6 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

"Job growth numbers" is wide-open to interpretation....Percent increase, percent of population empoyed, actual number of jobs, city, region.

 

I wonder how many jobs a new CLE Terminal will generate?

 

As far as the end result (corporate attraction/retention, perceived prestige, etc) I don’t disagree with you, @KJP, et al on this, as far as perception is concerned. But I really think you are overestimating the ability of impact the city or county or even the local corporate community can have on the type of air service you’re talking about. This is much more an industry question than a local governance question. And in today’s airline industry, the Legacy carriers have largely eschewed point-to-point flying, preferring to route all of their traffic through their fortress hubs. 

 

And that’s not Frank Jackson’s fault, that’s the result of the hangover of expensive jet fuel, industry consolidation in the 2000s, perhaps not building a giant greenfield airport in Richfield, and ultimately, deregulation in the 1970s. CLE never was a fortress hub (no one pulling paycheck at CLE or 601 Lakeside can be blamed for that) and very very likely never will be, and so CLE will never see the type of service all of us wish it had. 

 

The fact remains, outside of Boston and I think Orlando, United still does more point-to-point flying out of Cleveland than anywhere else in its network. So while it’s frustrating they pulled the “hub” (which it really was in name only), UA still gives CLE routes and frequencies that most other airports it’s size would be very enviable of. Delta is generally more willing to do more P2P flying than the other legacies (and does so out of Cleveland with BDL, LGA, and RDU), but even then has its limits. 

 

Few on here would dispute that Columbus has had the type of business attraction success that apparently CLE prevents NE Ohio from having, but that’s certainly not due to the service levels at CMH. And CVG’s superior route network as a Delta focus city/former fortress hub has not prevented it from losing a number of F500/F1000 HQs in recently history. 

 

And as far as rental car facilities go, please, I don’t see very many high growth companies avoiding Northern Virginia or the Bay Area just because of the interminable slog to the rental companies at IAD or SFO, for example. And it would probably blow the minds of those that complain about the convoluted ride share/“transportation center” at Hopkins to find that darling of high-tech growth and enviable corporate development, Austin, is some how able to still thrive with at least twice as convoluted an arrangement at Bergstrom. Tilting at windmills here, IMHO. 

 

So where does that leave an airport like a Cleveland? Going after the non-legacies that are not so beholden to the hub-and-spoke model. And in that respect, as many others have commented, CLE has done quite well. Frontier and Sprit both have among their more sizeable operations in CLE, with Allegiant not far behind. This is what the CLE’s of the world can build their traffic on these days, and in that respect CLE has arguably been more successful than all of its peers. 

 

Lastly, the 737 Max grounding is undoubtedly having an effect on route development out of places like Cleveland. Southwest would likely be operating MCI and daily to DAL and/or HOU if it wasn’t for that, filling some of the holes out of CLE. Time will tell.  But wishing that CLE had the type of service that you’ll only see at hubs these days is, unfortunately, a wasted expenditure of effort. Let’s focus on service improvements to key holes in the network, and providing a terminal facility that has some aesthetic charm to match its user friendly compactness, expedient security lines, and convenience to the center city. 

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by brtshrcegr

^ Finally someone who understands the airline industry at more than a cursory level speaking the truth. It's refreshing to hear from posters that produce statements based in the reality of air travel circa 2020. Thank you!

3 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

If you believe that Cleveland has more job growth than any of the cities listed, cite your reference ff.

I believe everything I type because facts are on my side.

 

2019 yoy job growth %

 

Cleveland - 1.2%

Columbus - 1.2%

Kansas City - 1%

Pittsburgh - .1%

Detroit - 0%

Indianapolis - .7%

NYC - 1%

Chicago - .7%

 

Source:

https://www.bls.gov/regions/home.htm

 

Your move.

I think the original question was how can CLE be used as a driver of economic development?

 

I'd love to respond Milli, but have other things to do right now. You hold that thought.

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

4 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I think the original question was how can CLE be used as a driver of economic development?

 

There's no guarantee that it will be an economic driver. What did building terminal D get Cleveland, mothballs?

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Clefan98

Yes, there are no guarantees. Of anything.

Just now, KJP said:

Yes, there are no guarantees. Of anything.

 

Right, terminal D is proof of that.

Finally....

 

1.2% of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k. Try focusing on actual statistics, not some alternate reality.

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Finally....

 

1.2 % of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k.

That's regional growth. The Columbus region has slightly more jobs than Cleveland because Cleveland does not include Akron. So, in fact, it's pretty much comparable. Center city population doesn't really factor in, only regional population.  

 

1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Finally....

 

1.2 % of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k.

 

It would make more sense if you were decent at interpreting data.

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Clefan98

You should learn percentages

1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

You should learn percentages

 

Such as? These are metro numbers, so where did you get 300k vs 900k from?

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Clefan98

8 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Right, terminal D is proof of that.

 

So are a lot of things. That's life.

9 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

That's regional growth. The Columbus region has slightly more jobs than Cleveland because Cleveland does not include Akron. So, in fact, it's pretty much comparable. Center city population doesn't really factor in, only regional population.  

 

 

Thanks for picking up what I'm laying down. Those who always seek negativity will surely find it, even when there is none.

Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Clefan98

I really didn't want to get into a debate so I won't be reading this posting or any more on this.

Honestly, this thread needs to be closed. 

8 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Honestly, this thread needs to be closed. 

 

5 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

There's no guarantee that it will be an economic driver. What did building terminal D get Cleveland, mothballs?

 

Technically, it is still under lease.  So it's still generating income for our little aerodrome ?

Not sure the money would be there, as this would likely be vastly more expensive than a billion dollars but here is how I would reconfigure Hopkins while using the same site and basic infrastructure. Would be a multi phase development that ends in having 2 basic terminals with drop off and baggage locations for each, one is the existing and the other new. Each with 2 concourses. New garage with rental car within, new hotel, new multi modal train and bus station across 237 connected to new terminal by people movers. D and A would only have gates on airfield side. B could be configured for gates only on the terminal facing side or both of there is room. Sorry for the poor penmanship. 

1 hour ago, Taller_is_better said:

Not sure the money would be there, as this would likely be vastly more expensive than a billion dollars but here is how I would reconfigure Hopkins while using the same site and basic infrastructure. Would be a multi phase development that ends in having 2 basic terminals with drop off and baggage locations for each, one is the existing and the other new. Each with 2 concourses. New garage with rental car within, new hotel, new multi modal train and bus station across 237 connected to new terminal by people movers. D and A would only have gates on airfield side. B could be configured for gates only on the terminal facing side or both of there is room. Sorry for the poor penmanship. 

 

This is awesome - nice work. I particularly like that new terminal location, it really opens up the space. I think rebuilding B where it is, with a short perpendicular gate area at the end, makes more sense than a new remote terminal. I also prefer the current A location, as having gates on both sides keeps the concourse length manageable. I like the tram concept, but I’d have it outside security to connect multimodal transit center, new terminal / rental cars, RTA / old terminal, new international concourse. And Concourse C needs a substantially widening or rebuild. 

 

Thanks for mapping the layout - it’s so much easier to visualize that way. I’ve been thinking about doing the same and you beat me to it. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This is awesome - nice work. I particularly like that new terminal location, it really opens up the space. I think rebuilding B where it is, with a short perpendicular gate area at the end, makes more sense than a new remote terminal. I also prefer the current A location, as having gates on both sides keeps the concourse length manageable. I like the tram concept, but I’d have it outside security to connect multimodal transit center, new terminal / rental cars, RTA / old terminal, new international concourse. And Concourse C needs a substantially widening or rebuild. 

 

Thanks for mapping the layout - it’s so much easier to visualize that way. I’ve been thinking about doing the same and you beat me to it. 

 

Agreed, fantastic work. I do like the separate unit terminal for Concourse B, the only hangup I could see is taxiway clearances with gates on both sides. Concourse C could potentially be razed and a unit terminal ran along the length of the current apron towards the end of the expanded Concourse D. I also like the idea of the people mover connecting multiple nodes landside along the length of the complex. The rendering almost reminds me of the current setup over at Lambert (STL):

 

 

The travesty continues...

 

https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2020/02/awol-fire-chief-at-cleveland-hopkins-international-airport-suspended-without-pay.html

 

 

Edited February 23, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

@Taller_is_better inspired me to finally document my thoughts on CLE Hopkins airport renovations as an overlay on top of the satellite image.  He proposed some of the same things I'd been thinking about, and also had suggestions I'd never thought of.   

 

 

Project timeline:

Phase 1:

- New Arrival/Departure Terminal.  Also keep existing Arr./Dep. Terminal; renovate existing baggage claim area
- Renovate D Concourse so that at least one side can handle 737 / A320 sized jets (my understanding is that it currently cannot)
- New parking garage and rental car center replacing current Orange surface parking lot (good idea on adding rental car to new garage, @Taller_is_better)
- Protected elevated pedestrian walkways (like Boston Logan terminal connections)
- Ground Transit Center (shuttle / ride-share). A permanent building housing a waiting area.

 

Phase 2:

- Replace A Concourse with double level International Concourse, featuring modern Customs & Immigration.
- Full renovation of north security / TSA
- New hotel along 237 (currently Orange parking lot).
- New multimodal transit center (Amtrak, Local Commuter Rail)
- Elevated automated Tram (outside security) connecting International Concourse / Existing Terminal / RTA, to New Terminal / Rental Car / New Hotels, to Multi-modal transit center. 
- Potential future extension of Tram to Red/Blue lot area, for future expansion, hotel, garage, or other

 

Phase 3:

- Rebuild B Concourse.  Add perpendicular gate hall at end. Milwaukee MKE has something similar to this in their Southwest terminal, it's quite nice.
- New AmEx Centurion style lounge near existing food court. (Or in the new Terminal)

- Widen C Concourse.  Keep the main walking corridor with the skylights. Widen towards the runways to add good moving walkways, more gate waiting areas, and significantly better restrooms (the ones in Detroit airport would be a good model).  Existing restaurants on the east side of this concourse could remain as is.
- Renovate current south security / TSA
 

Also evaluate burying 480 and Brookpark Rd in order to extend the runways to the northeast.  My understanding is that longer runways would make longer flights more cost-effective because they don't have to accelerate as quickly and therefore burn less fuel.

 

And in case you'd like to download the powerpoint file I used to create this image and play around with your own layout proposals, I shared the file on Google Drive.  Feel free to download from here:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vB5yKYnK7AhqsWK9jWSfHnBrebSDX0mu/view?usp=sharing

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 6:33 PM, Frmr CLEder said:

Sorry its viewed as poisonous, but it's yet another scandal due to the City of Cleveland's mismanagement; one that continues to erode trust in airport operations. It is what it is.

 

^My understanding is that the poison symbol is intended to be a reaction to the news posted, not how it was posted or the poster of said news. So if I post bad news, I expect to get the “poison” reaction. I agree that it is rather counterintuitive. In short, I’m pretty sure @KJP was agreeing with you and simply reacting to the news. 

11 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

@Taller_is_better inspired me to finally document my thoughts on CLE Hopkins airport renovations as an overlay on top of the satellite image.  He proposed some of the same things I'd been thinking about, and also had suggestions I'd never thought of.   

 

 

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.

3 hours ago, Dougal said:

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.

I like it. Renovated A continues as a discount carrier concourse. We would only need a few international gates anyway. 

Edited February 23, 20205 yr by Boomerang_Brian
Typo

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 9:14 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

 

I like it Brian, thanks for using computer graphics vs. my scribbles and white out!  My thoughts on the international / customs being in a new build (A) vs. a few gates in renovated C is that you could really do a clean 2 story concourse where the gates are all open to the other concourses on the top level (so they are used for all flights not just international, but arriving Intl. passengers deplane down escalators to the bottom level where customs is and connects to baggage claim, or they take new escalators up to the terminal towards the current walkway from the food court area to A. I'd worry squeezing it into a reno of C with customs could be clunky.  I think it would be cool, in regards to the long walk to D, I was thinking we would have people movers running thru the new expanses. Its still not that long a walk when you look at airports like MIA or someplace where you can walk for 30 minutes and international flights leave from pretty much any gate.  It could all be amazingly open with lots of glass / light and high ceilings, and I love the new Southwest MKE concourse at end of B. 

17 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I like it. Renovated A continues as a discount carrier concourse. We would only need a few international gates anyway. 

This represents a major improvement, thanks.

As for Brookpark Rd., it seems like there was previously talk of submerging, with runways passing over the roadway, similar to what you see at so many other airports, but they went with simply rerouting Brookpark to the north instead. I guess it was less expensive.

Edited February 24, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

Burying I-480 might be a little tricky as there is currently an overpass for Berea Freeway (237) and rail tracks just to the east, unless that section would also be buried. Aren't the recently extended runways long enough now?  Also, It would be nice if Customs & Immigration improvements could be done in phase 1 instead of phase 2 as that issue should be resolved as quickly as possibly.

Edited February 24, 20205 yr by skiwest

Out of curiosity - assume D Terminal opened up tomorrow. Where is it accessed from? 

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Out of curiosity - assume D Terminal opened up tomorrow. Where is it accessed from? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Out of curiosity - assume D Terminal opened up tomorrow. Where is it accessed from? 

Right now it would be accessed via the tunnel from C. 

On 2/23/2020 at 3:12 PM, Dougal said:

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.

 

9 hours ago, skiwest said:

...  Also, It would be nice if Customs & Immigration improvements could be done in phase 1 instead of phase 2 as that issue should be resolved as quickly as possibly.

 

Completely agree on both.  Four new international gates at the base of C, to be built before any other part of the proposal.  These could be two level, with jetbridges on the current main level and escalators carrying international arrivals down to a new customs area.  Get this done ASAP - current customs & immigration at CLE is an embarrassment.

 

I updated my "rendering".

 

 

 

^You need more than four int'l gates. We've already had times where we had three flights all arrive at the same time---MBJ, PUJ, and Iceland--all around 630pm---with 600 people all at once I'm glad I wasn't stuffed into that tiny FIS.  This is to be the airport of the future--at least for the next 20-30 years---so I'd say, we'd need to accommodate AT LEAST six simultaneous int'l arrivals and an FIS big enough to accommodate this. Intl' departures don't require any special gates as planes could leave from any gate. The location where you have it is good, so CLE-bound passengers can exit directly into the CIty instead of the nonsense that happens now forcing all arriving passengers to go through security to enter the airport just to leave it. For anyone that IS connecting in CLE, you need the ability to route those passengers leaving the FIS to go through TSA security before mixing with other passengers. This should be a TSA checkpoint different than the ones for passengers originating in CLE.

2 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^You need more than four int'l gates. We've already had times where we had three flights all arrive at the same time---MBJ, PUJ, and Iceland--all around 630pm---with 600 people all at once I'm glad I wasn't stuffed into that tiny FIS.  This is to be the airport of the future--at least for the next 20-30 years---so I'd say, we'd need to accommodate AT LEAST six simultaneous int'l arrivals and an FIS big enough to accommodate this. Intl' departures don't require any special gates as planes could leave from any gate. The location where you have it is good, so CLE-bound passengers can exit directly into the CIty instead of the nonsense that happens now forcing all arriving passengers to go through security to enter the airport just to leave it. For anyone that IS connecting in CLE, you need the ability to route those passengers leaving the FIS to go through TSA security before mixing with other passengers. This should be a TSA checkpoint different than the ones for passengers originating in CLE.

Good point - I wasn’t thinking about Caribbean / Mexico tourist flights. 

@surfohio is that a photo of the actual tunnel? If it's yours great shot! Reminds me a tad of a claustrophobic version of Detroit's. It's crazy what small aesthetic things such as lighting can add to either a concourse walkway or tunnel.

 

 

@GISguy  Nah I found it on google, but there's not a lot of pics out there.  I think I've only been through that CLE  tunnel once or twice. Detroit's is like an acid trip! 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

@surfohio is that a photo of the actual tunnel? If it's yours great shot! Reminds me a tad of a claustrophobic version of Detroit's. It's crazy what small aesthetic things such as lighting can add to either a concourse walkway or tunnel.

 

It is not claustrophobic at all.  The escalator lobbies were light filled, and the ceilings in the actual tunnel are higher than most.  This may be a better picture.  

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

It is not claustrophobic at all.  The escalator lobbies were light filled, and the ceilings in the actual tunnel are higher than most.  This may be a better picture.  

 

I always admired the "paper" airplanes that hung (are they still there?) from the ceiling on the D end of the tunnel.

 

It's a very nice Concourse; the nicest of the four.  Such a shame to have it shuttered.

I never had an opportunity to use Concourse D.  Hopefully, it will be brought back to life when Hopkins is renovated. 

This is from 2016 but it explains why concourse D was closed and will probably stay closed for the foreseeable future.

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/money/business/as-cleveland-pockets-millions-for-closed-concourse-d-travelers-look-for-better-options/351754256

56 minutes ago, skiwest said:

I never had an opportunity to use Concourse D.  Hopefully, it will be brought back to life when Hopkins is renovated. 

 

It was nice, but I wouldn't say we are missing much in the current concourses.  

 

I personally didn't like it in the summer because the sun would beam through the windows and the AC wouldn't keep up, so it was hot.   And the food options were limited, one of which was Subway, so it always smelled like the bread.....

Flew into D a couple times when i would use Continental out of CVG. Reminded me alot of Concourse C at CVG that has since been demolished. Its weird how United has dug their heels into CLE. Delta kept CVG as a focus city, didnt strip as many flights as United but gave up A and C gates and half of B to allow the airport to bring in other airlines. I get the business move by United to keep competition out but seems like they are throwing money down a hole. Delta did the exact opposite and are not complaining or losing passenger counts. 

42 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

Flew into D a couple times when i would use Continental out of CVG. Reminded me alot of Concourse C at CVG that has since been demolished. Its weird how United has dug their heels into CLE. Delta kept CVG as a focus city, didnt strip as many flights as United but gave up A and C gates and half of B to allow the airport to bring in other airlines. I get the business move by United to keep competition out but seems like they are throwing money down a hole. Delta did the exact opposite and are not complaining or losing passenger counts. 

 

Yeah, and they've doubly screwed over Clevelanders because the Cleveland Metro is still more loyal to United than other airlines

On 2/22/2020 at 10:07 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

@Taller_is_better inspired me to finally document my thoughts on CLE Hopkins airport renovations as an overlay on top of the satellite image.  He proposed some of the same things I'd been thinking about, and also had suggestions I'd never thought of.   

 

 

 

Very nice.  Although I would get rid of all of the parking adjacent the terminal.  Let everyone arrive via drop-off, bus, or Rapid or some sort of dedicated people-mover/tram.  Move the parking and rental cars off site.  Silly to build a car warehouse so close to the terminal.  (I know, not everyone agrees.)

I don't think that getting rid of on-site parking will help their customer-satisfaction ratings

Columbus gets 2nd airline and 3rd daily route this Summer non-stop to Seattle - while CLE continues with limited, seasonal service? I went to SEA last week from CLE for one of my 4 or 5 annual visits (for last 20 years....) - and each direction took  8-10 hours with connection. This just isn't ok for CLE. What will it take for CLE to get year-round service to Seattle on Delta or Alaska?

 

Delta adds 2 Seattle routes, including to American’s Dallas/Fort Worth hub

 

ThePointsGuy.com

Edward Russell

Yesterday

 

 

"Atlanta-based Delta will add flights between Seattle (SEA) and both Columbus, Ohio (CMH) and Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) on June 8, according to Cirium schedules. Both routes will be flown with Airbus A220-100 jets."

 

 

https://thepointsguy-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thepointsguy.com/news/delta-adds-seattle-routes-dallas-fort-worth/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15830913931737&amp_ct=1583091406200&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthepointsguy.com%2Fnews%2Fdelta-adds-seattle-routes-dallas-fort-worth%2F

Edited March 1, 20205 yr by eyehrtfood