lincolnjkc

Maybe that greater Clevelnder hasn't been flying enough ... :-P

They've been around since 2004 but until the CRJ550 always seemed to be a weird fit, popping up on routes one week (perhaps as an extra frequency) and then being nowhere to be found the next and as a CRJ700 operator [FWIW: The CRJ-550 is just a CRJ-700 with 20 fewer seats overall, and 4 extra F seats making for a 10F - 40Y configuration with a new certificate to comply with mainline pilot contracts] I think YX and OO flew higher numbers of the CR7 so it was easy to miss in the noise.

G7 is also, IIRC, the only remaining operating subsidiary of Trans States Holdings, a sister to the former Trans States Airlines who operated E145s for UAX and Compass who operated for DLC, both shutting down just over a year ago.

RNE

Probably so, though I recall flying Chautauqua and ExpressJet.

RNE, worried that with a name like GoJet, the cockpit will look like this.

cptlflyer

You recall correctly! GoJet was initially created by Trans States to pick-up the RJ flying for UA from ACA (the latter became Independence Air). GoJet was the launch operator for the CR7, and the first to operate a two-class cabin on an RJ. I recall flying a GoJet CR7 in 2005 and thinking how weird it was to see on F cabin on such a small plane.

RNE

First class in name only.

lincolnjkc

Name, legroom, seat width, inflight service. Pre-covid I fairly consistently got better service in F on the CR5 than most other types in the fleet.

The only thing it's missing is inseat power and most of the CR5 segments are short enough that if you need power you probably really need a new battery instead.

cptlflyer

Really not all that different (and I don't mean this in a good way) from...


Still... it was a very weird sight boarding an RJ at IAD from the ramp and seeing any sort of F for the first time, after years of flying the E145s.

buckeyefanflyer

CLE-FLL no longer just seasonal will continue to operate.

RNE

Cruise ship goers rejoice!

guy44134

The Final Virtual Public Information Meeting for CLE's Master Plan is on May 19 at 6:00 p.m. Registration is required:

https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/workshops.php

Hope many of you can attend.

paule123

I heard a local reporter on WCPN this morning make it sound like a final decision had been made and they will be presenting this at next week's meeting? From what I read in the presentation at the last meeting it seems like the choices are down to Family 1 or Family 2, with Family 2 being preferred?

guy44134

Family 2 is the preferred design. Check out my earlier article. https://www.aviationcle.com/post/cle...e-january-2021

I assume the meeting next week will go into more details about phasing, timeline, projected costs, approval process, etc.

cptlflyer

Family 2 seems like the obvious pick and a sound plan to me. The only part of the recommended package I don't fully understand is the need to re-route 237, limiting the existing 237 ramps and segment north of the Airport to Airport traffic only. Is there really THAT much through traffic on 237 that re-routing it would free-up significant capacity on existing roadways for Airport traffic? And, is that worth heavily restricting access to the Airport from the south? Perhaps those of you attending the next meeting can let us know if that's addressed.

lincolnjkc

The airport roadways can be a cluster at the most inopportune times as it is... I'm not sure a reconfiguration of the roadways is necessarily volume related but traffic conflict related -- coming from the north on 71, for example there's what I've always found to be a very short exit/decellaration/merge where you're fighting traffic coming from the other direction (WB480 maybe?) many of whom are trying to get across the other way to merge to 237 at/near highway speeds while you're trying do decelerate into a largely blind corner where you may find a red light, a backlog of cars, etc. -- poor sighting distances, poor marking, and poor runout make this the place where if I ever get into an accident coming from home (CleveHts) to the airport I'm about 95% sure this is where it will happen -- but given the 3-dimensional challenges I don't think this can readily be truly fixed without a significant reconfiguration of 237...

That said it's important to keep in mind that a master plan is more conceptual than concrete so there will be lot of tweaking if/when this gets to a final (architectural/civil engineering) drawing board.

cptlflyer

Those sound like real challenges, but even conceptually, it's not clear to me how this proposed solution would address any of them. Drivers headed to CLE would still use the existing infrastructure. The only change would be that through traffic on 237 would be re-routed.

buckeyefanflyer

Plan release today 2 billion dollar investment includes rebuilding terminal and some concourses moving rental cars closer to terminal.