Jump to content
Guest zaceman

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Recommended Posts

<img src="http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/cleveland/images/CLEVELAND-HOPKINS-1.jpg">

 

New runway boosts capacity at Cleveland airport

 

CLEVELAND (AP) — Aviation officials said a new runway will allow Cleveland Hopkins International Airport to handle about 40% more takeoffs and landings each year.

 

The 9,000-foot runway, which opened Thursday morning with the arrival of a Continental Airlines 737-800 from Seattle, will boost capacity for yearly takeoffs and landings to 525,000 from 368,000, said Cleveland Port Control Director John Mok.

 

The expansion also improves airport efficiency, which should reduce delays and could help entice new flights and new airlines.

 

More at

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-08-05-cleveland-airport_x.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good news and will hopefully entice more airlines (especially the low-fare guys like JetBlue) to CLE. Speaking of, I'm liking the looks of Independence Air - lots of direct flights to D.C. (Dulles) for $59 each way and relatively cheap prices to other East Coast destinations :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha of course they would "question the need" for these, they're risking losing residents in their own little enclaves. Anything that the city builds to piss off the suburbs is fine in my book.

 

but seriously though a non-stop trip to Tokyo?? that would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do airports that build new runways and extend others length, really think that this will allow them to bring in new carriers? Cincinnati is doing the same exact thing as Cleveland just finished.

I don't think I can agree with new carriers coming in just because of a new runway. I know it does help with congestion, but that's probably the only thing it helps.

What is Cincy going to do if Delta/Comair scale down operations here? There will be 4 runways with very little air traffic. 3 of these runways will be able to handle take offs and landings at the same time.

I'm not playing the bad guy, just discussing some what ifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rich, I hear what you're saying but I think in the case of Hopkins, it's more of a 'keeping up with the Joneses' (but that's a good thing).

 

I don't know that CLE will see a huge influx of new carriers because of the expansion but the fact that Akron-Canton is eating Hopkins for lunch on the small regional flights (Airtran gets you to most of the east coast and Chicago in under an hour and for around $150 round-trip) - CLE needs to at least maintain what they have.

 

As far as the NIMBYs in sprawl-topia? Screw 'em! :crack:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cleveland's airport off I-71? We saw a sign for "Airport" on I-71 but wasn't sure if it was Cleveland's main airport. It was near a ford plant. If so why don't they state "Cleveland International Airport"? I thought only states like Kentucky put "Airport" on their signs :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that would be Hopkins International - that's the Ford plant in Brookpark that you saw.

 

As far as the signage - that would be like saying "Lake Erie" - it's "the Lake". When you say 'the airport', no one thinks about Burke Lakefront or the Cuyahoga County airport. Maybe we don't need such detailed explanations up here above the Mason-Dixon line? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurrah for being pro-active!

 

I know that suburbanites are apt to get pissy about Hopkins airport expansions... but an advantage to living in suburbs near the airport is a 5 minute drive to an airplane that will take you to England or China... oh, the possibilites!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm the total opposite - I want to get through the airport and on the plane as quickly as possible. Unless you have a layover, why would anyone want to linger at an airport? Pittsburgh's is beautiful (at least it was the last time I was there) with all the shops but um, I reserve my shopping for the destination, not the airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland's airport might not be as fun as O'hare or have as much shopping as Newark, but in my experience, you get in and out on time, with no hassle. I'd rather have convenience and functionality than nice design/decorations. (at least the ride to concourse D is fun with the big paper airplanes!)

 

You can't enjoy all of the amenities of the above if you can't even get to your gate on time (incompetencies and constant construction of Newark :mad: ) and what good is all shopping if you spend hours sitting on the runway waiting to takeoff (again, Newark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Mok has done more to help Hopkins in his year or so in office than previous administrations have done in years. He's helped lower landing fees (CLE has among the highest in the nation), forge new, comprehensive airside and landside improvements projects, and work better with the city on how to promote the airport to new and existing airlines. Mr. Mok had quite a challenge ahead of him upon taking the job in Cleveland, and has so far been doing an excellent job.

 

In regards to the article, the planned 11,000+ runway would mean nothing but good things for CLE, but nonstop routes across the Pacific is pushing it. It wouldn't really improve operations drastically, as the airport's 3-parallel runway setup would remain unchanged. I'd have to agree that MayDay's prognosis of the airport keeping up with the competition is correct, as every other Ohio city's airport/s have runways over 10,000ft. in length.

 

The only immediate outcome I could see from a longer runway at CLE is Continental's CLE-LGW run being upgraded from a narrowbody 757-200 to a widebody 767-200, though mostly due to the fact that the 767 has greater cargo capacity; the 752 and 762 are nearly identical in terms of seating capacity. Another Continental route to another European city, probably either Amsterdam or Paris, could be possible with a longer runway, as 9,000ft. is cutting it somewhat short for such long flights.

 

As for Asia, the only route I could see opening is UPS starting flights from Cleveland to Hong Kong, but that would probably be routed through Anchorage anyways. In terms of passenger service, nonstop to Honolulu from Cleveland nonstop with Continental have been rumored. That's probably the extent of the Asia service I could see from CLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers to the runway extension. however, what hopkins needs most is a rapid metro link extension or a new newark/jfk style "airtrain" link to the car rental building. i love that rental building it is superbly functional, but the shuttle bus to it's off campus site is tedious.

 

also, anyone know whatever happened to that proposed airport area rapid line tod? thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTA isn't very interested in continuing work on that, however the Ohio Rail Development Commission is interested in connecting airports to high-speed trains. When I met with Hopkins Airport planners about it last year, they were very supportive of the idea and provided lots of data to help with ongoing planning at the state level.

 

Plus, there will be a report coming out in the next month or so about air-rail connections in Ohio/surroundings states, with Hopkins being the most advantageous place for such connections.

 

Stay tuned

 

KJP


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another poster asked me to make available a diagram I drew, based on the future plans for Hopkins developed by airport officials. Thus, what appears below is not an official diagram -- just my interpretation of what's planned based on conversations I've had with airport officials. And, of course I had to add a high-speed rail link, next to a rerouted RTA Red Line. The Red Line should be part of the new terminal, officials said....

 

cle%20hopkins%20new%20term-small.jpg

 

Please do not publish this image without my permission.

 

KJP


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Cleveland just open up their first 9,000 foot runway?  It's good news, but it's pretty sad also.  Even a moribund airport like Toledo has a 10,600 foot runway, and has had it for some time.

 

Cleveland really needs a 12,000-14,000 foot runway so it can add more international flights and hopefully keep its Continental hub.

 

Good website:  http://www.airnav.com/airports/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awhile ago the Ravenna Arsenal site was proposed for a new regional airport, but I think a part of that proposal was that Hopkins was to stay.  Another concept that was kicked around was building a whole new island in Lake Erie and connecting it with a tunnel to downtown.  I'm not sure what the specific reasons were behind the downfall of the first idea, except that the city wanted to keep the regional airport in its boundaries.  The second idea was just impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If im not mistaken the "island" airport was discussed in the early 70's when the city still had "out of the box" vision.  Maybe our KJP has some detailed info.

 

I know that they wanted to keep "cleveland's" airport in cuyahoga county yet there isn't enough undeveloped land to build a new airport that is expandable.  hence we'd be in the same situation we are in now.

 

lenght of runway is not aways a factor in regard to international flight.  767/747 type planes can land and take off at hopkins now.  Its just that they have to use more fuel.

 

My issues is we're the 13 largest metro yet our airport only ranks 36, thanks to past mismanagement.  Mr. Mok has done a great job of turning the airport around and improving terminal services - for what is worth at a terminal thats at the end of its usable age - and working with the airlines to maintain and add service.

 

if my memory serves me correct, when mike white put bean counters at the airport they turned away international service on KLM (a continental partner) and Luthansa and i think Jamica air.  In addition fought with continental about service to hawaii and paris as well as subsidizing the type of plane that would be used from cleveland to locations abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Length of runway is absolutely a factor.  For long distance flights with big planes, you need a big runway.

 

You need a minimum of 12,000 feet just to accomodate those planes today (although 14,000 feet like JFK is better).  And in the future, airports will need even bigger runways to accomodate the big Airbus planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locutus,

 

I think that technology has changed.  I remember reading recently that the longer runways will not be needed as much because the planes don't need all that length.  Also, I am not convinced that the giant Airbus plane will be that popular with airlines.

 

I believe that Mok has been able to lower the landing fees.  That is always good for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Cleveland really needs a 12,000-14,000 foot runway so it can add more international flights and hopefully keep its Continental hub."

 

I am not sure about the lengths of the other runways that Cleveland has.  Also, the plan is to lengthen the new 9,000 ft runway in the near future.  I would assume that Cleveland's runways are adequate considering that they are long enough for Continental's London flight.  Sure, it would be good to make some additions, but I don't think the airport is currrently suffering from its runway quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Length of runway is absolutely a factor.  For long distance flights with big planes, you need a big runway.

 

You need a minimum of 12,000 feet just to accomodate those planes today (although 14,000 feet like JFK is better).  And in the future, airports will need even bigger runways to accomodate the big Airbus planes.

 

thats is why I said "not always".  :wink:  Boeing is coming out with a new plane as well.  In addition i recall reading that the regional jets need the longer runways as the accend, at a slower rate than 737/757 type planes.

 

I could have sworn a read an press release the the new runway was no being lenghthened to 11,500 feet.  and the older runway to 10,000.

 

Anyone have any concrete info on that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concrete info?  :roll:  I hope you didn't intend that! But, yes, here's a press release from last year...

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/mayor/press/2004/200408/08_10_2004.html

 

CLEVELAND, August 10, 2004 —Mayor Jane L. Campbell joined Airport Director, John Mok, and other civic and community partners to celebrate the new extended runway expansion at Cleveland Hopkins. The newly completed runway, designated as 6L-24R, opened for service on August 5th at 9,000 feet, with the landing of a Continental flight. Mayor Campbell also announced plans for extending the airport’s other main runway from 9,000 to 11,000 feet, which will support overseas travel to the Pacific Rim, and for possibly renovating or rebuilding the 50-year-old airport terminal.

 

(The rest is available at the link above)

 

KJP

 


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, while it would be nice to see international service to Cleveland wouldn't it be more economical for Continental to code share with Delta on flights to Cincinnati or Atlanta and fly passengers out of there? Or for Pacific Rim flights code share with Northwest through Detroit and Minneapolis? And if the proposed high-speed rail link gets in place it only further supports the Cincinnati and Detroit connections

 

Oh and on the runway length issue, it's not the plane type but rather the route it will fly. A 747 heading to Seoul or Tokyo filled with fuel is going to need more room to get of the ground than one heading to London or Frankfurt. I think that was the reasoning behind Cincinnati's East-West runway expansion to allow for that type of flight. Also altitude plays a role as well in places like Denver. They have the longest runway in the country at 16000 feet; Cincy's is 12000 I think; JFK and Las Vegas have 14500 foot runways. Those are about as big as they get. Although I wonder if a 11,000 could handle it. The previous one in Cincy was 10,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any city that has an ounce of pride doesn't want to play second fiddle to another city of similar size, by requiring its residents to make transfers to access international flights. Airport planners reminded me that Cleveland use to have numerous international flights when United had a hub here, prior to the 1980s. The planners believe that market still exists here, but said Cleveland needs to be more aggressive in working with the airlines to restore those international services.

 

KJP


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colonel Blue,

 

Continental may think that way, or, they may not want to help out a competitor that is on less-secure footing.  Cleveland should to add as many flights as it can for all the obvious reasons.

 

 

I believe the longest runway in the world is in La Paz, Bolivia.  At least its the longest commercial runway.  It is also the highest capital city in the world.  The runway is two miles long.  Beautiful city, by the way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International flights are also a big attraction for businesses that operate globally.  They don't want to have to send their valuable employees on hopscotch flights that take longer and leave the employee dragging ass from the added stresses of landing and taking off and even potentially switching planes.  If we want to be a player in the global economy, we need to have a better selection of non-stop international destinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colonel Blue,

 

Continental may think that way, or, they may not want to help out a competitor that is on less-secure footing.  Cleveland should to add as many flights as it can for all the obvious reasons.

 

 

I believe the longest runway in the world is in La Paz, Bolivia.  At least its the longest commercial runway.  It is also the highest capital city in the world.  The runway is two miles long.  Beautiful city, by the way.

 

I think it doesn't matter for Continental with a code share though, because they get most of the profits from that seat sold and can boost their network at the same time. I don't think they're worrying about Delta though. After all they are members of the SkyTeam. But for routes to Asia, it'd be smarter for Continental to code share or transfer it's passengers somewhere else. They'd most likely have to use 777s on those routes and while the demand is there I'd doubt they'd be able to fill a 777 daily from Cleveland. Europe is different though and that they could defininatly support on their own.

 

I'm all for Continental giving Delta a push in the butt though by bringing service into Cleveland for European routes. Delta certainly needs all the incentive to get its act together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dissapointed that Ohio has missed out on the airport boom.  The state's biggest airport, Cleveland, is mediocre at best.

 

Atlanta and Dallas cleverly invested in hub airports in the 1980's, foreseeing the huge boom in consumer airline travel.  This is while people in Ohio probably thought that investing in steel factories was the way to go.  Cities like Atlanta and Dallas benefitted not only by creating lots of airport jobs, but because they have excellent point to point service out of their city they are popular as business and especially corporate HQ destinations.  That has brought a lot of jobs and wealth into both cities, which used to be cowtowns not too long ago.

 

Cincinnati's airport (which is not in Ohio) is quite good, although most of the growth there has been recent.  When P&G bought out Gillete and Macy's bought out Federated, the new companies could have easily decided to relocate to the othter city.  This frequently happens (when K-Mart bought out Sears, they sold their own HQ and moved to Chicago).  But Cincinnati's respectable air service (e.g. flights to 5 European cities daily) was probably a big plus in keeping them in town.  One reason Cincinnati actually has so many Fortune 500 companies probably has something to do with the air service.

 

It's still not too late to get in on the airline business.  Airline travel will probably continue to grow for several decades, so it is worthwhile for cities to invest in airports.

 

Columbus lost their America West hub, so Cleveland can also lose their Continental hub if it's not worthwhile for the airline.  Pittsburgh lost their U.S. Airways hub recently as well.

 

Continental has 3 hub airports: Houston, Newark, and Cleveland.

 

Houston is a poor llocation for a hub, even though I don't doubt the cost of doing business there is cheap.  For flying to Europe or Asia, Houston is crap.  As a North American hub airport, it's just poorly situated.  Cleveland has a better location, especially once you consider that most East-West flights veer to the North. 

 

In Newark, I would imagine their costs are very high.  As an international hub, Newark makes sense, but it's location is crappy as a North American hub.

 

So Cleveland getting flights to Asia or to more destinations in Europe is not entirely out of the question.  In fact, it's very probable if they make the right investments.  From Continental's POV, Cleveland has a better location than Houston, and a lower cost of business than Newark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, while it would be nice to see international service to Cleveland wouldn't it be more economical for Continental to code share with Delta on flights to Cincinnati or Atlanta and fly passengers out of there? Or for Pacific Rim flights code share with Northwest through Detroit and Minneapolis? And if the proposed high-speed rail link gets in place it only further supports the Cincinnati and Detroit connections

 

Oh and on the runway length issue, it's not the plane type but rather the route it will fly. A 747 heading to Seoul or Tokyo filled with fuel is going to need more room to get of the ground than one heading to London or Frankfurt. I think that was the reasoning behind Cincinnati's East-West runway expansion to allow for that type of flight. Also altitude plays a role as well in places like Denver. They have the longest runway in the country at 16000 feet; Cincy's is 12000 I think; JFK and Las Vegas have 14500 foot runways. Those are about as big as they get. Although I wonder if a 11,000 could handle it. The previous one in Cincy was 10,000.

 

A big plane with lots of fuel needs a big runway, that's what I said.  Flights to California and Europe might get by on 8,000 foot runways, but you need more for flights to Eastern Europe or to Asia or South America.

 

Detroit has a 12,000 foot runway, and I think Cleveland should aim for that as a bare minimum.

 

High altitudes and hot temperatures force the need for even longer runways.  Denver has an unfortunate combination of both (it gets very hot there in the summer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Houston is a poor llocation for a hub, even though I don't doubt the cost of doing business there is cheap.  For flying to Europe or Asia, Houston is crap.  As a North American hub airport, it's just poorly situated.

 

Houston is also where Continental Airlines is based, and is currently the airline's largest hub. Continental has made IAH work extremely well, using it not as a primary gateway to Europe or Asia, but to Latin America. Continental has more nonstop destinations to Mexico than any other U.S. airline and rivals the amount served by Mexicana and AeroMexico. The airline also has an impressive network to Central and South America, serving places like Guayaquil, Cali, and Liberia. Domestically, the hub also functions well as an East-West connector (i.e. Hartford-IAH-San Diego, or Seattle-IAH-Knoxville). The sheer size of Houston itself also works to Continental's advantage as origin and destination traffic has much better yields than connecting traffic.

 

In Newark, I would imagine their costs are very high.  As an international hub, Newark makes sense, but it's location is crappy as a North American hub.

 

Continental acquired Newark as a hub when the airport was comparable to a moldy bus station. It has since grown to become Continental's European gateway. Continental has tapped a previously overlooked niche from their EWR hub by taking their overwater equiped 757 fleet and flying them to European cities with limited access to the United States. So far, the move as proven to be quite profitable. Again also, Continental has a huge population base in the NYC area to thrive on, so origin and destination traffic is readily available.

 

So Cleveland getting flights to Asia or to more destinations in Europe is not entirely out of the question.  In fact, it's very probable if they make the right investments.  From Continental's POV, Cleveland has a better location than Houston, and a lower cost of business than Newark.

 

Cleveland's landing fees are among the highest in the nation. Last I heard, it cost upwards of $3.15 per 1,000 lbs. to land an airplane at Hopkins. In comparison, it costs $0.98 per 1,000 lbs. to land a plane at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky. Cleveland also lacks the two most imporant things to the airline, critical mass and a huge local population. Cleveland is the smallest of the hubs by a long shot, and the influx of connecting passengers traveling through CLE pails in comparison to EWR and IAH. Cleveland's population of 3 million+ also makes it less appealing when compared to Houston and Newark. Cleveland's customs facilities are also poorly equiped to suit more international connections for Continental. The FIS/customs area is located in Concourse A, on the other side of the airport from Concourses C and D, where Continental operates from. Continental has filled Cleveland's niche: a hub that connects the Midwest and Great Lakes region to major destinations in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as i was reading this.  I went online to view something at the website and notice that the website is actual been updated.

 

they have upgraded their website and its looks we've arrived in the year 2005.

 

Good job!

 

As a person who can use the airport up to 4 times a week this is a vast and much appreciated improvement.

 

www.clevelandairport.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...