Based on County Executive Chris Ronayne's post today on X, Aer Lingus has extended its agreement for the CLE-DUB flight from Spring 2026 to end of 2027 - which would be very good news. 

 

I have used the service in 2023 and 2024 - am booked for 2025 - and plan to use it 1-2X a year - hopefully well past 2027.

 

For those with Avios frequent flyer miles, or a credit card that converts to Avios, the deals on flights can often be had with relative points pocket change... 13K-20K points each way. 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024Dec 4 by eyehrtfood

Nice, but I wish he and others would use the correct term of non-stop flight.  Direct flight is not the same as nonstop flight.

On 12/4/2024 at 10:16 AM, LibertyBlvd said:

Nice, but I wish he and others would use the correct term of non-stop flight.  Direct flight is not the same as nonstop flight.

Yes is very misleading.  With all the effort and $ to get these non-stop flights the correct terms should be burned in the brain.

Does the local/county participation in the extension of the DUB flight through 2027 imply that the service cannot (yet) stand on its own?

Edited December 6, 2024Dec 6 by urb-a-saurus

3 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Does the local/county participation in the extension of the DUB flight through 2027 imply that the service cannot (yet) stand on its own?

Aer Lingus apparently didn't ask for any NEW money, just the existing pot spread over five instead of three years.  That says to me that very little of the existing pledge has been paid out.  There was one clue in the article that was new - the revenue guarantee is monthly.  Given the low ticket sales, balanced by reduced flying for last January and February, there was probably some payment to the airline made - but just for those months.  Passenger loads for the other months were most likely break-even or better.  All in all, the route seems to be a success.

I'll be going to the Ryder Cup on those flights! 

24 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Aer Lingus apparently didn't ask for any NEW money, just the existing pot spread over five instead of three years.  That says to me that very little of the existing pledge has been paid out.  There was one clue in the article that was new - the revenue guarantee is monthly.  Given the low ticket sales, balanced by reduced flying for last January and February, there was probably some payment to the airline made - but just for those months.  Passenger loads for the other months were most likely break-even or better.  All in all, the route seems to be a success.

I believe Aer Lingus does an annual shut down and drastically reduces flights during January every year for maintenance. They only operate their major routes in the US like Chicago, DC, LA, and NYC. If you ever try to schedule a flight in January, you will be routed to one of those cities through United or American. 

 

This probably helps us with any subsidies provided to them as they won't be operating during 1 of their 2 lowest passenger months. 

Survey input sought for Hopkins planning.....

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/L2BDVSQ

I would love to see Cleveland do something similar when designing the new look. Take a look at Portland's Airport

 

 

22 minutes ago, KJP said:

Survey input sought for Hopkins planning.....

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/L2BDVSQ

 

Took the survey - but it is all about feel ("where do you like to go in Cleveland") not about substance ("what features would you like to see in a new airport").

 

They need to visit every new - often aspirational (mid tier cities that want to be perceived as world class) - airport terminal in the US and then go one better for CLE in layout, looks,  and  services, etc... But, why do I just know ours will be penny-pinched to mid-level?

I also did the survey.  The questions seemed rather odd.  I thought they would be mostly related to the terminal redesign.

 

The problem with CLE is it is shoehorned into a small space.  Very unlikely they could do anything like Portland, unless they were to acquire some available land nearby. 😉  It is maddening that other cities are building new airport facilities while we wait... and wait...  

 

Edited December 18, 2024Dec 18 by LibertyBlvd

34 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

I would love to see Cleveland do something similar when designing the new look. Take a look at Portland's Airport

 

 

Columbus saw this and was like. Nahhh - let's go white and boring.

In April, Aer Lingus will go to five weekly CLE-DUB flights and in May six weekly (every day but Saturday).  They will cut back to four in late October, according to ishrion on x.

 

 

On 11/26/2024 at 4:40 AM, PlanCleveland said:

I flew with them recently. While waiting in line on the way out, one of the workers mentioned to a couple in line who was asking about her job that they'd be moving up to 6 flights to/from Cleveland per week next year. They currently have 4. This should open up more easy connections throughout Europe.

If Ed and Peggy Gallek need another investigative journalist on their payroll, they know where to find me. 

Aer Lingus adding nonstop flights from Cleveland to Dublin, Ireland

 

Aer Lingus plans to add one roundtrip flight per week — for five weekly trips total — from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport to Dublin, Ireland, beginning April 17.

 

The Cleveland-to-Dublin service also is expected to rise to six weekly trips during the high-travel summer season from May 6 through Oct. 25, the Irish airline said.

 

"There has been huge demand for travel since we opened our direct connection from Cleveland to Dublin last year," Reid Moody, chief strategy and planning officer for Aer Lingus, said in a statement.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2024/12/20/aer-lingus-adding-cleveland-flights-to-dublin.html

As someone who has taken this flight 3x, seeing Aer Lingus add frequency is fantastic. I look forward to taking it 1-2x yearly due to the fair fares and/or great Avios points redemptions.

 

However, the more important thing for long-term success may be for them to alter the timing of the flight to arrive few hours earlier (currently around 9 am) to better connect to early morning non-stop flights from Dublin to the rest of Europe - especially via Aer Lingus.

 

While London and Paris may be well connected, with multiple flights a day, many other Euro destinations are either served only 1x a day from Dublin (prior to 9), or morning and a later afternoon or evening flight. Rome, Prague, Madrid, and Vienna were all destinations in recent trips that didn't mesh well with the CLE flight, requiring either a 4-5 hour minimum layover, a connection in another city, or a trip on another, often budget, airline - when Aer Lingus had flights just missing the CLE arrival timing.

 

On 12/18/2024 at 1:59 PM, columbus17 said:

Columbus saw this and was like. Nahhh - let's go white and boring.

Ditto Cleveland.  Not sure Cleveland's chosen architect/planning team for CLE will match Portland's $2Billion project desgin even though they estimate they will spend $3Billion.

The $3B estimate for CLE is for all phases of the project.  Subsequent phases will commence only if passenger levels surpass a certain threshold.

 

Edited December 27, 2024Dec 27 by LibertyBlvd

The reality is NEO needs a unified solution on commercial aviation. Not two glorified bus shelters in CLE and CAK spreading it thin. This is just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. It would be difficult and expensive to do obviously but people don't even have vision or the bigger picture in mind anyway in the first place. It's their little corner of the region and their own interests before anything else. 

 

 

Imo our aim should be Kansas City... just went there for work and that is a BEAUTIFUL, mid-sized airport. 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

Imo our aim should be Kansas City... just went there for work and that is a BEAUTIFUL, mid-sized airport. 

It's very plush. I don't know if you were ever in the old KCI. s**thole didn't do it justice. Three mini terminals designed like Soviet breeze blocks. If you ever got delayed there then you were f*cked. Would you believe though a lot of people fought tooth and nail to keep it. Mainly people who flew once a year from it. Aviation is one of the few things being done relatively well in this region. KCI serves as far as places like Topeka and St. Joseph which do not have commercial airports whilst CLE/CAK split this region and compete against each other.

 

People hate change sadly in the Midwest and as a result it has to be forced upon them. The people living in places like KC and Cleveland are largely lifelong residents of those places or moved there from smaller communities and have been spoiled by auto centric convenience, thus anything out with their comfort zone equals bad. 

 

 

I was going to say, "hey, CLE isn't so bad..." but then I googled rankings before I wrote anything and saw it was ranked last in mid-sized airports by JD Power. That is embarrassing. 

Back in the early 70s, there was talk about building a new airport.  No, not the one in the lake.  They were considering Ravenna and Medina.  A shame that didn't happen.  A new airport could have replaced CLE an CAK.

8 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Back in the early 70s, there was talk about building a new airport.  No, not the one in the lake.  They were considering Ravenna and Medina.  A shame that didn't happen.  A new airport could have replaced CLE an CAK.

 

One would have gone over very poorly on the west side, the other on the east.

19 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

One would have gone over very poorly on the west side, the other on the east.

I think the idea linked below about of a regional increase in the sale tax presents probably the best strategy to lock in and stabilize our city/regional assets (sports/arts/airport/other transit/social services) as we try to reinvent Cleveland and NEO for the future - if we are to survive against the competition (and not plummet from 2nd tier to 3rd tier).  With Columbus just increasing their total sale tax to 8% (increase for transit) to equal Cuyahoga County's 8% - it may be time for us to lead again and increase ours another .25 or maybe .50 (if we add social safety net investments).  What's not to like.  NOACA and the Greater Cleveland Partnership can hopefully step up out of the shadows and lead:

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/01/put-up-or-shut-up-northeast-ohio-if-we-want-a-great-airport-and-sports-stadiums-lets-take-another-look-at-this-bold-idea.html

ent

On 1/3/2025 at 3:48 PM, E Rocc said:

 

One would have gone over very poorly on the west side, the other on the east.

Ravenna probably would have been too far away, at least for most travelers from the Cleveland area. But Medina might have worked. 

 

Edited January 4Jan 4 by LibertyBlvd

The airport isn't nearly as bad as we pretend it is.  The bathrooms seem to be the main complaint. They were not designed with ease of maintenance in mind. So redesign them (which the airport is doing now) and contract out the janitorial work, since the civil service staff doesn't seem up to the task. The article states the airlines pay $35 million or about a third of the airport's operating costs.  Latest figures (2023) say it's $44.7 million (about $4.47 per ticket) or 26%. Airport debt is half what it was pre-Covid. The airport is cost competitive:  Cost per Emplanement (total expenses/total emplaned passengers) for 2023 is:

 

CLE  $9.27

CMH $9.33

CVG $9.65

DTW $8.78

IND $10.65

PIT  $12.10

 

In short, the current operation is effective and efficient - not the disaster cleveland.com regularly portrays - and traffic is growing.  I'm not opposed to terminal improvements (parking, TSA facilities, Customs and Immigration), just to the incorrect impression of management incompetence found in local reporting.

 

Source of data:  https://cats.airports.faa.gov/Reports/reports.cfm

 

 

 

 

I have to laugh at the JD Power ratings every time I see them brought up for Hopkins. For a few years in a row I was flying in and out of Hopkins on really, really regular basis, so I got to know it pretty well. It's fine, the bathrooms complaint, I get, but that also seems to vary wildly depending on which terminal you're in (A and by security are the newest, C is in the worst shape). Restaurants and amenities are fine as well, but the hours aren't always great. Coffee shops for example tend to not open up until around the time the early morning flights are boarding, which is unfortunate. Security is another pain point, it's just not laid out well in the TSA age of doing things, lines across the entire lobby area from either the north or south checkpoint aren't unusual.

 

I actually really liked the United Lounge there too, sure, it's not as nice as what you'd find at a United Hub airport like O'Hare, but it's spacious, comfy, quiet and the food is decent. If you want a truly hateful lounge experience, go to the United Lounge at MCO. I had to spend nearly a full day in it a few years ago after some brutally timed weather delays, and boy was it bad.

 

That all being said, it of course can use a facelift, it's showing it's age in a lot of ways, the design isn't really suited to the airport that it is now and you can see the seams of updates and projects more than at other comparable airports. The Plain Dealer idea is interesting, but given how counties outside Cuyahoga react to anything Cleveland related, good luck. I can't imagine the meltdown if the idea of closing CAK for a larger regional airport from the Akron region was actually proposed AND a tax to support a "Cleveland" amenity.

 

The PD's coverage of Hopkins has been, interesting to say the least though. I saw they had a headline of passenger "declines" towards the end of the year. Well, turns out traffic still grew year over year, but it didn't grow as much as projected for a month or two after Spirit declared bankruptcy. I guess they got me to click on the article, so it worked I suppose, but it was just strange to phrase it the way they did. And well, we all know that no one loves to hate on Cleveland more than Clevelanders.

I agree that calling Hopkins a “dump” as the editor of the PD does is ridiculous. 
 

But if you look at the other airports we are ranked against in the JD Power list, which I know has flaws, they are objectively much nicer than CLE. I don’t think we need to build a whole new airport but what we have needs renovated, stat. I traveled in the last couple weeks with my spouse, who used one of the newly renovated restrooms and they said it was the most disgusting public restroom they ever used. If there is a way to outsource or improve the bathroom cleanliness, I do think that would be a huge improvement.

The security line also is atrocious early in the morning. The food options are lackluster. The ceilings are low and the space is dark and depressing. This is all stuff that can get improved so it’s not a lost cause. And I know the airport is planning renovations that are discussed here that will probably help with most of this but the time it is taking is too long. Our government needs to learn how to pick up the pace around here. 

Edited January 5Jan 5 by coneflower

Agreed. They should have started on the renovations years ago instead of wringing their hands about the loss of the hub.

3 hours ago, CLEeng said:

 

The PD's coverage of Hopkins has been, interesting to say the least though. I saw they had a headline of passenger "declines" towards the end of the year. Well, turns out traffic still grew year over year, but it didn't grow as much as projected for a month or two after Spirit declared bankruptcy. I guess they got me to click on the article, so it worked I suppose, but it was just strange to phrase it the way they did. And well, we all know that no one loves to hate on Cleveland more than Clevelanders.

 

If I were Cleveland.com travel writer Susan Glaser, who penned the article noted above (and is normally positive about CLE) I'd be embarrassed at the negative, misleading title and tone. of the article. I actually did a double take when I read it, then saw her name attached to it.  

Am I seriously the only one in this entire region who frankly has not noticed anything "disgusting" about the bathrooms at Hopkins? Frankly the things about Hopkins that are bad are that the bathrooms are more small and outdated than "disgusting", the TSA area needs a complete overall in terms of operations/line management and capacity, the ticket gate area is to small and the ceilings are to low. All of these things can be fixed by a renovation.

But in essence at the end of the day, does a big shiny airport honestly matter in the grand scheme of things? It's not going to bring a hub back. It's not going to lead to a significantly increased amount of direct flights. It's not going to lead to more jobs here or the relocation of major companies here. In summary, it's not going to shape shift this region's growth and economic welfare and population status by turning a 180.  

12 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Am I seriously the only one in this entire region who frankly has not noticed anything "disgusting" about the bathrooms at Hopkins?

On the C concourse, the heating fixtures in the mens rooms are rotting away from urine being splashed on them.   They've definitely been there wayyyy too long.

 

Thankfully I have a United Club membership so only use the toilets in there these days unless returning late night and have no other options.  

15 hours ago, eyehrtfood said:

 

If I were Cleveland.com travel writer Susan Glaser, who penned the article noted above (and is normally positive about CLE) I'd be embarrassed at the negative, misleading title and tone. of the article. I actually did a double take when I read it, then saw her name attached to it.  

I'm not sure how the PD is, but I know a lot of publications do say the author generally doesn't create the headline, so maybe that's the case there? I don't read Cleveland.com or PD stuff nearly often enough to know who a lot of the writers are anymore, so the name didn't stick out to me.

 

And I think it's fair to say that upkeep isn't quite there, I guess with some of the horror shows I've seen in my travels I put Hopkins middle of the pack. I'll never forget an entire area of O'Hare that just reeked of backed up sewer gas, or some entire concourses of Philly International, or the absolutely tiny bathrooms in Dulles International, or the entirety of Orlando MCO.

 

I do agree that Cleveland has dragged their feet a bit on the rebuild/reno, but master planning takes a LOT of time, as does the design process. Usually each master planning concept will have a budget estimate created against it and the last few years of rapid inflation since COVID probably meant a lot of having to rework concepts to get things on budget. I'm not on any airport projects personally, but my company is, and some of them have been in design for literally years and they still aren't fully complete. It seems like Hopkins is stuck in a bit of a (pun not intended) holding pattern with the airport. They don't want to spend anymore than they have to because the master plan is coming but the length of that process is just making things that were maybe OK, but aging out seem that much worse. I can absolutely see the cramped criticism of A and B terminals though, I generally spend most of my time in C and the skylights help a lot to keep it from feeling enclosed.

Don't forget the airport's existing debt load.

On 1/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, LibertyBlvd said:

Ravenna probably would have been too far away, at least for most travelers from the Cleveland area. But Medina might have worked. 

 

 

Not for people in NE Cuyahoga, Lake, and Geauga counties.

2 hours ago, CLEeng said:

I'm not sure how the PD is, but I know a lot of publications do say the author generally doesn't create the headline, so maybe that's the case there? I don't read Cleveland.com or PD stuff nearly often enough to know who a lot of the writers are anymore, so the name didn't stick out to me.

 

And I think it's fair to say that upkeep isn't quite there, I guess with some of the horror shows I've seen in my travels I put Hopkins middle of the pack. I'll never forget an entire area of O'Hare that just reeked of backed up sewer gas, or some entire concourses of Philly International, or the absolutely tiny bathrooms in Dulles International, or the entirety of Orlando MCO.

 

I do agree that Cleveland has dragged their feet a bit on the rebuild/reno, but master planning takes a LOT of time, as does the design process. Usually each master planning concept will have a budget estimate created against it and the last few years of rapid inflation since COVID probably meant a lot of having to rework concepts to get things on budget. I'm not on any airport projects personally, but my company is, and some of them have been in design for literally years and they still aren't fully complete. It seems like Hopkins is stuck in a bit of a (pun not intended) holding pattern with the airport. They don't want to spend anymore than they have to because the master plan is coming but the length of that process is just making things that were maybe OK, but aging out seem that much worse. I can absolutely see the cramped criticism of A and B terminals though, I generally spend most of my time in C and the skylights help a lot to keep it from feeling enclosed.

 

The thing is, airports are typically designed for people who work there, not those who use it.

 

I recall airports where the sale of chewing gum was banned (Philly and KC IIRC) because the custodian unions complained about it.   Not so good for travelers who needed to keep their ears clear.

18 hours ago, coneflower said:

I agree that calling Hopkins a “dump” as the editor of the PD does is ridiculous. 
 

But if you look at the other airports we are ranked against in the JD Power list, which I know has flaws, they are objectively much nicer than CLE. I don’t think we need to build a whole new airport but what we have needs renovated, stat. I traveled in the last couple weeks with my spouse, who used one of the newly renovated restrooms and they said it was the most disgusting public restroom they ever used. If there is a way to outsource or improve the bathroom cleanliness, I do think that would be a huge improvement.

The security line also is atrocious early in the morning. The food options are lackluster. The ceilings are low and the space is dark and depressing. This is all stuff that can get improved so it’s not a lost cause. And I know the airport is planning renovations that are discussed here that will probably help with most of this but the time it is taking is too long. Our government needs to learn how to pick up the pace around here. 

 

Sorry, but "our government" and "picking up the pace" are oxymorons in general.  The fault  of the voters, to a large degree.   The Jacksons of the world favor the status quo, the Campbells, Bibbs, and Ronaynes grandiose plans that someone else may or may not be able to implement.

17 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

The thing is, airports are typically designed for people who work there, not those who use it.

 

I recall airports where the sale of chewing gum was banned (Philly and KC IIRC) because the custodian unions complained about it.   Not so good for travelers who needed to keep their ears clear.

That's not design, or even remotely close to it, that's operations. Dumb, if true, but design has nothing to do with that.

I don't hate Hopkins - I actually think it's relatively efficient.

 

What worries me about the redesign, though, is that we're going to blow 30-40% of the overall budget on consulting and design, missing some opportunities to make some small, but important, changes to begin the renovations. 

 

Also, we don't give United enough sh*t for holding us hostage on Terminal D. 

On 1/4/2025 at 2:55 PM, Dougal said:

The airport isn't nearly as bad as we pretend it is.  The bathrooms seem to be the main complaint. They were not designed with ease of maintenance in mind. So redesign them (which the airport is doing now) and contract out the janitorial work, since the civil service staff doesn't seem up to the task. The article states the airlines pay $35 million or about a third of the airport's operating costs.  Latest figures (2023) say it's $44.7 million (about $4.47 per ticket) or 26%. Airport debt is half what it was pre-Covid. The airport is cost competitive:  Cost per Emplanement (total expenses/total emplaned passengers) for 2023 is:

 

CLE  $9.27

CMH $9.33

CVG $9.65

DTW $8.78

IND $10.65

PIT  $12.10

 

In short, the current operation is effective and efficient - not the disaster cleveland.com regularly portrays - and traffic is growing.  I'm not opposed to terminal improvements (parking, TSA facilities, Customs and Immigration), just to the incorrect impression of management incompetence found in local reporting.

 

Source of data:  https://cats.airports.faa.gov/Reports/reports.cfm

 

 

 

 

I agree. I still never understand why people have so much hate for CLE. I've never experienced this "restroom issue" others speak of. I mean has anyone tried to use a restroom in a hub airport? Those are raunchy. Food is pretty good for mid-tier non-hub, although agreed that I wish they had better hours. TSA lines are an issue (which I don't deal with due to precheck) so that criticism is fair. Part of that is the actual TSA though vs CLE. It does need a face lift, but ultimately, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here

2 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

I agree. I still never understand why people have so much hate for CLE. I've never experienced this "restroom issue" others speak of. I mean has anyone tried to use a restroom in a hub airport? Those are raunchy. 

One aspect of a modern airport design is the use of dual restrooms, so one can be closed while the other is being cleaned.   Also modern airports have more room in the restrooms for luggage.  

3 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 Also modern airports have more room in the restrooms for luggage.  

Right.  Just about everyone is bringing a carry-on bag on board now to avoid the checked bag fee.  I wish airlines would eliminate that fee, at least for the first bag.  It would make enplanement/deplanement a lot easier and would reduce congestion in restrooms and departure waiting areas.

21 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I don't hate Hopkins - I actually think it's relatively efficient.

 

What worries me about the redesign, though, is that we're going to blow 30-40% of the overall budget on consulting and design, missing some opportunities to make some small, but important, changes to begin the renovations. 

 

Also, we don't give United enough sh*t for holding us hostage on Terminal D. 

For a project that has a master planning component like you need to here for FAA approval, that's actually not that unusual. I'm going to guess the Jimmah-World proposal has similar soft costs to it buried in total cost, they just don't break it out, they just say the project will cost X with everything required to get it there included. There's a whole rabbit hole here (hard costs vs soft costs, design fees, the bidding model, etc etc), that is a way off topic discussion. I know a certain local hospital had years of master planning go into their own billion+ dollar campus plan, and I'm guessing the consulting/design fees were a similar percentage.

 

Us design consultants gotta eat too!

If CLE was in good shape, the city wouldn't be planning a $3B renovation. Are there worse air travel experiences out there with bathrooms that would make a sewage system worker choke? I'm sure there are but why are we measuring ourselves by that end of the spectrum?

Edited January 6Jan 6 by coneflower

Maybe I'm wrong, but I wish the City of Cleveland put as much effort in improving/upgrading Hopkins as it does, ostensibly, keeping the Browns in the city.  To me, investing in our airport is more beneficial to our region's economic health than a football team.  CLE aviation (airline service and facilities) needs to be competitive with the likes of Columbus, Indy and Pittsburgh. 

Honestly this isn't meant to be sarcastic - I'm genuinely asking... 

 

But have any of you ever booked a flight based upon the facilities at the airport of departure? 

 

I've certainly made that decision re: operations (i.e. Laguardia vs. JFK in the past), but never facilities. 

31 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Honestly this isn't meant to be sarcastic - I'm genuinely asking... 

 

But have any of you ever booked a flight based upon the facilities at the airport of departure? 

 

I've certainly made that decision re: operations (i.e. Laguardia vs. JFK in the past), but never facilities. 

 

You're correct as far as booking flights.

 

But the facilities make a first impression on incoming travelers.

 

They can also impact corporate decisions vis a vis locating.  When Society and Key merged the tower was the main reason they located in Cleveland but Hopkins having better facilities at the time (than Albany) was also a factor.

On 1/6/2025 at 7:05 AM, CLEeng said:

That's not design, or even remotely close to it, that's operations. Dumb, if true, but design has nothing to do with that.

 

In manufacturing, design isn't just physical but operational.   

Edited January 7Jan 7 by E Rocc

42 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

In manufacturing, design isn't just physical but operational.   

OK, that's great, but it has absolutely zero to do the design of facilities from an Architectural and Engineering standpoint. I can guarantee you the sale of gum has never once come up in a facility design meeting. Teams do keep in mind where things are located or how they're laid out to aid the facilities maintenance crew in doing their job more effectively, but an airport banning the sale of gum is not something that an A&E design team would ever talk about.