I like the look of the proposed new landside terminal, and getting that as a new build from the ground up feels like an upgrade from the most recent prior plan. And the phasing of it makes it feel a whole lot cleaner and understandable to a layperson.

So I can’t help but wonder what’s driving such a radical deviation from that earlier plan. It almost seems too easy, like why didn’t they propose it this way before? Did they get feedback from the airlines that led the project in this direction, or was the cost of the whole thing insurmountable? Was the phasing proposed earlier too complex, resulting in higher cost?

I’d love it if we had a news organization that had the capability to ask the tough questions here and do a deep dive into the project’s evolution to this proposal.

I certainly hope they’re not giving up on the concourse rebuilds entirely, and instead just kicking that can down the road until more funds become available. Those concourses are just as tired and cramped as the front end, and what a letdown it would be to go from a shiny new terminal to dingy and antiquated gate concourses.

Edited May 6May 6 by JohnSummit
typos

Hopkins Airport remake about to take flight

By Ken Prendergast / May 6, 2025

Mayor Justin Bibb and Port Control Director Bryant Francis unveiled plans and action steps today for a $1.6 billion first-phase, five-step program of improvements to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in the next seven years, representing the start of more phases to come. The improvements come as Hopkins celebrates its 100th birthday this year.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/06/hopkins-airport-remake-about-to-take-flight/

2 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Why would it take 1.5 years to pave parking spaces on existing tarmac to create the gold lot?

My guess is that if you take into account the pre-advertising meeting essentially happening in a month, contractors will need time (multiple months) to prepare their bid package. Then review the packages select a winning team and start the work…

All that time adds up.

29 minutes ago, JohnSummit said:

So I can’t help but wonder what’s driving such a radical deviation from that earlier plan. It almost seems too easy, like why didn’t they propose it this way before? Did they get feedback from the airlines that led the project in this direction, or was the cost of the whole thing insurmountable ? Was the phasing proposed earlier too complex, resulting in higher cost

I would have to think it's a mix of feedback on the project and just generally a more forward-thinking leader at the head of the city. The monolithic plodding and backwardness of the Frank Jackson administration cannot be understated. it didn't move our city backwards, but it certainly slowed it to a snails pace forward...

While I am happy to see that the master plan has evolved to a new build I would really like to see the concourses rebuilt from scratch over time. This plan should show what is possible as a cohesive plan.

The space between the new terminal and concourse B is odd and isn't the most convenient to get to.

Hopefully more renderings will surface of what is planned for the interior spaces.

One thing I’ve been thinking about - this layout makes Ken’s idea of a pedestrian bridge over the highway to an Amtrak station at the closest part of the main line more feasible, since it is physically much closer. If the Red Line station is built for through running, it could take a hard turn back to the southeast past the station and add a new station by the mainline. Then squeeze in passing sidings with outside platforms for the rail station. New light rail station further southwest on those tracks. (I’m assuming there isn’t enough room for the stations to be parallel to each other.) Red for red line extension, blue for pedestrian bridge and passenger rail station. This provide secured parking for the Amtrak station that they don’t have to build.

i think I like this, but is it just me or will the vast empty space right in the middle of this site that is created by the Concourse C and Concourse A connectors just look weird? Watch the video after the old terminal is demolished. I don't know, this just looks like odd, enclosed empty space. Need informed thoughts on what the heck is this space going to be used for.

Also the Gold Lot. By investing in a parking lot so close to Concourse D, are they basically saying that Concourse D will never ever be operational again, even in a scenario where CLE needs to expands in the future? Or is a surface parking lot like this considered to be something that could be easily eliminated should expansion be necessary?

I agree the empty space is strange, but I doubt it would stay empty for long. Space is always at a premium on airport grounds. It could give them flexibility for reconstructing the concourses, or eventually turn into retail / food & beverage / lounge space. Perhaps even an onsite hotel, although I wonder about that behind security.

6 hours ago, NewtoCLE said:

i think I like this, but is it just me or will the vast empty space right in the middle of this site that is created by the Concourse C and Concourse A connectors just look weird? Watch the video after the old terminal is demolished. I don't know, this just looks like odd, enclosed empty space. Need informed thoughts on what the heck is this space going to be used for.

Also the Gold Lot. By investing in a parking lot so close to Concourse D, are they basically saying that Concourse D will never ever be operational again, even in a scenario where CLE needs to expands in the future? Or is a surface parking lot like this considered to be something that could be easily eliminated should expansion be necessary?

You also need to keep in mind its only a parking lot they are building. It probably won't be permanent, hell even the parking garage they build aren't permanent, lol.

Probably just needed to offset the loss of parking lot that will be closed to build the garage. Then later on, if needed they can demolished the lot and expand the airport.

The empty space is weird, but as mentioned above is probably also temporary, until they figure out the configuration of the replacement concourses.

I also noticed this plan is set to include a new international arrivals and customs facility for the main terminal building. From the video, looks like the plan is to utilize the sterile connector that will connect Concourse A to a new arrivals hall area in the main concourse. Obviously they are doing this with Frontier in mind specifically, as F9 has made a big investment in CLE and operates a handful of international flights. I haven't seen how CLE presently processes arriving passengers, but I imagine it is haphazard and borderline absurd, involving mobile CBP kiosks and exclusively for Concourse A.

But what about other airlines that might introduce new direct international service? Aer Lingus will soon be expanding into daily, and presently passengers may pre-clear with BCP in Dublin. But what if Iceland Air returns, or hey, what if United surprises us all and introduces at least 3x weekly service to LHR on a 787 and pre-clear is not available? It would be ideal in those scenarios for those flights to park in Concourse A, but then more challenges emerge, such as available gate space and if current jet bridge availability that is configured for mostly A321s/B737s with F9 in mind (and sometimes Delta) could also accomodate a wide body (in the 787 example). These are the conversations I want to have!

Also - it sucks that during times of bad weather, or other contingencies, when CLE absorbs wide body international diversions from Detroit, Newark, or Toronto, these planes do not even have the option of being able to pull up to a gate because the infrastructure here cannot support it. I recall a diverted Delta A350 from Shanghai a couple weeks ago, and also another A350 operated by THY. Diversions typically never stay on the ground for more than 2-4 hours, and rarely are passengers allowed off, but still it would be nice if CLE could accomodate with the right infrastructure if they need it. Obviously the Qataris and their B747 Amiri flights do not need this, there is still prestige associated with airside CBP processing and having a motorcade of black UberXL suburbans lined up at the mobile stairs.

I guess my bottom line is that I wish CLE was more than it might ever need to be. Being sandwiched between other airports with either hubs or existing transatlantic service does not make me feel CLE will ever break out again. I think United could possibly change this with the advent of service that connects CLE to EUR again, but that's it.

Edited May 9May 9 by NewtoCLE

1 hour ago, NewtoCLE said:

I wish CLE was more than it might ever need to be

Agreed, we should absolutely aim to have the capability to service any plane that can utilize our existing runways. Most of that will fall under the concourse renovation, but we should start thinking about it now. For the record, this is also why I argue we should preserve the space for a third runway when we are redesigning the concourse layout, if that is possible (which it looks like it might be).

On 5/6/2025 at 3:34 PM, Cleburger said:

I would have to think it's a mix of feedback on the project and just generally a more forward-thinking leader at the head of the city. The monolithic plodding and backwardness of the Frank Jackson administration cannot be understated. it didn't move our city backwards, but it certainly slowed it to a snails pace forward...

There tends to be a trend in master planning teams to lean towards preserving as much as you can too. Better criteria that all new is acceptable from the Owner/Client helps to break out of that, but I've seen numerous master planning teams bent into pretzels to try and keep things before finally giving in and building all new after numerous truly insane planning iterations. I am glad they went this direction though in the end, it looks like it improves the biggest pain points while maintaining the most flexibility.

That being said, while I think Jackson was the right person during truly tough times, he was in office for far too long and he did hold progress back towards the end of his term.

I have to wonder if the current flight issues with overloaded hubs like Newark might finally lead to a change in operations for the airlines. To me it would make sense for some the airlines to have two tiers of hubs to try and relieve the pressure that's causing so many issues right now. In that, CLE would be perfectly positioned, but I know that's probably a dream and won't ever happen.

21 minutes ago, CLEeng said:

I have to wonder if the current flight issues with overloaded hubs like Newark might finally lead to a change in operations for the airlines. To me it would make sense for some the airlines to have two tiers of hubs to try and relieve the pressure that's causing so many issues right now. In that, CLE would be perfectly positioned, but I know that's probably a dream and won't ever happen.

this is why I called out United specifically, above. I could not agree more. For a non-hub city, it is almost as if United is still treating CLE almost as a mini hub with its not-insignificant offering of direct flights from here and its status as both a crew and maintenance base. With all the drama at EWR (ATC and weather), the insanity of ORD (weather and traffic), I am still perplexed over the lack of consideration for possibly adding transatlantic service from CLE. I think given load factors and demand, this airport could definitely support LHR service on a 3x-4x basis, for example. I recall Cirium data indicating that every day, there are at least 90-100 passengers who depart CLE - on average - whose final destination is London Heathrow. That could be dated now, but don't tell me there is insignificant demand from business travelers alone, to say nothing of leisure flyers. Cmon, United! Cleveland Clinic leaders should be pushing for this given they have a Hospital there (and Abu Dhabi).

Edited May 9May 9 by NewtoCLE

You guys are spot on, the airport should be designed to be able to handle aircraft that don't necessarily frequent Hopkins and also should be designed with expansion in mind - that is don't build the next iteration of facilities in such a manner that would hinder our ability to enlarge them in the future, or in a way that prevents the construction and expansion of runways and taxiways, should they be needed. Look at the ATL and DFW airports and how the initial design made it simple to expand the concourses as their growth continued.

This is one reason I've mentioned a few times that I'd rather the Airport take over the Brookpark Browns site as opposed to the stadium being built there, potentially.

That could be space for a new runway in the future, or if it was owned now, could've been where we built a whole new terminal and concourse project without the need to build any temporary structures, kind of like what New Orleans has done.

Edited May 9May 9 by Mov2Ohio

21 hours ago, NewtoCLE said:

i think I like this, but is it just me or will the vast empty space right in the middle of this site that is created by the Concourse C and Concourse A connectors just look weird? Watch the video after the old terminal is demolished. I don't know, this just looks like odd, enclosed empty space. Need informed thoughts on what the heck is this space going to be used for.

Also the Gold Lot. By investing in a parking lot so close to Concourse D, are they basically saying that Concourse D will never ever be operational again, even in a scenario where CLE needs to expands in the future? Or is a surface parking lot like this considered to be something that could be easily eliminated should expansion be necessary?

Maybe they demolish B and extend A and C into the empty space with new gates on the west side. Of course there would still be some empty space. My preference is for new concourses in the next phase.

If D is ever re-opened, they could keep parking on one side and just have gates on the other side. I've been to airports where gates are only on one side of the concourse.

Edited May 9May 9 by LibertyBlvd

44 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Maybe they demolish B and extend A and C into the empty space with new gates on the west side. Of course there would still be some empty space. My preference is for new concourses in the next phase.

If D is ever re-opened, they could keep parking on one side and just have gates on the other side. I've been to airports where gates are only on one side of the concourse.

Along these lines, they could probably do the design from original terminal family (I think) six. It featured a remote concourse parallel to the terminal, connected via tunnel or bridge. One concourse might be enough for now.

4 hours ago, CLEeng said:

I have to wonder if the current flight issues with overloaded hubs like Newark might finally lead to a change in operations for the airlines. To me it would make sense for some the airlines to have two tiers of hubs to try and relieve the pressure that's causing so many issues right now. In that, CLE would be perfectly positioned, but I know that's probably a dream and won't ever happen.

I had the exact same thought. As these giant hubs continue to have issues, it really seems like there should be a true reliever hub or two in the various regions of the country. Even if it was predominantly domestic, which CLE historically was. While UA is never going to shrink the international gateway at EWR, I would think that many domestic flyers traveling to Florida, the Great Lakes/Midwest, and/or New England could be funnelled through a domestic reliever hub while reducing the strain at the mega hubs. It has become clear that these overcrowded mega hubs are far more susceptible to network reliability issues as they are currently structured.

1 hour ago, brownsfan1226 said:

I had the exact same thought. As these giant hubs continue to have issues, it really seems like there should be a true reliever hub or two in the various regions of the country. Even if it was predominantly domestic, which CLE historically was. While UA is never going to shrink the international gateway at EWR, I would think that many domestic flyers traveling to Florida, the Great Lakes/Midwest, and/or New England could be funnelled through a domestic reliever hub while reducing the strain at the mega hubs. It has become clear that these overcrowded mega hubs are far more susceptible to network reliability issues as they are currently structured.

As someone who was at Hopkins a few years ago when United had one of their worst days ever (simultaneous weather in Chicago, Denver and New York region), waiting to just get a plane so I could take my trip and eventually giving up after about 6 hours of delays, I don't get why we don't hear more about the airlines looking into that. Former hubs like CLE, CVG, etc could all serve a very useful purpose instead of trying to cram even more into ORD, EWR, ATL, etc. They already have the facilities and repair bases to do just that.

It seems like the Hopkins master planning team is at least trying to position the airport to handle a more diverse set of things down the road, which is all we can ask for now.

Not huge news, but I'll cross-post something I saw on the airliners.net CLE thread:

https://www.clevelandairport.com/sites/default/files/4_1_2025_passenger_boarding_bridges_design_build_services_rfp.pdf

CLE issued an RFP on April 1 for replacing several jet bridges in concourses A and C.

Of note, the replacement bridge (bridges?) for gate A14 must be able to service all widebody planes up to the A350-1000

You know which airlines use those gates? Im guess United for Concourse C and Spirit and Frontier over in A?

5 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

You know which airlines use those gates? Im guess United for Concourse C and Spirit and Frontier over in A?

Yes, Frontier and Spirit at A. A1 is the Air Canada gate I believe (at least that was what it was when I last flew AC two years ago)

C4 i believe is the JetBlue gate, while the rest of the C gates listed above are all used by American. C8 and C10 might by United sometimes but I'm not entirely sure. Typically United just uses all of the "banjo" gates

Now that we have a for certain construction project at CLE, should we not created a separate thread for this under Northeast Ohio Projects and Construction?

2 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Yes, Frontier and Spirit at A. A1 is the Air Canada gate I believe (at least that was what it was when I last flew AC two years ago)

A poster in another forum said Air Canada is using gate C10.

B6, AS, AA, and Aer Lingus use the lower Even Numbered C Gates. Delta has been using some of the A gates in the morning as an overflow area when B is full as well.

6 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

Now that we have a for certain construction project at CLE, should we not created a separate thread for this under Northeast Ohio Projects and Construction?

No, this is the appropriate thread for anything related to Hopkins including expansion news.

cleveland

Sky’s the limit for CommuteAir, Cleveland’s hometown airline

CommuteAir President and CEO Rick Hoefling said the company was exploring the possibility of adding regularly scheduled air service under its own name – including, perhaps, new routes from Clevelan...

Not only has CommuteAir's new headquarters in Westlake opened, but there is an interesting segment in this cleveland.com article:

"In a conversation after the ribbon-cutting, Hoefling said the company was also exploring the possibility of adding regularly scheduled air service under its own name – including, perhaps, new routes from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport."

"Hoefling said he believes there is room in the travel space for a small carrier to offer premium service between smaller and medium-sized airports. He added, 'Cleveland is one area we’re looking at.'"

13 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

cleveland

Sky’s the limit for CommuteAir, Cleveland’s hometown airline

CommuteAir President and CEO Rick Hoefling said the company was exploring the possibility of adding regularly scheduled air service under its own name – including, perhaps, new routes from Clevelan...

Not only has CommuteAir's new headquarters in Westlake opened, but there is an interesting segment in this cleveland.com article:

Plz give us CLE-MKE; that would save me so much hassle.

On 5/12/2025 at 3:51 PM, LibertyBlvd said:

A poster in another forum said Air Canada is using gate C10.

That sounds about right, I've taken that flight a few times and it's always at the very end of C. I've had it planned a few times for A, but it always gets moved to C before the flight.

1 hour ago, Geowizical said:

cleveland

Sky’s the limit for CommuteAir, Cleveland’s hometown airline

CommuteAir President and CEO Rick Hoefling said the company was exploring the possibility of adding regularly scheduled air service under its own name – including, perhaps, new routes from Clevelan...

Not only has CommuteAir's new headquarters in Westlake opened, but there is an interesting segment in this cleveland.com article:

Unfortunately, the aviation landscape is littered with the wrecks of small airlines that tried to do this. I wish them well, but the odds aren't in their favor.

Airport leaders explain how — and why — they cut Hopkins Master Plan timeline in half

“The initial master plan work that began in 2019 had to be revisited, including the passenger and flight forecasts, because the feedback from our airline partners was that CLE had the potential to see more passenger activity sooner than anticipated,” Bryant Francis told members of the Cleveland City Council’s Transportation and Mobility committee on Wednesday, May 14.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/transportation/hopkins-master-plan-timeline-cut-half

5 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

"The feedback from our airline partners was that CLE had the potential to see more passenger activity sooner than anticipated”

Well, that's welcome news!

Some helpful maps/diagrams in this article.....

Cleveland Airport project’s first two steps take off

By Ken Prendergast / May 16, 2025

Ten days ago, Mayor Justin Bibb announced a $1.6 billion plan to construct the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport’s Terminal Modernization Development Program (TDMP). Today, more details came to light about that plan, called CLEvolution, as the City Planning Commission unanimously approved the first two steps forward in that eight-year program.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/16/cleveland-airport-projects-first-two-steps-take-off/

Look, I'm a huge transit adovcate. But is it really worth creating a new RTA station at the airport when like 10 people in the whole network ride the thing either to or from the airport a day. Like I'm not joking, anytime I've taken the rapid from the airport to downtown I have been the ONLY one on that train

26 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Look, I'm a huge transit adovcate. But is it really worth creating a new RTA station at the airport when like 10 people in the whole network ride the thing either to or from the airport a day. Like I'm not joking, anytime I've taken the rapid from the airport to downtown I have been the ONLY one on that train

I’m having trouble finding 2023/2024 ridership by station, but here it is through 2022. Airport is the sixth busiest rail station on the whole system, and only Tower City and Stokes have substantially more ridership. It’s also interesting how the airport has one of the strongest post-pandemic ridership recoveries. It’s a useful station worth investing in. Keep in mind that airport employees are a strong ridership group.

2 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Look, I'm a huge transit adovcate. But is it really worth creating a new RTA station at the airport when like 10 people in the whole network ride the thing either to or from the airport a day. Like I'm not joking, anytime I've taken the rapid from the airport to downtown I have been the ONLY one on that train

Its a function of frequency. Those trains run every 15 min or so. So the more frequency, the less riders per train. I ride it a couple times a week and its decently full

I don't see any mention of the highway spur connecting CLE to I-71, as suggested in the recent master plan. I do see revised entrance and exit roadways, but they are still accessed off of SR-237. The spur would have run, elevated, beside Snow Rd., which will need attention, especially if you know who builds you know what on the old Ford property.

I believe there were a couple options for roadway revisions presented in the recent master plan, but I don't think one was selected. The spur from I-71 was one of the options. Another option had the section of SR-237 at CLE rerouted to the east.

Relation of D to the garage to be the site of the new terminal

So perhaps D could be connected to the new terminal via a walkway?

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So perhaps D could be connected to the new terminal via a walkway?

Yes, it would be convenient to the new terminal, but the airport management is confident that the regional jets that concourse is designed for do not have a substantial future at Hopkins, and that it would be quite expensive to redo for larger jets. The good news is that there is no rush to make a decision on that - they can do everything in the recent announcement AND redo the concourses without touching D. A different decision on D could be made in the future. It would even be possible to use D to connect from the terminal to C during some future construction phase.

New terminal is going on the Red footprint (current garage)

14 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yes, it would be convenient to the new terminal, but the airport management is confident that the regional jets that concourse is designed for do not have a substantial future at Hopkins, and that it would be quite expensive to redo for larger jets. The good news is that there is no rush to make a decision on that - they can do everything in the recent announcement AND redo the concourses without touching D. A different decision on D could be made in the future. It would even be possible to use D to connect from the terminal to C during some future construction phase.

It also seems possible to convert D to a rental car center, connected to the ground transportation center. That is certainly not a high priority and could not happen before the new garage is built, but better than demolition.

I thought the west side of D was capable of handling larger aircraft. I wonder if United or one of the other airlines could move there once the new terminal is open? It would require a walkway from the terminal and some gate modifications, but it seems like it would be less costly than building a new concourse.

Edited May 27May 27 by LibertyBlvd

cleveland

Cleveland Hopkins’ new $1.6B airport terminal constructio...

City Council committee approves legislation for new parking lot, garage and project management as first steps in terminal project.

Finalizing vote from city council expected next Monday! Amazing how it seems we went from the doldrums of a master planning process to full-blown construction action items in a matter of weeks! Goes to show how much good work is happening behind the scenes.

Passenger numbers dip in April at Cleveland Hopkins airport

Passenger numbers at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport fell 2.3% in April, the second month this year of declining traveler numbers.

Year to date, Cleveland has welcomed 3.07 million passengers, down less than 1% over the same period a year ago. That includes 832,904 travelers in April.

Airport officials are still forecasting 10.4 million passengers in 2025, which would be 2% higher than the 10.17 million passengers who traveled through the airport in 2024.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2025/05/30/passenger-numbers-dip-april-hopkins-airport.html

14 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Passenger numbers dip in April at Cleveland Hopkins airport

Passenger numbers at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport fell 2.3% in April, the second month this year of declining traveler numbers.

Year to date, Cleveland has welcomed 3.07 million passengers, down less than 1% over the same period a year ago. That includes 832,904 travelers in April.

Airport officials are still forecasting 10.4 million passengers in 2025, which would be 2% higher than the 10.17 million passengers who traveled through the airport in 2024.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2025/05/30/passenger-numbers-dip-april-hopkins-airport.html

No new routes due to start just now either.

This is why I can't get too excited about the airport overhaul. It's lipstick on a pig. NEO is a stagnant market and just as so when it comes to commercial aviation. CAK is also in the background with its share of low cost traffic and is plodding along with mainline service of its own too. We have two airports basically affecting each other instead of one strong offering and it's going to hold us back as much as the crap sprawl and disinvestment people are pushing in Downtown. We don't help ourselves.

Edited May 31May 31 by snakebite

Are numbers also down at other airports? If so, then there is no need for gloom and doom about NE Ohio.

By the way, the airport overhaul is more than lipstick on a pig. It will be a brand new terminal and eventually brand new concourses.

Edited May 31May 31 by LibertyBlvd

Domestic air travel year-to-year is down 3%.

International travel was down 10% in April but rebounded in May to being just under May 2024 numbers. Those trips are usually planned 3-6 months in advance, which may explain the stability.

Canada obviously has collapsed (25%).

Frankly, any international leisure traveler visiting the US needs their head checked. That would be like me going to Moscow in June.

Edited May 31May 31 by TBideon

12 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Are numbers also down at other airports? If so, then there is no need for gloom and doom about NE Ohio.

By the way, the airport overhaul is more than lipstick on a pig. It will be a brand new terminal and eventually brand new concourses.

Yes, our peers around here are all down (April YOY), save for PIT somehow:

PIT +1.4%
CMH -1.5%
CLE -2.3%
SDF -2.3%
CVG -3.2%
MCI -8.6%

No need for doom-and-gloom in terms of CLE specifically, but maybe American aviation as a whole go wild lol

Edited May 31May 31 by Geowizical

1 hour ago, snakebite said:

No new routes due to start just now either.

This is why I can't get too excited about the airport overhaul. It's lipstick on a pig. NEO is a stagnant market and just as so when it comes to commercial aviation. CAK is also in the background with its share of low cost traffic and is plodding along with mainline service of its own too. We have two airports basically affecting each other instead of one strong offering and it's going to hold us back as much as the crap sprawl and disinvestment people are pushing in Downtown. We don't help ourselves.

Honestly, the passenger numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the terminal needs to be replaced; it does because it’s old and outdated.

2 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Yes, our peers around here are all down (April YOY), save for PIT somehow:

PIT +1.4%
CMH -1.5%
CLE -2.3%
SDF -2.3%
CVG -3.2%
MCI -8.6%

No need for doom-and-gloom in terms of CLE specifically, but maybe American aviation as a whole go wild lol

Add St Louis -5.7% The dramatic declines at Kansas City and St. Louis are probably related to the current troubles Southwest Airlines is experiencing; Southwest is the biggest carrier at both cities.