. available. Downtown building will be robust for at least 2 or 3 years as Playhouse Square, Metro Hospital, May Co, Q renovation, etc. lead the way. Enjoy it while it's here.

Here's another (far fetched) nugget that would significantly impact air travel: The NOACA is a regional planing group who has commissioned a study on the feasibility of a Hyperloop from Cleveland, OH to Chicago, IL in 30 minutes!!!

http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=7596

greenair727 wrote:

^Careful. That author is biased and out to close Burke. He has written other factually incorrect articles about Burke in the past that support his desire to close BKL. He reports the general aviation number ONLY. Yes, that has declined. But air taxi operations are up 25% in the years he uses for comparison: 2000 and 2018. And a single plane of up to 60 pax is certainly more pax than a 1-4 people in a general aviation aircraft. BKL had 8,876 air taxi operations in 2000 and had 11,095 in 2018. For context, it had 10,559 in 2016 and 9,983 in 2017, so over the past few years, the number is INCREASING. He also states that CGF could handle all of BKL's traffic, which, of course, is not possible given the short runway at the County. I'm surprised Scene ran such poor reporting.

The author may be biased, but I took a look at FAA air traffic statistics for NE Ohio's major airports. If you look at total operations, BKL certainly has seen a decline in movements. In fact, since 2000, they have declined by 36.1%. Surprisingly, during that same period, CLE has declined by 34.8% and CGF by 50.9%, while CAK is down by "only" 19.8%. This shows that the region has an abundance of airspace and airport capacity. Even if BKL were to close, most traffic could easily be accommodated by the other airports, with larger jets going to CLE or CAK, and smaller aircraft going to CGF.

Here's my spreadsheet, if you are interested in the details: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

^You are oversimplifying. Its not an arithmetic problem: Past: 100+40+30+25=195----but now 70+30+20+10=130====so since 195 is bigger than 130, you can close an airport. If someone is paying, say $5000 to fly from LGA /TET to BKL do you really think they would fly to CAK then spend more time in a car on I-77 to Downtown Cleveland than they did from NYC to CLE? The capacity at each airport is not equally tradable between airports. All the equipment at BKL cannot land at CGF and CAK is too far. If someone wanted to go to CAK or YNG, they would have flown there in the first place. Yes, it is true that CLE could--at current levels---handle all BKL traffic, but that's wishing ill on the region that we won't grow in population or economy AND that that is recognizing that CLE is a very different place with different demand than BKL.

Greenair I think your point would be more convincing if the traffic drop wasn’t so stark. No private business would lose that much demand and keep its capacity the same. The airfield capacity at Hopkins is greatly improved since 2000 to boot.

^But BKL is growing. Maybe not general aviation, but in passenger traffic, it is. As I said a few posts above:

"BKL had 8,876 air taxi operations in 2000 and had 11,095 in 2018. For context, it had 10,559 in 2016 and 9,983 in 2017, so over the past few years, the number is INCREASING."

Air taxis is any aircraft up to 60 pax---so all the Ultimate Air shuttles should be classified here.

"No private business would lose that much demand and keep its capacity the same." By that logic, we should have CAK closed, which costs more to operate than BKL and as CLE could certainly handle all that traffic.

Informative article on Cleveland.com highlights Pittsburgh's new terminal proposal:
https://www.cleveland.com/expo/news/g66 ... -litt.html

Interesting passage to note says "Robert Kennedy, Cleveland’s director of airports, has said the new plan for Cleveland-Hopkins could lead to $1 billion worth of construction starting in 2023. Airport executives also have hinted a new terminal could be in the offing."

The $1 billion construction mentioned here is comparable to the $1.1 billion proposed for the PIT project. And while it doesn't replace all of the existing airside (see PIT), it still essentially builds a whole new "main terminal". Whether all of that goes to a new terminal is a different question. And sure this is all talk, but maybe a new terminal like PIT at CLE is actually high on the list for airport officials and a real possibility...

Interesting possibility. Given the rumors about Etihad starting a partnership with United, might CLE get a Cleveland Clinic Express flight to AUH?

Great article in the PD by Steve Litt, wonderful architecture critic. Kudos to bringing light to the issue.

If PIT costs $1b, which is I think very doubtful— the drawings look like an airport in Singapore, not the US (ie too expensive for US stomachs)— then CLE will cost far, far more. Unless the IX center is demolished (doubtful), there’s just no room to build a new terminal while the existing operates. PIT and MCI have huge advantage. Also the “bones” of the concourses in PIT are in much better modern condition than CLE.

To think there were comments from people who think the airport is fine the way it is ! SMH

Granted the structure of the buildings are different, but I wonder if LGA couldn't provide a template for CLE on reconstruction in place. If D were reactivated, would there be enough space between the C City gates & D to act as swing space if Concourse A or B were deactivated? If so, A could be the first candidate to be torn down & there is a fair amount of real estate that could be used to create a gate building (like LGA) or possibly even 2 parallel concourses that could be constructed before moving on to the B concourse. As far as ticketing, there is some excess real estate there the could be used as swing space if they wanted to start redeveloping in a North -south fashion. Additionally, if a new garage was built on the long term parking site by the Sheraton, they could free up room to develop the new check in terminal in front of the existing structure.

I'm not saying any of these are ideal, but I think there are a number of options available should they need to use the existing site. In a way, the United pull out made this a bit easier since the airport is no longer operating at 100% gate allocation & now has shuttered concourses & more city gates to work with should they need to deactivate existing concourses temporarily.

I think what you’re suggesting is how it will happen, D will be used as swing capacity somehow, (I’m not familiar with LGA) but what I can’t figure out is how to fix the roadway situation— it seems like CLE needs more frontage for arrival pickups especially. I am really worried that for what CLE is willing/able to spend we will get another bandaid, like 3 rebuilt concourses, rather than what PIT looks to be getting.

Someone did post a tantalizing possibility on the forum section, it would require a lot of money and creativity— purchasing and making use of Fords abandoned land. What comes to mind here is how Midway brilliantly moved the terminal across the street.

ncflyer wrote:

I think what you’re suggesting is how it will happen, D will be used as swing capacity somehow, (I’m not familiar with LGA) but what I can’t figure out is how to fix the roadway situation— it seems like CLE needs more frontage for arrival pickups especially. I am really worried that for what CLE is willing/able to spend we will get another bandaid, like 3 rebuilt concourses, rather than what PIT looks to be getting.

Yeah, I worry about that too, they need to rethink the passenger flows at the site now that the traffic is mostly O&D vs connecting (what it was originally designed for). Personally I'd love to see the rental cars back on site as well, I hate adding 30 minutes for the shuttle/driving time required with the off site location...

Regarding LGA, take a look at this link (see below), the 3rd and 5th pictures give you an idea of how they're replacing the central terminal. Personally, I think it's a rather brilliant plan which has allowed them to essentially construct the new buildings around the existing structure and demolish the old as new parts are ready to come online... The new B concourse is already online, and the external structure for the new head house is in place.

https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/07/la-gua ... adway.html

Great article on LGA thank you. Comes down to money and creativity.

There is a terrific article on Crains about lakefront development. It’s long but very thorough. Of note for this forum a quote from an economic development expert in the Jackson administration:

But execution has been slow. Still, there is movement. Rybka said the city even intends to begin looking at the future of Burke Lakefront Airport, though the city still believes aviation can survive on the 450 acres of lakefront land for now.

"I think we're at a point now where we think it's time to address a master plan for Burke and its properties," Rybka said. "The thought is that we need to take a closer look at the whole thing and figure out what is this going to be in 10 years, 15 or 20 years?"

He said that a master planning process is not likely to begin until 2020, after completion of the master plan for Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which is just beginning.

ncflyer wrote:

Great article in the PD by Steve Litt, wonderful architecture critic. Kudos to bringing light to the issue.

If PIT costs $1b, which is I think very doubtful— the drawings look like an airport in Singapore, not the US (ie too expensive for US stomachs)— then CLE will cost far, far more. Unless the IX center is demolished (doubtful), there’s just no room to build a new terminal while the existing operates. PIT and MCI have huge advantage. Also the “bones” of the concourses in PIT are in much better modern condition than CLE.

MSY's replacement terminal is running about $1.1 B, so it's not totally unreasonable. I wonder if they could relocate the cargo operations and build a new terminal to the south that connects to concourse D.

MCI is up to $1.4B I believe-- and they have had to cut way back on some design features, such as the grand fountain (which is too bad).

What happens with steel tariffs will make a difference.

I suppose PIT might be so expensive, even though they don't appear to be building new concourses, because they are aiming high, with an international design firm that has produced a look found in Singapore and Seoul.

Another idea could be to remove runway 10/28. It is very seldomly used and that real estate could be perfect for a new terminal. It would allow the entire road setup to be completely redesigned as well.

It's been awhile since F9 has had a significant schedule update. Is it safe to say that PDX-CLE was officially cut?

FA9295 wrote:

It's been awhile since F9 has had a significant schedule update. Is it safe to say that PDX-CLE was officially cut?

There was an article published last month that stated that F9 was discontinuing PDX-CLE nonstop service, and that article can be found at https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/01/frontier-airlines-adding-flights-from-cleveland-hopkins-to-charleston-sc-san-francisco-dropping-portland.html.

jplatts wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

It's been awhile since F9 has had a significant schedule update. Is it safe to say that PDX-CLE was officially cut?

There was an article published last month that stated that F9 was discontinuing PDX-CLE nonstop service, and that article can be found at https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/01/frontier-airlines-adding-flights-from-cleveland-hopkins-to-charleston-sc-san-francisco-dropping-portland.html.

Thanks. Didn't know that was ever made official.

Sad to see the route go, but if the demand is elsewhere, then it makes sense I guess.

Two articles about CLE.

Security breach at airpot perimeter on Feb. 3. Was this in the news before? I don't recall hearing anything about this: https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2019 ... -says.html

TSA to cut staff at CLE to increase staffing at busier airports. Wonder how this will affect wait times at TSA checkpoints: https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2019 ... rport.html

corn4ahead wrote:

Another idea could be to remove runway 10/28. It is very seldomly used and that real estate could be perfect for a new terminal. It would allow the entire road setup to be completely redesigned as well.

10/28 is way too close to the existing runway setup to build a terminal anywhere close to it.

NE corner near Constant East of 24L. Opens up a lot of possibilities.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019 ... eases.html

The Univ. Hospitals Cleveland - Univ. of Oxford deal is another reason to get that old Continental flight back. Oxford is about an hour west of LHR.

If they average 5 people per day (which they will not) hardly justifies a non-stop flight. Heathrow has no slots for US carriers unless they switch a flight- and Gatwick would be on the wrong side of town. The 2019 schedules look to be in place and with a recession possible in the next year or so I think we are at the peak of additional service in this business cycle.
Of course I would hope I am wrong.

Nice to see CLE part of JetBlue's latest expansion. If I recall from enilria's weekly threads, CLE-BOS will soon be 4x daily. That makes 3x daily CR9s for DL, 4x daily E190s for B6, and 1x daily A320 for NK summer-seasonally.

http://blueir.investproductions.com/inv ... -184504961

The JetBlue 4 daily has been loaded for a while, I think they're just packaging a juicy announcement for BOS. As pointed out earlier, four daily is here in May and June, goes away in July and August, but comes back in September, on Su, Mo, Th, Fr only. Some on this thread speculates that 4 daily is going away in the peak summer months because those E190s are put to more lucrative use out of JFK for summer seasonal routes.

Nonetheless, I'm glad Jet Blue notices Cleveland enough to bump it up a bit.

I'm really surprised FLL survived in CLE but not PIT or DTW, to me the yield didn't look all that great when posted on the JetBlue thread. PIT has had 6 daily to BOS for a while now, yet can't make the FLL flight work for some reason.