Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, eyehrtfood said:

Cleveland is only #52 in actual "city" population - whereas the CLE/Akron/Canton market it serves is still a top 20 CMSA in population... There should be better air service here, agreed.

Of the top 16 MSAs, how many of them have direct flights on United?

 

You can already cross off New York (Manhattan), Boston and DC (The District) and they do fly to ORD, LAX, DEN and SFO.

 

What about:

Dallas

Phoenix

Detroit

Philadelphia

Miami

Atlanta

Seattle

Orlando

Minneapolis

 

Does UAL offer direct service to any of these destinations? If the answer is to a couple but not all of these key population and business centers, I would question, why is UAL being supported in the Land?

 

They aren't even the best of the legacy carriers, let alone the best airline.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Of the top 16 MSAs, how many of them have direct flights on United?

 

You can already cross off New York (Manhattan), Boston and DC (The District).

 

What about:

Dallas

Phoenix

Detroit

Philadelphia

Miami

Atlanta

Seattle

Orlando

Minneapolis

 

Does UAL offer direct service to any of these destinations? If the answer is to a couple but not all of these key population and business centers, I would question, why is UAL being supported in the Land? They aren't even the best of the legacy carriers, let alone the best airline.


As someone that has gone from a 1K flyer on United to Exec Plat on AA, I understand the disappointment in UA’s retrenchment from CLE, and I‘m certainly not undyingly loyal to United.  It stinks that they pulled the hub, and It’s easy to blame that purely in the disaster that was Smisek. But the reality is that CLE just did not fit the [legacy] industry’s model of fortress hubs, and we were lucky that we held on as long as we did. Longer than BNA, MEM, STL, CVG, etc. It was nothing personal against Cleveland. 

 

 But UA still flies to quite a few destinations from Cleveland that the other legacies don’t, and/or with frequencies the others do not. I don’t think it’s unjustly “supporting” UA if a traveler wants to get to RSW without connecting in ATL, or SFO without a stop in DFW, for example. 
 

Until the other legacies offer something more than purely hub/BOS/LGA/DCA flying, and also have a lounge available before departure or during IRROPS, there are good reasons for passengers in Cleveland to continue to fly United. Avoiding them out of spite is one’s own prerogative, but it’s not crazy that UA is still CLE’s largest carrier by passenger #s and total flights.   

Edited by brtshrcegr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unfortunate is that UAL knows they have CLE by the b_lls. That is why they provide just enough service to get by, while blocking other airlines from expansion. They don't even bother to duplicate service to other carriers' hubs for their beloved frequent fliers; places like Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte or Minneapolis. 

 

Until that changes, CLE will continue to have mediocre service, at best.

 

...and BTW, they pulled the hub twice. You may be too young to remember, I however am not. When built, all of Concourse C was almost exclusively UAL, with a few Northwest gates. UAL, pulled out and Continental filled the gap. We all know what happened post merger.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think United is blocking any airlines from expanding at CLE. There are plenty of gates, even with concouse D closed. By the way, United still flies to Orlando from CLE and I believe they are adding new service to a few other Florida destinations.

Edited by skiwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How generous of them. We're entitled to our opinions. Mine of UAL is "0."

It would appear they have slowly relinquished control of "C" gates, but my loyalty is gone forever.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we hit over 10 million passengers in 2019 - can anyone give me the most active commercial year in Hopkins history? Just curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Since we hit over 10 million passengers in 2019 - can anyone give me the most active commercial year in Hopkins history? Just curious

 

The city's airport plan from 1998 forecasted 19.2 million passengers in 2006 and 29 million by 2016.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=-vo0AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA23-IA54&ots=s6RK7tR1-m&dq=cleveland hopkins passenger count 1998&pg=PA23-IA54#v=onepage&q=cleveland hopkins passenger count 1998&f=false

 

Their historical facts shows counts from 1999-present:

 

https://www.clevelandairport.com/about-us/facts-figures

 

2006 actual: 11,321,050

2016 actual: 8,422,676

 

Peak during 1999-present:

 

2000: 13,288,059

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLE topping 10m as a non-hub wen they were at 13m as a hub is pretty solid.

 

The 3C's airports are all doing really well right now! Hopefully CMH and CLE can get some European routes soon to increase accessibility for the state.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something to keep an eye on.  Per this article, JetBlue founder David Neeleman's new startup. Breeze Airways will start flying in 2020 with a strategy to run 118 seat E195's between cities that have suffered abandonment from the majors.  Like Allegiant, they want to serve secondary airports in the larger markets, and one of those secondary airports on the list was (wait for it, wait for it) BKL (Burke Lakefront in Cleveland).  LOL, so don't close BKL just yet, hehe.  This is similar to a model Neeleman used in Brazil with AZUL airlines (busy guy).

 

Later , they intend to acquire and fly larger A220-300's, which are fuel efficient and have a "bodacious" range.

 

Excerpted from the article:

 

According to the reports, “On a map of prospective routes, it shows Providence flights to Allegiant-like airports in Florida (i.e., Orlando Sanford and St. Petersburg) and California (i.e., Oakland, San Jose, Contra Costa, Orange County, Burbank, Ontario and McClellan-Palomar, north of San Diego). Other dots from Providence include Phoenix Mesa, Rocky Mountain Airport near Denver, Concord near Charlotte, Fort Worth’s Meacham Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland. Aside from Providence, other northeast region airports of interest to Moxy include Baltimore, Trenton, Stewart (halfway between New York City and Albany) and Republic Airport in eastern Long Island."

 

   

https://www.golocalprov.com/business/Newly-Announced-Breeze-Airline-By-Founder-of-JetBlue-Could-Be-Coming-to-P

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone familiar with the inner workings of airports explain why it costs so much to basically build a brand new airport terminal and concourses? 

 

Let's set aside the cost of demolishing an airport while trying to still keep it open for business.

 

I'm in the construction industry, but have never had an airport project, so I am curious. 

 

Essentially a terminal building and its concourses are steel framed construction with concrete floors, just like any new office building. Keeping it that simple, you could build a 120,000 SF concourse for around $20million dollars and five similar concourses for around $100 million. 

 

The interior buildout is a different animal, but maybe that is where insiders could add their insight. I often hear of new airport projects costing billions. Is it the airport specific infrastructure that cost so much? Is it that the buildings themselves are built to a higher, more expensive standard? Is it government waste? What is it?

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

 

Edited by Mov2Ohio
Misspellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to airport construction but I can speak to transportation construction, especially where federal environmental permitting is involved. Just about any transportation investment in the USA with federal oversight and compliance with National Environmental Policy Act regulations will cost two to three times more than a comparable project in Europe and at least as many times more than a comparable project in Asia.

 

Consider the 2009-built high-speed rail line between Florence and Balogna, Italy. The two-tracked rail line is 48.5 miles long -- 46 miles of that is in tunnel beneath the Apennine Mountains. It would be like taking a 120-mph subway from Cleveland to Canton in 35 minutes. And it was built for €5.2 billion, or USD $7.23 billion at 2009 conversion rates. That's just $93 million per mile. "Just"? Compare that to the planned, two-tracked, 2.5-mile Hudson River tunnel that is estimated to cost $9.5 billion.

  • Like 1

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 Just about any transportation investment in the USA with federal oversight and compliance with National Environmental Policy Act regulations will cost two to three times more than a comparable project in Europe and at least as many times more than a comparable project in Asia.

 

This stat amazes me.  Asia I believe, but Europe is loaded with regulations, and it still costs more here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""Just"? Compare that to the planned, two-tracked, 2.5-mile Hudson River tunnel that is estimated to cost $9.5 billion."

 

In all fairness, this does represent the metro-NYC area, with its hyper-inflated costs. Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor costs are a big part of it. Unions work in concert with companies and government projects in Europe, whereas they are far more adversarial in the US. Cost mitigation is a casualty. 

 

And NYC is a different beast when it comes to waste. People should have been castrated with the shenanigans of the Long Island Railroad Project. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

""Just"? Compare that to the planned, two-tracked, 2.5-mile Hudson River tunnel that is estimated to cost $9.5 billion."

 

In all fairness, this does represent the metro-NYC area, with its hyper-inflated costs. Enough said.

I believe the cost estimate is now over $11 billion.  The original cost was suppose to be $3.5.  New York or not, there is something seriously wrong there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"New York or not.."

 

It's the norm in NYC. A prime example is the 2nd Avenue Subway with its major delays and astronomical cost overruns.

 

As for Hopkins, it has so many other seismic issues, development cost is the least of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just NYC. It's everywhere in the USA....

 

Why It's So Expensive to Build Urban Rail in the U.S.

It’s not just the Second Avenue Subway: Nearly all urban rail projects in the U.S.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so-expensive-to-build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

"New York or not.."

 

It's the norm in NYC. A prime example is the 2nd Avenue Subway with its major delays and astronomical cost overruns.

 

As for Hopkins, it has so many other seismic issues, development cost is the least of them.

Well yea, the city should hand over running the airports so they can be run more like a business. The current set up is not working as well as it should. I do think though, that development cost are a major issue if its hindering the airport from truly updating the facility and adding features that can attract more business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, there are a several major challenges at CLE that precede the cost of terminal development:

1. Poor city ownership/management

2. Landlocked

3. Proximity to international hubs

4. Local unwillingness to subsidize international routes

4. UAL control

 

We've seen it time and time again. The City is incompetent when it comes to using its owned assets to help drive economic development (Hopkins/Burke Airports, Westside Market, etc.); the exception could be Public Square. Unless the County or State step in to assist, it flounders. 

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KJP said:

It's not just NYC. It's everywhere in the USA....

 

Why It's So Expensive to Build Urban Rail in the U.S.

It’s not just the Second Avenue Subway: Nearly all urban rail projects in the U.S.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so-expensive-to-build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/

$2.5 B/mile is inexcusable, even with ridership. It's due to regulations, bureaucracy and waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

IMO, there are a several major challenges at CLE that precede the cost of terminal development:

1. Poor city ownership/management  - Yes, fixing this could  help begin to solve the other local issues you mentioned below.

2. Landlocked - IMO, this is part of the whole development thing. Around 2000 the city purchased land to extend runways. They could purchase land again to extend the airport assuming they got appropriate clearance for municipalities and authorities involved. With the former Ford acreage possibly coming back online as an electrical component factory, adding runway infrastructure to expand the airport and allow for a large scale Air Freight operation may make sense. 

3. Proximity to international hubs -  Will the increase in smaller commercial jets that can reach international destinations make International routes more feasible from CLE?

4. Local unwillingness to subsidize international routes - Agree, though it will be interesting to see what comes out of the talks the County and Sherwin-Williams will have as part of their new HQ. It was mentioned part of the incentives was to work on subsidizing International Routes. But once you get the routes will be airport have the infrastructure to handle them?

4. UAL control - When does their lease run out on Concourse D?

 

We've seen it time and time again. The City is incompetent when it comes to using its owned assets to help drive economic development (Hopkins/Burke Airports, Westside Market, etc.); the exception could be Public Square. Unless the County or State step in to assist, it flounders. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, there are a lot of issues beyond developing new terminal facilities:

1. The City needs to privatize the airports, turn them over to the County or form a Public Airport Authority to manage them.

2. The City purchased land to the northeast and west for its last runway expansion, but within the city limits.  It needs land to the southwest and east, and that poses major domain challenges.

3. My understanding is that Airbus is introducing single-aisle long distance aircraft (A320XLR), but airlines won't operate them if their unprofitable. Can CLE fill premium and first class on those flights?  Can another WOW or Icelandair be successful operating deeply discounted international flights?

4. I thought SW-County negotiations were for improved air service out of CLE, which may or may not include subsidized international flights. Let's hope so.

5. It's unfortunate, but Concourse D and the signs prohibiting access on Concourse C are eyesores. As long as UAL can minimize competitor expansion and is adding millions annually to impoverished City coffers, there's no incentive for the City nor UAL to change the status quo.

6. If international service ramps up, the current archaic C&I/Security issues must be resolved.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.  The international service via WOW and Icelandair were subsidized.  It is unfortunate both airlines had issues that resulted in the cancellation of their service at CLE.  I am not sure if Continental's short lived international flights to London and Paris were subsidized.  

5. Concourse D lease run until 2029.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skiwest said:

4.  The international service via WOW and Icelandair were subsidized.  It is unfortunate both airlines had issues that resulted in the cancellation of their service at CLE.  I am not sure if Continental's short lived international flights to London and Paris were subsidized.  

5. Concourse D lease run until 2029.

 

It would be great if the city could start planning for a new terminal that could incorporate Concourse D since it is still new, will be relatively unused and is offset some from the rest of the airport. Even if they decide to build just one long Terminal Concourse complex like Detroit. They could then just increase capacity by lengthening Concourse D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new master plan for CLE is being worked on and will be completed next year.  It will be interesting to see if it incorporates Concourse D.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

It would be great if the city could start planning for a new terminal that could incorporate Concourse D since it is still new, will be relatively unused and is offset some from the rest of the airport. Even if they decide to build just one long Terminal Concourse complex like Detroit. They could then just increase capacity by lengthening Concourse D.

It's a shame because Concourse D is the newest, most modern, open and airy of all of the concourses. Seeing it mothballed is such a shame.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

As mentioned, there are a lot of issues beyond developing new terminal facilities:

1. The City needs to privatize the airports, turn them over to the County or form a Public Airport Authority to manage them.

 

 

1. The City needs to privatize the airports... -- yes, let's turn re-investment in airside and terminal facilities into corporate profits instead for certain shareholders. 

2. ...turn them over to the County -- because the County has far more experience than the city in running a commercial airport---plus, why not rob the city of one its last final assets and give it to suburban control? Furthermore, the county is not corrupt AND incompetent.

3. ...form a Public Airport Authority....with the city in control, so whats the difference?

 

Instead of running from problems, we should FIX them.  Lots of crime in an area?  Just put everyone in prison or on 24/7 surveillance instead of improving education and social and after-school opportunities.  The problem is not that the city controls the airports--that's true in lots of cities--its the current leadership of the city.  Why change a structure AND hurt the city ("turn them over to the County") when you can just elect competent leadership every four years?  Why try to hurt the city instead, while pretending to help it?

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

1. The City needs to privatize the airports... -- yes, let's turn re-investment in airside and terminal facilities into corporate profits instead for certain shareholders. 

2. ...turn them over to the County -- because the County has far more experience than the city in running a commercial airport---plus, why not rob the city of one its last final assets and give it to suburban control? Furthermore, the county is not corrupt AND incompetent.

3. ...form a Public Airport Authority....with the city in control, so whats the difference?

 

Instead of running from problems, we should FIX them.  Lots of crime in an area?  Just put everyone in prison or on 24/7 surveillance instead of improving education and social and after-school opportunities.  The problem is not that the city controls the airports--that's true in lots of cities--its the current leadership of the city.  Why change a structure AND hurt the city ("turn them over to the County") when you can just elect competent leadership every four years?  Why try to hurt the city instead, while pretending to help it?

 

100% agreed. I'm always mystified why the "run it like business" crowd always forgets to mention that most businesses fail.

 

Gee willikers, if it were that easy we could just have no government at all. 

 

 

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

100% agreed. I'm always mystified why the "run it like business" crowd always forgets to mention that most businesses fail.

 

Gee willikers, if it were that easy we could just have no government at all. 

 

 

Well running it like a government has had mediocre to lackluster results over the last 30 years or more, so I would say some change is needed.

 

But anyway, my question was why is it so much more expensive to build what is essentially the same structure as a shopping mall? It must be the airport specific infrastructure, security, conveyors, controls, technology etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well running it like a government has had mediocre to lackluster results over the last 30 years or more, so I would say some change is needed."

 

Words like mediocre and lackluster are putting it mildly; it's been disastrous. CLE was rated as the second worst medium-sized airport.

 

If the problem is (are) the administration (s), do something about it!

 

Meanwhile everyone on UO complains about the poor non-stop air service and lack of international flights. In case it's not readily apparent, continued support of the status quo will provide the same disastrous outcomes.

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

100% agreed. I'm always mystified why the "run it like business" crowd always forgets to mention that most businesses fail.

 

Gee willikers, if it were that easy we could just have no government at all. 

 

 

Yeah, I get particularly annoyed when people think giving the airport to Cuyahoga County is some kind of magical and ideal solution even though the county has absolutely no experience AND has demonstrated itself to be both inept and corrupt, not to mention that doing so would be a very bad deal for the city. Yet people like to say it all the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

Yeah, I get particularly annoyed when people think giving the airport to Cuyahoga County is some kind of magical and ideal solution even though the county has absolutely no experience AND has demonstrated itself to be both inept and corrupt, not to mention that doing so would be a very bad deal for the city. Yet people like to say it all the time.


I’d rather see it run like a municipal school district. A sort of autonomous entity within the city’s purview... but not really

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, YABO713 said:


I’d rather see it run like a municipal school district. A sort of autonomous entity within the city’s purview... but not really


I know it’s been said before...but I think turning Hopkins over to the Port of Cleveland to run would be the best thing to do. Like @YABO713 said...still government owned, but run by a board of directors appointed by the city and county.

 

I’m hoping the master plan mothballs existing everything and completely rebuilds the airport. After being in some of the newer airports in the US...it would be a tremendous shame to try and reuse anything here. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:


I’d rather see it run like a municipal school district. A sort of autonomous entity within the city’s purview... but not really

Clearly, local government has been, and continues to be incompetent and inept when it comes to the management of CLE and BKL. While both are City assets, neither has realized their potential as an economic engine for the benefit of the city nor region.

 

If there's no change, you will continue to get what you have always gotten and what you continue to get.

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enginerd said:


I know it’s been said before...but I think turning Hopkins over to the Port of Cleveland to run would be the best thing to do. Like @YABO713 said...still government owned, but run by a board of directors appointed by the city and county.

 

I’m hoping the master plan mothballs existing everything and completely rebuilds the airport. After being in some of the newer airports in the US...it would be a tremendous shame to try and reuse anything here. 

 

I understand this desire, but I can't reconcile it with the cost.  I travel a lot and all I want out of an airport is plentiful seating, plentiful power outlets, clean bathrooms, and easy transportation options.  Hopkins is not that bad in my opinion and spending billions to get a marginal increase in comfort and passenger experience just doesn't seem worth it to me.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hootenany said:

 

I understand this desire, but I can't reconcile it with the cost.  I travel a lot and all I want out of an airport is plentiful seating, plentiful power outlets, clean bathrooms, and easy transportation options.  Hopkins is not that bad in my opinion and spending billions to get a marginal increase in comfort and passenger experience just doesn't seem worth it to me.


I understand the sentiment, but I wouldn’t say Hopkins has any of the things you’ve listed.
 

I am not pushing for the City to build the Taj Mahal of airports...but at the same time I think it’s okay to ask for an airport that the City and region’s residents are proud to have.

 

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe all of the building costs would come from the grants, bonds, the airlines, landing fees and maybe passenger fees.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Enginerd said:


I understand the sentiment, but I wouldn’t say Hopkins has any of the things you’ve listed.
 

 

 

Yes it does. The airport is mostly fine. Get a few more direct flights, fix the rental car situation and move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hearing that United is further reducing its footprint at Hopkins. CLE will no longer be a base for regional jets.  Sounded like they won't originate or terminate (stay parked overnight) at CLE anymore and a reduction of ground crew hours. 

Edited by STRIVE2THRIVE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I understand the sentiment, but I wouldn’t say Hopkins has any of the things you’ve listed.
 

I am not pushing for the City to build the Taj Mahal."

 

Agreed. Whether for the NEO community or its visitors, CLE represents the city's front door.

 

Unfortunately, with dated and vacated concourses, antiquated C&I and limited direct flights, it doesn't provide the best first impression and maybe the City, the County and the citizenry are ok with that.

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

"I understand the sentiment, but I wouldn’t say Hopkins has any of the things you’ve listed.
 

I am not pushing for the City to build the Taj Mahal."

 

Agreed. Whether for the NEO community or its visitors, CLE represents the city's front door.

 

Unfortunately, with dated and vacated concourses, antiquated C&I and limited direct flights, it doesn't provide the best first impression and maybe the City, the County and the citizenry are ok with that.

 

I rarely have trouble finding direct flights to most of America when traveling out of Cleveland. I also get thru security in 20min or less 90% of the time. I don't care about anything else. I take the rapid, so neither parking nor rental cars are a big deal to me. I do recognize the current rental car situation isn't optimal.

 

Given the recent growth in passenger numbers and improvements on the J.D. Power customer service rankings, I'd say most travelers are in the same boat as I. The airport isn't as awful as you and a few others make it out to be.

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 5
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hootenany said:

 

I understand this desire, but I can't reconcile it with the cost.  I travel a lot and all I want out of an airport is plentiful seating, plentiful power outlets, clean bathrooms, and easy transportation options.  Hopkins is not that bad in my opinion and spending billions to get a marginal increase in comfort and passenger experience just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Mostly agree. Hopkins is fine for a low-key second tier airport....but I'd like to see the cost-benefit of how investment could propel the economy for Northeast Ohio. 

 

Perhaps when the Sherwin Williams' issues are publicized that would give us all a better understanding of whether future expenditures are "reasonable." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Enginerd said:

I’m hoping the master plan mothballs existing everything and completely rebuilds the airport. After being in some of the newer airports in the US...it would be a tremendous shame to try and reuse anything here. 

 

3 hours ago, Hootenany said:

I understand this desire, but I can't reconcile it with the cost.  I travel a lot and all I want out of an airport is plentiful seating, plentiful power outlets, clean bathrooms, and easy transportation options.  Hopkins is not that bad in my opinion and spending billions to get a marginal increase in comfort and passenger experience just doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

Here's my wish list for the new Hopkins Master Plan, based on fundamentally keeping the existing terminal:

- Construct new, additional arrival / departure terminal (including new baggage claim) between C and D, at the south / far end.

- Continue also using existing arrival terminal - I think it is pretty nice since the renovation

- Gut renovation of existing baggage claim

- Full renovation / replacement of security, also add new security in new terminal section.

- Redo D terminal so that at least one side can handle 737 / A320 sized jets (my understanding is that it currently cannot).  Realistically it probably needs to be both sides, with the trend away from regional jets.

- Complete rebuild of Concourse B, it is a dump.  Adding a nice, large, perpendicular gate area hall at the end would be good, similar to what they have in MKE's Southwest concourse.

- Widen and renovate Concourse C.  I think the main path with the long skylight is nice. Imagine if the current seating areas (runway side) were replaced with a parallel path of moving walkways (like in DTW), and then new seating areas, restrooms, and restaurants were built where the jetbridges currently are.  (The side with Great Lakes and Symon's could probably stay as it is.)

- I never go in Concourse A, I assume it also needs a lot of work or a complete rebuild.  Most important thing here is brand new, proper, modern customs & immigration.

- Extend the garage / orange lot walkway all the way across the orange lot and over the highway to a new Amtrak / commuter rail station

- New airport hotel and new, additional parking garage in the current location of the orange lot, also connected to the terminal per the above walkway, per @KJP renderings which have been posted a few times.

- More passenger protected area on walkway through existing garage. (Like the passenger bridges along Boston Logan's main garage.)

- New American Express Centurian lounge (or similar) near the current eating area.

 

Advantages to keeping current terminal and location:

- Costs less, probably much less, than brand new terminal

- Existing parking garage is fine, no need to rebuild

- RTA connection. Obviously it is primarily used by airport workers now, but if RTA properly supports ToD at stations the ridership could dramatically improve.

- The current main restaurant area is also quite reasonable for an airport this size.

 

And long term, as @MyTwoSense also suggested, bury 480 and Brookpark north of the airport, extend the main runway over them to the northeast, and therefore make it easier to support long distance service. 

 

Edited by Boomerang_Brian
added security renovation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

I rarely have trouble finding direct flights to most of America when traveling out of Cleveland. I also get thru security in 20min or less 90% of the time. I don't care about anything else. I take the rapid, so neither parking nor rental cars are a big deal to me.

The Rapid getting in and out of CLE is so great. 

 

 

Edited by surfohio
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

Here's my wish list, based on fundamentally keeping the existing terminal:

- Construct new, additional arrival / departure terminal (including new baggage claim) between C and D, at the south / far end.

- Continue also using existing arrival terminal - I think it is pretty nice since the renovation

- Gut renovation of existing baggage claim

- Redo D terminal so that at least one side can handle 737 / A320 sized jets (my understanding is that it currently cannot).  Realistically it probably needs to be both sides, with the trend away from regional jets.

- Complete rebuild of Concourse B, it is a dump.  Adding a nice, large, perpendicular gate area hall at the end would be good, similar to what they have in MKE's Southwest concourse.

- Widen and renovate Concourse C.  I think the main path with the long skylight is nice. Imagine if the current seating areas (runway side) were replaced with a parallel path of moving walkways (like in DTW), and then new seating areas, restrooms, and restaurants were built where the jetbridges currently are.  (The side with Great Lakes and Symon's could probably stay as it is.)

- I never go in Concourse A, I assume it also needs a lot of work or a complete rebuild.  Most important thing here is brand new, proper, modern customs & immigration.

- Extend the garage / orange lot walkway all the way across the orange lot and over the highway to a new Amtrak / commuter rail station

- New airport hotel and new, additional parking garage in the current location of the orange lot, also connected to the terminal per the above walkway, per @KJP renderings which have been posted a few times.

- More passenger protected area on walkway through existing garage. (Like the passenger bridges along Boston Logan's main garage.)

- New American Express Centurian lounge (or similar) near the current eating area.

 

Advantages to keeping current terminal and location:

- Costs less, probably much less, than brand new terminal

- Existing parking garage is fine, no need to rebuild

- RTA connection. Obviously it is primarily used by airport workers now, but if RTA properly supports ToD at stations the ridership could dramatically improve.

- The current main restaurant area is also quite reasonable for an airport this size.

 

And long term, as @MyTwoSense also suggested, bury 480 and Brookpark north of the airport, extend the main runway over them to the northeast, and therefore make it easier to support long distance service. 

 

The only thing I would to this is move a rental car facility into the ground-floor of the existing short-term garage.   They could still use off-site location for budget rental firms and support for the terminal location.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, surfohio said:

The Rapid out of CLE is so great. 

 

 

 

Not so funny story. My gf and I took the w65th rapid last Friday morning to catch a flight to NYC for the weekend. My sister (who lives on w117th about .5mi north of the rapid station) opted for an uber that never showed due to winter weather/traffic on 90. Well, long story short - she didn't get to enjoy NYC last weekend.

ALWAYS TAKE THE RAPID, KIDS!

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

Here's my wish list, based on fundamentally keeping the existing terminal:

- Construct new, additional arrival / departure terminal (including new baggage claim) between C and D, at the south / far end.

- Continue also using existing arrival terminal - I think it is pretty nice since the renovation

- Gut renovation of existing baggage claim

- Full renovation / replacement of security, also add new security in new terminal section.

- Redo D terminal so that at least one side can handle 737 / A320 sized jets (my understanding is that it currently cannot).  Realistically it probably needs to be both sides, with the trend away from regional jets.

- Complete rebuild of Concourse B, it is a dump.  Adding a nice, large, perpendicular gate area hall at the end would be good, similar to what they have in MKE's Southwest concourse.

- Widen and renovate Concourse C.  I think the main path with the long skylight is nice. Imagine if the current seating areas (runway side) were replaced with a parallel path of moving walkways (like in DTW), and then new seating areas, restrooms, and restaurants were built where the jetbridges currently are.  (The side with Great Lakes and Symon's could probably stay as it is.)

- I never go in Concourse A, I assume it also needs a lot of work or a complete rebuild.  Most important thing here is brand new, proper, modern customs & immigration.

- Extend the garage / orange lot walkway all the way across the orange lot and over the highway to a new Amtrak / commuter rail station

- New airport hotel and new, additional parking garage in the current location of the orange lot, also connected to the terminal per the above walkway, per @KJP renderings which have been posted a few times.

- More passenger protected area on walkway through existing garage. (Like the passenger bridges along Boston Logan's main garage.)

- New American Express Centurian lounge (or similar) near the current eating area.

 

Advantages to keeping current terminal and location:

- Costs less, probably much less, than brand new terminal

- Existing parking garage is fine, no need to rebuild

- RTA connection. Obviously it is primarily used by airport workers now, but if RTA properly supports ToD at stations the ridership could dramatically improve.

- The current main restaurant area is also quite reasonable for an airport this size.

 

And long term, as @MyTwoSense also suggested, bury 480 and Brookpark north of the airport, extend the main runway over them to the northeast, and therefore make it easier to support long distance service. 

 

This sounds like a reasonable renovation plan.  Expanding the terminal to the south might spread out the congestion on the upper and lower roadways a bit and maybe even allow the shuttles to return.  I assume Concourse D would be directly connected to the expanded terminal rather than only via the tunnel to/from Concourse C.  Burying I-480 and Brookpark Road sounds nice, but it would be a costly undertaking which may not be justifiable for the limited amount of long distance service we can realistically expect at CLE.      

Edited by skiwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfohio said:

The Rapid getting in and out of CLE is so great. 

 

 

I absolutely must agree.This is CLE's single greatest asset.

 

What is being done to market this asset? 

 

There are many busier and much larger airports that would love to have such an asset; some are spending billions of dollars to develop rail service. CLE has had it for decades.

 

How is CLE getting the most out of its Rapid asset?

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I absolutely must agree.This is CLE's single greatest asset.

 

Just as a point of reference, last night it cost me $20 to take Lyft home from SAN airport - a 6 mile trip. Public transportation would've cost $6 and would've taken ONE HOUR AND FORTY-FIVE MINUTES. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I rarely have trouble finding direct flights to most of America when traveling out of Cleveland."

- Except for the airline hubs, including the 25 largest cities, you cannot get to most of America non-stop from Cleveland.

 

2 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

I do recognize the current rental car situation isn't optimal.

- Off-site rental cars are a nuisance, but appear to be pretty much the norm these days.

 

"improvements on the J.D. Power customer service rankings,"

- Any improvement is considerable when you're next to last. The only airport that was worse was LGA; that's not a notable position to be in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...