User talk:Jtaylor7309

Gates at CVG/G4 and F9 Operations

@Jtaylor7309: Hey, I saw you question about gates at CVG, I figured I would explain what is going on. Currently gates A5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/21/22 are used. Back before ASA moved to Concourse A in '01/'02, gates A20/22 were small gates, however, 22 was subsequently expanded to hadle 757/767's for Delta. This orientation cutoff A20 and its jetway sat unused until 2012. Similarly, after 2012, gate A23 was cuttoff due to gate A21 being painted larger, however, gate A23 was recently painted to be used by Allegiant/Frontier, though can only be used when an aircraft smaller than an A320 is at gate A22. In other news regarding gates, which you may not be aaware of, this summer, CVG is reopening gates A1/2/3/5. It is predicted that gate A2 will be a ground level acess for OneJet projecting out towards the old terminal 2 area, while A1/3/4/5 will be used for WN (A4 was previously used by OneJet), who might be announcing service on January 5 when they entend their schedule into the summer. This makes sense as the contractor rennovating the new gates is supposed to be complete by June 15, 2017, probably conciding with the launch date of these flights. While I do not have an absolute confirmination that WN is launching flights, its easy to connect the dots based on the need to add four gates together by a specific date.

For Allegiants non-based aircraft routes, doing a quick search for this spring, all of Alegiant's aircraft operating at CVG overnight at CVG except for the aircraft operating CVG-AZA, which is based at AZA. Since all Allegiant crew start and finnish the day at the same airport, my guess is all the crew except for the AZA flight are Cincinnati based.

For Frontier, this spring/summer, they have: - A320 that goes CVG-LAX-CVG-(Overnight at CVG) - A320 that goes CVG-XXX-CVG-SFO-CVG - A320 that goes CVG-XXX-CVG-LAS-CVG - A320 that goes CVG-PHX-CVG-XXX-CVG

These routes are all daily now and the non-daily routes except ATL/MCO/DEN (these use aircraft based from that airport) are filled in the XXX spaces. Sometimes PHL/FLL/DFW/IAH use aircraft based at DEN, but mostly use the CVG based aircraft.

Let me know if you have any other questions! Stinger20 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stinger20: Thanks for doing this! I was kinda thinking aloud while looking over the CVG page, and I'm glad you know answers! So long term, what do you think the plan is for A20? From the inside of concourse A, they have installed counters and monitors-just like A23. If A23 is being reopened this summer, is A20 going to remain dormant? It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of effort to put in the counter if they don't have a plan for it.

I saw on the forum that the west end of A was being reactivated-will they really get 4 gates (A1/A2/A3/A5) into that small area? Even if A2 is a ground level for OneJet, I had kinda assumed that A5 would somehow be behind where the restrooms currently are, near A7. I think the connection between WN's schedule extension and the holdroom renovation deadline makes total sense. However, if the airport fills that end of the Concourse with gates, what's the easiest way to expand concourse A? Unless Delta is willing to give up gates in B, CVG will pretty much be maxed out-at least in A. Any idea how the airport board plans to proceed if they run out of room in Concourse A? If/when some combination of Spirit, JetBlue, and Alaska enter the market, the airport will have to find a place to put them-and that assumes that none of the current carriers need more gates!!

The reason I asked about G4 was about growth of the CVG base. While originally announced as 90 jobs, I would assume the base has grown as more aircraft are added (4 currently, 5th A319 arriving soon). Any knowledge on the current size of the allegiant base? 120 jobs? 150 jobs?

My F9 questions were also about the "focus city" at CVG. Are there any plans for F9 to base crew members in CVG? Currently it seems that most of the crew routings go through DEN, which creates a mess (last weekend) when the weather causes problems. I think you were the first to mention the idea, but where do you see F9 looking for future expansion to establish CVG for a large amount of connecting passengers? With 12ish flights a day, the capacity is certainly there and I assume that F9 would look into adding east coast flights from CVG in conjunction with more west coast flights (Seattle/Portland). Are you aware of any F9 itineraries that currently have a CVG layover or what other factors make CVG a "focus city"? Thanks for all of your thoughts-the airport is an exciting place now! Jtaylor7309

@Jtaylor7309:They have not yet painted a line for A20, however, if they installed counters, I guess its probably going to open as well. If you pushed A18 down and turned A22, A20 might be able to fit. I think it would limit the number of A321's Frontier could park at a time, but it looks like they will not have more than 2 at CVG at time. A23's line is already painted, so its just waiting on a jetway. The A1/2 gate area appears to be pretty sizeable, its about 2x the size of the holdrooms for the other gates in Concourse A, and especially if A2 is for OneJet, with only 7 passengers. A1 should have plenty of room for a 737 sized aircraft and its passengers. Gates A3/5 are both behind the restroom and will be tight, but I think they could expand out into the current charging area. A3 should fit a 737, but I think A5 will only be able to fit one if gate A7 is pushed slightly left and does not have an aircraft larger than a CRJ.

Long term, its not exactly clear what the airport plans to do, because its most recent plan predicts a pretty grim future, with little LCC activity and Delta dehubing the airport. They had planned to build a larger Concourse A between present day Concourse A and B, dramatically reducing the number of gates. I created this image for CVG's page of the more likely plan, which was listed as an alternate if Delta retained its current capacity, which it has. This plan would call for an expansion of Concourse A to the west, which was actually in the planning stages before Delta went bankrupt, so I bet the airport actually already has plans for this. See 2025 master plan summarized: http://www.airportsites.net/cvgpart150mpu/Documents/masterplan050406-3.pdf and full: http://www.airportsites.net/cvgpart150mpu/documents/CVG%20MPU%20022007%20FinalDraft.pdf. So, I bet they actually follow the old 2025 master plan rather than the 2035, minus the Concourse C renovations/building a new Concourse D. This would add about 15-20 new gates, which I think would be sufficient until at least 2035, giving room for Southwest, Spirit, JetBlue, and Alaska if/when they begin service, plus provide expansion room for current carriers. I think its safe to assume Delta will retain an operation of 80-90 flights until its leases expire in 2018, then we might see a cutdown to 50-70 flights, but I do not expect things to go lower than that, if not actually remain at the current 80-90 flights. Until then, I do not think Delta will give up any gates in Concourse B, they built A/B/C with their own money, and I doubt they want to increase their competition. I think a renewal of the lock on Concourse B is actually very likely. Temporarily, I think there are a few options, such as putting two CRJ's at a gate and using ground-level stairs, remote stands, or building a ground level jetway system like JFK used to have at Delta's terminal. I do not think reactivating Concourse C is a possibility, due to some mold/structural issues, but the airport could reduce fees for an airline willing to use the Concourse if they really needed space. I think the current problems could be solved with more efficient use of gate space and optimizing which carriers use which gates. They do need to get working on extending Concourse A soon, though, as its going to be needed within the next decade.

I think Allegiant's current base must be higher than 90 by now, especially since it appears all of Allegiant's aircraft at CVG are starting the day at CVG (except LAS/AZA). I do not know the exact number though.

With Frontier, they have tested the waters with connections, however, this summer, the only route from CVG is DFW-CVG-PHL. There were some more in previous years, mostly connecting to PHX/DFW/IAH, but I cannot remember the exact routings. CVG is a top 10 market for Frontier based on seats, daily flights, and destinations served, plus there are aircraft that begin and end their day in Cincinnati, though I think most of the crew rotates through Cincinnati with the DEN/MCO flights (ORD is the only other city with a crew base). It looks like all the FA's are out of DEN/MCO/ORD, but I think there are some pilots based out of other airports, though I am not sure if CVG is one of them. I think this would be a logical step for Frontier to take. I think the size of the operation justifies it, and there are many markets CVG is connected to that MCO/ORD do not touch.

Speedy deletion nomination of Boggy Theorem

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Boggy Theorem, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Boggy Theorem

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Boggy Theorem, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

socking

Well, this is far worse as I've been lied to. Coming clean would have made a difference.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We both go to the same school-I did not realize that initially. I was on my account in the library, and she decided to read the page and edit. We're very much two different people. dlohcierekim I should have realized this. She is in a different class, but we both just learned this content so the timing makes sense.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. User:Ponyo (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I only block sockmasters for a week or two on a first offense, however, given the hoaxing and your continued false assertions that you don't know who the other accounts belong to, I have blocked indefinitely. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dlohcierekim and Ponyo I still do not know who "Lordofqbits" is. His addition of the German citations was accurate, I assumed, but you seem to indicate that I was incorrect in assuming his knowledge. My instructor refers to the constant as Boggy's Constant; I assumed that this practice was commonplace.

hoax article

And there's my answer.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for account to be reinstated

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jtaylor7309 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I was in the library, someone else logged out of my account, made an account (as well as edits), and then logged out of the account. I continued editing on the same device from my account, and I have been accused of socking as a result. I do not edit frequently; I have only been editing recently due to new content covered in my classes. I do not understand why this second user felt the need to edit the page I was currently working on. Honestly, I did not realize that this user had edited the page from my device until I was informed by another user that we shared a common IP address: that's when the pieces fell into place. I acknowledge that the page I have been editing is far from complete, and I have been working on it most of today in an effort to keep it from being deleted.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I don't believe that. There's also a difference between "far from complete" and "outright hoax". Huon (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Far from complete. The thing was abject nonsense and the ref's utterly unrelated. Thanks for reminding me of a bit more mopping up I have to do.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note to reviewing admins

Please see also User talk:Lordofqbits for more details on the hoaxing and the socking--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [[Please see this response to my query as to the tagging of the hoax article as such.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]