clrd4t8koff wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Actually you should be asking the opposite question. BOS-DOH was always slated to be a 359, however they changed it for Oct and Nov to the 788, which we believe was a fleet management issue. Actually glad to see the 359 back.

I'm pretty sure they changed it because of the route changes because of the Diplomatic Crisis, but is the A359 back permanently or some other reason?
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... e-changes/

QR aircraft changes were:
The 787-8 between Doha and Boston, rather than the A350-900
The A350-900 between Doha and Dallas, rather than the 777-300ER
The A350-900 between Doha and Miami, rather than the 777-300ER

What's interesting is that BOS has reverted back to the A359, DFW has reverted back to the 77W. However, MIA is still an A359. Perhaps loads aren't there to justify a 77W?

On a side note DOH-ATL is still going daily with a 77W. Wonder how much of that is more of a jab to DL vs. an actual need for a plane that big?

So is the change to A359 permanent for now? Is there a source?

NickolayAv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I'm pretty sure they changed it because of the route changes because of the Diplomatic Crisis, but is the A359 back permanently or some other reason?
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... e-changes/

QR aircraft changes were:
The 787-8 between Doha and Boston, rather than the A350-900
The A350-900 between Doha and Dallas, rather than the 777-300ER
The A350-900 between Doha and Miami, rather than the 777-300ER

What's interesting is that BOS has reverted back to the A359, DFW has reverted back to the 77W. However, MIA is still an A359. Perhaps loads aren't there to justify a 77W?

On a side note DOH-ATL is still going daily with a 77W. Wonder how much of that is more of a jab to DL vs. an actual need for a plane that big?

So is the change to A359 permanent for now? Is there a source?

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... r%20boston, this was the last posting on the subject, which extended the 788 through the end of November. Sample bookings for January and February on the QR website shows a 359.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

[
What's interesting is that BOS has reverted back to the A359, DFW has reverted back to the 77W. However, MIA is still an A359. Perhaps loads aren't there to justify a 77W?

On a side note DOH-ATL is still going daily with a 77W. Wonder how much of that is more of a jab to DL vs. an actual need for a plane that big?

It's worth noting that for J fliers the A359 is actually an upgrade over the 77W, with a better hard product where all seats have direct aisle access and wi-fi.

NickolayAv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I'm pretty sure they changed it because of the route changes because of the Diplomatic Crisis, but is the A359 back permanently or some other reason?
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... e-changes/

QR aircraft changes were:
The 787-8 between Doha and Boston, rather than the A350-900
The A350-900 between Doha and Dallas, rather than the 777-300ER
The A350-900 between Doha and Miami, rather than the 777-300ER

What's interesting is that BOS has reverted back to the A359, DFW has reverted back to the 77W. However, MIA is still an A359. Perhaps loads aren't there to justify a 77W?

On a side note DOH-ATL is still going daily with a 77W. Wonder how much of that is more of a jab to DL vs. an actual need for a plane that big?

So is the change to A359 permanent for now? Is there a source?

The switch to the 788 was only temporary. The A359 has been the standard plane they've used since the route started.

Interesting. You think this will cause West Jet to stay in terminal A? Or is the space just too precious for DL's continued expansion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 926459001/

pitbosflyer wrote:

Interesting. You think this will cause West Jet to stay in terminal A? Or is the space just too precious for DL's continued expansion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 926459001/

Definitely an interesting turn of events, given that WS only have 1 gate really (occasionally 2), the impact on increased DL opps in A is relatively small. Given that by last count DL were at 104 (ish) departures a day and want to get to 150, it's the 5 WN gates that are critical to that, 9 turns a day on those gates will get them there. My original assumption of having the WS gate too could lessen that impact, but if I was them, if they are going to do this JV, then stick together in A, it just makes sense from a logistical and connection standpoint, i can see a lot of WS/DL code shares going on, if they aren't on there already.

To be honest i was wondering where WS would end up if DL moved them out, B would be crammed following the WN move and i am not sure whether C40-C42 has space for them given the AS/VX/SY opps in that section. I think it saves Massport a little headache if this goes ahead.

During my flights from CMH-BOS there were a number of YYZ connections and the flight from CMH always came into the main terminal making it a very easy connection compared to other DL mega hubs. Does this mean WS codeshare with AA will end? Considering the gate paucity, is that the reason why WS is not starting BOS-YYC?

VS4ever wrote:

pitbosflyer wrote:

Interesting. You think this will cause West Jet to stay in terminal A? Or is the space just too precious for DL's continued expansion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 926459001/

Definitely an interesting turn of events, given that WS only have 1 gate really (occasionally 2), the impact on increased DL opps in A is relatively small. Given that by last count DL were at 104 (ish) departures a day and want to get to 150, it's the 5 WN gates that are critical to that, 9 turns a day on those gates will get them there. My original assumption of having the WS gate too could lessen that impact, but if I was them, if they are going to do this JV, then stick together in A, it just makes sense from a logistical and connection standpoint, i can see a lot of WS/DL code shares going on, if they aren't on there already.

To be honest i was wondering where WS would end up if DL moved them out, B would be crammed following the WN move and i am not sure whether C40-C42 has space for them given the AS/VX/SY opps in that section. I think it saves Massport a little headache if this goes ahead.

Seasonal BOS-YYC on DL CS100???

adamh8297 wrote:

Seasonal BOS-YYC on DL CS100???

Close.

Seasonal BOS-YYC on an AM CS100 owned by DL and run through the JV.

VS4ever wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Seasonal BOS-YYC on DL CS100???

Close.

Seasonal BOS-YYC on an AM CS100 owned by DL and run through the JV.

Funny this should come up, as there actually WAS a CS100 on the field today. Got a few pics from far away as he was sitting on a taxiway further out. Plain Brown livery wth CS100 on the tail. Wonder if the folks up at Bombardier were just taking it out for a spin...

For BOS-YYC, Since I work for WestJet at BOS, I've been hearing they want to start it sometime in 2018. It would be on WestJet mainline 737s and it would be a RON flight. Not sure about the gate issue as I don't think it would be a factor if it arrived at night. I think it would do well since we have a lot of connecting to YYC via YYZ and YUL. I heard WS is going to do it to compete against AC on their YVR route since they don't do YYC.

I think YQB would also be a good add as well.

KSBOS wrote:

For BOS-YYC, Since I work for WestJet at BOS, I've been hearing they want to start it sometime in 2018. It would be on WestJet mainline 737s and it would be a RON flight. Not sure about the gate issue as I don't think it would be a factor if it arrived at night. I think it would do well since we have a lot of connecting to YYC via YYZ and YUL. I heard WS is going to do it to compete against AC on their YVR route since they don't do YYC.

I think YQB would also be a good add as well.

Thanks for responding, nice to have some perspective from someone close to it. Is there any issue with getting a 737 into A1, space wise? Interesting it would be a RON flight, would have to be timed right to hit connections either way. No wonder the loads on YYZ are good if it's taking a lot of connecting traffic.

Before the JV announcement had you heard anything about moving to B at all?

KSBOS wrote:

For BOS-YYC, Since I work for WestJet at BOS, I've been hearing they want to start it sometime in 2018. It would be on WestJet mainline 737s and it would be a RON flight. Not sure about the gate issue as I don't think it would be a factor if it arrived at night. I think it would do well since we have a lot of connecting to YYC via YYZ and YUL. I heard WS is going to do it to compete against AC on their YVR route since they don't do YYC.

I think YQB would also be a good add as well.

How is WS doing on their new BOS-YUL flights. Good loads?

For the YYC flight, we would most likely use A2 or A3 as a 737 won't fit in A1 due to the wall.

For the YUL flights, they're pretty light and empty. Some flights we only have 20 guests and load like 10 bags. However, 3610 the afternoon YUL-BOS flight have been pretty packed on the weekends.

I think that BOS-YQB is merely waiting for YQB to have preclearance go live. That would clear probably the biggest hurdle for that route that currently is present.

In terms of non-preclearance airports, I wonder how viable a BOS-YYT route would be. I would think there is a fair number of connecting passengers going via YHZ and on the YYT end I do remember speculation that WestJet wanted to do that in the recent past. It would probably be no worse than when BOS-YYG was tried a few summers back by Air Canada.

KSBOS wrote:

For the YYC flight, we would most likely use A2 or A3 as a 737 won't fit in A1 due to the wall.

This would be seasonal right? Cold market to Cold market + not the strongest business ties + 2100 miles distance may be tough in winter.

Could Boston see a flight to Cuba?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-444037/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... s-to-cuba/
http://airlineinfo.com/ostpdf100/186.pdf
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/bu ... flight_bid
Sorry if this question has already been asked, but I wonder if this is an actual possibility.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the VR flights have been re-filed for PVD per the OAG thread.

RL757PVD wrote:

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the VR flights have been re-filed for PVD per the OAG thread.

Lol, i don’t see that as bad news. Glad they are flying which ever airport they end up at

Logan will continue to not fly to two habitat continents - Africa and Australia

On another topic, this somehow got lost. Looks like Cargo also wants extra space but getting limited due to space constraints. I did not know Logan is 10th in terms of cargo volumes in the US although Logan will be 13th this year in terms of passenger enplanements and deplanements.
https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/loga ... spotlight/

iyerhari wrote:

Logan will continue to not fly to two habitat continents - Africa and Australia

On another topic, this somehow got lost. Looks like Cargo also wants extra space but getting limited due to space constraints. I did not know Logan is 10th in terms of cargo volumes in the US although Logan will be 13th this year in terms of passenger enplanements and deplanements.
https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/loga ... spotlight/

yeah, the cargo is growing massively through all the international flight increases. Domestic small product is increasing at 8% on a rolling 12 month basis to September. Domestic freight (the bigger stuff) has dropped over the past 5 years, but is seeing a small uptick again this year on the same basis. But the big growth area is the International freight, which is up 64% in the past 5 years and nearly 21% in the past 12 months rolling. The article says 686K tonnes and if you say Freight only, they are at 662k rolling, but if you add Mail in then you get to 689K and with 4 months left in the year for reporting, including Nov/Dec which are usually 2 big months for freight and mail, i can see them easily getting to 700K combined.

No wonder they are creaking at the seams and I am not surprised they are looking for more space, I would be too. to give you the comparison, Oct 12-Sep 13 was 552K combined as compared to 689K... that's a hell of a lot of fish coming from KEF... just saying.

Look for yet another re-file with BOS for VR

VS4ever wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Logan will continue to not fly to two habitat continents - Africa and Australia

On another topic, this somehow got lost. Looks like Cargo also wants extra space but getting limited due to space constraints. I did not know Logan is 10th in terms of cargo volumes in the US although Logan will be 13th this year in terms of passenger enplanements and deplanements.
https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/loga ... spotlight/

yeah, the cargo is growing massively through all the international flight increases. Domestic small product is increasing at 8% on a rolling 12 month basis to September. Domestic freight (the bigger stuff) has dropped over the past 5 years, but is seeing a small uptick again this year on the same basis. But the big growth area is the International freight, which is up 64% in the past 5 years and nearly 21% in the past 12 months rolling. The article says 686K tonnes and if you say Freight only, they are at 662k rolling, but if you add Mail in then you get to 689K and with 4 months left in the year for reporting, including Nov/Dec which are usually 2 big months for freight and mail, i can see them easily getting to 700K combined.

One question please and pardon my ignorance. Does Massport make more money from cargo carriers or passenger traffic outweighs passenger traffic. There are probably two cases here - say EK which also transports cargo and passengers - do they pay for both vs. compared to UPS/FedEx/DHL which only transports cargo?

iyerhari wrote:

One question please and pardon my ignorance. Does Massport make more money from cargo carriers or passenger traffic outweighs passenger traffic. There are probably two cases here - say EK which also transports cargo and passengers - do they pay for both vs. compared to UPS/FedEx/DHL which only transports cargo?

I think it's a pretty well known fact that airlines make more money with passengers than with cargo however both are very important factors in some airlines' business model and I would expect the same to be true for airport operators. Which is why the suggestion that keeps popping up here of expanding terminal A into the cargo area makes little sense. If anything we need to expand the cargo area.

VS4ever wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Logan will continue to not fly to two habitat continents - Africa and Australia

On another topic, this somehow got lost. Looks like Cargo also wants extra space but getting limited due to space constraints. I did not know Logan is 10th in terms of cargo volumes in the US although Logan will be 13th this year in terms of passenger enplanements and deplanements.
https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/loga ... spotlight/

yeah, the cargo is growing massively through all the international flight increases. Domestic small product is increasing at 8% on a rolling 12 month basis to September. Domestic freight (the bigger stuff) has dropped over the past 5 years, but is seeing a small uptick again this year on the same basis. But the big growth area is the International freight, which is up 64% in the past 5 years and nearly 21% in the past 12 months rolling. The article says 686K tonnes and if you say Freight only, they are at 662k rolling, but if you add Mail in then you get to 689K and with 4 months left in the year for reporting, including Nov/Dec which are usually 2 big months for freight and mail, i can see them easily getting to 700K combined.

No wonder they are creaking at the seams and I am not surprised they are looking for more space, I would be too. to give you the comparison, Oct 12-Sep 13 was 552K combined as compared to 689K... that's a hell of a lot of fish coming from KEF... just saying.

And yet amazingly we have no major passenger airline that also operates dedicated cargo flights flying to BOS. No dedicated cargo flights from the likes of FI, LH, EK, EY, CI, MU, NH, etc. I don't understand why when these kinds of numbers are being produced?

iyerhari wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Logan will continue to not fly to two habitat continents - Africa and Australia

On another topic, this somehow got lost. Looks like Cargo also wants extra space but getting limited due to space constraints. I did not know Logan is 10th in terms of cargo volumes in the US although Logan will be 13th this year in terms of passenger enplanements and deplanements.
https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/loga ... spotlight/

yeah, the cargo is growing massively through all the international flight increases. Domestic small product is increasing at 8% on a rolling 12 month basis to September. Domestic freight (the bigger stuff) has dropped over the past 5 years, but is seeing a small uptick again this year on the same basis. But the big growth area is the International freight, which is up 64% in the past 5 years and nearly 21% in the past 12 months rolling. The article says 686K tonnes and if you say Freight only, they are at 662k rolling, but if you add Mail in then you get to 689K and with 4 months left in the year for reporting, including Nov/Dec which are usually 2 big months for freight and mail, i can see them easily getting to 700K combined.

One question please and pardon my ignorance. Does Massport make more money from cargo carriers or passenger traffic outweighs passenger traffic. There are probably two cases here - say EK which also transports cargo and passengers - do they pay for both vs. compared to UPS/FedEx/DHL which only transports cargo?

The base landing fees are calculated on size and weight of plane, so Fed Ex for example would generally pay more on average than B6 for example on a per plane basis as FX's planes are bigger, although volume of B6 flights, vaults them into #1 spot overall. FX are actually 7th, just behind BA. Passenger aircraft also pay terminal rents and fees on top of landing fees. so depending on the margins of each one, would determine if they more profitable, but by the virtue of 2 revenue streams to 1, I would side with the combined pax/cargo airlines.

Side note: LOTS of information in the latest annual report including that they are planning to start Phase 1 of the E expansion (3 gates) in 2018. We shall see if that comes through, but it is part of their discussion topics. No further info on the A/B shift of WN, although interestingly. DL subleases the WS gate (A1), but the 5 WN gates are technically part of a separate least. Clearly they will be offered to DL when WN leave (annual leases), but still interesting nonetheless.

http://www.massport.com/media/2641/mpa- ... -final.pdf

jcarv wrote:

Look for yet another re-file with BOS for VR

If this is the case, it would likely be SID which is to be the hub for the new Icelandair venture. SID does not serve the local Cape Verdean market.

I would be somewhat skeptical how much BOS- mid/south Africa demand there was once you removed the Cape Verdean local pax, not to mention there are good and reasonably priced connections over europe on more reputable carriers.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

And yet amazingly we have no major passenger airline that also operates dedicated cargo flights flying to BOS. No dedicated cargo flights from the likes of FI, LH, EK, EY, CI, MU, NH, etc. I don't understand why when these kinds of numbers are being produced?

I agree, given we are 10th in the US, this is quite a surprise, but if we can do it without, then so be it, but it would be nice to see some of these turn up, even as tag ons.

Iceland Air did actually operate a once weekly cargo only 757, and quite possibly still does. Usually parks over by the fire station, so if it still operates I don't see it often

Well MT can't be doing so bad on BOS-MAN, they've upped themselves to 3x weekly (1,3,5) for the Summer 18 reason, I think this season was only 2x weekly and coupled with VS's 2x.
https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/g ... _S2018.pdf

RL757PVD wrote:

jcarv wrote:

Look for yet another re-file with BOS for VR

If this is the case, it would likely be SID which is to be the hub for the new Icelandair venture. SID does not serve the local Cape Verdean market.
I would be somewhat skeptical how much BOS- mid/south Africa demand there was once you removed the Cape Verdean local pax, not to mention there are good and reasonably priced connections over europe on more reputable carriers.

A new airline has been setup to take over the inter-island flying from TACV - Binter CV. The problem that TACV had before and why they had to serve RAI from Boston was the poor and unreliable inter-island connections. S4 has also started selling BOS-RAI via PDL. It's for that reason that flight S4281 departs late from PDL, so it can wait for the arriving flight from RAI. But I agree that I don't see a lot of traffic between Boston and Africa happening via SID but I can definitely see TACV entering the NYC and BWI markets, offering low cost connections to West Africa.

There’s no benefit for them serving BOS however. Outside of bragging rights, all it does it take terminal E closer to capacity again (my summer 2018 gnantt chart shows a total of 4 open spots viable for flights between 4pm and 10pm).

No passengers are being lost and maybe you gain 1-2 more passengers in exchange for a much higher cost.

VS4ever wrote:

Well MT can't be doing so bad on BOS-MAN, they've upped themselves to 3x weekly (1,3,5) for the Summer 18 reason, I think this season was only 2x weekly and coupled with VS's 2x.
https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/g ... _S2018.pdf

There are indications VS might try MAN-BOS year round from W18. Nothing confirmed at the time of writing.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/c ... uebec-city
Is there a chance that Porter will leave Terminal E because of this?

Thank you. This may open up opportunity for a direct flight from YQB to BOS (hopefully). Per the YQB Website, the new airport is scheduled to open soon.

NickolayAv wrote:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-set-to-ratify-u-s-border-agreement-add-airport-preclearance-for-billy-bishop-and-quebec-city
Is there a chance that Porter will leave Terminal E because of this?

Where else could they go? Delta isnt going to let new entrants into A once they get it back, B west will be full of the consolidated AA, B east UA and WN, Terminal C B6 and friends. Sprinkled in throughout is AS, SY, WS, NK, AC, VX. Their current location is probably the best.

RL757PVD wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-set-to-ratify-u-s-border-agreement-add-airport-preclearance-for-billy-bishop-and-quebec-city
Is there a chance that Porter will leave Terminal E because of this?

Where else could they go? Delta isnt going to let new entrants into A once they get it back, B west will be full of the consolidated AA, B east UA and WN, Terminal C B6 and friends. Sprinkled in throughout is AS, SY, WS, NK, AC, VX. Their current location is probably the best.

Given the JV happening, WS will stay in A. But I agree on the rest there’s not much place else form them to go. With their 5-6x daily on average the need a gate to themselves and unless B6 will give up another one. I doubt it, not much option available.

VS4ever wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-set-to-ratify-u-s-border-agreement-add-airport-preclearance-for-billy-bishop-and-quebec-city
Is there a chance that Porter will leave Terminal E because of this?

Where else could they go? Delta isnt going to let new entrants into A once they get it back, B west will be full of the consolidated AA, B east UA and WN, Terminal C B6 and friends. Sprinkled in throughout is AS, SY, WS, NK, AC, VX. Their current location is probably the best.

Given the JV happening, WS will stay in A. But I agree on the rest there’s not much place else form them to go. With their 5-6x daily on average the need a gate to themselves and unless B6 will give up another one. I doubt it, not much option available.

Codeshare with B6 and go to C. Win-Win for both airlines.

Terminal B modification has started at full swing at Logan on the US side. Gate B4 has been sealed and so have the shuttle counters. Flights to ROC on Tuesday were being flown on the shuttle side. AC security was also having some changes although I did not see the changes there as I was not flying to Canada. AA/US Terminal B will finally see some good changes and we will hopefully have a nice terminal sometime in 2019 when this gets done!

I do not have subscription but the subject header speaks for itself:

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news ... ts-to.html

Evening folks from 33,140ft up on B6 2052 from MCO-BOS, somewhere over MD/NJ

My flight has allowed me to pull the data to at least do the snapshot as the T-100 data is out for June.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B61t8 ... k9nYW1DRGM

Being June, all load factors are pretty good with an overall average of 85.2% (Europe was 87%) and this month a few new routes began and results that are worth mentioning.

BOS-YVR - 83.4% outbound, 78% inbound for a combined 80.7% and 1,535 pax carried on 16 flights.
BOS-MAD (UX) - don't have the split yet, but the combined was 72.4% for the first month.
BOS-BOG (AV) - impressive start 81.9% outbound, 94.4% inbound on 33 total flights, for a combined 88.3%

More as I run my reports, but this is what I have managed tonight...

Somethings going on with DY in BOS.

Good news BOS-LGW is daily for S18.

Possible bad news BOS-CPH/OSL cut ... as of right now but it may be reloaded and sync with the 4x weekly CDG slot. On twitter today, they did post an updated destination map per USA City and BOS still has LGW/CDG/CPH/OSL listed. https://twitter.com/Fly_Norwegian/statu ... 86/photo/1

VS4ever wrote:

Evening folks from 33,140ft up on B6 2052 from MCO-BOS, somewhere over MD/NJ

My flight has allowed me to pull the data to at least do the snapshot as the T-100 data is out for June.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B61t8 ... k9nYW1DRGM

Being June, all load factors are pretty good with an overall average of 85.2% (Europe was 87%) and this month a few new routes began and results that are worth mentioning.

BOS-YVR - 83.4% outbound, 78% inbound for a combined 80.7% and 1,535 pax carried on 16 flights.
BOS-MAD (UX) - don't have the split yet, but the combined was 72.4% for the first month.
BOS-BOG (AV) - impressive start 81.9% outbound, 94.4% inbound on 33 total flights, for a combined 88.3%

More as I run my reports, but this is what I have managed tonight...

I looked at the T100 file and looked at some interesting items.

1) EI doubled their flight amounts on accident but kept seats normal.
2) BA had a 90.7% LF but 94.5% LF on A380 flights. I think its more of the A380 flights being at preferred times more than anything not people seeking to fly it.
3) For a dying airline AB had above 80% LF proving BOS-DUS could return someday.
4) OSL-BOS leg had an empty flight on a 788 that wasn't part of the normal schedule so if added in threw the numbers off: without it BOS-OSL-BOS was at 93.7% LF for the month. Very disappointing if this cut is indeed true.
5) DL BOS-DUB-BOS was 81.2% in its first full month.
6) TK has rebounded well it seems.
7) Blockade is hurting QR.

adamh8297 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Evening folks from 33,140ft up on B6 2052 from MCO-BOS, somewhere over MD/NJ

My flight has allowed me to pull the data to at least do the snapshot as the T-100 data is out for June.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B61t8 ... k9nYW1DRGM

Being June, all load factors are pretty good with an overall average of 85.2% (Europe was 87%) and this month a few new routes began and results that are worth mentioning.

BOS-YVR - 83.4% outbound, 78% inbound for a combined 80.7% and 1,535 pax carried on 16 flights.
BOS-MAD (UX) - don't have the split yet, but the combined was 72.4% for the first month.
BOS-BOG (AV) - impressive start 81.9% outbound, 94.4% inbound on 33 total flights, for a combined 88.3%

More as I run my reports, but this is what I have managed tonight...

I looked at the T100 file and looked at some interesting items.

1) EI doubled their flight amounts on accident but kept seats normal.
2) BA had a 90.7% LF but 94.5% LF on A380 flights. I think its more of the A380 flights being at preferred times more than anything not people seeking to fly it.
3) For a dying airline AB had above 80% LF proving BOS-DUS could return someday.
4) OSL-BOS leg had an empty flight on a 788 that wasn't part of the normal schedule so if added in threw the numbers off: without it BOS-OSL-BOS was at 93.7% LF for the month. Very disappointing if this cut is indeed true.
5) DL BOS-DUB-BOS was 81.2% in its first full month.
6) TK has rebounded well it seems.
7) Blockade is hurting QR.

Yes I did see that with EI, and will fix when i run the Europe numbers. I normally remove anything with 0
Pax, but will check bos osl to be sure I get rid. However given DY have just loaded a new map with Oslo as a destination I don’t see it going away (fingers crossed) Thanks for the heads up.

DL Just goes to show how much the extra capacity to DUB was needed.
DXB was back to where it was before they went double daily last year.
More to come but some interesting stuff happening that’s for sure.

adamh8297 wrote:

Somethings going on with DY in BOS.

Good news BOS-LGW is daily for S18.

Possible bad news BOS-CPH/OSL cut ... as of right now but it may be reloaded and sync with the 4x weekly CDG slot. On twitter today, they did post an updated destination map per USA City and BOS still has LGW/CDG/CPH/OSL listed. https://twitter.com/Fly_Norwegian/statu ... 86/photo/1

Your fears about CPH and OSL got confirmed by enilria’s update thread.

VS11 wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Somethings going on with DY in BOS.

Good news BOS-LGW is daily for S18.

Possible bad news BOS-CPH/OSL cut ... as of right now but it may be reloaded and sync with the 4x weekly CDG slot. On twitter today, they did post an updated destination map per USA City and BOS still has LGW/CDG/CPH/OSL listed. https://twitter.com/Fly_Norwegian/statu ... 86/photo/1

Your fears about CPH and OSL got confirmed by enilria’s update thread.

Not necessarily... that thread reflects what's available. I won't be surprised either way though since DY could have done this in order to increase LGW which protects against Primera Air and the STN flight.

On the brighter side BOS-PVG gets a small boost in April from 3 to 4 weekly.

adamh8297 wrote:

VS11 wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Somethings going on with DY in BOS.

Good news BOS-LGW is daily for S18.

Possible bad news BOS-CPH/OSL cut ... as of right now but it may be reloaded and sync with the 4x weekly CDG slot. On twitter today, they did post an updated destination map per USA City and BOS still has LGW/CDG/CPH/OSL listed. https://twitter.com/Fly_Norwegian/statu ... 86/photo/1

Your fears about CPH and OSL got confirmed by enilria’s update thread.

Not necessarily... that thread reflects what's available. I won't be surprised either way though since DY could have done this in order to increase LGW which protects against Primera Air and the STN flight.

On the brighter side BOS-PVG gets a small boost in April from 3 to 4 weekly.

i am not sure STN is much of a fight to LGW traffic to be honest, it's quite the trek from the LGW catchment area to STN, I do believe they have wanted to up the LGW flight to daily and this was the only way to do it with the way the timings were set up in BOS. I just looked on DY"s site and CPH and OSL are currently unavailable for 2018, so they are definitely gone for right now, but I do have suspicions they will be back with different timings. If you listen to DY's recent podcast with the CEO, rationalization of the fleet usage is definitely a way for them to cut expenses in 2018 and beyond and this could well be part of it. I don't see anything negative here, especially considering they are still bringing CDG in 2018 to the mix. I wonder if there is a slightly grander plan at foot here, when they bring back CPH/OSL as part of another weekly suite that could now include MXP and AMS, given their move into those areas. MAD would potentially be possible, but I am not sure there's enough foot traffic for that route to sustain two carriers, albeit I thought that about CPH and that was find up to now. DY's trick of not serving daily unless they have to limits the exposure needed until such time as the route matures and they can up the frequency, which if you look at routes online today, they are doing elsewhere.

Not saying "nothing to see here", but more changes coming soon i think, they would not have released that map if they were going to cut off those routes.

VS4ever wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Your fears about CPH and OSL got confirmed by enilria’s update thread.

Not necessarily... that thread reflects what's available. I won't be surprised either way though since DY could have done this in order to increase LGW which protects against Primera Air and the STN flight.

On the brighter side BOS-PVG gets a small boost in April from 3 to 4 weekly.

i am not sure STN is much of a fight to LGW traffic to be honest, it's quite the trek from the LGW catchment area to STN, I do believe they have wanted to up the LGW flight to daily and this was the only way to do it with the way the timings were set up in BOS. I just looked on DY"s site and CPH and OSL are currently unavailable for 2018, so they are definitely gone for right now, but I do have suspicions they will be back with different timings. If you listen to DY's recent podcast with the CEO, rationalization of the fleet usage is definitely a way for them to cut expenses in 2018 and beyond and this could well be part of it. I don't see anything negative here, especially considering they are still bringing CDG in 2018 to the mix. I wonder if there is a slightly grander plan at foot here, when they bring back CPH/OSL as part of another weekly suite that could now include MXP and AMS, given their move into those areas. MAD would potentially be possible, but I am not sure there's enough foot traffic for that route to sustain two carriers, albeit I thought that about CPH and that was find up to now. DY's trick of not serving daily unless they have to limits the exposure needed until such time as the route matures and they can up the frequency, which if you look at routes online today, they are doing elsewhere.

Not saying "nothing to see here", but more changes coming soon i think, they would not have released that map if they were going to cut off those routes.

But that map also include JFK-Bergen, which had been discontinued last year.

Fair point and I have just openly asked those specific questions as a reply to their twitter post of the map. I will let folks know the response if I get one.

Wishful thinking on my part but maybe PVD-OSL at a higher weekly frequency is being considered?