airbazar wrote:

kearnet wrote:

To make the ramps and jetways work to accommodate all different floor heights they have to be very long and not be too steep. BOS just didn't have the room.

Some people have made that argument before but having used and seen these gates and others, mainly at LHR where space is also tight, I 100% disagree.
I think Massport tried to get too cute with the design at the request of EK. EK are the ones and only ones with an all premium upper deck and all Y lower deck. So they designed it this way and EK is not coming, and they should admit their fault.
Lack of space is not the reason. I don't know how to post my own pics here or I would, to show what the problem is. The problem at BOS is that the jetbridge attaches to the terminal way too high, making the slope to the lower deck way too steep. And they did that because EK (my guess), did not want its passengers from the lounge to have to descend down a short escalator to reach the jetbridge entrance. That's the reason, IMO.

A solution would have been to setup the gates in Boston like they are at LAX. Their 380 gates have 3 jet bridges - 2 on the lower level and the third on the upper level.

There's plenty of space at E10-12 to have 3 A380s, or 3 744s or 3 77Ws, etc. So as you mention, space is not the issue.

airbazar wrote:

The problem at BOS is that the jetbridge attaches to the terminal way too high, making the slope to the lower deck way too steep.

I think that at this point we all understand that the height of the upper bridges makes the angle impossible to attach to an aircraft's lower level. My theory is that the space constraint is more horizontal than vertical - there was not the space to put two bridges side-by-side and still have the room for a 90-degree turn to the aircraft's doorway. But that's just my theory . . .

B752OS wrote:

[A solution would have been to setup the gates in Boston like they are at LAX. Their 380 gates have 3 jet bridges - 2 on the lower level and the third on the upper level.

A three-bridge design is the de-facto standard for any modern airport serving the 380, but hell, BOS hasn't been able to implement even a two-bridge design for wide body aircraft boarding, and that's been the standard elsewhere for ten or 20 years!

Deleted

airbazar wrote:

kearnet wrote:

To make the ramps and jetways work to accommodate all different floor heights they have to be very long and not be too steep. BOS just didn't have the room.

Some people have made that argument before but having used and seen these gates and others, mainly at LHR where space is also tight, I 100% disagree.
I think Massport tried to get too cute with the design at the request of EK. EK are the ones and only ones with an all premium upper deck and all Y lower deck. So they designed it this way and EK is not coming, and they should admit their fault.
Lack of space is not the reason. I don't know how to post my own pics here or I would, to show what the problem is. The problem at BOS is that the jetbridge attaches to the terminal way too high, making the slope to the lower deck way too steep. And they did that because EK (my guess), did not want its passengers from the lounge to have to descend down a short escalator to reach the jetbridge entrance. That's the reason, IMO.

I seriously doubt that EK is the main reason. Even at DXB concourse A You have to take the elevator down a level or two to get from lounge to the upper deck boarding level. I agree that they should have gone another way with the jetbridge design perhaps more like JFK at T4...

kq747 wrote:

I seriously doubt that EK is the main reason. Even at DXB concourse A You have to take the elevator down a level or two to get from lounge to the upper deck boarding level. I agree that they should have gone another way with the jetbridge design perhaps more like JFK at T4...

It's impractical to do it at DXB because they simply have way too many A380 gates and concurrent departures.
At JFK however the Emirates lounge has a direct connection to the upper deck bridge.
http://pointmetotheplane.boardingarea.c ... -york-jfk/
Also, until Tim Clark said "we'd be flying the A380 to Boston today if we could", following the inaugural EK flight to BOS, there wasn't even any intention of building A380 gates. I find that a bit more than coincidental.

airbazar wrote:

kq747 wrote:

I seriously doubt that EK is the main reason. Even at DXB concourse A You have to take the elevator down a level or two to get from lounge to the upper deck boarding level. I agree that they should have gone another way with the jetbridge design perhaps more like JFK at T4...

It's impractical to do it at DXB because they simply have way too many A380 gates and concurrent departures.
At JFK however the Emirates lounge has a direct connection to the upper deck bridge.
http://pointmetotheplane.boardingarea.c ... -york-jfk/
Also, until Tim Clark said "we'd be flying the A380 to Boston today if we could", following the inaugural EK flight to BOS, there wasn't even any intention of building A380 gates. I find that a bit more than coincidental.

I am aware how the JFK gate works having used the lounge and gate myself. What I meant is, JFK has two jetbridges on the main level and simply don't use the upper bridge for non A380 flights which is what BOS could have done if they wanted to maintain the direct from lounge boarding but also have the dual boarding option for other flights. Surely Massport reviewed this option and someone there would have said as much, but in the end they decided not to go that route. Now they're stuck with pretty much all single jetbridge gates for non-A380 flights which, as someone pointed out, is pretty sad in 2017.
If what you claim is true, it is interesting that they were not considering building the gate until Tim Clark said this. They probably wanted to know that there was some interest in operating the A380 before they undertook the project. Not sure when BA first stated they were interested in operating the A380 though.

kq747 wrote:

I am aware how the JFK gate works having used the lounge and gate myself. What I meant is, JFK has two jetbridges on the main level and simply don't use the upper bridge for non A380 flights which is what BOS could have done if they wanted to maintain the direct from lounge boarding but also have the dual boarding option for other flights. Surely Massport reviewed this option and someone there would have said as much, but in the end they decided not to go that route. Now they're stuck with pretty much all single jetbridge gates for non-A380 flights which, as someone pointed out, is pretty sad in 2017.
If what you claim is true, it is interesting that they were not considering building the gate until Tim Clark said this. They probably wanted to know that there was some interest in operating the A380 before they undertook the project. Not sure when BA first stated they were interested in operating the A380 though.

In their press release when they announced that they would be building A380 gates (which I'm sure can be found online with some google searching), they touted the direct access from the lounge to the upper jetbridge (not sure now if they said access from the lounge or just from the lounge floor). So this was a consideration even before they started building. At that time we all thought there would be 3 jetbridges.
I agree that 3 jetbridges would have been ideal but I understand that some bean counters would have found it to be overkill given the future uncertainty of A380 operations. What i don't understand is how those same people decided it was a good idea to invest in a jetbridge configuration that only serves the A380 upper deck. But I guess what's done is done.
It does appear however that the piers have been built to accommodate 3 jetbridges so hopefully if more A380's don't show up they'll reconfigure the 2 other gates to have 2 main deck bridges. As things stand right now, BOS could probably operate with only 1 A380 gate.

I haven't yet been to the new area of E. Are the upper jetbridges only accessible from inside the airline lounges, or are they accessible to anyone on the lounge level?

hinckley wrote:

I haven't yet been to the new area of E. Are the upper jetbridges only accessible from inside the airline lounges, or are they accessible to anyone on the lounge level?

I have not either but it would be interesting if they were not, as both BA and LH have non J/F pax on the upper deck.

Not sure if weather- or load-related but today's BA A380 wasn't.

hinckley wrote:

I haven't yet been to the new area of E. Are the upper jetbridges only accessible from inside the airline lounges, or are they accessible to anyone on the lounge level?

Each of the 3 lounges has its own dedicated boarding area, directly into the pier where the jetways connect to. For boarding on main deck, you take an escalator down then on to the jetbridge. Here's a review of the new BA lounge with a picture showing the dedicated boarding area from the lounge.
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/03/britis ... on-lounge/
So I suspect that EK/LH/BA will always use gates 10, 11, 12 respectively. And if not, then those poor F/J passengers will just have to do a little extra walking

chrisnh wrote:

Not sure if weather- or load-related but today's BA A380 wasn't.

Likely weather. To my knowledge, no one in Boston can deice an A380 yet.

Also, both bridges can be used on boarding, regardless of whether you're coming from the lounge or normal waiting areas.

FGITD wrote:

Also, both bridges can be used on boarding, regardless of whether you're coming from the lounge or normal waiting areas.

So there are two entrances into each of the upper jetbridges - one from a lounge, and one from a common area in the upper lounge area??

hinckley wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Also, both bridges can be used on boarding, regardless of whether you're coming from the lounge or normal waiting areas.

So there are two entrances into each of the upper jetbridges - one from a lounge, and one from a common area in the upper lounge area??

Yes. All bridges are connected to a pier tha has escalators to move up and down between the different floors. And the pier is connected to the main terminal.
This is an old picture, and the final terminal ended up a little different, but it should give you an idea:
https://goo.gl/images/vchl2R
The 3 "fingers" that you see sticking out are the piers with the escalators.
It's really not any different than at many other airports. Here's an image of LAX:
https://goo.gl/images/TgxN4u

Finally BOS to BOG avianca details posted on the Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201 ... story.html

It would be interesting to see what Governor Baker would speak on terminal E plans and Avainca today.

Well it was all fun and games at BOS tonight. I am currently in the middle of flying down to MCO, took off into a lightning storm, which was interesting in itself, the 320 I am on made the most horrendous noise as we were taking off and on initial climb.Not so much barking dog as howling wolf and a pack of them at that.
and in other news. what I believe was a TK330 sitting in a very strange place on the field,due to the weather couldn't tell if it was out on a taxiway or just sitting on 4R/22L, but it was out there with stairs sitting next to it. Very odd indeed. My flight was an hour late taking off, so I will be lucky if i get to my hotel before around 11.30...
But hey,I have wifi at 30 odd K feet that allows me to post this while watching Rogue 1, not all bad i guess.

Took the BA A380 to LHR on Sunday night on BA212. Overall a great experience. Boarding was pretty efficient -- I sat in 82K on the upper deck. We had an excellent meal in Y and the crew was very professional. The aircraft was very comfortable, my second time on a 388, and overall I was very satisfied.

That said, I am starting to feel that BOS is having some growing pains with the A380. Of the seven BOS-LHR sectors that have been flown thus far on the 388, scheduled to depart at 19:20, three have been delayed past 20:00 (including mine) and another two have been delayed past 19:50. We were told that there was a baggage snafu, which caused us to wait for a solid 20 minutes past pushback time, and then we sat in place first on the taxiway and then on 15R for another 10 or so minutes each (the airport was on the 22R/22L configuration, so waiting for both runways to be clear might have taken a while, but I still thought it was a bit excessive.) Obviously, the scheduled departure time is generally well before the wheels-up time, and I get that loading 469 pieces of luggage on the 388 is different than the 275 on BA's Super-High-J 744s, but I still get the sense that the needs of the 388 are "still being figured out."

Moreover, six of the seven flights have departed from 15R, the only exception being a 33L departure on 4/2. 15R is interesting in that it can be used as part of pretty much any configuration bar the NW (27/33L) one, but given its takeoff performance is superior to that of the 744 which regularly departs from 9 and 22R, I am surprised that the 388 hasn't used any of the shorter runways. Maybe the pilots have requested it in order to lessen delays?

All in all, a pleasant flight, but -- combined with my earlier observations -- one that left me wondering whether these delays are minor one-offs or symptomatic of something more significant.

33lspotter wrote:

Took the BA A380 to LHR on Sunday night on BA212. Overall a great experience. Boarding was pretty efficient -- I sat in 82K on the upper deck. We had an excellent meal in Y and the crew was very professional. The aircraft was very comfortable, my second time on a 388, and overall I was very satisfied.

That said, I am starting to feel that BOS is having some growing pains with the A380. Of the seven BOS-LHR sectors that have been flown thus far on the 388, scheduled to depart at 19:20, three have been delayed past 20:00 (including mine) and another two have been delayed past 19:50. We were told that there was a baggage snafu, which caused us to wait for a solid 20 minutes past pushback time, and then we sat in place first on the taxiway and then on 15R for another 10 or so minutes each (the airport was on the 22R/22L configuration, so waiting for both runways to be clear might have taken a while, but I still thought it was a bit excessive.) Obviously, the scheduled departure time is generally well before the wheels-up time, and I get that loading 469 pieces of luggage on the 388 is different than the 275 on BA's Super-High-J 744s, but I still get the sense that the needs of the 388 are "still being figured out."

Moreover, six of the seven flights have departed from 15R, the only exception being a 33L departure on 4/2. 15R is interesting in that it can be used as part of pretty much any configuration bar the NW (27/33L) one, but given its takeoff performance is superior to that of the 744 which regularly departs from 9 and 22R, I am surprised that the 388 hasn't used any of the shorter runways. Maybe the pilots have requested it in order to lessen delays?

All in all, a pleasant flight, but -- combined with my earlier observations -- one that left me wondering whether these delays are minor one-offs or symptomatic of something more significant.

The only thing I can think of for the usage of 15R/33L all the time is spacing designed to handle the 388 as there may not be enough space around the ends of the others without major encroachment and having the 388 use the other runway solves that issue. 4R/22L is only 77ft shorter so runway length is not the issue and with 4L/22R being under 8,000 ft and 9/27 being 7,000ff those are hardly ideal to be lifting a 388 from even if it is possible

As I said I suspect it's down to the ops playbook for handling the 388.

Glad to see you had a nice flight however. I am unsurprised.by the delays because that time slot is pretty busy for E and will only get busier as summer rolls through. It's going to be more of the norm sadly I suspect.

33lspotter wrote:

All in all, a pleasant flight, but -- combined with my earlier observations -- one that left me wondering whether these delays are minor one-offs or symptomatic of something more significant.

I don't fly BA often but I did it about a month ago and my 744 departure was late by about 40 minutes because of "electrical problems", but we still arrived on time. I know 1 flight does not make it a rule but it seems BA in general has a problem pushing back on time. Do your flights tend to get in on time, like mine did? I wonder if BA is knowingly padding their departure time which is smart given LHR's congestion constraints.

airbazar wrote:

I don't fly BA often but I did it about a month ago and my 744 departure was late by about 40 minutes because of "electrical problems", but we still arrived on time. I know 1 flight does not make it a rule but it seems BA in general has a problem pushing back on time. Do your flights tend to get in on time, like mine did? I wonder if BA is knowingly padding their departure time which is smart given LHR's congestion constraints.

Wouldn't be surprised. To be fair, I've only flown BA three times out of BOS – once on a 772 (2004), once on a 744 (2014), and once on a 388 (2017). The first two times, we did push back relatively close to being on time, while this one was quite late pushing back. That said, I do watch BA quite often on FR24 and I have noticed similar to what you are observing, particularly with the 744 operating on BA212, albeit not as frequently as the 388 operating BA212 (which, by nature, has a smaller sample size due to its recent introduction).

As far as individual trips, I can't remember the flight length from 2004, but in 2014 we were 5h 25m en route – strong tailwind and the first arrival of the day at LHR at 4:34 a.m. This time, flying pretty much the same SID and initial routing (LBSTA and EBONY) we were 6h 2m en route, although in addition to the less-strong tailwind I believe we got send to Bovingdon for a bit before arriving on 27L, whereas the first time we didn't even hold at Ockham and landed straight on 09L. Though I was a bit surprised that we took more than 6 hours, interestingly enough we were at our gate in 6 minutes, which seems to be very short for Heathrow.

I've been commuting to the city recently and haven't seen too many airline ads on public transit lately. Today I walked from Lechmere to North Station and noticed a Duck Boat fully decked out in DL colors advertising the BOS-DUB flight.

Also - it looks like T-100 data was not released today.

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/de ... ton-lounge

BA talking about the new lounge at BOS. Apparently it's the only lounge in the system that allows for direct boarding access.

http://www.massport.com/capitalprograms ... mation.pdf

Massport has released an update of sorts on the Terminal B expansion and remodel. At the end of the PDF are some updates to the original proposal. Looks like they will now be extending the pier instead of widening it.

Q3 Table 6 Data has been posted

Top 10 Unserved markets from BOS (numbers in PDEW)

ORF -181
SAT - 148
ABQ - 140
MEM -114
SDF - 104
OMA - 100
GRR - 90
MSN- 87
OKC - 84
DAY - 82

Top 10 increases of markets over 75 PDEW

BNA +43.5% - BNA now has the same traffic as SAN and PHX!!!
CMH +35.6%
SLC +32.5%
GSO +25.5%
MDW +17.1%
MSP +15.6%
AUS +12.4%
SMF +12.2%
MIA +10.4%
MKE +10.0%

Top 10 decreases in markets over 75 PDEW

TUL -17.7%
ROC -16.5%
SDF -15.5%
HSV -13.8%
DAY -13.2%
TYS -11.4%
CLE -10.4%
ICT - 10.2%
ELP -10.2%
LIT -8.9%

Interesting data, thanks for sharing the percentage changes. Are those numbers total passengers or PDEW?

PVD757 wrote:

Interesting data, thanks for sharing the percentage changes. Are those numbers total passengers or PDEW?

DOT gives you average daily passengers so you divide the number by 2 to get PDEW so I put just the pax numbers from the excel report into another sheet and compare. You just have to take markets over a certain number of PDEW.

Also MSN not MDW was the 5th highest % increase - I can no longer edit.

Neither AF nor LH have assumed their summer schedules yet with both fielding single-daily circuits (in the case of AF, the smaller 777-200). In years past would they have made the switchover sooner than now?

chrisnh wrote:

Neither AF nor LH have assumed their summer schedules yet with both fielding single-daily circuits (in the case of AF, the smaller 777-200). In years past would they have made the switchover sooner than now?

Can't speak for AF, but LH back in October announced this.. which might answer your question assuming nothing has changed behind the scenes since then

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... a%20boston

chrisnh wrote:

Neither AF nor LH have assumed their summer schedules yet with both fielding single-daily circuits (in the case of AF, the smaller 777-200). In years past would they have made the switchover sooner than now?

I can't speak to exact dates but neither carrier have, in my recollection, operated their seasonal additions for the full IATA summer season (as defined as the last Monday in March to the last Sunday in October) for at least the past couple of years. I feel like mid-May is about right for the LH421/420 flight and AF should probably be around the same time. Where the two carriers tend to differ in their approaches is LH tend to announce their gauge (this year being the 748/333 mix) and start it daily. AF, on the other hand, usually play around with the gauge of their single flight to meet demand and gradually ramp up the second flight, usually operating the seasonal shoulders at 4-5x weekly and going 2x daily during peak summer. At least that's how it's been the past few years now that DL have a flight.

On the topic of AF/DL, one thing that so far has been different from previous years is that DL have traditionally operated their eastbound flight earlier in the evening for an early-morning arrival at CDG (I want to say they've had a departure around 18:00). AF have had a pretty steady schedule with a departure around 19:30. This year DL118 and AF333 are scheduled to depart about 20 minutes of each other (19:00 and 19:20, respectively). While I can see how that makes sense once AF get the second flight up and running, it seems like they're missing out on some connecting opportunities by operating what are currently the only flights between Boston and Paris practically on top of one another. With AF flying the slightly faster 777, it's not unusual to see the two flights in the same holding stack or just a few aircraft apart on finals. The westbound flights are more staggered, with DL119 scheduled to arrive about 4.5 hours before AF334. Obviously there are many moving parts as to why JV partners operate the schedules they do and the people that make those decisions are more qualified than me.

LH423

not exactly an A380 (nor an antonov), but UA's 77W is currently en route to BOS for the first time. it'll return to SFO in the morning.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

not exactly an A380 (nor an antonov), but UA's 77W is currently en route to BOS for the first time. it'll return to SFO in the morning.

I believe it coincides with the start of 2x daily 777s on the route. Should be some good morning opportunities for spotters.

Ironic, I was actually going to ask if anyone knew how the UA 777s were fairing in BOS. I happened to be going down 93 yesterday evening when the flight was arriving; still a little unusual to see, but certainly a nice sight.

No surprise, but Emirates is dropping one of the BOS flights, along with cuts to LAX, SEA and reduction to 5x/week in Orlando and FLL.

tlecam wrote:

No surprise, but Emirates is dropping one of the BOS flights, along with cuts to LAX, SEA and reduction to 5x/week in Orlando and FLL.

If you look at LF for both flights, Boston is carrying too many people each day for one 777 to handle. It has to be an A380, IMO.

chrisnh wrote:

tlecam wrote:

No surprise, but Emirates is dropping one of the BOS flights, along with cuts to LAX, SEA and reduction to 5x/week in Orlando and FLL.

If you look at LF for both flights, Boston is carrying too many people each day for one 777 to handle. It has to be an A380, IMO.

You would think there's a good shot that EK decides to throw an A380 on the flight now that they're cutting down to a single daily flight.

B752OS wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

tlecam wrote:

No surprise, but Emirates is dropping one of the BOS flights, along with cuts to LAX, SEA and reduction to 5x/week in Orlando and FLL.

If you look at LF for both flights, Boston is carrying too many people each day for one 777 to handle. It has to be an A380, IMO.

You would think there's a good shot that EK decides to throw an A380 on the flight now that they're cutting down to a single daily flight.

here the link of the story: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/19/emirates ... curbs.html

I agree that with the chopping of the 2nd flight, the single could turn to a 380, the issue up to now has been demand has been more than a single 380, but with that drop in demand, the new lounge, the 380 gates are ready and EK always looking for a place to put their 380 fleet, this could well be on the cards.

Big blow for Massport's 2017 number though.

Could 2017 numbers dip below 2016? Not just losing EK, but there are other European carriers who aren't coming back this year I believe.

All of this growth in Boston has been a flash in the pan. In five years, I'd be surprised if Boston has much more than it had five years ago. It's a nice little city but it's not in the same league as Cathay Pacific's other US destinations for example.

chrisnh wrote:

Could 2017 numbers dip below 2016? Not just losing EK, but there are other European carriers who aren't coming back this year I believe.

I believe only EW left.

I don't think you will see the increases that 2016 but its going to be an increase YOY. Think of it this way - DL's additions easily cover the EK flight and then some (2nd SEA, 2x SFO, 2xTPA, seasonal DUB,).

AB going year round, AM going daily, AV starting, B6 increasing service, and S4 has quietly increased PDL to almost 2x daily in summer.

330west wrote:

All of this growth in Boston has been a flash in the pan. In five years, I'd be surprised if Boston has much more than it had five years ago. It's a nice little city but it's not in the same league as Cathay Pacific's other US destinations for example.

It's not meant to be, but you use the wrong example with Cathay who have enjoyed excellent loads and are about to go daily on the route. Proves the market was there all along. I am not so sure that we will go back to 5 years ago. Too much invested by B6, DL and others at this point to go back that far. While I fear the numbers have peaked and will decline, to drop potentially 7.5 million passengers a year (rolling 12 months to Feb 2012 was 29.1m vs current rolling of 36.6m I think is highly unlikely unless everything completely collapses and i just don't see it happening.

As Chris says, with the loss of potentially 6 month's of EK's second flight (they reduced for at least a month last year too), is going to take a big hit, you are looking at around 150,000 on EK with say 30% connection, another 45,000 (i know it could be 60% or whatever, I am just putting a number out there for comparatives), some of those could be mopped up by QR and TK, so it wouldn't be a total loss. That said, worst case 300K pax lost, it's going to take a massive meltdown and reversal of pretty much all the airlines that joined since 2013 to drop 7.5m pax. DY is packing them in, and WW/FI are doing decently too. EI is packed in the summer, but I could certainly see the likes of AB, UX (which has already cut before it even started), SK and MT re-trenching. Not say the numbers wouldn't be significant, but 7.5m is a stretch.
The question is, if that does happen, what does Massport do with the proposed E extension? Interestingly that project has disappeared from the Massport bid list completely. if a couple of carriers do disappear, maybe EI could also move back to E from C and the gate crush would be alleviated and allow B6 to continue their domestic growth path.

Curious times.. time to grab the popcorn and see where this goes next.

330west wrote:

All of this growth in Boston has been a flash in the pan. In five years, I'd be surprised if Boston has much more than it had five years ago. It's a nice little city but it's not in the same league as Cathay Pacific's other US destinations for example.

Hopefully this applies to the real estate market (apologies to the homeowners in here!)

Does anyone know how is IB Doing on it's MAD-BOS? Years ago was Daily, later it was cancelled due to IB's plan to reorganise the company, later resumed seasonally, and now year-round but not daily. I'm pretty interested on see how UX's entry is going to affect IB this summer with it's new BOS service

A couple wild cards: what will B6 eventually do transatlantic...something, or nothing? And then there's going to be the upcoming parade of 737MAX and A321LRs that will make Boston pretty attractive to European carriers since it's the first big city you hit coming west.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

330west wrote:

All of this growth in Boston has been a flash in the pan. In five years, I'd be surprised if Boston has much more than it had five years ago. It's a nice little city but it's not in the same league as Cathay Pacific's other US destinations for example.

Hopefully this applies to the real estate market (apologies to the homeowners in here!)

It's already starting and the city's losing more young people to other cities than ever before and it's not just those who can't afford it but those who want a more enjoyable lifestyle in NY, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, Miami and Austin among others. Despite its institutional strengths, when I was working there, I used to refer to Boston as Bostno for its antipathy to outside the box thinking.

330west wrote:

It's already starting and the city's losing more young people to other cities than ever before and it's not just those who can't afford it but those who want a more enjoyable lifestyle in NY, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, Miami and Austin among others. Despite its institutional strengths, when I was working there, I used to refer to Boston as Bostno for its antipathy to outside the box thinking.

Too funny 330. Some unresolved issues maybe?

hinckley wrote:

330west wrote:

It's already starting and the city's losing more young people to other cities than ever before and it's not just those who can't afford it but those who want a more enjoyable lifestyle in NY, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, Miami and Austin among others. Despite its institutional strengths, when I was working there, I used to refer to Boston as Bostno for its antipathy to outside the box thinking.

Too funny 330. Some unresolved issues maybe?

Ask anyone who isn't a wage slave about the creative/entrepreneurial scene and they'll say it borders on non-existent except in a handful of sectors.

Luisvalero wrote:

Does anyone know how is IB Doing on it's MAD-BOS? Years ago was Daily, later it was cancelled due to IB's plan to reorganise the company, later resumed seasonally, and now year-round but not daily. I'm pretty interested on see how UX's entry is going to affect IB this summer with it's new BOS service

I'll have an extra month's worth of data tomorrow when the BTS numbers are released. For now I have up to Sept 16 and their rolling 12 month shows a general load factor of 74%, albeit it's highly variable, they increased capacity by 7.7% due to an increased number of flights recorded of 365 from 339, but flying an extra 7,500 seats yielded only an uplift of 894 pax, dropping their loads from 79% to 74% as a YOY comparison. Unless UX have a ton of connecting traffic to fly, I am not sure how they will survive on this, I just don't think there's enough market there. Now clearly someone at UX has been crunching numbers and thinks that there is and I am sure they are smarter than me when it comes to that kind of stuff. They fly around 75,000 pax a year at around 206 PDEW.

Hope that helps.

330west wrote:

All of this growth in Boston has been a flash in the pan. In five years, I'd be surprised if Boston has much more than it had five years ago. It's a nice little city but it's not in the same league as Cathay Pacific's other US destinations for example.

With all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about. Cathay should go daily on BOS the moment they get their house in order (take a look at the LFs posted on here), and, if anything, Asian service is in dire need of expansion. BOS has a lot going for it in the business community, and the only thing that will hinder that are D.C. policies like the one resulting in this Emirates reduction and potential stripping of NIH funding.

BOSMEMFlyer wrote:

With all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about.

No he does not. His issues have nothing to do with knowledge of Boston aviation. Take a look at posts 394 and 396. It's not worth feeding this guy.

March 17 numbers are out from Massport, broached the 3m mark this month for the first time, 6.9% up YOY, first signs of struggle from the Middle east as YOY pax dropped which was to be expected to be honest. International hit 500K for the first time as all the other regions were up significantly, Canada up 28%, Europe up 13% Central America 33% and Pacific 23%, 1/2 a million extra passengers through the doors in the first quarter this year vs last year... however given some of the news, i wonder if this is the peak. with the levelling out of services now, particularly on the international front, i can see the big gains eroding. But we shall see.
Side note. 1,006 additional flights in March, that equates to an extra 16 departures a day over the previous year. might keep a track on that for the future.

source: http://massport.com/media/432874/0317-a ... ummary.pdf