Old AmrapinVA

Is Quebec ever going to get their franchise back? I get the market size reasons but it's insanity that Vegas has a team and not Quebec. I think this league struggles getting people to watch it on a broader scale because it has so many passive markets now. The passion of hockey in French Canada makes the NHL unique among the four big North American sports. Doubt this can be replicated in another desert city.

Southwest is adding weekend service to Fort Myers. I think they will, like they did with St. Louis when Southwest entered the route. United is price matching Southwest on Milwaukee. Not leaving without a fight, unlike St. Louis. 9 million is probably doable. 10 million would require bringing back some connecting traffic. Who might do that? Not the ultra low-cost carriers, connecting traffic is an expensive operation, which thye avoid. I see only two possibilities: Southwest or American. Southwest could double the size of their current operation without expanding their facilities or adding many staff. They are proceeding in that direction, but very slowly, being up about 50% since UA left. It's not hard seeing Southwest grow at CLE to 40-50 daily flights, a mini-hub. American is a tougher case to make. It would require the Cleveland Clinic to say, "I've got a hospital in Abu Dhabi and I'm building one in London. Give me a non-stop to London with a good connection on your partner British to the Gulf and I'll guarantee the purchase of $X million in tickets." If AA added a flight to London, they might well want to add some feed to it from cities lacking European service. Indications they might do it: AA just acquired the old Continental wide-body gates and the adjacent common use (potential expansion) gates match their own equipment minus only the logo. Another reason AA might do it: they are more or less locked into perpetual number 2 in Chicago and need to expand somewhere. Doing it in CLE would be a finger in the eye of UA which just stole it's COO from them. On the other hand, a reason they might not: they just walked away from being a strong #2 in PIT, where a similar scenario would be possible. I don't see American doing this at CLE. The Southwest expansion looks way more reasonable and may already be in the works with the new routes announced since the CLE/Canton-Akron "merger" of operations.

Yeah, I disagree with this statement. Are there any Wegman's opening in Ohio? Kroger's really doesn't stand a chance against them. I'm not a huge Wegman's fan either. Surprised they're even considering trying to go against them on the East Coast with the standard Kroger's product. Unless the idea is to expand Harris Teeter. That would make more sense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/50-worst-cities-to-live-in/ss-BBCKRM1?ocid=ientp#image=1 50 Worst Cities to live in. Cincinnati at #25. Youngstown and Canton are #21 and #20. Surprisingly no Cleveland here. I only base this surprise on the fact Detroit is #1 and usually they're sister cities on these types of lists when one is ranked so high.

Ahold operates Giant stores in the DC area and Stop & Shop in the NYC metro. Cant speak for Stop & Shop but Giant is getting it's doors blown off by the steady expansion of Harris Teeter and Wegman's in the DC metro. Don't see how the Kroger brand will fix the HT/Wegman's situation but maybe they can improve on Giant's quality which has been going steadily downhill since Ahold took over. Problem is Kroger's quality isn't that great either. Going to need to bring their "A game" into these markets or Kroger will be selling these brands in no time too. Just an FYI, Kroger owns Harris Teeter. Wow, I really didn't know that, I don't shop at Harris Teeter. Now the purchase makes more sense to me because Harris Teeter is all over DC. Will definitely solidify their market share if Giant becomes Kroger. Hopefully they won't close some stores where there could be an overlap but with Wegman's rapid expansion in the DC metro it will probably not matter anyway.

Ahold operates Giant stores in the DC area and Stop & Shop in the NYC metro. Cant speak for Stop & Shop but Giant is getting it's doors blown off by the steady expansion of Harris Teeter and Wegman's in the DC metro. Don't see how the Kroger brand will fix the HT/Wegman's situation but maybe they can improve on Giant's quality which has been going steadily downhill since Ahold took over. Problem is Kroger's quality isn't that great either. Going to need to bring their "A game" into these markets or Kroger will be selling these brands in no time too.

That new runway configuration is much like JFK. JFK controllers have to rotate runway configuration in order to placate the areas around it even though not all of it is residential and the airport faces Jamaica Bay. Can't believe a larger LGA would avoid that issue. Granted LGA's runways are smaller, so smaller aircraft. I'd bet some group in Jackson Heights will complain though. We are talking Queens! ;) LaGuardia, Kennedy, Newark, Tetroboro, White Plains and Islip all have approach and departure patterns stacked on top of each other. It already causes problems with aircraft spacing on approach and departure. Throw in a windy day or line of t'storms that limits aircraft movement and the whole system can come crashing down. Here's a decent Newsday article on NYC airspace congestion: http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/faa-warns-nyc-area-airport-congestion-to-significantly-worsen-by-2030-1.9989561

^ What's the point. Building "JFK North" will only increase congestion in an already oversaturated airspace. Same delays, same restrictions. The only upside I see would be not flying out of the cramped Central Terminal and better transit options. But you can build the transit without doubling the size of the airport. Plus looking at the configuration shown people in the surrounding Queens/Bronx/LI neighborhoods/burbs won't be too fond of more/larger aircraft landing at LGA. So more noise restrictions and even more delays.

Too big/cavernous and too old. By the time you reduced the capacity, upgraded it, put in better turf or removed the roof and installed grass you might as well built a soccer-specific stadium from the ground up. I get too big but too old? It was built 22 years ago.

I'll assume Cleveland's financial "donation" to the US body was too low for the previous bid. At FIFA and it's regional organizations it's all about pay-to-play. ;)

Better and unaffordable to most. Yeah, that's not going to work well in hauling cargo or mass transit especially if the tube can't eclipse 200mph yet. Flight time to Chicago from Columbus is 45 minutes on average. Throw in 10 minutes of taxi on either end at it's 65 minutes. Going to need beat that time by a good amount if the plan is to charge a premium. Good luck!

How we do ensure that some of the 60 games are held in Cleveland? US Soccer--or whoever decides these things--screwed us last time on their US bid to FIFA. Do you know if Cleveland got screwed by FIFA last time around? I think the current administration is more interested in getting Cleveland on the Global Dirt Bike tour. ;)

We needs to take Musk's name off the title. He's not involved with what's going on now. I believe the top speed of the Hyperloop so far has been an underwhelming 110mph on a track with no curves. Dreams and ideas are great and all but this won't be operating by 2022, that's for sure.

I don't believe it should be a flat rate. It's United's problem and they need to pay for it even if it makes the flight unprofitable. Delta recently paid a family siting in Economy $11k to get one of their crews repositioned. You don't say $400 max or we call security. You up the price until you get 4 volunteers. If UA eats $10k to get there, so be it. So apparently there's a federal rule that says if the airlines involuntarily bump someone, they have to pay them four times the ticket price (in cash, not vouchers), up to a total of $1,350. With that being the case, I'm not sure why United didn't keep upping the offer to $1350 hoping someone would volunteer, considering that they'd have to pay them that much anyway. Because it was a flight from Chicago to Louisville. I bet the $800 offered was around four times the ticket price. But of course, that's the mandatory payment. You'd think that avoiding this spectacle might have convinced them to go above the regulatory minimum. ETA: I think that $1350 cap needs to be reevaluated, especially for international flights. The base price of some of those flights is over $1350. That cap ought to be $5000 at least, maybe $8000 so that they only get protection from the cap if they're forced to boot you from a $2000+ flight. And even then, I'd wonder why we prioritize protecting those monopolistic behemoths so much. I'm guessing that regulation predates all the mergers and bankruptcies in the industry that squeezed out all the old inefficiencies and turned the airlines into profitable, if merciless, juggernauts. You can raise the limit but it's rarer to have this situation on an international flight. It's a lot more common to see someone get screwed going to Louisville than London because of crew bases, frequency and aircraft size. I should hope so. But also good to know. I hope you're right about that. Never say never but it's rare. International flight crews are generally around 8-15 people depending on airline and aircraft size. If they bumped that many people out of economy and had to compensate with hotels/meals + compensation it makes the flight less profitable. Plus with crew rest issues international crews usually have a schedule where they're not deadheading that much. They'll fly Chicago-Paris take the day off then fly Paris-Chicago a day or two later. Typically an American based crew doesn't start in Paris but there are plenty of times where a Chicago based regional jet crew will need to be in Louisville, Columbus, Kansas City, etc. to start their shift.

I don't believe it should be a flat rate. It's United's problem and they need to pay for it even if it makes the flight unprofitable. Delta recently paid a family siting in Economy $11k to get one of their crews repositioned. You don't say $400 max or we call security. You up the price until you get 4 volunteers. If UA eats $10k to get there, so be it. So apparently there's a federal rule that says if the airlines involuntarily bump someone, they have to pay them four times the ticket price (in cash, not vouchers), up to a total of $1,350. With that being the case, I'm not sure why United didn't keep upping the offer to $1350 hoping someone would volunteer, considering that they'd have to pay them that much anyway. Because it was a flight from Chicago to Louisville. I bet the $800 offered was around four times the ticket price. But of course, that's the mandatory payment. You'd think that avoiding this spectacle might have convinced them to go above the regulatory minimum. ETA: I think that $1350 cap needs to be reevaluated, especially for international flights. The base price of some of those flights is over $1350. That cap ought to be $5000 at least, maybe $8000 so that they only get protection from the cap if they're forced to boot you from a $2000+ flight. And even then, I'd wonder why we prioritize protecting those monopolistic behemoths so much. I'm guessing that regulation predates all the mergers and bankruptcies in the industry that squeezed out all the old inefficiencies and turned the airlines into profitable, if merciless, juggernauts. You can raise the limit but it's rarer to have this situation on an international flight. It's a lot more common to see someone get screwed going to Louisville than London because of crew bases, frequency and aircraft size.

Regulation has plusses and minuses. In Cincy, you can certainly say goodbye to Cincinnati-Paris in a regulated environment. International routes would be assigned by demand and market size. Lots of larger markets would "need" additional service slotted for them. Cincinnati would get something like same plane service that would stop at Atlanta or Boston as compensation...initially. Due to deregulation and the subsequent rise of the hub-and-spoke model, prices are deflated in the big cities and inflated everywhere else. For example, looking at Kayak right now, I could book a Mon-Thurs round trip from LA to New York for as low as $366, two weeks from now. Out of CVG, I don't think I have ever paid less than $700 for a round trip to any other city with 2 weeks notice. You can find better deals if you book further in advance but that's pretty uncommon for a lot of business travel. So if we could "put the cat back in the bag" so to speak, and go back to a more regulated business model for airlines, mid-sized cities would see lower fares as well as more direct flights that didn't require a layover. I agree that we would probably lose our one remaining international flight. Detroit would probably lose many of theirs since they wouldn't be a big hub if we shifted away from a hub-and-spoke system. I remain completely unconvinced that having 20+ competing airlines is of any benefit to domestic travel in the United States. Pretty much every other country only has one government-owned airline and they seem to be doing just fine. Also, some countries like France and England have virtually zero domestic air travel because the rail services are so good. That has caused all international flights to be concentrated out of London and Paris, but again, since domestic rail travel is so good, catching an international flight in Lyon or Manchester is just a 90-minute train ride away. The TGV stops in the Charles DeGaul terminal and Crossrail 1 will create a 20-minute train ride from any London-area commuter or intercity station to Heathrow. Not hard to imagine a network of high speed trains to connect most mid-sized cities in the Midwest AND travel directly into airport terminals. People in Nashville could do a 90-minute train ride to Atlanta's airport and Columbus and Indy and Louisville could do 60-minute rides to CVG. I'm not against reregulation but I think the issue is very complex. I don't have time to go over every point at this moment so just know that while US based airlines are posting record profits Euro flag carriers are getting killed between Ryanair and what's called the Middle Eastern 3: Etihad, Emirates and Qatar. Almost every country has low-cost competition and most flag carriers are not doing just fine.

Regulation has plusses and minuses. In Cincy, you can certainly say goodbye to Cincinnati-Paris in a regulated environment. International routes would be assigned by demand and market size. Lots of larger markets would "need" additional service slotted for them. Cincinnati would get something like same plane service that would stop at Atlanta or Boston as compensation...initially. Due to deregulation and the subsequent rise of the hub-and-spoke model, prices are deflated in the big cities and inflated everywhere else. For example, looking at Kayak right now, I could book a Mon-Thurs round trip from LA to New York for as low as $366, two weeks from now. Out of CVG, I don't think I have ever paid less than $700 for a round trip to any other city with 2 weeks notice. You can find better deals if you book further in advance but that's pretty uncommon for a lot of business travel. So if we could "put the cat back in the bag" so to speak, and go back to a more regulated business model for airlines, mid-sized cities would see lower fares as well as more direct flights that didn't require a layover. I agree that we would probably lose our one remaining international flight. Detroit would probably lose many of theirs since they wouldn't be a big hub if we shifted away from a hub-and-spoke system. I agree that the advantage would be more direct service to domestic cities. That being said fares would rise across the board even in mid-market cities. That $700 ticket today was likely in the $500 range in 1970.

Right. There is a limit. I know I'm not going to get that stuff at the gate. But if the video goes viral or even if the threat is there and I'm calm and they're acting like idiots I'll get a hefty compensation when someone at the corporate offices sees what's going on.

Regulation has plusses and minuses. In Cincy, you can certainly say goodbye to Cincinnati-Paris in a regulated environment. International routes would be assigned by demand and market size. Lots of larger markets would "need" additional service slotted for them. Cincinnati would get something like same plane service that would stop at Atlanta or Boston for a thru flight to Paris as compensation...initially.

I agree about leverage. His behavior blew the leverage he had. So many people don't act smart in that situation. Always act calm. Just remind the station employees that the situation is being recorded. Now pay for my hotel and I'll be staying at an MTS approved facility, not a Super 8. Pay for my meal. Pay for my taxi if the hotel doesn't have a shuttle. Refund my travel. Free First Class International for myself and my family. If they don't like it, let them lose control.

I don't believe it should be a flat rate. It's United's problem and they need to pay for it even if it makes the flight unprofitable. Delta recently paid a family siting in Economy $11k to get one of their crews repositioned. You don't say $400 max or we call security. You up the price until you get 4 volunteers. If UA eats $10k to get there, so be it.

Pfft...I wouldn't be too concerned about this. These routings are ridiculous. Vegas-Reno? Denver-Dallas? Cheyenne-Houston? Even Seattle-Portland, what problem is Musk solving by starting at these places first? Yet on the East Coast the only routing is Boston-Somerset? Just silly. Even a gondola makes more sense than this.

I believe it's Saturday only. Or it's a Saturday departure/Sunday arrival. Found the departure: UA flight 3849 - Dep 700a Sat. Can't find the return and I don't have access to the UA database. I think it's already sold out which is why you can't find the non-stop on searches. Pretty easy to fill up 50 seats to a beach/golf destination on a weekend.

Convenient Food Mart has....just what you want. I don't think that jingle will ever leave my head. Convenient is (was) as Cleveland as Mr. Hero.

^He's an example of the strong argument that there are too many Wards in Cleveland. If the city reduced the number of councilmembers and expanded the geographical areas of the wards then a guy like TJ would have some trouble keeping a seat.