JimInOhio

I'm not begrudging anyone who wants to make a connection at KEF. Where did you get that?

guy44134

Has anyone else signed up for the public meeting on the new Master Plan this Thursday?

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2...r-airport.html

Here is a presentation with some interesting data, especially on the impact COVID has had on CLE and the rather dismal projection for 2021.

https://clevelandairportmasterplan.c...om=auto,-242,2

lincolnjkc

I did -- a little disappointed that despite making requests to be advised of meetings when the master plan wa announced I only found out about it because Google thought I'd be interested in the cleveland.com article... Not really sure what I'm expecting about it but for all the complaining I've done about decision the airport has made it would be hypocritical to not attempt to participate to the extent they'll let me :-)

RobS

I was fairly amazed that CLE-KEF attracted 59,000 passengers (according to the Plain Dealer) in the four months that WW and FI operated the route. If only one of them had operated the route, that airline would have had a very profitable summer.

lincolnjkc

New question: Did anyone else attend the meeting?

I was (am) in Omaha on business and missed the first 15-20 minutes or so in transit from my client to my hotel unfortunately -- was happy they answered my questions, not quite so happy that the response to the first one intentionally swerved around the point and the second one was an easy gimme that they almost struck out on only to be saved with a half-hearted bunt at the last second (really? their plan was to expect people to visit some website at an undetermined time in the future to figure out when the next one would be rather than just sending out an email to people who are clearly interested? SMH)

Other than that thought it was an interesting width and breath of information and questions/answers -- particularly some of the ideas about e.g. relocating the airport entirely, the airport funding Asian service, the IX center's status as a leasehold, the assumption that 787 service is likely during the life of the masterplan along with no near-term transatlantic service, etc., etc.

I think the excitement conveyed re: the new ground transportation center demonstrates how out of touch airport management is with the customer experience though. Great there will be heaters under the tarp... but I still have to literally walk the entire length of the terminal to get there (as do, it seems somewhere around 60-70% of passengers if I read the chart correctly) vs. the "old" location that was not only half-a-terminal walk but punctuates that with escalators that can be used to pause/not wrangle luggage

RNE

While I did not appreciate boarding the 767 connection (both ways) on the frozen tundra of KEF's tarmac, KEF's terminal was swell. Way easier to get through than EWR, ORD, IAD, etc. Plus, I liked the convenient after-work departure from CLE, rather than taking time off work to get to a US airport for an overnight TATL.

RNE, having had hopes of making KEF my gateway to Europe, anticipating the 737 Max would enable FI to expand throughout EU. So much for hopes.

guy44134

I attended the entire session and found it pretty informative overall. I thought it was great that the airport leadership team fielded most of the questions. I took the liberty to summarize my take-aways from the meeting, as well as some fun (for an airport geek like me) facts about the current airport facilities gleaned from the slides. Please check out my blog for more details here: https://www.aviationcle.com/post/master-plan-update

buckeyefanflyer

Still no CLE-LAX in October I am surprised route was usually full. Spirit is flying this.

lincolnjkc

Fair point about the willingness to answer -- that was nice. Also the detail on why D is essentially unsalvageable -- I knew it would take a lot of work (money) to make it appropriate for large aircraft but I didn't realize how big that number was.

Likewise the costs of fixing the FIS (which I've never experienced first hand but I've heard plenty of whniging about) were somewhat shocking and more understandable as to why it hasn't been fixed.

One thought re: your question about ExpressJet's space in CLE -- since UA is tossing more eggs in CommutAir's basket and C5 is headquartered/has its SOC in North Olmstead if these were more normal times I wouldn't be at all surprised if C5 took on (some) of the employees who already know the AC type and purchased/assumed some of the physical assets. Obviously with demand being suppressed that's less likely but my mind keeps going back to that. Otherwise, I could see Constant Aviation taking over some part of the facility. Incidentally on the UA MX tour a couple years ago one of our hosts mentioned that XE MX had been shrinking in CLE for a while and a lot of ExpressJet MX people had migrated to UA so I had doubts about the long term future of ExpressJet in CLE even before COVID.

buckeyefanflyer

lincolnjkc

It's a cost/benefit thing -- building a terminal for RJs and props means that you can use cheaper jetways (though I don't think D did), you need to allocate less space for passengers (50 max vs 150+), you can space gates closer together, etc., etc. -- sure in hindsight they would have been better to design the concourse as mainline capable but that probably would have had a very significant increase in cost and resulted in tradeoffs (e.g add 30% cost but fit 20% fewer gates in the footprint that's available or whatever -- obviously made up numbers) -- and at the time, if anything regional aircraft utilization was skyrocketing based on cheap gas, plentiful pilots, and a frequency-over-capacity mentality.

For example, compare the 737-900 airport planning document (https://www.boeing.com/resources/boe.../acaps/737.pdf) with the ERJ-145 (https://www.flyembraer.com/irj/go/km...ts/APM_145.pdf)

Per figure 5.1.1 (page 5-3) of the ERJ 145 APD, basically you need a 90' by 110' square to accommodate a ERJ-145 with jetbridge loading (the number is basically the same for bus loading); on the other hand 5.1.12 (page 356) of the 737 makes that a 130' by 170' square as the minimum for a 737-900 assuming stair loading (though my guess is a jet bridge would not have a significant impact -- so you can virtually fit 3 ERJ-145 gates in the terminal space for 2 737s not even taking into account ramp clearances,

Note that CLE's C17 and C18 are virtually, if not actually restricted to RJs based on gate spacing and clearance issues.

IAH has many RJ only gates (terminals A and B -- including the godawful bus station that the new B gates are), EWR (terminal A), ORD (basically the entirety of UA's E and F operation -- note that the RJ-ification of this terminal and increased gate density is why for a long time there were absurdities like F4C and F1A, with the latter not even on the F concourse (I was really waiting for something like F12C3W) until they renumbered to get rid of the alphas and now you have 21 gates on F), DEN (high-high B gates). A smaller number of gates at SFO and LAX are also RJ restricted but not in the quatities of e.g. ORD. I strongly suspect that in the case of LAX that's more due to UA's limited gate count than anything else (Terminal 8 was originally regional-only but UA has been parking 737s over there with quite some frequency -- which really strains that infrastructure, especially when multiples are arriving/departing simultaneously.

JimInOhio

Maybe the dumbest question of all but is it feasible to remove every other Jetway on Concourse D to allow for mainline aircraft? Obviously a hypothetical question only as long as UA is paying for the rent.

lincolnjkc

Physically it could definitely be done -- and UA has parked a few 737s at D giving an impression of what that could look like -- realistically I think it would make for a challenging operation without a ton of other infrastructure changes and the incremental costs of operating mainline on D probably don't help -- remember also only one side of D actually had jetways -- the other has the cinderblock fingers that would require even more work to make usable for mainline aircraft.

Ultimately though that's a solution in search of a problem, IMO -- CLE is not currently gate constrained (as far as I can tell) and the other concourses make more economical and operational sense -- shifting those operations to D makes about as much sense as putting a new ground transportation center as far as possible from the concourse with the majority of passengers... oh wait.

That said I could definitely see D used as temporary swing space if needed during a renovation/rebuild -- e.g. move A operations to D, tear down/rebuild A, rinse and repeat for B and C -- but given current gate utilization even that may not be necessary.

guy44134

You are correct about CLE not being gate constrained. There are times of day when it comes close. We'll see what the Master Plan comes up with. As you mention, it could be used as a temporary terminal while other construction is going on.

As for D, when it was built there was definitely talk about it being able to eventually be converted to all mainline (B737-sized aircraft) with the back end having to be reconfigured significantly, and ending up with about the same number of jetway-equipped gates as they had when it was mainly RJs (12 gates). Not sure if this is a realistic option any longer.

RobS

I think D would be ideal if somebody wanted to make CLE into something like a Southwest-style 100-departure focus city. They could have a very nice self-contained terminal for not too much money. Of course, nobody wants to do that this year anyway.