User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:23 am

In looking back at the new airlines that BOS attracted (EK, QR, JL, HU, AM, El Al, etc) did ALL of them get incentives? And have we reached a point where those incentives have ceased and the routes are now self-sustaining?
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:32 am

VS4ever wrote:
airbazar wrote:
iyerhari wrote:
Looks like EK is making big gains at BOS again based on the load factors.

And people kept insisting that the "laptop ban" had nothing to do with the drop in demand.
It will be good to see the A380 here even if I still can't wrap my head around the jetbridge configuration :D


You and many others... It's really only a matter of time before they switch to the A380 to gain the extra capacity, especially after the investment in the lounge, the return of the 2nd daily may be a lot longer in returning, because as we have said many times, right now and for the forseeable future a 388+77W or 77L are just way too many seats for the demand, even if EK do order some 359's or 788-9's it will be years before they show up to allow the capacity flexibility, so for now, we'll be sticking at the 388 once a day I suspect, when it happens.

The other thought is (for those who didn't read the link in my other post) that the 3rd operator of the A380 that has been mentioned by Massport is LH, given their changing up the equipment, could we see FRA drop to 1 per day on a A380? certainly would open another gate if they remove the later departure.


I agree with you. If EK can put the A380 on a route to Nice, whose metro population is one quarter of Boston's, then as you say, it's only a matter of time. I also agree that the A380 will be in Boston long before a second daily flight comes back (if it ever does).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16436
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:25 pm

airbazar wrote:
I just want to clarify one thing. I'm not debating why passenger numbers dropped so radically at MHT back in the mid 2000's. Every airport in NE had a big drop around that time. What I'm debating is why in 2016 it was still dropping, especially when nearby at BOS it's growing like crazy. So much for "a rising tide lifts all boats".
More than B6 or WN or the Big Dig, I think this thing called the Internet opened a lot of people's eyes. Until then people just blindly believed that flying from MHT on WN was cheaper than going to BOS. There are people today that still believe that WN=cheap fares just like there are people who believe that B6=cheap fares, and don't bother to shop around. Back then there were tons of adds on the radio and TV and newspapers about MHT having low fares and a lot of people didn't even bother to check BOS. Then all of these Internet travel sites started popping up and almost overnight the public found out that they could save hundreds of $$$ just by spending an extra hour in their car to get to BOS, and MHT's advantage evaporated.

That's not how I remember things. BOS really was more expensive than MHT back when MHT was peaking, and even more so once you add in things like transportation/parking/etc, and even when you could do internet booking. Travelocity and Expedia launched in 1996 and our area has plenty of nerds who were on the internet back then, including me! BOS offered service from expensive legacy carriers and had no LCC competition at all. WN wasn't there, B6 wasn't even incorporated till 1998. The main difference now is those legacy carriers have gone through bankruptcies and have heavily consolidated so a lot of competitive but inefficient flying and inefficient terminal/ramp utilization was taken out of the system, and they have forced new terms and conditions on employees so they can compete with LCCs.

I really think those deciding to put money into MHT's facilities in the 90s could have foreseen all the changes that look so obvious now. For instance if you told people in the early 90s that US, AA, HP, CO, UA, NW, DL, etc would all combine and three mega-carriers would remain I think their heads would have exploded. A big reason MHT took off was because BOS was so overcrowded: all the legacies all had staked their turf at BOS and none were going to give it up. DL famously plowed lots of its own money into their terminal just so it could get some room to grow. After the wave of bankruptcies they lost their hold on their turf, and the consolidations meant they didn't need the space anyway, so there was plenty of room for the LCCs to grow.

Why it is still dropping in 2017 is that all of these effects are still in place, and if anything the effect is still amplifying. The Big 3 now have record profits so they feel no need to push service out to places like MHT. The pilot staffing problem means if anything planes are getting bigger so it's going to be harder for MHT to secure service going forward. The bigger planes (MD-xx being replaced by B737/A320, introduction of 738 to WN, introduction of A321 to B6, etc) and extra rows of seats created by tighter pitch mean more seats to sell at BOS and less/no chance of overflow to MHT. The LCCs are now firmly established so the environment will remain competitive at BOS which brings in the passengers. Also urban life is now a big draw to younger people. It's the millennial dream to pay $2400 a month to share a one bedroom apartment in Cambridge with another millennial. Suburban life has lost its charm so the target audience is closer to BOS than it's ever been.

airbazar wrote:
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.

Yes, it's true, but there really isn't much to draw someone like DY to MHT. There is almost no links to public transport at MHT. Busses to BOS aren't much of an incitement. They would bleed cash just hoping that eventually people catch on and use them. PVD being on a rail line that takes you to a transport hub is a huge advantage. Lord knows why DY would want to fly to BDL, it's just as land locked as is MHT. I guess it's more attractive to the average European tourist to rent a car at BDL and have the option of driving towards either BOS or NYC.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:45 pm

People keep talking about the appeal of PVD rail service, as though all passengers are dashing off planes and onto a train. Realistically, how many people are doing that versus renting cars or being picked up in one by friends or family?

The rail issue in southern New Hampshire is like whack-a-mole. These champions of rail service come out of their holes every three or four years very excited about doing a 'study' to be paid for by federal funds. It's the federal funds these 'track lords' are after, make no question about it. The studies already done on this issue would stretch to the moon if stacked one atop another.
 
cc47
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:11 pm

chrisnh wrote:
People keep talking about the appeal of PVD rail service, as though all passengers are dashing off planes and onto a train. Realistically, how many people are doing that versus renting cars or being picked up in one by friends or family?


I'm flying into PVD at the end of October and am renting a car.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:31 pm

The reason MHT is failing is their management team. They would rather travel to conferences and claim to be looking for additional service. Going to Singapore is going to bring what service to MHT? Putting solar panels on roof of parking garage blinding airtraffic controlers and not to mention losing parking revenue. MHT needs a mayor like Kim Jong Un and feed the boobs to the dogs or shoot them with anti aircraft guns while running across the empty tarmac.
That said MHT needs a real search for new leadership. Only rule exclude anyone from PVD from consideration to manage MHT and build a proper customs facility. Will that guarantee trans Atlantic service no. But would make it competetive with PSM
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:14 pm

I agree the train station isn't the key reason for the service, but it is a nice "value added" selling point. Even if its just a few dozen making the air to rail connection today (along with 200+ daily commuters) it will be an asset that increases in value over time.

Too often people look for "instant gratification" on airport infrastructure projects (same is true for the A380 gates), but look how long the lead time is from concept to commissioning. The PVD train station was over 10 years from the initial idea, the A380 gates was over 5. It takes time to lobby to funding, align with the grant cycles, get environmental approvals, design and construct.

Moral of the story is, if you wait until you need something, you are already 5-10 years too late to the party. So ridicule the PVD rail station all you want, and keep asking where the promised A380s are.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16436
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:36 pm

georgiabill wrote:
The reason MHT is failing is their management team. They would rather travel to conferences and claim to be looking for additional service. Going to Singapore is going to bring what service to MHT? Putting solar panels on roof of parking garage blinding airtraffic controlers and not to mention losing parking revenue. MHT needs a mayor like Kim Jong Un and feed the boobs to the dogs or shoot them with anti aircraft guns while running across the empty tarmac.
That said MHT needs a real search for new leadership. Only rule exclude anyone from PVD from consideration to manage MHT and build a proper customs facility. Will that guarantee trans Atlantic service no. But would make it competetive with PSM

It seems pretty clear to me at least that MHT is now over-built relative to need and the best airline management in the world would not be able to turn around the trends that have gotten things to this point.

Feel free to have a go at over-paid managers going on junkets, but I can imagine if they chose to build a customs facility with no or very little actual use for one the feces flingers will be out in full force for that too.

chrisnh wrote:
People keep talking about the appeal of PVD rail service, as though all passengers are dashing off planes and onto a train. Realistically, how many people are doing that versus renting cars or being picked up in one by friends or family?

I don't have numbers, but I don't think it's a big reach to suggest that the kind of tourists attracted to Norwegian do look for mass transit options.

It's kinda nice to take a trip with out having to rent a car at the destination. I recently did a trip to PHL and planned the whole thing around being able to take the train right into the city at very little cost.

chrisnh wrote:
The rail issue in southern New Hampshire is like whack-a-mole. These champions of rail service come out of their holes every three or four years very excited about doing a 'study' to be paid for by federal funds. It's the federal funds these 'track lords' are after, make no question about it. The studies already done on this issue would stretch to the moon if stacked one atop another.

NH legislature has refused the federal funds to do a rail study for the Merrimack Valley run. They know that it would be very popular and yet would probably need some form of subsidies so they don't want to even gather the data.

RL757PVD wrote:
I agree the train station isn't the key reason for the service, but it is a nice "value added" selling point. Even if its just a few dozen making the air to rail connection today (along with 200+ daily commuters) it will be an asset that increases in value over time.

Too often people look for "instant gratification" on airport infrastructure projects (same is true for the A380 gates), but look how long the lead time is from concept to commissioning. The PVD train station was over 10 years from the initial idea, the A380 gates was over 5. It takes time to lobby to funding, align with the grant cycles, get environmental approvals, design and construct.

Moral of the story is, if you wait until you need something, you are already 5-10 years too late to the party. So ridicule the PVD rail station all you want, and keep asking where the promised A380s are.

And due to this time lag effect you can do what MHT did and build based on projected needs and over-shoot.

The aviation business is all about betting millions/billions of dollars many years in advance of need, and hoping you get it right. It's one reason why I enjoy being an observer of the aviation business yet am glad I'm not a part of it.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
deltacto
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:24 pm

chrisnh wrote:
People keep talking about the appeal of PVD rail service, as though all passengers are dashing off planes and onto a train. Realistically, how many people are doing that versus renting cars or being picked up in one by friends or family?



I've wondered about this many times myself. The train schedules are not conducive to people traveling to/from TF Green ... they seem to be set up mostly for commuters into Boston from Wickford Junction. During the week there are a total of 10 trains .... most during the morning and evening rush hours. There are 2 four hour gaps between trains during the middle of the day. On the weekend - no trains at all

http://mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail ... splay+Time
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:27 pm

deltacto wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
People keep talking about the appeal of PVD rail service, as though all passengers are dashing off planes and onto a train. Realistically, how many people are doing that versus renting cars or being picked up in one by friends or family?



I've wondered about this many times myself. The train schedules are not conducive to people traveling to/from TF Green ... they seem to be set up mostly for commuters into Boston from Wickford Junction. During the week there are a total of 10 trains .... most during the morning and evening rush hours. There are 2 four hour gaps between trains during the middle of the day. On the weekend - no trains at all

http://mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail ... splay+Time


The station has to work as a commuter stop first , the airport helped round out the project and made it attractive to additional federal funding sources. Whats happening behind the scenes is that RIDOT is slowly building the pieces of an intrastate rail network, but in small, palatable pieces at a time. As more people start to use the in-state service (6th station overall in the state will be added in a couple years) they can look to add more frequent in-state service, though some of those will require a transfer to Boston.

Timing wise, the commuter schedule does work well for transatlantic service though (4-8pm trips from/to Boston), and the morning push would do well with Red-eye flights from the west coast/LAS down the road when those happen +/- 5 years from now.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
B752OS
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:45 pm

chrisnh wrote:
In looking back at the new airlines that BOS attracted (EK, QR, JL, HU, AM, El Al, etc) did ALL of them get incentives? And have we reached a point where those incentives have ceased and the routes are now self-sustaining?


How long are the incentives supposed to run for? JL started NRT-BOS in the Spring of 2012, so that route has been running for over 5 years now. The others are a bit more recent.

Over on the OAG thread AA is upping LAX-BOS from 5 to 6 daily in January, February, March and April. Has a single airline ever had that much frequency on the route?
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:12 pm

Having a rail link connecting southern NH to Boston e.g. North Station would be very beneficial. I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston. MHT could very well tap into the urban Boston travelers if it were easily accessible from Boston without a car/bus. The airport can borrow a page from many European airports have check-in desks at train stations so that pax don't have to carry luggage on trains. I would totally enjoy checking my luggage at North Station before boarding a train to Manchester airport. MHT can totally position itself as the hassle-free New England airport.
 
User avatar
deltacto
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:50 pm

RL757PVD wrote:

The station has to work as a commuter stop first , the airport helped round out the project and made it attractive to additional federal funding sources. Whats happening behind the scenes is that RIDOT is slowly building the pieces of an intrastate rail network, but in small, palatable pieces at a time. As more people start to use the in-state service (6th station overall in the state will be added in a couple years) they can look to add more frequent in-state service, though some of those will require a transfer to Boston.

Timing wise, the commuter schedule does work well for transatlantic service though (4-8pm trips from/to Boston), and the morning push would do well with Red-eye flights from the west coast/LAS down the road when those happen +/- 5 years from now.


thanks for the explanation!
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:30 pm

VS11 wrote:
I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston.



Oh God the politics of that have been going nowhere for decades. I grew up in the Merrimack Valley and this has been a bitter topic for my entire life.

Completely agree though, rail to southern NH would make sense.
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:58 pm

tlecam wrote:
VS11 wrote:
I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston.



Oh God the politics of that have been going nowhere for decades. I grew up in the Merrimack Valley and this has been a bitter topic for my entire life.

Completely agree though, rail to southern NH would make sense.


I just found some reading on the topic but I am shocked. Rail from Boston to Manchester (Portsmouth would be great too) is a no-brainer. One only needs to look at Stamford, CT and its rail links to NYC to see what economic impact rail would have. Maybe MHT management hasn't seen much support from the state and local governments.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:02 am

B752OS wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
In looking back at the new airlines that BOS attracted (EK, QR, JL, HU, AM, El Al, etc) did ALL of them get incentives? And have we reached a point where those incentives have ceased and the routes are now self-sustaining?


How long are the incentives supposed to run for? JL started NRT-BOS in the Spring of 2012, so that route has been running for over 5 years now. The others are a bit more recent.


Here's the rundown from Massport - its only 2 years of landing fee rebates plus marketing support depending on aircraft used. It used to be 4 roundtrips a week but they lowered it due to HU BOS-PVG and LY BOS-TLV

Requires nonstop, year-round scheduled air service, operated at least 3 roundtrips/week,
continuously, for at least 1 year

Financial incentives include:
Landing Fee Rebates 100% year 1, -50% year 2

Marketing Support - $350,000 for service using Widebody aircraft or $200,000 for service using Narrowbody aircraft
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:43 am

VS11 wrote:
Having a rail link connecting southern NH to Boston e.g. North Station would be very beneficial. I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston. MHT could very well tap into the urban Boston travelers if it were easily accessible from Boston without a car/bus. The airport can borrow a page from many European airports have check-in desks at train stations so that pax don't have to carry luggage on trains. I would totally enjoy checking my luggage at North Station before boarding a train to Manchester airport. MHT can totally position itself as the hassle-free New England airport.


The state of New Hampshire wants a free ride and/or won't pony up their part of the bargain for extending Lowell line trains up to, at bare minimum, Nashua. Until the state of New Hampshire decides to handle its side of the bargain (like Rhode Island has), the trains will not arrive.

Nashua itself may go it alone to try to get the trains to South Nashua / Downtown station, given the few track-miles there. That's probably the best you can hope for.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:59 am

dvincent wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Having a rail link connecting southern NH to Boston e.g. North Station would be very beneficial. I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston. MHT could very well tap into the urban Boston travelers if it were easily accessible from Boston without a car/bus. The airport can borrow a page from many European airports have check-in desks at train stations so that pax don't have to carry luggage on trains. I would totally enjoy checking my luggage at North Station before boarding a train to Manchester airport. MHT can totally position itself as the hassle-free New England airport.


The state of New Hampshire wants a free ride and/or won't pony up their part of the bargain for extending Lowell line trains up to, at bare minimum, Nashua. Until the state of New Hampshire decides to handle its side of the bargain (like Rhode Island has), the trains will not arrive.

Nashua itself may go it alone to try to get the trains to South Nashua / Downtown station, given the few track-miles there. That's probably the best you can hope for.


Thank you. That explains a lot but it is very disappointing, especially for a state that lives off property taxes revenue, which are certain to go up as more people would settle down in the area if it offered cheaper commuting options. The cost of one mile of railroad is between $1m-$2m. Lowell to Nashua is 20 miles so it is all about less than $50m? That's insane.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:27 am

adamh8297 wrote:
B752OS wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
In looking back at the new airlines that BOS attracted (EK, QR, JL, HU, AM, El Al, etc) did ALL of them get incentives? And have we reached a point where those incentives have ceased and the routes are now self-sustaining?


How long are the incentives supposed to run for? JL started NRT-BOS in the Spring of 2012, so that route has been running for over 5 years now. The others are a bit more recent.


Here's the rundown from Massport - its only 2 years of landing fee rebates plus marketing support depending on aircraft used. It used to be 4 roundtrips a week but they lowered it due to HU BOS-PVG and LY BOS-TLV

Requires nonstop, year-round scheduled air service, operated at least 3 roundtrips/week,
continuously, for at least 1 year

Financial incentives include:
Landing Fee Rebates 100% year 1, -50% year 2

Marketing Support - $350,000 for service using Widebody aircraft or $200,000 for service using Narrowbody aircraft


Per FAA requirements, I believe those are only applicable to new markets, meaning a new LHR/CDG route would not be eligible.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:29 am

VS11 wrote:
Thank you. That explains a lot but it is very disappointing, especially for a state that lives off property taxes revenue, which are certain to go up as more people would settle down in the area if it offered cheaper commuting options. The cost of one mile of railroad is between $1m-$2m. Lowell to Nashua is 20 miles so it is all about less than $50m? That's insane.


Yeah, I was thinking about this just today as I was traveling on 95 up to Salisbury, the worst thing about all of it, there is the case of the line being already there for the Downeaster at least for the coastal route past Portsmouth (Dover, Durham and Exeter) and onwards to Portland. However that only runs 6 times a day on week days and you wouldn't even be able to get a flight much before 10am, once you deal with that then you have to connect at North Station to Gov't Center, then blue to Airport, then Airport Shuttle. Most non-crazy people will think a 3 connection way to get to Logan is kind of insane, which frankly it is.

but then it struck me as to why they don't bother. If you spend enough time on 95, you will notice the avalanche of buses heading to Logan, from Nashua, Salem, Manchester and even Portland. So as far as NH goes, as long as they have access to Logan via freeway (and gaining significant toll revenue as well) and buses, why stump up the cash to extend the rail further. While it makes sense in certain aspects in terms of generally connecting the city of Boston to a wider network, for airport use, it just doesn't make much sense. unless you connect the rail up directly, which is not going to happen.

So NH has gone for the bus and car option and that is one of the reasons why less folks are wanting to go to MHT and PSM, it's just easier to jump on those and go direct to the airport, rather than try the Commuter Rail Option.
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:06 am

RL757PVD wrote:
adamh8297 wrote:
B752OS wrote:

How long are the incentives supposed to run for? JL started NRT-BOS in the Spring of 2012, so that route has been running for over 5 years now. The others are a bit more recent.


Here's the rundown from Massport - its only 2 years of landing fee rebates plus marketing support depending on aircraft used. It used to be 4 roundtrips a week but they lowered it due to HU BOS-PVG and LY BOS-TLV

Requires nonstop, year-round scheduled air service, operated at least 3 roundtrips/week,
continuously, for at least 1 year

Financial incentives include:
Landing Fee Rebates 100% year 1, -50% year 2

Marketing Support - $350,000 for service using Widebody aircraft or $200,000 for service using Narrowbody aircraft


Per FAA requirements, I believe those are only applicable to new markets, meaning a new LHR/CDG route would not be eligible.


Correct and didn't add this one: Massport will only give this to Asia/South Asia/Africa/Middle East/Central America/South America/Mexico City so the Primera Airs and Norwegians are not getting a red cent.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:11 am

VS4ever wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Thank you. That explains a lot but it is very disappointing, especially for a state that lives off property taxes revenue, which are certain to go up as more people would settle down in the area if it offered cheaper commuting options. The cost of one mile of railroad is between $1m-$2m. Lowell to Nashua is 20 miles so it is all about less than $50m? That's insane.


Yeah, I was thinking about this just today as I was traveling on 95 up to Salisbury, the worst thing about all of it, there is the case of the line being already there for the Downeaster at least for the coastal route past Portsmouth (Dover, Durham and Exeter) and onwards to Portland. However that only runs 6 times a day on week days and you wouldn't even be able to get a flight much before 10am, once you deal with that then you have to connect at North Station to Gov't Center, then blue to Airport, then Airport Shuttle. Most non-crazy people will think a 3 connection way to get to Logan is kind of insane, which frankly it is.

but then it struck me as to why they don't bother. If you spend enough time on 95, you will notice the avalanche of buses heading to Logan, from Nashua, Salem, Manchester and even Portland. So as far as NH goes, as long as they have access to Logan via freeway (and gaining significant toll revenue as well) and buses, why stump up the cash to extend the rail further. While it makes sense in certain aspects in terms of generally connecting the city of Boston to a wider network, for airport use, it just doesn't make much sense. unless you connect the rail up directly, which is not going to happen.

So NH has gone for the bus and car option and that is one of the reasons why less folks are wanting to go to MHT and PSM, it's just easier to jump on those and go direct to the airport, rather than try the Commuter Rail Option.


I agree that using rail to get from NH to Logan may not be appealing if it involves 3 connections but my first point was about connecting MHT to Boston via rail to make it more accessible from Boston. The airport obviously wants to take advantage of its proximity to the Boston metro area but without proper rail transit it would be an uphill battle. What would Gatwick be if it didn't have rail access to London?

My second point was about the general rail connectivity of Southern NH to the Boston area. I agree with you that buses offer pretty good coverage but the advantages of having rail service are pretty obvious. In view of the short distance of rail that needs to be built, the construction costs seem pretty decent. And when you factor in the low interest rates environment to finance the project, this rail seems like a really low hanging fruit.

Bottom line is that Logan would not be what it is if Massport had not been investing in it for the past 20 years. NH has lots of potential but it is being wasted because the NH State Government doesn't seem to want to invest in infrastructure.
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:42 am

Btw, not sure if Massport/MBTA are planning it but extending the Worcester commuter rail to ORH would also help the airport. I would definitely take a train from Back Bay to ORH if it dropped me in the airport terminal.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:24 am

VS11 wrote:
Btw, not sure if Massport/MBTA are planning it but extending the Worcester commuter rail to ORH would also help the airport. I would definitely take a train from Back Bay to ORH if it dropped me in the airport terminal.


There's no way you can get a train up that hill. What ORH needs is a direct connection to the pike. I missed one turn going there last time and I got lost.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:35 am

RL757PVD wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Btw, not sure if Massport/MBTA are planning it but extending the Worcester commuter rail to ORH would also help the airport. I would definitely take a train from Back Bay to ORH if it dropped me in the airport terminal.


There's no way you can get a train up that hill. What ORH needs is a direct connection to the pike. I missed one turn going there last time and I got lost.


I admit I don't know the geography of the area so.....
 
airbazar
Posts: 7963
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:23 pm

chrisnh wrote:
In looking back at the new airlines that BOS attracted (EK, QR, JL, HU, AM, El Al, etc) did ALL of them get incentives? And have we reached a point where those incentives have ceased and the routes are now self-sustaining?

See slide #12.
https://massecon.com/wp-content/uploads ... May151.pdf
That's been pretty standard for the last 15 years or so.

RL757PVD wrote:
I agree the train station isn't the key reason for the service, but it is a nice "value added" selling point. Even if its just a few dozen making the air to rail connection today (along with 200+ daily commuters) it will be an asset that increases in value over time.

Wow, for once we agree on something :rotfl:
The rail service at PVD is not really significant at this point but it's a step forward, just like building a longer runway to makes these flights possible, was a step forward. All of these little improvements, IMO contributed to bringing DY tp PVD.
Revelation wrote:
I don't have numbers, but I don't think it's a big reach to suggest that the kind of tourists attracted to Norwegian do look for mass transit options.

If that's true then they're in for a massive surprise. There are only a handful of destinations in the U.S. where a car is not required, given our lack of convenient public transport. Yes, Boston proper is one of them but unless these people are staying in Boston, they absolutely need a car and if they're flying to PVD, chances are they are not paying downtown Boston hotel prices so they'll still need a car to get to the commuter rail stop or go to a restaurant. Having said that, I hope that with an increase in intl arrivals at PVD comes an improvement in the train schedule.

VS11 wrote:
Having a rail link connecting southern NH to Boston e.g. North Station would be very beneficial. I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston. MHT could very well tap into the urban Boston travelers if it were easily accessible from Boston without a car/bus.

I'm not convinced. The biggest problem is that our current rail network sucks, big time and to tag an extension to NH would make it so slow and expensive that no one would use it. I bought my house on the commuter rail (zone 7), at a time when I was working in Boston, thinking it would be great to commute by train. Soon I found out that the train is actually slower than driving during rush hour and it costs just as much. My wife still works and commutes to Boston by car, 4 days a week.
In addition to that, people in Boston don't really care about MHT. It is not an option and never has been. MHT even offered a FREE shuttle bus from Boston and no one took it. Chasing the Boston area resident, with or without public transportation is absolutely the wrong business approach for MHT. They need to focus on their own customer base and they can start that by bringing down the cost of parking in order to offset the higher air fares vs. BOS.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:18 pm

VS11 wrote:
Having a rail link connecting southern NH to Boston e.g. North Station would be very beneficial. I wonder why it hasn't been built yet as lots of people from NH commute to Boston. MHT could very well tap into the urban Boston travelers if it were easily accessible from Boston without a car/bus. The airport can borrow a page from many European airports have check-in desks at train stations so that pax don't have to carry luggage on trains. I would totally enjoy checking my luggage at North Station before boarding a train to Manchester airport. MHT can totally position itself as the hassle-free New England airport.


Aside from the pragmatic advantages of rail connections at airports, what you have in NH is a simple situation of politics mixed with 'feudal track lords' who go orgasmic over 'federal funds' but are otherwise happy to be more obstinate than helpful when time comes to put shovels into the earth. We all remember with rolling eyes the fiasco that was 'Pan Am.' I think Guilford is another unhelpful entity.
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:27 pm

VS11 wrote:
Thank you. That explains a lot but it is very disappointing, especially for a state that lives off property taxes revenue, which are certain to go up as more people would settle down in the area if it offered cheaper commuting options. The cost of one mile of railroad is between $1m-$2m. Lowell to Nashua is 20 miles so it is all about less than $50m? That's insane.


That probably wouldn't be the total cost, as the track from Lowell to Nashua can stay single-tracked for that kind of extension, and Mass. is going to have to make improvements for freights up to North Chelmsford anyway. The track up to Nashua is already class 3, but it's rough riding and needs improvements that are going to have to be made anyway. Massachusetts would have a considerable incentive to get trains up to Nashua simply to get more cars off Route 3 and 128. Anything beyond that, though, and they wouldn't really care unless NH gets its act together.

Going up to Manchester is a completely different story, and those trains would basically have to be Local in NH only and make express stops in Mass (at most Lowell, North Station, and Anderson RTC) to maintain any kind of schedule.

Re: ORH, a freeway connection is both politically and monetarily infeasible, especially if it was from the turnpike. The best approach would be to improve Highland and Pleasant street and eliminate that rotary, which is, I bet, where 90% of people get confused.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:00 pm

The simple reason why MHT never gets off the ground, and rail service to NH never gets off the ground, is that NH residents, by and large, really want little to do with Massachusetts. And in many ways I think a lot of people in Mass think the same way. You can do all the studies you want. You can point out all the benefits to the NH tourist industry all you want. But when most people, and most politicians, feel that making easy access to NH and MHT is going to turn them into an extension of Mass, whether that is socially driven or business driven, it is not going to happen.

Oh, and ORH road access - forget getting through the northern part of town. Why would you need to anyways? The idea is to draw the traffic that would take the pike eastbound to Boston to instead turn westbound to Worcester. The ideal path is up 146 along Cambridge Street area across Webster Square and up Goddard drive. Monetarily we are not talking huge expensive property here, and there would be a big boon to the Webster Square area businesses. Politically, on the other hand, i' don't think there is enough will for it.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:19 am

cloudboy wrote:
Oh, and ORH road access - forget getting through the northern part of town. Why would you need to anyways? The idea is to draw the traffic that would take the pike eastbound to Boston to instead turn westbound to Worcester. The ideal path is up 146 along Cambridge Street area across Webster Square and up Goddard drive. Monetarily we are not talking huge expensive property here, and there would be a big boon to the Webster Square area businesses. Politically, on the other hand, i' don't think there is enough will for it.


That's a lot of residential property to bust through a new road to get to the airport, not to mention the CSX intermodal and some cemeteries. All of the signage directing people to ORH currently from 290 coming from the Pike says to use exit 17 and down Highland/Pleasant street. That's the way I've always used to get to the airport. Yes, Cambridge street is an option but it's no better traffic or complexity wise.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
KSBOS
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:39 am

On the topic of the air incentives and the power point above, has anyone found a new updated version of it? I know the incentive ends 12/31, I'm just curious to see what's in store for future carriers and route demand outta BOS.

Also playing around with OAG's How can I fly there direct page, put in a random date of 3/10/18 and it gave me direct routes to BOS that day. Some of the new direct routes shown were:
Domestic: ABQ, BOI, HNL, JAC, RNO,
International: BCN, BZE, BHM, BRU, SJO, GRU, and it looks like YVR could be starting earlier.

I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate because I cant seem to get any when adding BOS on an airlines website. it would be nice to see the list keep growing.

It also said SNA is direct in May 2018.
 
airbazar
Posts: 7963
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:04 am

cloudboy wrote:
The simple reason why MHT never gets off the ground, and rail service to NH never gets off the ground, is that NH residents, by and large, really want little to do with Massachusetts. And in many ways I think a lot of people in Mass think the same way. You can do all the studies you want. You can point out all the benefits to the NH tourist industry all you want. But when most people, and most politicians, feel that making easy access to NH and MHT is going to turn them into an extension of Mass, whether that is socially driven or business driven, it is not going to happen.

Sorry, I can't disagree more. I live in MA and work in NH. Most of my co-workers and friends are NH residents and what you describe above couldn't be more wrong, at least in my own personal experience. I have a good friend of mine who is a business owner in Nashua, he was born and raised in NH, and is a strong supporter of the train extension. NH is already and has been for the last 20 years an extension of MA. A large percentage of people living there, migrated from MA. A ton of MA residents have vacation homes in NH. The politics is already heavily influenced by MA, and the economy is very heavily dependent on the MA economy.
The reason is money. NH doesn't have the money to pay for it. Without income taxes and sales taxes, the state is funded by property taxes and home owners who are the least likely to benefit from rail, don't want to see their taxes go up. Its as simple as that.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:31 am

KSBOS wrote:
On the topic of the air incentives and the power point above, has anyone found a new updated version of it? I know the incentive ends 12/31, I'm just curious to see what's in store for future carriers and route demand outta BOS.

Also playing around with OAG's How can I fly there direct page, put in a random date of 3/10/18 and it gave me direct routes to BOS that day. Some of the new direct routes shown were:
Domestic: ABQ, BOI, HNL, JAC, RNO,
International: BCN, BZE, BHM, BRU, SJO, GRU, and it looks like YVR could be starting earlier.

I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate because I cant seem to get any when adding BOS on an airlines website. it would be nice to see the list keep growing.

It also said SNA is direct in May 2018.


Direct can include a stop and sometimes its just the same flight number but you have to change planes. Example AA 2454 is BOS-MIA-BZE but with a 2hr 45min layover it appears you have to switch planes. However, BOS-PDL-BCN on S4 is a true direct flight.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
VS11
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:33 am

airbazar wrote:
cloudboy wrote:
The simple reason why MHT never gets off the ground, and rail service to NH never gets off the ground, is that NH residents, by and large, really want little to do with Massachusetts. And in many ways I think a lot of people in Mass think the same way. You can do all the studies you want. You can point out all the benefits to the NH tourist industry all you want. But when most people, and most politicians, feel that making easy access to NH and MHT is going to turn them into an extension of Mass, whether that is socially driven or business driven, it is not going to happen.

Sorry, I can't disagree more. I live in MA and work in NH. Most of my co-workers and friends are NH residents and what you describe above couldn't be more wrong, at least in my own personal experience. I have a good friend of mine who is a business owner in Nashua, he was born and raised in NH, and is a strong supporter of the train extension. NH is already and has been for the last 20 years an extension of MA. A large percentage of people living there, migrated from MA. A ton of MA residents have vacation homes in NH. The politics is already heavily influenced by MA, and the economy is very heavily dependent on the MA economy.
The reason is money. NH doesn't have the money to pay for it. Without income taxes and sales taxes, the state is funded by property taxes and home owners who are the least likely to benefit from rail, don't want to see their taxes go up. Its as simple as that.


I would agree with airbazar. I have not witnessed any bad blood between MA and NH. On the topic of NH money - they must realize you got to spend a buck in order to make a buck. With interest rates so low during the past several years, it is almost a crime not to borrow in order to invest.
 
KSBOS
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:07 am

adamh8297 wrote:
KSBOS wrote:
On the topic of the air incentives and the power point above, has anyone found a new updated version of it? I know the incentive ends 12/31, I'm just curious to see what's in store for future carriers and route demand outta BOS.

Also playing around with OAG's How can I fly there direct page, put in a random date of 3/10/18 and it gave me direct routes to BOS that day. Some of the new direct routes shown were:
Domestic: ABQ, BOI, HNL, JAC, RNO,
International: BCN, BZE, BHM, BRU, SJO, GRU, and it looks like YVR could be starting earlier.

I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate because I cant seem to get any when adding BOS on an airlines website. it would be nice to see the list keep growing.

It also said SNA is direct in May 2018.


Direct can include a stop and sometimes its just the same flight number but you have to change planes. Example AA 2454 is BOS-MIA-BZE but with a 2hr 45min layover it appears you have to switch planes. However, BOS-PDL-BCN on S4 is a true direct flight.



That makes sense. Thanks
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:17 pm

2nd AF BOS-CDG Frequency is not loaded for S18 as of right now.... Strange having two BOS-CDG flights in same alliance leave on top of each other. You would think one will go to a later pm departure.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-fran ... hlight=BOS

AA BOS-CDG is loaded for S18 ... still kickin'!
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
rob2507
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 3:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:22 pm

Not Logan-related, but this is interesting--the Patriots have purchased 2 used 767s: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2028 ... own-planes
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:29 pm

I guess those are Ex-AA frames?
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:24 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
2nd AF BOS-CDG Frequency is not loaded for S18 as of right now.... Strange having two BOS-CDG flights in same alliance leave on top of each other. You would think one will go to a later pm departure.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-fran ... hlight=BOS

AA BOS-CDG is loaded for S18 ... still kickin'!


Let the games begin as far as I am concerned. 2016 saw a pretty much even transfer of seats from AF to DL of about 40K, as AF pulled their 744 and transferred primarily to 772's and 773's with a nice sprinkling of 332's to go with it. But even with that seat capacity drop, overall AF loads dropped more. 12.3% reduction in seat capacity and 14.6% reduction in seats. DL on the other hand increased their seats by 41%, but only received 25% more pax. Therefore overall the JV reduced.

With the entry of DY into the fray and let's not forget PF 3 times a week too, so the market becomes even more diluted. We all thought AA would be the first to blink, it appears AF might be the ones. I still think AA has to be looking to bail, is it really a good use of resources to trunk up a 752 for this purpose for them? With 2 new entrants, let's be honest something has to give.

I firmly believe this is an opening salvo, more fun to come on this route, me thinks. Also from a Terminal E capacity standpoint losing the 2nd CDG flight (assuming it's the later one), does free up some space in E for either PF or DY for their flight, although the timings for PF and DY would essentially allow one of them a gate access based on what i see right now. AA is not a factor here because of the departure from B and early arrival back from CDG.
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
RobertS975
Posts: 792
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:58 am

rob2507 wrote:
Not Logan-related, but this is interesting--the Patriots have purchased 2 used 767s: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2028 ... own-planes


You won't see the Patriots B767s in BOS save for diversions. The Pats charters have always operated ex-PVD and so will these team owned aircraft.
 
B752OS
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:21 am

RobertS975 wrote:
rob2507 wrote:
Not Logan-related, but this is interesting--the Patriots have purchased 2 used 767s: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2028 ... own-planes


You won't see the Patriots B767s in BOS save for diversions. The Pats charters have always operated ex-PVD and so will these team owned aircraft.


Not always. Anytime the team has played in the Super Bowl they have always left from BOS. Hopefully this plane has to make a trip to MSP this February.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3750
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:40 am

And a nice Mexico City trip that should make spotters there rather happy.
 
User avatar
AviationAddict
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:44 am

The Pats are calling them Airkrafts!

Image
 
tjerome
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:20 am

adamh8297 wrote:
KSBOS wrote:
On the topic of the air incentives and the power point above, has anyone found a new updated version of it? I know the incentive ends 12/31, I'm just curious to see what's in store for future carriers and route demand outta BOS.

Also playing around with OAG's How can I fly there direct page, put in a random date of 3/10/18 and it gave me direct routes to BOS that day. Some of the new direct routes shown were:
Domestic: ABQ, BOI, HNL, JAC, RNO,
International: BCN, BZE, BHM, BRU, SJO, GRU, and it looks like YVR could be starting earlier.

I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate because I cant seem to get any when adding BOS on an airlines website. it would be nice to see the list keep growing.

It also said SNA is direct in May 2018.


Direct can include a stop and sometimes its just the same flight number but you have to change planes. Example AA 2454 is BOS-MIA-BZE but with a 2hr 45min layover it appears you have to switch planes. However, BOS-PDL-BCN on S4 is a true direct flight.


DL105 operates BOS-ATL-GRU (reverse is DL104) which would explain that along with DL900 BOS-ATL-SJO (reverse is DL903), DL42 BOS-JFK-BRU (reverse is DL43)

Re: Patriots planes - former AA planes N366AA and N39367, will be re-registered (currently pending) N36NE and N225NE. Patriots did fly out of BOS when they went to the Superbowl. Makes sense to just stay at PVD and not be a part of the congestion in Boston.
The comments and opinions expressed here are my own.
My FlightMemory
 
33lspotter
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:28 am

chrisnh wrote:
The rail issue in southern New Hampshire is like whack-a-mole. These champions of rail service come out of their holes every three or four years very excited about doing a 'study' to be paid for by federal funds. It's the federal funds these 'track lords' are after, make no question about it. The studies already done on this issue would stretch to the moon if stacked one atop another.


If I recall correctly, part of the issue is that — aside from the Pan Am main line where the Downeaster runs through Dover, Durham, and Exeter, which is away from the major population centers of Nashua and Manchester — there is no solid rail line that even goes into Southern NH from Boston. (Passenger rail was my passion before airlines so I know some about the behind the scenes stuff — although definitely not everything.)

If you want to get to Nashua, even, you have to go up the Lowell line, onto the Pan Am main line, and then take a branch line through Tyngsboro. Even the express trains take 40 mins to get to Lowell, so it'd be at least an hour to Nashua with those track speeds. Couple that (no pun intended) with the fact that the PAR section (to my knowledge) isn't capable of the 60 mph minimums that are necessary for passenger/commuter rail and you're talking a big investment to even get to Nashua — and it's another solid 15 miles to MHT.

Point is, even if the PVD rail link isn't "stellar," that link is already running on tracks with 100+ mph max speeds (the MBTA does around 80 in those stretches.) Southern NH doesn't have the infrastructure.

As an aside, the only reason that the aforementioned track improvements for the Downeaster got done was fed money. Given that PAR also owns the line through Nashua and Tyngsboro, and that they have a long reputation of being cheapskates, fat chance of them making the line passenger capable unless it's on the fed's dime.
CRJ900, E175, E190, 712, 733, A319, 737, 738, 739, A320, A321, 752, 753, 763, A332, A333, 788, 789, 772, 744, A388
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:06 pm

Feb 2017 T-100 BOS International numbers just released. (Feb 2016 comparatives in parentheses)
N/F = Not Flown
N/R = Not Reported

Asia
BOS-HKG - 86.4% (87.0%) - nice and consistent :)
BOS-NRT - 68.4% (83.6%) - getting nervous this might get cut back in winter..
BOS-PEK - 69.0% (82.5%)
BOS-PVG - 61.7% (76.2%) - ouch, this one might also get cut back.
---------------------------------------
Caribbean
BOS-AUA - 84.3% (90.8%)
BOS-BDA (DL) - 59.7% (50.2%)
BOS-BGI - 84.4% (90.8%)
BOS-FDF - 67.0% (66.1%)
BOS-GCM - 91.7% (91.5%)
BOS-MBJ (AA) - 71.9% (94.6%)
BOS-MBJ (B6) - 93.2% (88.7%)
BOS-MBJ (DL) - 90.9% (N/F)
BOS-NAS -(B6) - 73.2% (75.0%)
BOS-NAS (YX) - 58.6% (N/F)
BOS-PAP - N/F (N/F)
BOS-PLS - (AA) 68.2% (96.7%)
BOS-PLS - (B6) 90.3% (85.2%)
BOS-PLS - (DL) 78.4% (77.8%)
BOS-POP - 91.8% (85.2%)
BOS-PTP - 68.5% (70.5%)
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 79.6% (95.2%)
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 89.2% (88.0%)
BOS-PUJ (DL) - 92.7% (N/F)
BOS-SDQ - 87.6% (85.1%)
BOS-SJU - 81.8% (83.0%)
BOS-STI - 84.1% (87.5%)
BOS-STT - (B6) 78.4% (79.1%)
BOS-STT - (DL) 84.2% (N/F)
BOS-SXM - 86.4% (84.0%)
BOS-UVF - 82.8% (83.7%)
--------------------------------------------------------
Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 57.7% (45.7%)
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 75.8% (N/F)
BOS-YOW - 41.9% (40.5%)
BOS-YTZ - 61.3% (54.7%)
BOS-YUL - 52.6% (47.8%)
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 69.8% (N/F)
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 66.7% (N/F)
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 50.9% (58.1%)
--------------------------------------------------------
Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 88.2% (92.5%)
BOS-CUN (B6) - 89.5% (83.7%) (this is treated as Caribbean by B6)
BOS-CUN (DL) - 94.5% (86.9%)
BOS-MEX - 65.5% (67.8%)
BOS-PTY - 80.2% (78.3%)
--------------------------------------------------------
Europe
BOS-AMS - 68.8% (69.3%)
BOS-CDG (AF) - 77.6% (75.7%)
BOS-CDG (DL) - 60.3% (63.5%)
BOS-CPH (SK) - 57.4% (N/F)
BOS-DUB - 78.5% (79.4%)
BOS-FCO - N/F (N/F)
BOS-FRA - 64.5% (59.8%)
BOS-KEF (FI) -72.8% (80.0%)
BOS-KEF (WW) - 63.0% (77.7%) - that's quite the drop...
BOS-LGW - 87.3% (N/F)
BOS-LHR (BA) - 65.8% (68.5%)
BOS-LHR (DL) - 53.4% (43.0%) - who would think 53% is an improvement... :)
BOS-LHR (VS) - 56.3% (47.9%) - the capacity cuts had an impact, but not much
BOS-LIS (TP) - 85.7% (N/F)
BOS-MUC - 68.3% (66.7%)
BOS-SNN - 52.0% (52.0%) - this is where the likes of the 321LR's are going to help for the winter season with their lower seat capacity.
BOS-TER - 71.6% (88.9%)
BOS-ZRH - 58.6% (59.5%)
------------------------------------------------
Middle East
BOS-DOH - 57.0% (N/F)
BOS-DXB - 64.7% (59.9%) -
BOS-IST - 55.2% (55.6%) - well consistent ouch, i think we can probably think about seeing a capacity cut for W17
BOS-TLV - 70.1% (52.7%) - i must admit to having concerns about this route initially, but seems to be settling in nicely now.
-----------------------------------------------
ORH-FLL - 84.2% (88.7%)
ORH-MCO - 78.8% (86.9%) - the trend on these two continues to be downward.

Enjoy...
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
tomaheath
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:20 pm

Why is ORH doing so poorly? I would of thought MCO and FLL would be a piece of cake for B6 there. Any word on the JFK flight?
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:44 pm

Thanks for doing this as always - was expecting the worst from EK but it appears they were up YOY for this month and in the face of a full month from QR but less TK flights.
Speaking of TK, they will run 5 weekly this winter as opposed to 4 weekly.

Laptop ban months April-June will be interesting.

Also - DY and TP may be hurting the KEF flights from WW and FI.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CO, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WN
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:51 pm

tomaheath wrote:
Why is ORH doing so poorly? I would of thought MCO and FLL would be a piece of cake for B6 there. Any word on the JFK flight?


My gut tells me that while the incentives were in place, B6 kept the prices low to stimulate usage of the flight, which was successful but now the prices have gone up and folks are reverting to go back to BOS for their trips. I need to go and see if the data exists to prove that.
Bring Back Orion Airways, you were the best!
 
tomaheath
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:01 pm

5/1/18
ORH-MCO $130
ORH-FLL $192
BOS-MCO $141
BOS-FLL $108

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