FGITD
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:03 pm

But Emirates has their first/business class upstairs. What was massport supposed to do? Custom build each gate dependent upon where each carrier has their first class? Lounges upstairs at one gate, lounges downstairs at another?

I still firmly think it's better to have the gates capable of handling it, rather than not.

As for dual bridge use, you can either have that, or double deck boarding. But Not both, given the space constraints. I'm sure if they'd had the space, massport would have done so.

At any rate, I say on to the next expansion!
 
B752OS
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:14 pm

Massport should have built these gates in the way that LAX did. You have a total of 3 jet bridges per gate. 2 that are set on one level which can be used to load the lower deck and then the third jet bridge at the next level up to board the top deck. That way if your have a 77W for example, you can use the 2 jet bridges on the lower level for dual loading. If you have an A380 you can use all 3. 2 for the lower deck and 1 for the upper deck.

It’s going to be very interesting to see the formalized plans for phase 1 of Terminal E expansion. I believe work is supposed to start within the next 7 months. Will Massport have the 4 gates be dual bridge?
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:22 pm

FGITD wrote:
But Emirates has their first/business class upstairs. What was massport supposed to do? Custom build each gate dependent upon where each carrier has their first class? Lounges upstairs at one gate, lounges downstairs at another?

EK has business class in the lower deck too.
Not custom built gates. But build them so the second jet bridge can access the lower deck of other aircraft types.

FGITD wrote:
As for dual bridge use, you can either have that, or double deck boarding. But Not both, given the space constraints. I'm sure if they'd had the space, massport would have done so.

I call BS. Look at Toronto: 2 bridges only but one of the bridges can be raised or lowered. Space had nothing to do with it. It was poor design.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:39 pm

airbazar wrote:

I call BS. Look at Toronto: 2 bridges only but one of the bridges can be raised or lowered. Space had nothing to do with it. It was poor design.[/quote]

It all depends on the height... the jet bridges need to be ADA complaint meaning you can only have so much of a slope, with the new Terminal E gates being shorter, the shorter run, means less vertical spacing to maintain ADA compliance. YYZ likely works because the floor height of the terminal lends itself to one bridge going slightly up, one going slightly down.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
hinckley
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:48 pm

FGITD wrote:
But Emirates has their first/business class upstairs. What was massport supposed to do? Custom build each gate dependent upon where each carrier has their first class? Lounges upstairs at one gate, lounges downstairs at another? I still firmly think it's better to have the gates capable of handling it, rather than not. As for dual bridge use, you can either have that, or double deck boarding. But Not both, given the space constraints. I'm sure if they'd had the space, massport would have done so.


Sorry, but I believe you're wrong on this. I've boarded A380s at LHR, KUL, SIN and SYD, each time directly to the upper deck. In all cases, I entered the jet bridge at the lower level and walk up an incline to exit at the upper level. I don't want to say it's never been done before, but I've never seen or heard of a jet bridge that is built exclusively to access one particular deck of one particular aircraft. It's a very shortsighted approach imo.
 
hinckley
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:51 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
It all depends on the height... the jet bridges need to be ADA complaint meaning you can only have so much of a slope, with the new Terminal E gates being shorter, the shorter run, means less vertical spacing to maintain ADA compliance. YYZ likely works because the floor height of the terminal lends itself to one bridge going slightly up, one going slightly down.


That's an interesting perspective. But if BOS's upper jet bridge could not be designed to be ADA compliant, then those who needed it could simply enter on the lower jet bridge. Let's face it, that's what they've been doing for years with the 747 at BOS and many other airports.
 
tomaheath
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:38 pm

If both jet bridges were on the same level on the terminal side could of they used both on all wide bodies including the A380?
 
FGITD
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:39 pm

Space had everything to do with it. If a 77w or 748 is parked on any of those gates (or for that matter, almost any terminal E gate) the tail hangs pretty much over the inner lane of the service road. And the service road is right on the border of the taxiway, which has hardstands and structures on the opposite side. You cannot move the building or the aircraft further out to accommodate a larger, extended boarding structure. The only real option was to go up.

Admittedly, they probably could have used the space better. But it was never going to be without major sacrifices in other areas
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:55 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
It all depends on the height... the jet bridges need to be ADA complaint meaning you can only have so much of a slope, with the new Terminal E gates being shorter, the shorter run, means less vertical spacing to maintain ADA compliance. YYZ likely works because the floor height of the terminal lends itself to one bridge going slightly up, one going slightly down.

YYZ have the jetbridge start from a height that is between the lower and upper deck, specifically so the bridge can be raised or lowered according to the aircraft type. I believe places like LHR and SFO do the same. At BOS the bridge attaches to the terminal at a much higher height so there is no slope to the upper deck of the A380, but the slope would be too steep for the main deck of any other aircraft. Poor design.
Here's an image of SFO where you can clearly see the slope of the upper bridge:
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-conte ... 40x427.jpg
Here's an image of BOS, where there is no slope:
https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10319052 ... -0-106.jpg
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:05 pm

Poor design, fine.... but to what extent should Massport spend money for an aircraft that is only going to conduct 3 operations per day at best, not to mention that those operations would likely occur regardless or jetbridge configuration
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
JeffinMass
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:30 pm

I would say that when and if terminal E is expanded they will have more room for a third Jetway for the A380s. Right now the assigned gate is in a corner and very tight spaced.
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:22 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
Poor design, fine.... but to what extent should Massport spend money for an aircraft that is only going to conduct 3 operations per day at best, not to mention that those operations would likely occur regardless or jetbridge configuration

That was my point, even if not well made. There's no doubt that Logan needed this expansion, and the justification for me was always: Well, even if we don't get any A380's the larger terminal, expanded baggage claim and immigration hall, and the extra jetbridge to be used by large single deck aircraft, will be more than welcomed. Then we came to find out that no, the extra jetbridge cannot be used by any other aircraft. Well, that's a bummer and a waste of money. Passengers could have just as easily used the airplane's own stairs to get to the upper deck as they've been doing on the 747 for decades.
JeffinMass wrote:
I would say that when and if terminal E is expanded they will have more room for a third Jetway for the A380s. Right now the assigned gate is in a corner and very tight spaced.

I doubt it. For one thing, the next expansion is anything but a sure thing. East Boston is opposed to it and without East Boston's approval the expansion is not happening.
Second, these are going to be the only A380 gates for as long as the A380 exists. I don't see Logan adding any more A380 gates, and if the reason was really lack of space (which I doubt), they're not all of a sudden going to find new space.
What I could see happening is Massport re-configuring the piers and jetbridges (at least 2 gates) to allow both jetways to serve single deck airplanes. At this point to me, and given that EK seems noncommittal about using the A380, I would have only 1 gate with 3 jetbridges (E10?), and change the other 2 gates to have both jetbridges able to be used on single deck planes. But that's a whole lot of money to spend on a brand new project, that should have been done right from the beginning.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:24 am

AB to run BOS-DUS year round. Will run 4 weekly (x246) for winter.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... ce-in-w17/


UA to put a 2nd 777 on BOS-SFO.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... pril-2017/
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:58 pm

Latest T-100 capacity factors by major route (mostly international)

interesting side note:
I pulled domestic for November, as I was curious about B6 BOS-LGA, answer came back 81% loads...not sure they can be too mad about that...

Enjoy the rest, AM and WW are missing, so for now when i update the website, I will use 2016 numbers for them so that we have a reasonable comparison, when they update I will amend accordingly. Enjoy.

Asia
BOS-HKG - 93.8%
BOS-NRT - 84.1%
BOS-PEK - 88.9% (identical to July)
BOS-PVG - 86.9% (identical to July)

Caribbean
BOS-AUA - 86.7%
BOS-BDA (B6) - 82.8%
BOS-BDA (DL) - 71.9%
BOS-PAP - 92.4%
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 82.9%
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 88.8%
BOS-SDQ - 90.0%
BOS-SJU - 82.9%
BOS-STI - 80.8%

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 94.5%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 84.1%
BOS-YOW - 65.0%
BOS-YTZ - 76.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.3%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 86.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 81.1%

Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 88.3%
BOS-CUN (B6) - 90.8%
BOS-CUN (DL) - 91.0%
BOS-MEX - (not reported)
BOS-PTY - 86.6%

Europe
BOS-AMS - 81.6% (same as July)
BOS-CDG (AA) - 63.9%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 75.6%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 76.9%
BOS-CGN - 82.6% (well butts on seats, definitely got better, even though EW suspended it)
BOS-CPH (DY) - 92.8%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 77.03% (issue here as both SK and Privatair report and they report different numbers), this is SK's reporting.
BOS-DUB - 94.04% (explains DL weighing in on the route, that's pretty stacked out the entire month)
BOS-DUS - 81.9%
BOS-FCO - 82.0%
BOS-FRA - 79.5%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 90.9%
BOS-KEF (WW) - (not reported)
BOS-LGW - 92.0% (no let up here as we've seen from the CAA numbers)
BOS-LHR (BA) - 85.1%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 59.7% (in August!!!!)
BOS-LHR (VS) - 78.1%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 80.8%
BOS-LIS (TP) - 89.0%
BOS-MAD - 78.6%
BOS-MAN - 83.5%
BOS-MUC - 84.1%
BOS-OSL - 94.2% (possible case for frequency increase in 2017)
BOS-SNN (EI) - 94.7%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 90.7%
BOS-TER - 78.6%
BOS-ZRH - 84.3%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 85.3%
BOS-DXB - 86.2%
BOS-IST - 82.0%
BOS-TLV - 84.9%

ORH-FLL - 84.3%
ORH-MCO - 79.8%
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:09 pm

VS4ever wrote:


BOS-IST - 82.0%


Thanks as always for doing this - pleasantly surprised to see TK treading water OK here after the unfortunate events of last summer. A lot of people keep chiming in on this route being dropped. I don't think its going to happen unless things get out of control in Turkey.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:22 pm

Do people think that CX is going to be at the top of the Asian list once they go daily? It will be interesting to see! I think both Hainan flights will top CX.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:51 pm

chrisnh wrote:
Do people think that CX is going to be at the top of the Asian list once they go daily? It will be interesting to see! I think both Hainan flights will top CX.


I agree they have been using the 789's a lot lately. 70 more seats!
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:53 pm

chrisnh wrote:
Do people think that CX is going to be at the top of the Asian list once they go daily? It will be interesting to see! I think both Hainan flights will top CX.


I am sure the numbers will come down, that's a decent jump in capacity to fill at 550 seats each day! (not way as i had before). I think if they settle around 85% daily i bet they will be happy with that, because right now, demand n/s is definitely pushing supply hard.


adamh8297 wrote:
Thanks as always for doing this - pleasantly surprised to see TK treading water OK here after the unfortunate events of last summer. A lot of people keep chiming in on this route being dropped. I don't think its going to happen unless things get out of control in Turkey.

No problem, I've got it down to a bit of a science now, so I can do them pretty quickly and i agree, now things are a little more settled with IST, perhaps their loads will bounce back a bit more.
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:56 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
Thanks as always for doing this - pleasantly surprised to see TK treading water OK here after the unfortunate events of last summer. A lot of people keep chiming in on this route being dropped. I don't think its going to happen unless things get out of control in Turkey.

These numbers are for August. The problems in Turkey "started" at the very end of June. Most people buy their tickets more than a month in advance, especially for Summer travel. It will be interesting to see what the LF is for this coming Summer.
 
hinckley
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:08 pm

VS - echoing everyone else - thanks so much for your work. The data is fascinating. It's hard to believe that BOS had no non-stop service to Asia just a few years ago. I'm still hoping there's room for one more Asia non-stop. ICN seems to be such a no-brainer.
 
B752OS
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:26 pm

hinckley wrote:
VS - echoing everyone else - thanks so much for your work. The data is fascinating. It's hard to believe that BOS had no non-stop service to Asia just a few years ago. I'm still hoping there's room for one more Asia non-stop. ICN seems to be such a no-brainer.


We're coming up on 5 years since JL started NRT-BOS flights. Crazy to think the since 2012 BOS has added year round non-stop flights to HKG, PEK, PVG nad NRT.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:36 pm

VS - wonderful analysis and efforts. QR must be smiling all the way to the bank looking at their loads - to see such numbers in less than an year is pretty commendable. Kudos to also B6 for their codeshare and their established relation with EK. The AA seasonal flights to CUN, PUJ, have always outperformed - makes me wonder why AA does not make it into an year-end flight.
 
boeing767322er
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:59 am

VS4ever wrote:
Latest T-100 capacity factors by major route (mostly international)

interesting side note:
I pulled domestic for November, as I was curious about B6 BOS-LGA, answer came back 81% loads...not sure they can be too mad about that...

Enjoy the rest, AM and WW are missing, so for now when i update the website, I will use 2016 numbers for them so that we have a reasonable comparison, when they update I will amend accordingly. Enjoy.

Asia
BOS-HKG - 93.8%
BOS-NRT - 84.1%
BOS-PEK - 88.9% (identical to July)
BOS-PVG - 86.9% (identical to July)

Caribbean
BOS-AUA - 86.7%
BOS-BDA (B6) - 82.8%
BOS-BDA (DL) - 71.9%
BOS-PAP - 92.4%
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 82.9%
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 88.8%
BOS-SDQ - 90.0%
BOS-SJU - 82.9%
BOS-STI - 80.8%

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 94.5%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 84.1%
BOS-YOW - 65.0%
BOS-YTZ - 76.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.3%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 86.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 81.1%

Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 88.3%
BOS-CUN (B6) - 90.8%
BOS-CUN (DL) - 91.0%
BOS-MEX - (not reported)
BOS-PTY - 86.6%

Europe
BOS-AMS - 81.6% (same as July)
BOS-CDG (AA) - 63.9%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 75.6%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 76.9%
BOS-CGN - 82.6% (well butts on seats, definitely got better, even though EW suspended it)
BOS-CPH (DY) - 92.8%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 77.03% (issue here as both SK and Privatair report and they report different numbers), this is SK's reporting.
BOS-DUB - 94.04% (explains DL weighing in on the route, that's pretty stacked out the entire month)
BOS-DUS - 81.9%
BOS-FCO - 82.0%
BOS-FRA - 79.5%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 90.9%
BOS-KEF (WW) - (not reported)
BOS-LGW - 92.0% (no let up here as we've seen from the CAA numbers)
BOS-LHR (BA) - 85.1%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 59.7% (in August!!!!)
BOS-LHR (VS) - 78.1%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 80.8%
BOS-LIS (TP) - 89.0%
BOS-MAD - 78.6%
BOS-MAN - 83.5%
BOS-MUC - 84.1%
BOS-OSL - 94.2% (possible case for frequency increase in 2017)
BOS-SNN (EI) - 94.7%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 90.7%
BOS-TER - 78.6%
BOS-ZRH - 84.3%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 85.3%
BOS-DXB - 86.2%
BOS-IST - 82.0%
BOS-TLV - 84.9%

ORH-FLL - 84.3%
ORH-MCO - 79.8%


Why are there two lines for BOS-SNN? I thought during the summer there was only one daily BOS-SNN flight operated by Omni Air for EI.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:14 am

boeing767322er wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
Latest T-100 capacity factors by major route (mostly international)

BOS-SNN (EI) - 94.7%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 90.7%


Why are there two lines for BOS-SNN? I thought during the summer there was only one daily BOS-SNN flight operated by Omni Air for EI.


Well you bring up a very good point and it's one i haven't investigated yet. It appears that both EI as the lead airline and Omni as the operator both report their numbers, the same happens with SK and PBQ on the 737 to CPH. The issue i've found is that the two report different numbers (this is actually true for both EI/X9 and SK/PBQ), i've pulled out the PBQ numbers for the CPH flight on those stats, but it looks like i might have to do the same for SNN too. The question i have as a result, is which report to believe and there's really no way of knowing, although i could get a gut check from massport to see how closely they gel with theirs).
However the timing of your question is perfect, as I can make the changes to the stats i report for this month as I think I am going to go with EI's numbers to be consistent and remove X9's. I've been meaning to ask this exact question for a while, so thanks for reminding me..

While we are at it, remember a while back, I pulled LH's results for across country, well just did it again for YTD Aug 16, and it's not pretty reading for BOS for sure. But that said, we are not far behind some notable options here.. (ATL, IAD and SEA)

SFO-MUC 89.1%
SFO-FRA 88.9%
LAX-FRA 87.1%
LAX-MUC 87.1%
EWR-MUC 86.4%
DEN-FRA 86.4%
DEN-MUC 85.7%
MCO-FRA 85.7%
MIA-MUC 85.5%
MIA-FRA 85.4%
ORD-FRA 85.1%
ORD-MUC 84.9%
EWR-FRA 84.4%
DFW-FRA 83.2%
JFK-MUC 81.6%
IAD-MUC 79.2%
JFK-FRA 78.9%
IAH-FRA 78.4%
ATL-FRA 77.0%
IAD-FRA 76.5%
SEA-FRA 76.5%
BOS-MUC 76.1%
TPA-FRA 75.6%
DTW-FRA 75.0%
EWR-DUS 74.6%
CLT-MUC 74.2%
BOS-FRA 71.0%
SJC-FRA 70.5%
PHL-FRA 69.3%
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:37 am

A year or more ago many were pretty confident that LH would use the A380 here on the FRA run. Now, it appears as though it's the 747-8 & A330. And with these numbers I'm wondering if it becomes 2x A330 in 2018 as AB stiffens their resolve at Logan. If nothing else, their LF would zoom from near the bottom of that list to near the top of it.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:07 pm

chrisnh wrote:
A year or more ago many were pretty confident that LH would use the A380 here on the FRA run. Now, it appears as though it's the 747-8 & A330. And with these numbers I'm wondering if it becomes 2x A330 in 2018 as AB stiffens their resolve at Logan. If nothing else, their LF would zoom from near the bottom of that list to near the top of it.


In their proposals for the A380 gates - Massport has always claimed that LH would benefit using the 747-8 with these gates.

Its more than AB: its all of the new entrants for 2016: TP/DY/SK/QR. Heck even LH's group own airline doubled summer service (LX BOS-ZRH) and performed better (loadwise) than the mothership.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:31 pm

chrisnh wrote:
A year or more ago many were pretty confident that LH would use the A380 here on the FRA run. Now, it appears as though it's the 747-8 & A330. And with these numbers I'm wondering if it becomes 2x A330 in 2018 as AB stiffens their resolve at Logan. If nothing else, their LF would zoom from near the bottom of that list to near the top of it.

I'm still somewhat hopeful that with the reduction in overall supply to Germany, including the 2nd flight going to A330, that the 748 will be up-gauged to A380. I think last Summer was an unusual year in that there was too much capacity added to Europe.
IMO, LH's biggest problem is that the early BOS departure and very early arrival in FRA, offers crappy connections to India. All my co-workers, including myself choose BA instead of LH because of BA's much shorter connection times at LHR. Who wants to hang around FRA for 7-8 hours? If LH were to move back their mid-day India departures to mid-morning, I bet they would see a significant increase in traffic from BOS. Their prices are very competitive and their J seats are better than BA's in my opinion. I would take LH any day over BA.
 
330west
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:08 pm

chrisnh wrote:
Do people think that CX is going to be at the top of the Asian list once they go daily? It will be interesting to see! I think both Hainan flights will top CX.


I don't think it will drop off by that much. It's obviously a business-heavy route and a lot of those people have to travel on specific days and don't have the luxury of sitting around waiting for a nonstop the next day. As it stands, I'm sure there's a good number taking a nonstop in one direction and stopping over on the other. As long as the loads up front stay strong, even a drop to 80-85% wouldn't be that much of a hit.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:36 pm

@airbazar - MUC offers better connectivity and my family prefers that route over FRA as the connectivity from BOS-MUC-BOM but I agree with your point, if your India team is flying into HYD or Bengaluru then MUC won't work and you have to rely on FRA unless they would be interested to connect at BOM or DEL. I do not know why the connection time is so bad - the flight coming from BOM is also a very bad connectivity time in FRA. Folks who do not have a US passport - it is painful and tedious to burn time. My father is now coming the EK route.
 
330west
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:40 pm

airbazar wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
A year or more ago many were pretty confident that LH would use the A380 here on the FRA run. Now, it appears as though it's the 747-8 & A330. And with these numbers I'm wondering if it becomes 2x A330 in 2018 as AB stiffens their resolve at Logan. If nothing else, their LF would zoom from near the bottom of that list to near the top of it.

I'm still somewhat hopeful that with the reduction in overall supply to Germany, including the 2nd flight going to A330, that the 748 will be up-gauged to A380. I think last Summer was an unusual year in that there was too much capacity added to Europe.
IMO, LH's biggest problem is that the early BOS departure and very early arrival in FRA, offers crappy connections to India. All my co-workers, including myself choose BA instead of LH because of BA's much shorter connection times at LHR. Who wants to hang around FRA for 7-8 hours? If LH were to move back their mid-day India departures to mid-morning, I bet they would see a significant increase in traffic from BOS. Their prices are very competitive and their J seats are better than BA's in my opinion. I would take LH any day over BA.


There's really nothing to gain with the A380 besides about a hundred more coach seats. With the 748/A330 combination it's pretty clear that they are making a play for the premium traffic and essentially ceding the rest to whomever wants them.
 
hinckley
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:03 pm

330west wrote:
airbazar wrote:
There's really nothing to gain with the A380 besides about a hundred more coach seats. With the 748/A330 combination it's pretty clear that they are making a play for the premium traffic and essentially ceding the rest to whomever wants them.


I think that's correct. LH has aggressively, intelligently and successfully managed its fleet and route structure. It's very hard to critique their decisions especially when it comes to matching the right aircraft to the right route and the right yield.
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:24 pm

hinckley wrote:
I think that's correct. LH has aggressively, intelligently and successfully managed its fleet and route structure. It's very hard to critique their decisions especially when it comes to matching the right aircraft to the right route and the right yield.

They may be good at matching the right aircraft to the route but they are horrendous at adapting to the changing market conditions and customer needs. They were one of the last major carriers to adopt lie flat seats. They were equally late at installing PTVs across the fleet. At one point they were the market leader for U.S.-India travel and they have given it all away. As I pointed out above, a simple adjustment of the flight times would regain some of that market share but they just don't seem to have it in them.
 
330west
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:51 pm

airbazar wrote:
hinckley wrote:
I think that's correct. LH has aggressively, intelligently and successfully managed its fleet and route structure. It's very hard to critique their decisions especially when it comes to matching the right aircraft to the right route and the right yield.

They may be good at matching the right aircraft to the route but they are horrendous at adapting to the changing market conditions and customer needs. They were one of the last major carriers to adopt lie flat seats. They were equally late at installing PTVs across the fleet. At one point they were the market leader for U.S.-India travel and they have given it all away. As I pointed out above, a simple adjustment of the flight times would regain some of that market share but they just don't seem to have it in them.


Or they could know how to better manage their business than some random guy on the internet.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:31 am

I am moving a part of the DL in ORD thread over here because it is otherwise an off-topic tangent in that thread:

[/quote][*]N717TW wrote:

That turns to the BOS conversation. Five airlines (in you include NK) offer BOS-CHI service. It is an important business market but can BOS-ORD really support another 3-4 r/ts even if DL uses a CRJ-900? That's a lot of capacity especially when everyone other than B6 has connections on the other end. BOS-WAS was dropped because of the LGA slot swap with USAir. Having 120 more flights from LGA and being #1 was worth a whole lot more than being a weak #2 at DCA (which they still are, btw even with 33 fewer flights). And I say that as someone who really feels the pain of not having DL on BOS-DCA, a route that DL/NE ran for over 60 years.

[twoid]PHLUSER[/twoid] WROTE:

I know the history of DL dropping BOS-DCA because of DCA slots, but there is still BWI for WAS, where it can offer BOS-BWI if DL is all about starting down the list from the TOP O&D markets for it's large base of BOS customers. Helping it would be DL would be the only carrier offering F class service (as B6 WN and NK don't) and it can offer connects for BWI customers although it would dilute BWI-DTW/ATL/JFK-Europe if some of those European gateway connects went to BWI-BOS-Europe (even though this is shorter than connecting through DTW or ATL, and it could free JFK slots).[*]


While I understand that WAS is a big missing link in DL's service from BOS, I don't see them adding BWI because I don't see DL interested in grabbing the type of customer who is willing to use BWI or IAD instead of DCA to reach Washington, D.C. DL wants the customer who has business on K street, DoD related in Arlington or with an Agency directly. For DL to have a shot at this customer they need to offer 4 or 5 flight options (early, mid and late morning plus mid and late afternoon with the opposite in reverse from DCA). They just don't have five slots sitting around that being wasted to add BOS. Lord knows the business exists and DL would get its fair share but they are better off owning ATL, DTW, MSP and even CVG rather than entering a 3-way race with B6 and AA. It's worth noting that DL blamed B6's entry into BOS-LGA for pulling down the overall performance of LGA during the January investor call. (side note: I don't buy it, but they did say it.)
 
tjerome
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:38 am

FGITD wrote:
Space had everything to do with it. If a 77w or 748 is parked on any of those gates (or for that matter, almost any terminal E gate) the tail hangs pretty much over the inner lane of the service road. And the service road is right on the border of the taxiway, which has hardstands and structures on the opposite side. You cannot move the building or the aircraft further out to accommodate a larger, extended boarding structure. The only real option was to go up.

Admittedly, they probably could have used the space better. But it was never going to be without major sacrifices in other areas


When LH has their 748 they have always gone to E9 (formerly E7A) which is right where the service road going towards the DL hangar to the rest of the airport meets the road that crosses Twy A and the tail of that thing always hangs over the service road. Same happens for a 744 too.

Definitely too small of a facility for the 380. It will be interesting to see it taxi near E11 with potentially aircraft parked at some of the North Cargo spots.
The comments and opinions expressed here are my own.
My FlightMemory
 
airbazar
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:46 pm

330west wrote:
Or they could know how to better manage their business than some random guy on the internet.

True, but also true, this random guy on the Internet used to be one of their FF customers and no longer is. And judging by the reduction in seats, I'm going to guess this random guy on the Internet is not alone.
 
B752OS
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:33 pm

Given the loads being on the lower side and the amount of competition, is there a chance LH would ever drop BOS service all together?
 
B752OS
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:33 pm

Given the loads being on the lower side and the amount of competition, is there a chance LH would ever drop BOS service all together?
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:57 pm

B752OS wrote:
Given the loads being on the lower side and the amount of competition, is there a chance LH would ever drop BOS service all together?


Highly unlikely as they still command a decent portion of the BOS market just not as much as they used to. If they still feel the need to reduce service they'll drop one of the flights to FRA or switch both flights to A330s.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:25 pm

B752OS wrote:
Given the loads being on the lower side and the amount of competition, is there a chance LH would ever drop BOS service all together?


The sky isn't falling for LH Group here.

1) Through 1H2017 LH was down 4.5% in pax numbers in BOS - not double digits and look what was added in 2016
2) Through 1H2017 LH group was up 4.4% pax when LX is included - company as a whole is up
3) Its just a capacity adjustment for the seasonal second daily flight. Its better than dropping the second seasonal.
4) We don't know the yields
5) BOS-MUC is getting the nice brand new A359
6)I personally think Lufthansa would rather fill the plane with all New England-European O+D traffic - the yield per distance is easily better than India.
7) Best defense against the LCC's is a good offense - why not launch BOS-BRU with SN or EW in 2018
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
330west
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:40 pm

[*][photoid][/photoid]
airbazar wrote:
330west wrote:
Or they could know how to better manage their business than some random guy on the internet.

True, but also true, this random guy on the Internet used to be one of their FF customers and no longer is. And judging by the reduction in seats, I'm going to guess this random guy on the Internet is not alone.


It's a reduction almost entirely in coach seats, which typically are not the domain of the FFs they value most.
 
330west
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:41 pm

airbazar wrote:
330west wrote:
Or they could know how to better manage their business than some random guy on the internet.

True, but also true, this random guy on the Internet used to be one of their FF customers and no longer is. And judging by the reduction in seats, I'm going to guess this random guy on the Internet is not alone.


It's a reduction almost entirely in coach seats, which typically are not the domain of the FFs they value most.
 
hinckley
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:13 pm

Is LH - looking at the group as whole - really reducing seats? After all LX is adding a ZRH rotation, so isn't there a net add in seats S17 vs S16? FRA, MUC and ZRH each have a slightly different connecting passenger profile, but they're all major connecting airports for TATL travelers.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:56 pm

I think LX had their double-daily last summer, so I think we're still going to see a very small reduction overall, being the switch from 744 to A333 on that second FRA flight. I'm also not sure whether the MUC A350 represents an increase or decrease in seats...or if it's a wash.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:34 pm

BOS-DXB - 86.2%

I was just thinking...we haven't seen EK use their 777-200LR in a LONG time. Nor have they cut the morning flight like they did before. Perhaps meaning that their business during all parts of the year is stabilizing.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:18 pm

N717TW wrote:
While I understand that WAS is a big missing link in DL's service from BOS, I don't see them adding BWI because I don't see DL interested in grabbing the type of customer who is willing to use BWI or IAD instead of DCA to reach Washington, D.C. DL wants the customer who has business on K street, DoD related in Arlington or with an Agency directly. For DL to have a shot at this customer they need to offer 4 or 5 flight options (early, mid and late morning plus mid and late afternoon with the opposite in reverse from DCA). They just don't have five slots sitting around that being wasted to add BOS. Lord knows the business exists and DL would get its fair share but they are better off owning ATL, DTW, MSP and even CVG rather than entering a 3-way race with B6 and AA. It's worth noting that DL blamed B6's entry into BOS-LGA for pulling down the overall performance of LGA during the January investor call. (side note: I don't buy it, but they did say it.)


It all depends on how serious DL is about capturing more BOS-based business traffic. BOS-WAS is critical, particularly to DCA, for the reasons noted above. CHI is also critical.

Given that DL is entering the already competitive BOS-SFO market, and is rolling out complimentary meals on its BOS transcon flights, there are strong indicators that DL is very serious about BOS.

How does B6's entry into BOS-LGA drag overall LGA performance? Have average Shuttle fares decreased that drastically? Regardless, I fail to see how the effects of 6 new flights from a competitor significantly alters the performance of a 200+ flight hub.
 
33lspotter
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:13 pm

First official communication I've seen from BA regarding the A380's scheduled start on 3/26: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BypZH ... 05rVTU1VDQ

It may be just a LinkedIn post, but it came from them nonetheless. Looks like it's happening!
www.speedbirdspotter.com
 
VS11
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:12 pm

33lspotter wrote:
First official communication I've seen from BA regarding the A380's scheduled start on 3/26: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BypZH ... 05rVTU1VDQ

It may be just a LinkedIn post, but it came from them nonetheless. Looks like it's happening!


"If you build it, they will come" :D :rotfl:
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:40 pm

jetbluefan1 wrote:


How does B6's entry into BOS-LGA drag overall LGA performance? Have average Shuttle fares decreased that drastically? Regardless, I fail to see how the effects of 6 new flights from a competitor significantly alters the performance of a 200+ flight hub.


I find it hard to believe that the Shuttle is that important to DL's overall LGA performance given how the Shuttle is a shell of its former self. That said, fares are down dramatically. Same-day returns (the bread and butter of Shuttle traffic as its hard to replicate on the train) have gone from $800 to $200. My firm had a contract rate, but that still worked out to $500. If you conservatively assume that DL had 100 passengers a day doing same-day trips, its a loss $25 to $30K per business day. I'm willing to bet that number is much higher. Even If DL keeps every one of those customers, its still a loss of $6 to 7 million in revenue (nearly all of which was pure profit). Other fares are way down and its possible to find $150 r/t fares if you search out long enough. Sure makes the BOS Shuttle less profitable but I'm not sure it means much for a $40billion company.

Back to the BOS impact. I'm not sure how smart an all out BOS play is for DL. In a 3 way battle, DL is missing CHI and WAS. Neither is likely to make much (or any) money and if DL was to launch DCA, they really need at least 5-6 frequencies to be a viable player. Where do they take those slots from? JFK? ATL? CVG? RDU? Why would an airline cut routes that are either profitable on their own or feed into a profitable hub operation? They wouldn't is the answer. Add the pressure on (and even more coming) to Trans-Atlantic routes, BOS isn't looking like a basket of cash for a higher-cost, full-service airline.

We might see some real service four years from now in 2021 when the new Acela trains enter the DC-NYC (with runs every 30 minutes, 40% more seats and a shave down in time to just under 2 1/2 hrs.). That might finally be the point where DL gives up the DCA-LGA shuttle and uses the slots for BOS. But that's 4 years from now...who knows.
 
tysmith95
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:06 pm

DL will be getting gates from southwest which will allow them to expand operations at Logan.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos