RobS

Thanks, lincilnjkc. I was skeptical about the covering structure when it was announced. I believe a similar "tent" structure was destroyed by winds in Indianapolis. Purely academic, though - I always take the Rapid.

RNE

Male PA Announcer: The red lot is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the blue lot.
Female PA Announcer: No, the blue lot is for loading. There is no stopping in the red lot.
Male PA Announcer: The red lot has always been for loading.
Female PA Announcer: Don't you tell me which lot is for loading, and which lot is for unloading.

RNE, paraphrasing dialogue from Airplane!

lincolnjkc

It's a pretty solid structure (think warehouse with minimally-closed walls) -- but the tunnel enclosing the walk hike to/from the terminal reminds me of a cheap wedding tent. Like everything the airport has done in recent years it leaves much to be desired and feels like a decision made to deliberately inconvenience passengers -- see also: building the permanent ground transportation center as far away as is possible from the concourse where the majority of the airport's passengers depart/arrive. and nearly as far away from the #2 concourse despite at least two other perfectly reasonable options.

50Kthehardway

I switched from off-site parking to blue/red to avoid shuttles. Blue lot now at about 1/2 capacity due to construction.

RNE

Good news about the 737 Max ( https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...019-a-216.html ) is good news for CLE's chance at TATL service. Though, it's years away, doubtless.

JimInOhio

TATL in a 737 is not good news.

RNE

Perhaps not, but the experience was passable when TSMRSRNE and I flew TATL on a 737 to KEF and back. And it's not like CLE can expect a lot of TATL options. After all, CLE-EU is too thin to warrant a widebody. (CO used a 757 and even that didn't work -- though it wasn't marketed well and the City/citizenry didn't appreciate it.) Of course, it's always possible a foreign LCC will someday serve CLE with an all-economy B787, but don't hold your breath.

lincolnjkc

That's about the only thing I can imagine that would be less comfortable/more torturous than a 737 TATL; I continue not to see/understand the broad appeal of nonstop service to a secondary market from CLE on anything let alone a 737M when (at least under normal travel conditions) the vast majority of the world's primary airports are available 1-stop on equipment configured for long distance comfort. Maybe I'm just screwy -- I'll gladly take the extra time to fly (and have flown on numerous occasions) CLE-(IAD/ORD/EWR)-YYZ rather than subject myself to Air Georgian's CR2 nonstop.

If I can fly CLE-(EWR/IAD/ORD/DFW/ATL/JFK/...)-Anywhere-On-The-Planet-I-Actually-Want-To-Go vs CLE-Somewhere-I'm-Not-Really-Interested-But-There's-A-Nonstop the former is going to win 99.5% of the time (the other 0.5 is reserved for novelty, if someone gave me a free ticket, or if the carrier/equipment type is sufficiently intriguing to warrant suffer a little)

Given the CLE populations that are (historically) most likely to engage in international travel in significant numbers cost is significantly less of a factor than convenience or destination, e.g. international college students or those seeking/giving medical care.
The remainder of the population -- leisure travel, individual/small group business travel -- clearly don't engage with sufficient frequencies and passenger density to support the operation relative to other options for deploying the equipment.

If I could do CLE-LHR or CLE-FRA on a *A carrier that would definitely have appeal, but I don't think either of those routes generate enough traffic (profit) relative to other routes the carrier could deploy the equipment on particularly in the case of LHR slot allocations.

The other (bigger, IMO) problem CLE has is there is no substantial cargo driver that I'm aware of. Many years ago (when I lived in SoCal) BA operated a 747 (IIRC) SAN-PHX-LHR or SAN-LHR depending on season. From what I'm told by knowledgeable sources >90% of that flight's costs and profit goals were covered by cargo in both directions making even a light passenger load profitable overall. That specific example was >20 years ago, but still a consideration.

RNE

I see/understand what you cannot.

JimInOhio

CLE-KEF is no more of a TATL flight than CLE-SLC is a "transcon".

JimInOhio

What lincolnjkc probably understands is Iceland is a zero market outside of about three months per year. Beyond that, it's just another hub to get to Europe and a quite minor one at that.

RNE

Who wants to go to Iceland? Not us. We wanted to go to AMS. To us, CLE-(737)-KEF-(767)-AMS was preferable to CLE-(737)-EWR-(767)-AMS. And if anyone doesn't want to connect at KEF, fine. But why begrudge others who do?

Again, the foregoing assumes any carrier wants to bother. But the 737 Max would help.

RNE

Here's a map of the 737 Max 7's 3850nm range from CLE. Though, admittedly, headwinds coming back would be a limiting factor.

Great Circle Mapper

JimInOhio

It's not that people actively try to avoid KEF but Icelandair's problem is few actually "want" to connect there to get to Europe. What can KEF offer for a travel experience that EWR, JFK, ORD, DTW, IAD, YYZ, etc. can't to the point that it becomes a major factor in travel decisions? If there is something then that is what FI has to market once getting beyond the relative handful of people who want to visit Iceland itself.

RNE

Let's not begrudge those few. Good bye.