tlecam wrote:

To a certain extent, I think that MHT suffers from how close it is to BOS. In short, I think that MHT's value proposition to customers suffered self inflicted wounds and competitive threats.

Having Portland Maine relatively close by does not help either.

I wonder if EK would ever try DXB-ATH-BOS

aaflyer777 wrote:

I wonder if EK would ever try DXB-ATH-BOS

If people can fly through DXB-BOS (legally) then that might be a way for EK to boost their BOS presence. But there's no way anyone can fill a 777 each day between Boston and Greece.

Over the winter BA is changing things up to/from Boston. Some days it'll be 3x and other 4x. To me, most notably, the usually-weak 238/239 rotation will be a 744. Others are 777s, plus a 787-9 on the three days a week that the 202/203 rotation will be in effect.

airbazar wrote:

. What I'm debating is why in 2016 it was still dropping,
Personally I think that Low Cost TATL would have been the shot in the arm that MHT needs and they've had 10 years to prepare for that but have done absolutely nothing. It's crazy to think that PSM, an airport with 1 single gate and not MHT, was in consideration for a DY base. That alone shows how inadequately prepared they are to attract new business.

.

Because the MHT #'s they are down from were artificially inflated from the "perfect storm" (as someone else pointed out earlier) and MHT would/should have never been that high to begin with under normal circumstances. Look at the comparable cities similar in enplanements to MHT, The city of Manchester is arguable well served compared to their peers like Little Rock, Madison, Syracuse and Lexington all which have less service and at least based on my travels, are larger cities.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_c ... ements.pdf

I will agree that MHT probably should have been in a more competitive position relative to PSM for a DY like operation, but a lot of airports didnt exactly see that coming, and SWF was less prepared than MHT was/is.

So here is the bigger/broader question, should management fight the steady headwinds of uncontrollable factors such as where people live relative to other airports, or should they focus on other opportunities?

Did you know that MHT handles nearly 4x more cargo than PVD? More cargo than PIT RDU CLT and IAD, and just barely less than FLL.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_c ... rports.pdf
Cargo (non priority overnight) isn't picky about what airport it uses so long as it has good highway access. Passengers are not the only way to measure an airport's effectiveness. Cargo presents a great opportunity for MHT, and also not to mention that MHT has one of the nicest FBO's for general aviation in northern New England.

Hey all, just a thought but if we're going to talk about MHT and PWM maybe we should revive the old New England Aviation thread. I thought the reason this one was started was to focus on all the changes specifically at Logan.

Finally Primera gets featured in the Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/tr ... story.html

$40 for a burger - oops! Better get something quick at Logan or at home!

Interesting to see how good and fast planes get filled.

Today morning, just checked the DL departures board and curious to know how many DL departures during the first week of Oct. They would have surpassed 100 and my count gives me 103. I could not find some of the seasonal destinations such as CUN, MBJ, STT, RSW from the schedule that comes up but if we add even one day each destination and subtract DUB which is also supposed to be seasonal, we are coming to at-least 107+-

LGA 16
ATL 11
DTW 8
JFK 8
MSP 6
RDU 6
CVG 4
LAX 3
CMH 3
BUF 3
MCO 3
IND 3
RIC 3
BNA 2
SLC 2
SFO 2
SEA 2
AMS 2
CDG 2
LHR 2
TPA 2
MKE 2
PIT 2
ORF 1
JAX 1
DUB 1
MCI 1
BDA 1
AUS 1
Total 103

chrisnh wrote:

Over the winter BA is changing things up to/from Boston. Some days it'll be 3x and other 4x. To me, most notably, the usually-weak 238/239 rotation will be a 744. Others are 777s, plus a 787-9 on the three days a week that the 202/203 rotation will be in effect.

Interesting. In the past 3 years that I've been here full time, the rotation that is most often the 744 is the 212/213 rotation. I've seen a few 238/239s operated by the 744, most notably in the winter of 2016, but I figured that was an abberation more than anything.

On a similar note, it seems Logan is still having difficulty integrating the A380 departures into its ops, particularly when departing off of 15R. I was at Castle Island tonight (even with the bad weather) watching some takeoffs and landings (notably, the acoustics were better than usual perhaps due to the lack of background noise). The A380 sat on 15R — not holding short, but on the runway — for a solid 20 mins before being cleared to depart. Also notable, it pushed back late and took 13 mins to taxi the entire 400m from E12 to 15R (yes, the A380 needs special accommodation when taxiing, but I still found it funny).

I know that the Super requires 6nm separation behind it and get that 15R departures require crossing two active runways (4R/22L and 9/27) but since there were no 15R arrivals I am confused why it had to wait so long. Does the wake turbulence also apply to crossing runways? This doesn't seem to be as much of an issue when departing from 22R or 33L, but again these are just my observations.

The two for CDG and LHR are one each that are operated by DL and one by AF and VS respectively.

33lspotter wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Over the winter BA is changing things up to/from Boston. Some days it'll be 3x and other 4x. To me, most notably, the usually-weak 238/239 rotation will be a 744. Others are 777s, plus a 787-9 on the three days a week that the 202/203 rotation will be in effect.

Interesting. In the past 3 years that I've been here full time, the rotation that is most often the 744 is the 212/213 rotation. I've seen a few 238/239s operated by the 744, most notably in the winter of 2016, but I figured that was an abberation more than anything.

On a similar note, it seems Logan is still having difficulty integrating the A380 departures into its ops, particularly when departing off of 15R. I was at Castle Island tonight (even with the bad weather) watching some takeoffs and landings (notably, the acoustics were better than usual perhaps due to the lack of background noise). The A380 sat on 15R — not holding short, but on the runway — for a solid 20 mins before being cleared to depart. Also notable, it pushed back late and took 13 mins to taxi the entire 400m from E12 to 15R (yes, the A380 needs special accommodation when taxiing, but I still found it funny).

I know that the Super requires 6nm separation behind it and get that 15R departures require crossing two active runways (4R/22L and 9/27) but since there were no 15R arrivals I am confused why it had to wait so long. Does the wake turbulence also apply to crossing runways? This doesn't seem to be as much of an issue when departing from 22R or 33L, but again these are just my observations.

I have noticed the same thing myself the last few times I went out to Constitution Beach and Castle Island waiting for BA 212 to take/off on 15R but not on the reciprocal or other runways and their recriprocals. I also monitor a lot on flightradar24 and have noted the insane taxi times for that small stretch from E12 to 15R. I would interested in knowing the answer to this scenario myself. I would imagine the spanwise induced flow from the wingtip vortices would have more of an effct on longitudinal stability than lateral stability on aircraft on the crossing runways since the induced velocity I believe would affect the velocity downstream chordwise on the aicraft caught in it's wake more so rather than along the span on the crossing runways. Incidentally I have some great shots of the Speedbird 380 banking over my house in Woburn into the sunset when using the LBSTA4 dep from 33L. I love it too when 22L is in use for landing because you can observe right behind on the shore on Annavoy Street. I've got great vid of the 380 doing no more than 110 kts GS (nice headwind) passing no more than 150 ft above me.

tlecam wrote:

The two for CDG and LHR are one each that are operated by DL and one by AF and VS respectively.

Thank u - I deleted the two and also found the missing flights to leisure destinations - CUN, STT, RSW, FLL, MBJ, PBI, STT. I could not find the nonstop destination schedule for PLS and do not know when exactly they run so excluded that from my total.


LGA 16
ATL 11
DTW 8
JFK 8
MSP 6
RDU 6
CVG 4
LAX 3
CMH 3
BUF 3
MCO 3
IND 3
RIC 3
BNA 2
SLC 2
SFO 2
SEA 2
AMS 2
CDG 1
LHR 1
TPA 2
MKE 2
PIT 2
ORF 1
JAX 1
DUB 1
MCI 1
BDA 1
AUS 1
CUN 1
STT 1
RSW 1
PUJ 1
PBI 1
FLL 1
Total 107

33lspotter wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Over the winter BA is changing things up to/from Boston. Some days it'll be 3x and other 4x. To me, most notably, the usually-weak 238/239 rotation will be a 744. Others are 777s, plus a 787-9 on the three days a week that the 202/203 rotation will be in effect.

Interesting. In the past 3 years that I've been here full time, the rotation that is most often the 744 is the 212/213 rotation. I've seen a few 238/239s operated by the 744, most notably in the winter of 2016, but I figured that was an abberation more than anything.

On a similar note, it seems Logan is still having difficulty integrating the A380 departures into its ops, particularly when departing off of 15R. I was at Castle Island tonight (even with the bad weather) watching some takeoffs and landings (notably, the acoustics were better than usual perhaps due to the lack of background noise). The A380 sat on 15R — not holding short, but on the runway — for a solid 20 mins before being cleared to depart. Also notable, it pushed back late and took 13 mins to taxi the entire 400m from E12 to 15R (yes, the A380 needs special accommodation when taxiing, but I still found it funny).

I know that the Super requires 6nm separation behind it and get that 15R departures require crossing two active runways (4R/22L and 9/27) but since there were no 15R arrivals I am confused why it had to wait so long. Does the wake turbulence also apply to crossing runways? This doesn't seem to be as much of an issue when departing from 22R or 33L, but again these are just my observations.

Do you think the departure delay could have been LHR-initiated, so as to make sure he didn't get in too early before the curfew ended? They might have had a big push on the jetstream that night, necessitating a delayed takeoff out of respect for the LHR operations.

I follow a BA A380 pilot on twitter who flew to BOS and he said that operating the A380 on the ground in Boston is "tight".

Understandable.

tlecam wrote:

I follow a BA A380 pilot on twitter who flew to BOS and he said that operating the A380 on the ground in Boston is "tight".

Understandable.

Curious to see how Massport plans to rework the apron for phase 1 of the Terminal E expansion.

B752OS wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I follow a BA A380 pilot on twitter who flew to BOS and he said that operating the A380 on the ground in Boston is "tight".

Understandable.

Curious to see how Massport plans to rework the apron for phase 1 of the Terminal E expansion.

The alarming thing right now, is there is no RFQ or anything out there for the Terminal E expansion and all the documents I had for it have been taken down. I can't even find the latest Capital Plan for FY17-FY21, only the one from 16-20 is still there. Seems to me, it's either being re-worked or they've gone back to the drawing board., suffice to say a 2021 opening looks highly unlikely for Phase 1 at this point.

However, in saying the above, i just found this nutmeg of information from the June 2017 Massport board meeting.

http://massport.com/media/2407/061517-b ... ermark.pdf (look at pages 78 to 103) AND it answers the mysterious question we have often wondered, who was/is the proposed 3rd A380 operator to BOS... I'll let you look so I don't spoil the fun. Estimated opening has been pushed back to 2022 and if they stump up for this, it's going to look pretty awesome when its done. As for how they are planning to re-work the apron, i don't see a whole lot about that at this point, based on the information provided.

VS4ever wrote:

However, in saying the above, i just found this nutmeg of information from the June 2017 Massport board meeting.

http://massport.com/media/2407/061517-b ... ermark.pdf .

There are certainly a lot of optimistic references to the non-announced (aside from a political back patting) and non-bookable ORH-JFK service....

ooo love the futuristic design of the new gates!

Will there be an commercial airport built on the west side of the Boston metropolitan area that is approximately 20-30 miles west of downtown Boston? The next closest airports after BOS to downtown Boston are ORH, MHT, and PVD, but the driving distance to all 3 of these alternative airports are over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

Would Massport ever upgrade Hanscom Field (BED) to become an alternative commercial airport for Boston? BED is only 18 miles from downtown Boston, whereas the next nearest commercial airports to downtown Boston after BOS are all over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

jplatts wrote:

Will there be an commercial airport built on the west side of the Boston metropolitan area that is approximately 20-30 miles west of downtown Boston? The next closest airports after BOS to downtown Boston are ORH, MHT, and PVD, but the driving distance to all 3 of these alternative airports are over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

Would Massport ever upgrade Hanscom Field (BED) to become an alternative commercial airport for Boston? BED is only 18 miles from downtown Boston, whereas the next nearest commercial airports to downtown Boston after BOS are all over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

The short and polite answer is a new airport will be constructed in the eastern half of Massachusetts and/or Hanscon will have scheduled frequent passenger jet service when hell freezes over.

The community surrounding Hanscom tried to shoot down Shuttle America's DH8 operation to a small handful of cities back in the late 90s

Logan has BED tho thank for being a true reliever and allowing BOS to have as little GA activity as possible.

When the "BOS bucket" gets full it will spill out to the surrounding airports (primarily PVD/MHT) starting with the outer suburbs (arguable as BOS grows, congestion grows making the regional airports more appealing to those that live closer). I suspect other transportation enhancements (such as true high speed rail) will take pressure off the regional system long before the combined system reaches capacity.

Not to mention the shortage of pilots will prevent that from happening as well.

VS4ever wrote:

B752OS wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I follow a BA A380 pilot on twitter who flew to BOS and he said that operating the A380 on the ground in Boston is "tight".

Understandable.

Curious to see how Massport plans to rework the apron for phase 1 of the Terminal E expansion.

The alarming thing right now, is there is no RFQ or anything out there for the Terminal E expansion and all the documents I had for it have been taken down. I can't even find the latest Capital Plan for FY17-FY21, only the one from 16-20 is still there. Seems to me, it's either being re-worked or they've gone back to the drawing board., suffice to say a 2021 opening looks highly unlikely for Phase 1 at this point.

However, in saying the above, i just found this nutmeg of information from the June 2017 Massport board meeting.

http://massport.com/media/2407/061517-b ... ermark.pdf (look at pages 78 to 103) AND it answers the mysterious question we have often wondered, who was/is the proposed 3rd A380 operator to BOS... I'll let you look so I don't spoil the fun. Estimated opening has been pushed back to 2022 and if they stump up for this, it's going to look pretty awesome when its done. As for how they are planning to re-work the apron, i don't see a whole lot about that at this point, based on the information provided.

Thanks for sharing this - definitely some great information. 7 new gates, 5 of which have dual jet bridges and a modern design.The renders look pretty damn fantastic considering what the rest of the airport looks like.

jplatts wrote:

Will there be an commercial airport built on the west side of the Boston metropolitan area that is approximately 20-30 miles west of downtown Boston? The next closest airports after BOS to downtown Boston are ORH, MHT, and PVD, but the driving distance to all 3 of these alternative airports are over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

Would Massport ever upgrade Hanscom Field (BED) to become an alternative commercial airport for Boston? BED is only 18 miles from downtown Boston, whereas the next nearest commercial airports to downtown Boston after BOS are all over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

In an ideal situation, we would see a brand new international airport built for Boston that would replace Logan. I always have felt the area where Norwood Airport is would be an ideal location - sits at the junction of 2 majors highways (93 and 95) and also has direct rail access to both Boston and Providence. But, I think we have a better chance of all of us in the thread winning the lottery 10 times each than this happening.

chrisnh wrote:

Do you think the departure delay could have been LHR-initiated, so as to make sure he didn't get in too early before the curfew ended? They might have had a big push on the jetstream that night, necessitating a delayed takeoff out of respect for the LHR operations.

It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure. That said, I listened to the ATC from that night, and the BA 744 on BA202 -- which took off after I posted about the A388 delay -- also took a while to hold. In retrospect, the 744 departure did seem to be a spacing issue, but the A388 did not -- it sounded like the A388 pilots said they "weren't ready yet." So perhaps my inclination on this occasion was wrong.

Either way, I have observed similar happenings when the A388 has been around -- today is exactly four months since the A388 made its regularly-scheduled debut here in BOS -- so I took some time to look up stats from FlightAware, comparing the A388 and 744 on BA212. Yes, the 744 has often been seen on BA202 on the days where the A388 is on BA212, but BOS seems less busy at that time, so I figured the fairest comparison would be to strictly compare the aircraft flying on the same flight number.

Background: The curfew at LHR runs 23:30-06:00, so even if they were to be wheels-up between 10 and 20 mins after the scheduled push-back time (so between 19:30 and 19:40 EDT), something that they've done less on 5 out of 52 (so less than 10%) of the BOS-LHR A388 flights, they would still have to be hauling some serious a** to make it across before 06:00 -- and that's assuming no holding stack/a straight-in westerly approach/etc. I flew BOS-LHR on the BA 744 back in November of 2014, and we had an insane tailwind that had us make the journey, wheels-up to touchdown, in 5 hours, 25 minutes. We made a straight-in approach to 09L (didn't hold at Ockham as schedule) and were the first arrival of the day (11/26/14) at 04:34. Certainly an anomaly rather than the norm.

Now, for the 744 vs. A388 stats:

* 14 of the 52 A388 BOS-LHR flights so far have left past 20:00 (40 mins after scheduled pushback time) and a further 19 have left past 19:50 (30 mins after scheduled pushback), meaning that 63% of A388 flights have taken more than a half-hour to get in the air. I'm aware that BOS is busy at this time, but bear with me.

* In that same stretch, BA212 has been operated by a 744 a total of 67 times. Of those, only 8 and 11 have left after 19:50 and 20:00, respectively, meaning that 37% of 744 flights on BA212 have taken 30+ mins to get airborne.

Now, obviously a part of this likely has to do with airport congestion, and this criteria is being derived by an armchair observer. Moreover, the A388 has only operated on Sunday, Monday, and Friday, which may well be busier. Even so, considering that there have been 12 more 744s than A388s during that time, yet the A388 has taken 30+ mins to get airborne a full 14 times more than the 744, I suspect that it might have something to do with the unique demands of the A388 vs. the airport's ability to accommodate it.

B752OS wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Will there be an commercial airport built on the west side of the Boston metropolitan area that is approximately 20-30 miles west of downtown Boston? The next closest airports after BOS to downtown Boston are ORH, MHT, and PVD, but the driving distance to all 3 of these alternative airports are over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

Would Massport ever upgrade Hanscom Field (BED) to become an alternative commercial airport for Boston? BED is only 18 miles from downtown Boston, whereas the next nearest commercial airports to downtown Boston after BOS are all over 50 miles from downtown Boston.

In an ideal situation, we would see a brand new international airport built for Boston that would replace Logan. I always have felt the area where Norwood Airport is would be an ideal location - sits at the junction of 2 majors highways (93 and 95) and also has direct rail access to both Boston and Providence. But, I think we have a better chance of all of us in the thread winning the lottery 10 times each than this happening.

I wonder if this would create a Washington situation - DCA and IAD. Logan is very close to where the vast majority of business is and that drives a lot of traffic, plus Logan is runway capable of supporting mid/long haul planes. THe risk is that the location outside the city becomes a low cost airport.

Also, Norwood would be awful for people coming from the North Shore, Merrimack Valley and Southern NH.

tlecam wrote:

Also, Norwood would be awful for people coming from the North Shore, Merrimack Valley and Southern NH.

Yeah that would suck wind. Right now, it takes me about 35-40 minutes without major traffic to get to BOS, if I had to go to Norwood, I would have to at least double that if not more. Sadly there are not many options in our area to put a shiny new airport the size of Logan without annoying a whole boat load of people. Let's face it, even with the window dressing on E that moves it up to 19 gates eventually, A/B and C will still be creaking at the seams. A few things may have to happen in my mind.

1. Go to Slot Control...that limits the access and tops out the numbers. Remember because of the former regional flying, the actual number of movements now is a lot less than in say 99 or 2000, but the planes have gotten bigger, need more space and thus less movements available to use. We know DL will top out around 150, B6 will top out around 200. and B will be fairly maxed out when WN shift over there at the end of next year. So the number of movements will likely balance out over the next couple of years. But Slot Control will ultimately have to be brought in (probably 2021) in order to manage that.

2. Larger planes - You can already see the shift that is taking place, regional flying has dropped, DL is using 321's exclusively on ATL and now we've got 772's plying across country, in order to maximize the continuing increases in passengers. (Massport is predicting another 4% increase in 2018 alone) this will have to happen, but at somepoint, even that's going to top out as you can't have widebodies at every gate. So I can see a lot of 321's and MAX10's arriving in the future to compensate as the max size for a narrowbody (unless the fabled MOM turns up in latter part of the next decade)

3. Re-configure the existing terminals - Much has been said about kicking the likes of UPS and FedEx out, making them go to say BED and thus creating the space for new piers or a new terminal. I doubt those guys would want to give up their valuable real estate so close to the city, but it may come to that if other options aren't available. Given the terrible usage of 14/32 perhaps part of the J pad which is really only used for de-icing and holding could be re-constructed too (no idea, just throwing it out there)

4 - Expand - yeah, don't see that happening, the environmentalists will have a field day, the towns around BOS would be up in arms and picketing every other day (they are close to that now in some places), but it is an option, fill in the Bay, move the runways out and build at least an additional terminal. Or figure out how to get rid of the economy parking garage and the offices on that side of the airfield and create Terminal F, make that the new international Terminal and give E over to whoever wants it. Given it would have 19 gates by then, I would think WN would be the prime candidate and what an operation they could build with that (or B6/DL could expand their footprint further, but multi-terminal operations are complicated to say the least)


4. New Airport - I don't see this as a DCA/IAD comparison, I see it more potentially as a ORD/MDW comparison. If they have to split operations out to make it work, clearly the guys that are willing to pay the most are going to be courted by Massport to stay at BOS to afford the infrastructure and others could well be removed. However that will be highly controversial on so many levels. The thing about BOS is that it is relatively central for all parts. As pointed out above. MHT/PVD/ORH/BED are all good for their locales, but a pain in the rear end for those not close to them. I shudder about having to go to PVD for example, although MHT wouldn't be too bad, but that's because I live on the North Shore. But then again, I am more likely to stick with the airlines that would stay at BOS anyway.

There is not a easy fix here, with the terminal E expansion not due to happen until 2022 at the earliest, realistically we have what we have until 2025. However, I do suspect somewhere in the deep parts of Massport there has to be a think tank trying to figure out what to do here. because after 2025 they are going to have a real issue on their hands, when 45m+ are cramming through the airport, as they are on course to do at this point, subject to any economic downturns.

VS4ever wrote:

tlecam wrote:

Also, Norwood would be awful for people coming from the North Shore, Merrimack Valley and Southern NH.

Yeah that would suck wind. Right now, it takes me about 35-40 minutes without major traffic to get to BOS, if I had to go to Norwood, I would have to at least double that if not more. Sadly there are not many options in our area to put a shiny new airport the size of Logan without annoying a whole boat load of people. Let's face it, even with the window dressing on E that moves it up to 19 gates eventually, A/B and C will still be creaking at the seams. A few things may have to happen in my mind.

3. Re-configure the existing terminals - Much has been said about kicking the likes of UPS and FedEx out, making them go to say BED and thus creating the space for new piers or a new terminal. I doubt those guys would want to give up their valuable real estate so close to the city, but it may come to that if other options aren't available. Given the terrible usage of 14/32 perhaps part of the J pad which is really only used for de-icing and holding could be re-constructed too (no idea, just throwing it out there)

4 - Expand - yeah, don't see that happening, the environmentalists will have a field day, the towns around BOS would be up in arms and picketing every other day (they are close to that now in some places), but it is an option, fill in the Bay, move the runways out and build at least an additional terminal. Or figure out how to get rid of the economy parking garage and the offices on that side of the airfield and create Terminal F, make that the new international Terminal and give E over to whoever wants it. Given it would have 19 gates by then, I would think WN would be the prime candidate and what an operation they could build with that (or B6/DL could expand their footprint further, but multi-terminal operations are complicated to say the least)

There is not a easy fix here, with the terminal E expansion not due to happen until 2022 at the earliest, realistically we have what we have until 2025. However, I do suspect somewhere in the deep parts of Massport there has to be a think tank trying to figure out what to do here. because after 2025 they are going to have a real issue on their hands, when 45m+ are cramming through the airport, as they are on course to do at this point, subject to any economic downturns.

Massport probably should have been a bit more proactive with expanding Logan. I don’t understand why they didn’t work the E10-12 rebuild in with this entire expansion and done it all at the same time. Start with 10-12 (to get those gates online first) and then worked you way over for the 7 new gates.

They will need to get create to work with the limited space that they have. Get rid of 14/32 and the adjacent pad and move the taxi pool to over near the CONRAC. Then move the existing cargo building closer to the water and you can expand the satellite concourse in Terminal A. Move the State Police barracks and the economy lot and you have more space on that end of the airport. I would like to see all of Terminal C demolished and completely rebuilt, sans the check-in hall and security. Once you get beyond that the entire terminal feels cramped and dark. Having much higher ceilings and larger windows would really go a long way to improving the experience. Same goes for the old AA side of Terminal B.

People will always complain about an airport, doesn’t matter where it is. When I live in Quincy I had neighbors who would call Massport weekly to complain. Their solution would be to ban planes for taking off or landing between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am……

airbazar wrote:

There will never be a new airport in Boston unless aircraft technology changes to the point that aircraft are as quiet as electric cars
BOS is nowhere near being slot constrained. The passenger numbers may be breaking records but I'm pretty sure that its movements are still far below its former peak. A lot can be done to its terminals to accommodate more passengers in their limited foot print. Take a look at how LHR rebuilt T2 for an example, by building up instead of out.

Movements from 1998 to 2016 have dropped by 18%, (475K down to 391K) but again a lot of that original flying was on Regional Jets which have been phased out over the time, that did not use contact gates, like the 320's/738's do now and a big reduction from Canada flying (albeit butts on seats average has increased massively in the last 12-18 months), so I think it's a bit closer than you might imagine. now, certainly not, but in 3-4 years time, I am sure the discussion may begin.

i definitely think they need to build up for sure, but the number of gates will still limited without a re-design for example B6 I believe has access to 23 gates, at 10 turns a day (ignoring the international issues for EI/TP) you are looking at a max 230 departures a day (and they are already talking about 200). Same with Terminal A, which has 21 gates that's probably limited to 210 or lower because the international flights block other gates at times), so inevitably you are going to hit a ceiling without using hard standing to supplement, which with the exception of E is rather difficult to say the least with A and B/C being alley's.

The max is coming from a contact gate standpoint, that much is clear, but you are correct to expand the number of passenger throughputs, you have to re-build and another level makes sense so that departures and arrivals can be separated and particularly in C make things feel less like a zoo than it is now.

I tend to agree. There aren't really any modest opportunities left - maybe re-open the Eagle's Nest for flights rather than B6 parking to help with peak departures? Not contact gates, but would provide a little more capacity. Perhaps move some of the CRJ900 / EMB175 flights out there to allow more narrow body gate contact?

Otherwise, I think they're doing something with cargo ops for the airlines and for Fedex / UPS, if that's even possible.

airbazar wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I tend to agree. There aren't really any modest opportunities left - maybe re-open the Eagle's Nest for flights rather than B6 parking to help with peak departures? Not contact gates, but would provide a little more capacity. Perhaps move some of the CRJ900 / EMB175 flights out there to allow more narrow body gate contact?

Otherwise, I think they're doing something with cargo ops for the airlines and for Fedex / UPS, if that's even possible.

I think BOS is way too important for the cargo carriers, and the carriers are equally important for BOS so I don't anticipate them going anywhere any time soon. There are however alternative options if more contact gates are required. For example, the current location of the long term parking garage combined with the space occupied by TSA and State Police, could easily accommodate a new terminal. Massport has ample land near and around Logan to build another long term garage and office building. Another option that's on the extreme side, what's more important, rwy 14/32 or more contact gates? Some studies claim that that runway hasn't really done much for Logan. Without that runway the cargo buildings could be moved to make room for more pax terminal space.

That runway has done jack for BOS, all it did was create a nice parking area for de-icing. While I don't have full statistics on runway usage. Massport do report Jet usage. Given that 14/32 is 5,000ft, it's pretty restrictive on who can use it and of course it's uni-directional because of the hotel they stuck at the end of it. I posted a copy of the report here, but the source is massport themselves. As you will see 14 has 0 usage and 32 is only used a couple of thousand times a year for Jets. Either 14/32 or the parking piece would make for a viable alternative. As i put in my previous post, you could make that Terminal F and hand over E to someone else (I think I said WN) or does DL/B6 want to take that on to create a mega hub (in relative terms), with the C to E connector in place, B6 could gain access to 42 gates total and almost double their operation again!

http://awhitelocks.wixsite.com/newengla ... mmary-info

Because its what I do for a living, I actually looked to see where the best place for a new airport would be.

1) First off, environmentally speaking, there is not a chance in hell of this ever happening unless global warming sea level rise forces the issue.

2) When building a new airport, the FAA will require you to meet every design standard, full safety areas, and ideally no intersecting runways.

3) Multimodal access will be essential in the future, meaning it will need to have intercity rail access.

The ONLY remotely feasible location I found would be in Attelboro/Norton area near the Xfinity center. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9784176 ... !1e3?hl=en

Thousands of people would be displaced but its less than any other area or scenario. 295 could be extended to provide highway access and there would be an Amtrak and MBTA station connected to the terminal. This airport would also replace PVD which would become a general aviation facility. Management would be a bi-state authority.

That's my take on the only way it happens, and not before 2050.

Kind of a random question but does anyone know if QF ever served BOS? Obviously they never flew direct BOS-SYD but I came across an old photo of Logan and there seem to be Qantas signs at the airport. Did they ever do a tag flight to LAX like they do at JFK now?

aaflyer777 wrote:

Kind of a random question but does anyone know if QF ever served BOS? Obviously they never flew direct BOS-SYD but I came across an old photo of Logan and there seem to be Qantas signs at the airport. Did they ever do a tag flight to LAX like they do at JFK now?

There were Qantas signs at one time, but were at the AA terminal for QF's code share flights (probably to LAX).

airbazar wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I tend to agree. There aren't really any modest opportunities left - maybe re-open the Eagle's Nest for flights rather than B6 parking to help with peak departures? Not contact gates, but would provide a little more capacity. Perhaps move some of the CRJ900 / EMB175 flights out there to allow more narrow body gate contact?

Otherwise, I think they're doing something with cargo ops for the airlines and for Fedex / UPS, if that's even possible.

I think BOS is way too important for the cargo carriers, and the carriers are equally important for BOS so I don't anticipate them going anywhere any time soon. There are however alternative options if more contact gates are required. For example, the current location of the long term parking garage combined with the space occupied by TSA and State Police, could easily accommodate a new terminal. Massport has ample land near and around Logan to build another long term garage and office building. Another option that's on the extreme side, what's more important, rwy 14/32 or more contact gates? Some studies claim that that runway hasn't really done much for Logan. Without that runway the cargo buildings could be moved to make room for more pax terminal space.

My "pie-in-the-sky, it'll never happen scenario" represents a combination of those options:
1. Move forward with the current plans to enlarge Terminal E out towards the Blue Line (the only part of this plan which will probably happen).
2. Massport needs to admit defeat and give up on 14/32. Consolidate all cargo ops to the area currently occupied by 14/32 west of 4L as well as the attached holding zones. They can then build a new terminal (bring back the Terminal D name, perhaps) in the area currently used by FexEx. They could either directly connect it to the Terminal A Satellite or build underground connectors to the A Satellite and/or Terminal B. That would free up a whole lot of options including the possibility for a second international terminal (I would aim it at the domestic carriers doing international ops as well as the smaller foreign carriers like AM, CP, etc.).
3. This part is a little more fuzzy and could go one of a couple ways; A. build a new terminal, or simply extend the already extended Terminal E, into the area currently occupied by the parking garage and State Police - OR - B. they could move Signature to the area where the garage and police are now and build a new terminal where Signature and the remote hard stands are now. That might limit GA space and they'd have to get creative on where to rebuild the hangars but, it might work.

I feel like if given enough incentives the cargo operators would move; those companies thrive on efficiency and if given the opportunity to have a totally new, modern and optimized facility I think they'd do it so long as they don't lose money or have to shut down their current ops while construction is ongoing. While moving Signature probably wouldn't be necessary to build one or even two new terminals, if Massport did decide to do it I think they (Signature) would make it difficult. I work closely with Signature and i know BOS is a cashcow for them and they wouldn't want to disrupt their ops unless it became 100% necessary. Plus, Signature is spread a little thin following the Landmark acquisition which would only compound their desire to stay put and not spend money.

One thing to consider here is that BOS is a relatively low coast facility as evidenced by the terminal facilities A lot of these improvements wont be cheap or easy meaning airlines lose their low cost advantage, which has adverse impacts on service.

That fancy Terminal E expansion? You are talking $1 Billion dollars for 7 new gates... here is what that looks like by the numbers with interest factored in (4% on 20 years):

$214,285, 714 per gate
$10,714,285 per gate per year
$29,354 per gate per day
$7,338 per turn (assuming 4 uses per day since its international and seasonality)
$29 per passenger (250 seats) ... on top of existing costs

Even if you dilute that over the existing gates a $12-$15 jump in a CPE is huge

Numbers like that don't work well with the ULCC international business model either

AviationAddict wrote:

My "pie-in-the-sky, it'll never happen scenario" represents a combination of those options:
1. Move forward with the current plans to enlarge Terminal E out towards the Blue Line (the only part of this plan which will probably happen).
2. Massport needs to admit defeat and give up on 14/32. Consolidate all cargo ops to the area currently occupied by 14/32 west of 4L as well as the attached holding zones. They can then build a new terminal (bring back the Terminal D name, perhaps) in the area currently used by FexEx. They could either directly connect it to the Terminal A Satellite or build underground connectors to the A Satellite and/or Terminal B. That would free up a whole lot of options including the possibility for a second international terminal (I would aim it at the domestic carriers doing international ops as well as the smaller foreign carriers like AM, CP, etc.).
3. This part is a little more fuzzy and could go one of a couple ways; A. build a new terminal, or simply extend the already extended Terminal E, into the area currently occupied by the parking garage and State Police - OR - B. they could move Signature to the area where the garage and police are now and build a new terminal where Signature and the remote hard stands are now. That might limit GA space and they'd have to get creative on where to rebuild the hangars but, it might work.

I feel like if given enough incentives the cargo operators would move; those companies thrive on efficiency and if given the opportunity to have a totally new, modern and optimized facility I think they'd do it so long as they don't lose money or have to shut down their current ops while construction is ongoing. While moving Signature probably wouldn't be necessary to build one or even two new terminals, if Massport did decide to do it I think they (Signature) would make it difficult. I work closely with Signature and i know BOS is a cashcow for them and they wouldn't want to disrupt their ops unless it became 100% necessary. Plus, Signature is spread a little thin following the Landmark acquisition which would only compound their desire to stay put and not spend money.

Eventually Massport will need to start getting creative with the footprint. Since they cannot do any sort of infill with Boston Harbor, they'll need to eventually shift some of the buildings around. Moving the economy lot and the State Police barracks are two good areas to open up space. I wonder how long it is before they demolish and completely rebuild Terminal C? You have some great suggestions.

I'd also add to move the taxi pool to over next to the CONRAC and the Massport offices over to a new building next to Wood Island. Then move Harborside drive along the water. This would allow for the satellite concourse in A to be extended outward to allow for more space for hold rooms and retail. You could also build a 2-3 story parking garage for the Hyatt hotel to lessen its parking lot footprint.

I'd also get rid of the turnaround/taxi stand over in Terminal E that's taking up space that could be merged in with the rest of the terminal.

I was at Logan today looking around a bit and noticed that NK was using some of UA's gates instead of B37/B38. Additionally, the TSA checkpoint for those two gates was closed ad had a wall put up in front of it. A sign at the NK counter said to use the main checkpoint at the pmAA side of Terminal B. Is this because they are building a connector between gates B37/B38 and the rest of the terminal?

On the pmUS side, PenAir had its ticket counters moved to the old NK location next to AC and the AA Shuttle counter was reduced down to one desk and a couple kiosks, and wouldn't accept any checked baggage. I assume this is all part of the renovations for the future AA consolidation.Anybody have any updates on this construction (or any other projects at the airport)?

The UK CAA passenger stats for June 2017 are out - these are the 2 way figures:

For Boston
LGW 11441 passengers which is up 23.8% on June 2016
LHR 79935 passengers which is down 0.7% on June 2017
MAN 10875 passengers which is up 162.9% on June 2016 >>> this is roughly 220 per flight

For Providence
EDI 1749 passengers, 17 flights so about 103 per flight

David_itl wrote:

The UK CAA passenger stats for June 2017 are out - these are the 2 way figures:

For Boston
LGW 11441 passengers which is up 23.8% on June 2016
LHR 79935 passengers which is down 0.7% on June 2017
MAN 10875 passengers which is up 162.9% on June 2016 >>> this is roughly 220 per flight

For Providence
EDI 1749 passengers, 17 flights so about 103 per flight

And next year, Birmingham. Glasgow has to be next!

As for PVD, that surely can't be 'demand' weakness at 103 but rather self-imposed weight restrictions on the -800s. PVD better hope that's the case or they'll build on their reputation of losing international service almost as soon as they get it.

mikegigs wrote:

I was at Logan today looking around a bit and noticed that NK was using some of UA's gates instead of B37/B38. Additionally, the TSA checkpoint for those two gates was closed ad had a wall put up in front of it. A sign at the NK counter said to use the main checkpoint at the pmAA side of Terminal B. Is this because they are building a connector between gates B37/B38 and the rest of the terminal?

On the pmUS side, PenAir had its ticket counters moved to the old NK location next to AC and the AA Shuttle counter was reduced down to one desk and a couple kiosks, and wouldn't accept any checked baggage. I assume this is all part of the renovations for the future AA consolidation.Anybody have any updates on this construction (or any other projects at the airport)?

That's exactly what is happening. Massport is going to open up that side of Terminal B so NK's 2 gates are part of the rest of the terminal.

https://www.massport.com/capitalprogram ... ND%202.pdf

chrisnh wrote:

As for PVD, that surely can't be 'demand' weakness at 103 but rather self-imposed weight restrictions on the -800s. PVD better hope that's the case or they'll build on their reputation of losing international service almost as soon as they get it.

What is that reputation based on? S4 and VR have both grown at PVD and are going on their 3rd/4th year. DE would still be at PVD if not for EW and AB.

However getting back to the numbers, a friend of mine is a PVD-based FA for them and said everything going out has been near the weight restruction, with the inbound for the first week being light. Full out, and 1/3 in, roughly translates to the 2/3 full which is around 103. Lets see how the full month of July looks for EDI and July/Aug for the others.

B752OS wrote:

mikegigs wrote:

I was at Logan today looking around a bit and noticed that NK was using some of UA's gates instead of B37/B38. Additionally, the TSA checkpoint for those two gates was closed ad had a wall put up in front of it. A sign at the NK counter said to use the main checkpoint at the pmAA side of Terminal B. Is this because they are building a connector between gates B37/B38 and the rest of the terminal?

On the pmUS side, PenAir had its ticket counters moved to the old NK location next to AC and the AA Shuttle counter was reduced down to one desk and a couple kiosks, and wouldn't accept any checked baggage. I assume this is all part of the renovations for the future AA consolidation.Anybody have any updates on this construction (or any other projects at the airport)?

That's exactly what is happening. Massport is going to open up that side of Terminal B so NK's 2 gates are part of the rest of the terminal.

Last time I was at the AA food court a couple of weeks ago, the connection was open. I didn't have time to walk it, but could clearly see into the gate 37/38 area. The design theme is very similar to the C/E connector.

Just checked the EK website and looks like EK is bringing in the A380 to Logan from August-02. I do not know how to copy-paste a picture if you do a search on BOS-DXB it shows a A380. My colleague wants to fly from BOS-HYD and the flights are all sold-out. He is now traveling from BOS-JFK-AUH-HYD-AUH-DUS-BOS. I will ask him how his experience was on AirBerlin from DUS-BOS when he returns back.

Looks like EK is making big gains at BOS again based on the load factors.

EK note on extraordinary load factors and with a million+ dollar lounge is sure to take the 380 ahead. Wow! 469 passengers on the 380 - how much time does it take the board a single flight? I am assuming at-least an hour!
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/bu ... on_regular
https://www.thenational.ae/business/avi ... d-1.578253

iyerhari wrote:

Just checked the EK website and looks like EK is bringing in the A380 to Logan from August-02. I do not know how to copy-paste a picture if you do a search on BOS-DXB it shows a A380. My colleague wants to fly from BOS-HYD and the flights are all sold-out. He is now traveling from BOS-JFK-AUH-HYD-AUH-DUS-BOS. I will ask him how his experience was on AirBerlin from DUS-BOS when he returns back.

Looks like EK is making big gains at BOS again based on the load factors.

I got 77W on a bunch of August dates that I checked - You may want to make sure it doesn't say via JFK on the option and it has a Jetblue tail icon as well.

well this is awkward http://wpri.com/2017/07/31/customs-issu ... ir-flight/

adamh8297 wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Just checked the EK website and looks like EK is bringing in the A380 to Logan from August-02. I do not know how to copy-paste a picture if you do a search on BOS-DXB it shows a A380. My colleague wants to fly from BOS-HYD and the flights are all sold-out. He is now traveling from BOS-JFK-AUH-HYD-AUH-DUS-BOS. I will ask him how his experience was on AirBerlin from DUS-BOS when he returns back.

Looks like EK is making big gains at BOS again based on the load factors.

I got 77W on a bunch of August dates that I checked - You may want to make sure it doesn't say via JFK on the option and it has a Jetblue tail icon as well.

Sorry and thank you for clarifying. The website search had the B6 tail and all the flights from JFK to DXB are on A380.