Massport has released January 2017 numbers today

http://www.massport.com/media/424295/01 ... ummary.pdf

2.60 million pax vs 2.34 million in 2016.

adamh8297 wrote:

Massport has released January 2017 numbers today

http://www.massport.com/media/424295/01 ... ummary.pdf

2.60 million pax vs 2.34 million in 2016.

Well I was not expecting a 260K increase in January, that's for sure. that's already on pace for 2.5m plus for the year over last year, which would be around 38.5m... amazing..

I'm pulling the numbers together, but one thing is for sure, they must be packing them in given the capacity cuts, particularly domestically that we knew were coming. Canada nearly 50% up year over year (definitely WS and continuing connections via PD/AC from the Middle East guys)..Asia 33%, domestic 10%... that's just nuts...

Impressive stuff... February was up massively last year because of the storms of 2015, and 1 more day (leap year), so I don't expect as big a leap (356K) overall as last year, there was always going to be a bigger kick in the early part of the year as some of the new routes haven't made it to a year yet. So it should settle down in the back half, but still the 10% domestic kick, even in a quieter month of the year makes my head spin.

adamh8297 wrote:

6)I personally think Lufthansa would rather fill the plane with all New England-European O+D traffic - the yield per distance is easily better than India.

Unlike the U.S. carriers which are predominantly domestic, short-haul carriers, LH (and most international carriers), is predominantly a long haul international airline. That's the business that they are in and if they "give up" India which is one of the largest O&D long haul market in the world, that's not a good sign for the future. It wasn't too long ago when AF was the second largest foreign carrier in India. They're not doing too well these days are they? Needless to say I think they are playing a very dangerous game. They are risking losing both the upper end of the market for lack of frequencies, and the lower end to LCC competition. IMO of course they should be fighting for both.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/tr ... story.html

Does this mean that they will exit Logan if they see success at the secondary airports? Barring Norwegian, nobody else serves OSL. This would be really interesting and implies that they are looking for pure O&D and possibly expecting folks to trek to PVD or BDL instead of Logan.

iyerhari wrote:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2017/02/23/norwegian-moves-into-providence-and-hartford-with-fares-europe/x90QTg5Wa7KWcvMdVQGfCK/story.html

Does this mean that they will exit Logan if they see success at the secondary airports? Barring Norwegian, nobody else serves OSL. This would be really interesting and implies that they are looking for pure O&D and possibly expecting folks to trek to PVD or BDL instead of Logan.

I doubt they will exit Logan. Good connecting options out of OSL and CPH. I will also bet there is some business traffic - both Norway and Denmark have huge public pension funds which hire Boston based asset managers. Looking at the fares out of PVD though, they are NOT very cheap.

I was hoping DY would increase it's presence at BOS. I was hoping to see DY add flights from EDI and ORK to BOS. I think those routes could sustain daily flights during peak season and between 3 or 4 weekly off season.
Has AV announced it's schedule from BOS yet? Not knowing the number of people with ties to central america I was wondering if AV might consider running 4 weekly flights BOG-BOS-BOG and 3 weekly SJO-BOS-SJO. Might enable AV to tap into the central america market. I think at one time TA was considering operating from BOS. Not sure if they did. But if they did it was for only a very brief time

VS11 wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2017/02/23/norwegian-moves-into-providence-and-hartford-with-fares-europe/x90QTg5Wa7KWcvMdVQGfCK/story.html

Does this mean that they will exit Logan if they see success at the secondary airports? Barring Norwegian, nobody else serves OSL. This would be really interesting and implies that they are looking for pure O&D and possibly expecting folks to trek to PVD or BDL instead of Logan.

I doubt they will exit Logan. Good connecting options out of OSL and CPH

It appears LGW/CPH/ARN/OSL/BCN/CDG and probably MAD/FCO in future are 787 stations going to major US Cities and EDI/BFS/ORK/SNN/DUB/BGO and maybe MAN in future will be 737MAX8 stations going to secondary US cities/alternate airports.

VS11 wrote:

Looking at the fares out of PVD though, they are NOT very cheap.

I wonder if the first low-fare buckets already sold out. There were sub-300 roundtrips to DUB this morning even with low fare +. I'll do a dummy booking later to see if any seats have been chosen.

Chinese visitors overtake UK visitors as largest group.
https://www.boston.com/news/business/20 ... -its-china
This has long been expected. What's crazy is that no U.S. carrier serves this market which is still under-served.

airbazar wrote:

Chinese visitors overtake UK visitors as largest group.
https://www.boston.com/news/business/20 ... -its-china
This has long been expected. What's crazy is that no U.S. carrier serves this market which is still under-served.

Wow! That is quite impressive. Would be cool if DL started flights to ICN or PVG but I won't hold my breath lol

BDL757 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Chinese visitors overtake UK visitors as largest group.
https://www.boston.com/news/business/20 ... -its-china
This has long been expected. What's crazy is that no U.S. carrier serves this market which is still under-served.

Wow! That is quite impressive. Would be cool if DL started flights to ICN or PVG but I won't hold my breath lol

I am not sure they can start PVG even if they wanted to, the US/China agreement has restrictions on carriers and frequencies, so I suspect they would have to give something else up.

Now ICN, I think we all believe is the one that should be started, but no takers yet.... time will tell. I wonder if Massport has anything up its sleeve.

D8 to ORH anyone? lol...... they got to do something with that CATIII system when it's finished if it hasn't already been. (i'm just kidding folks)

Love the news about Norwegian today, I truly hope it is a success. As for BOS flights, I don't believe they plan on shifting 787 operations away from the major hubs. The secondary airport plan was always a side play to that. At somepoint with increasing 787 deliveries to the fleet, I could see frequency expansion (especially to LGW for which the numbers are more than impressive) and maybe a few more routes (BCN anyone?). but for now this is what we got. We'll know the numbers for EDI pretty soon after they start as the CAA in the UK publish their monthly numbers way quicker than the US ones.

adamh8297 wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Looking at the fares out of PVD though, they are NOT very cheap.

I wonder if the first low-fare buckets already sold out. There were sub-300 roundtrips to DUB this morning even with low fare +. I'll do a dummy booking later to see if any seats have been chosen.

They sure have sold out. Their website says $69 fares are sold out and fares now start at $99.

VS4ever wrote:

Love the news about Norwegian today, I truly hope it is a success. As for BOS flights, I don't believe they plan on shifting 787 operations away from the major hubs. The secondary airport plan was always a side play to that. At somepoint with increasing 787 deliveries to the fleet, I could see frequency expansion (especially to LGW for which the numbers are more than impressive) and maybe a few more routes (BCN anyone?). but for now this is what we got. We'll know the numbers for EDI pretty soon after they start as the CAA in the UK publish their monthly numbers way quicker than the US ones.

We'll get earlier reports on PVD-BFS too!

One wildcard for DY/D8 is DUS for 2018 supposedly.
http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/dienstle ... 79056.html

They mention a lot of destinations so I'm not sure if they would try 737 MAX service - BDL/PVD may be cutting it close and they will learn a lot this summer on the MAX's efficiency.

I would go for the death blow to AZ first with FCO and 787 personally - easier market to stimulate states-side.

Any word on construction progress of the new lounges in E? I'm flying out on Emirates in Mid-April and hoping I'll get to pay a visit to their new lounge. The C lounge is pretty lackluster.

[quote="adamh8297"][quote="VS11"][quote="iyerhari"]http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2017/02/23/norwegian-moves-into-providence-and-hartford-with-fares-europe/x90QTg5Wa7KWcvMdVQGfCK/story.html

It appears LGW/CPH/ARN/OSL/BCN/CDG and probably MAD/FCO in future are 787 stations going to major US Cities and EDI/BFS/ORK/SNN/DUB/BGO and maybe MAN in future will be 737MAX8 stations going to secondary US cities/alternate airports.


But can DY fill a complete plane with mostly tourists to the non-primary airports from PVD and BDL? The reason I say is most corporate folks would prefer to fly on the established carriers from Logan for their status as well as existing corporate contracts. I know that my firm which has tremendous travelers across the world does not use Norwegian anywhere. I am not saying there may not be companies who may not use Norwegian - maybe it may still not be as many as say a BA or LH or AF.

One other thing that popped up - none of the US based carriers fly to GTW and only BA flies to JFK and later on Oakland. Has it always been that way?

iyerhari wrote:

But can DY fill a complete plane with mostly tourists to the non-primary airports from PVD and BDL?

That's what makes the discussion on DY/D8 so intriguing - will they be able to stimulate? We will find out this late summer/fall for EDI/BFS routes once UK CAA releases their numbers.

Also - a lot of folks are dismissing MT as a low cost contender. In fact MT BOS-MAN probably has the best and most consistent deals. One bag is always included as well. They've forced VS/DL to be competitive on the same route right now. Would love to see them do another destination into BOS.

One of the keys to success is that BFS EDI and ORK are not offered from BOS.... I dont think they would work from PVD if that was not the case. DUB and SNN have enough local ethnic ties and DUB is a large enough market to make it work.

Im hoping PVD can steal the Caribbean flying during the winter when frequencies are reduced and they have the PVD 737 crew base ready and willing.

DUB is going to be really interesting. DL is also going to be enter the ring and with pre-immigration clearances, it will be a good option for the other DL hubs that don't have DUB nonstop options. Notably, ATL, DTW, MSP, etc. and they can now use Logan instead of having to go thru JFK. Terminal A DL is also much nicer and is a good option. Hopefully DL makes it all year instead of their current seasonal plan.

iyerhari wrote:

DUB is going to be really interesting. DL is also going to be enter the ring and with pre-immigration clearances, it will be a good option for the other DL hubs that don't have DUB nonstop options. Notably, ATL, DTW, MSP, etc. and they can now use Logan instead of having to go thru JFK. Terminal A DL is also much nicer and is a good option. Hopefully DL makes it all year instead of their current seasonal plan.

I agree with you on the general point but DL also flies non-stop ATL-DUB daily in the summer with A333.

As for BOS-DUB I would expect DL to run the route year round in 2018. EI has been printing money on BOS-DUB for years and DL has a lot of SkyMilers in the region. I'd also expect DL to upgauge the aircraft in summer to a B763 at some point too.

iyerhari wrote:

DUB is going to be really interesting. DL is also going to be enter the ring and with pre-immigration clearances, it will be a good option for the other DL hubs that don't have DUB nonstop options. Notably, ATL, DTW, MSP, etc. and they can now use Logan instead of having to go thru JFK. Terminal A DL is also much nicer and is a good option. Hopefully DL makes it all year instead of their current seasonal plan.

As we've seen from the last couple of summers that's when additional lift is needed, so both DY/D8 and DL will help with out, because sure as hell EI wasn't going to be able to provide it with how tight their fleet usage is and expected expansion or lack of, however i guess this additional capacity to the region kills off any remote hope (not that it wasn't remote anyway) of a large green Whale turning up in the next 10 years. The winters are definitely of concern, but EI isn't cheap per say, so perhaps DY will stimulate some markets. Folks in the UK and Ireland are used to U2 and FR style offerings flying up to 4 hours, 6 hours over a TATL run is a bit more, but it could certainly work for students etc. I'm still annoyed that BHX is not in the mix, as that would be perfect for this type of operation, but I will hold my tongue on that for 2 years and see if it happens down the road.

These extra options will bleed folks from EI a bit in the summer, but I wonder if EI make it up by having extra availability for their connections routes, than they do now, it's certainly going to be interesting to see how this all plays out of the next 18 months or so, if it works, I could see a myriad of routes begin.

Pass the popcorn.... the fun begins in summer 17... can't wait.

Anyone know if EI plans to use the Omni 762 on BOS-SNN this summer? Schedule right now is showing the 752.

CAA UK Authority issued their January numbers this morning.

DY - LGW had 10,429 passengers in Jan, according to flightstats.com there were 17 round trips (one was cancelled of the planned 18). All 789's at 344 seats a trip. Total seats: 11,696 for a 89.2% load.... in freaking January people!... unbelievable..

BOS-LHR total passengers also actually grew by 0.6% year over year, a whopping 350 folks! LON market combined is up 20% as a result. No way of breaking who got what with the CAA stats as they are done by route only, not by airline and route.

Good nice article on Logan on Globe that carries a conversation with Massport CEO. I think I could gather that the priority is Terminal E expansion which we discuss the most in the thread and the people mover initiative - hopefully he's signaling commitment to link all the terminals together.
http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

One other thing that pops up is Logan delays. I use Logan every single week but the type of delays are nowhere close to EWR, PHL, ORD, LGA etc. I have not experienced many delays due to ATC congestion or runway congestion at Logan. CBP delays are a different discussion but I do not know if that is factored into the airport delays. Appreciate any insights,

Now that KE is about to get their 789s ...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Korean-A ... /4244637/L

Can we please pleeeasssseee get BOS started? LOL

It would be nice to see KE, in a 'Back to the Future' sort of way.

iyerhari wrote:

Good nice article on Logan on Globe that carries a conversation with Massport CEO. I think I could gather that the priority is Terminal E expansion which we discuss the most in the thread and the people mover initiative - hopefully he's signaling commitment to link all the terminals together.
http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

One other thing that pops up is Logan delays. I use Logan every single week but the type of delays are nowhere close to EWR, PHL, ORD, LGA etc. I have not experienced many delays due to ATC congestion or runway congestion at Logan. CBP delays are a different discussion but I do not know if that is factored into the airport delays. Appreciate any insights,

From the article:

Q: So what are the needs now and how do you prioritize them?

A: The biggest one is adding seven gates to Terminal E, the international terminal. It was built with 12 gates in 1974 for 1.5 million passengers per year, and we now have six million passengers coming through those same 12 gates. We’ve gone from about 26 international flights per day in 2006 to 53 per day in 2016. That’s about a $750 million project over multiple years. That’s all funded.

Good to hear the Terminal E project is funded. Just wondering if it has all of the necessary approvals?

B752OS wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Good nice article on Logan on Globe that carries a conversation with Massport CEO. I think I could gather that the priority is Terminal E expansion which we discuss the most in the thread and the people mover initiative - hopefully he's signaling commitment to link all the terminals together.
http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

One other thing that pops up is Logan delays. I use Logan every single week but the type of delays are nowhere close to EWR, PHL, ORD, LGA etc. I have not experienced many delays due to ATC congestion or runway congestion at Logan. CBP delays are a different discussion but I do not know if that is factored into the airport delays. Appreciate any insights,

From the article:

Q: So what are the needs now and how do you prioritize them?

A: The biggest one is adding seven gates to Terminal E, the international terminal. It was built with 12 gates in 1974 for 1.5 million passengers per year, and we now have six million passengers coming through those same 12 gates. We’ve gone from about 26 international flights per day in 2006 to 53 per day in 2016. That’s about a $750 million project over multiple years. That’s all funded.

Good to hear the Terminal E project is funded. Just wondering if it has all of the necessary approvals?

I think Phase 1 (3 or 4 gates, I can never remember) is on short and finals for getting done. They need to get that started soon to get it open for 2021, phase 2 the remaining gates has not been approved yet because that requires all manner of things to change and is a much bigger project of the two overall, because it's also going to link up to the blue line station amongst other things.

As per the Massport website and environmental assessment details: https://www.massport.com/media/410161/T ... MPILED.pdf

The modernization of Terminal E will: • Construct seven new aircraft contact gates. These include the three gates originally approved in 1995, but never constructed, and four additional gates. • Construct additional passenger holdrooms, concourse circulation, concessions, passenger processing (including Customs and Border Protection facilities), and expanded bag screening facilities;

Additions to the terminal will be phased with four gates and associated facilities to be constructed by 2022 and the remaining gates and terminal areas to be completed by 2028.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/masspo ... ernational

One other thing that did not come out although I do not know if Thomas Glenn alluded to this was the pedestrian walkway from Logan Terminal E to the Airport MBTA blue line station - which he refers to as the people mover project. Hopefully we see a complete linking of all terminals soon without ever having to go thru security!

The connection projects are already planned i believe in the capital budget planning through 2020.
L1313 PRE AND POST-SECURITY CONNECTOR-TERM A&B is currently in unfunded status at $40m, but has moved to the projected project section of the massport site.
L1002 B TO C CONNECTOR CORRIDOR is also unfunded at $14m

L338 TERMINAL E Modernization is in process, but has not been officially awarded yet. The goal is to build the infrastructure so that all 7 gates can be ultimately completed, but only the first 4 will be constructed initially. http://www.massport.com/capitalprograms ... ackage.pdf

http://www.archboston.org/community/sho ... tcount=274

Lots of new photos of E10-12 courtesy of poster datadyne007 over on archboston.org

B752OS wrote:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=288502&postcount=274

Lots of new photos of E10-12 courtesy of poster datadyne007 over on archboston.org

They really look great! Really like how it showcases Boston and Massachusetts. I know its only a small part of the whole airport, but I thank these gates could stack up against any at some of the world's nicest airports. Hopefully expansion will begin soon and we will have even more gates looking this nice.

On the topic of expansion, does anyone know if there is a specific start date for the construction/remodeling in Terminal B? Also, anyone know whats going on at the B6 check in counters in C? I assume they are just updating a bit there.

Since every plane at these gates will be a widebody one, are there enough seats for a full plane-load? It seems by those photos that there's not.

It looks adequate to me. About 30% of the plane load is going to be in the lounge and maybe as many will be elsewhere - dining, shopping, drinking, etc. - until shortly before boarding.

chrisnh wrote:

Since every plane at these gates will be a widebody one, are there enough seats for a full plane-load? It seems by those photos that there's not.

I flew out of gate 12 last Friday and it seemed adequate, albeit crowded. It's Logan so there's never going to be a lot of space but it's miles better than any other part of the terminal. Sadly however, it just reinforced my opinion that the jetbridges we poorly designed. If the second jetbridge were to connect to the building at a lower height it could serve both decks of an airplane. However, at close inspection, the upper jetbridge is so high up on the building that it actually has to descend just to get to the A380 upper deck. I have never seen any gate at any airport where a jetbridge descends in order to meet the upper deck door of an A380.

airbazar wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Since every plane at these gates will be a widebody one, are there enough seats for a full plane-load? It seems by those photos that there's not.

I flew out of gate 12 last Friday and it seemed adequate, albeit crowded. It's Logan so there's never going to be a lot of space but it's miles better than any other part of the terminal. Sadly however, it just reinforced my opinion that the jetbridges we poorly designed. If the second jetbridge were to connect to the building at a lower height it could serve both decks of an airplane. However, at close inspection, the upper jetbridge is so high up on the building that it actually has to descend just to get to the A380 upper deck. I have never seen any gate at any airport where a jetbridge descends in order to meet the upper deck door of an A380.

It's just a crazy, inefficient design and I'm still curious about one thing with the upper jetbridges. Can they be used for deplaning to the CBP level, or can they only be used for boarding (making them even less useful)?

hinckley wrote:

It's just a crazy, inefficient design and I'm still curious about one thing with the upper jetbridges. Can they be used for deplaning to the CBP level, or can they only be used for boarding (making them even less useful)?

I don't see why not. Both jetbridges are attached to a multi-level pier with escalators between the floors, and the pier itself has doors to the main terminal area. My guess is that when a plane arrives, the doors to the terminal will be locked and the passengers will use the escalators to go down to the lower floor and on to the immigration hall.

Yes, that's correct. Upon arrival the boarding doors that would lead into the passenger waiting area are closed, and all the passengers are sent down to separate doors leading to customs.

Looks like a few diversions came in last night

airbazar wrote:

I don't see why not. Both jetbridges are attached to a multi-level pier with escalators between the floors, and the pier itself has doors to the main terminal area. My guess is that when a plane arrives, the doors to the terminal will be locked and the passengers will use the escalators to go down to the lower floor and on to the immigration hall.

Got it. That is good to hear.

airbazar wrote:

I flew out of gate 12 last Friday and it seemed adequate, albeit crowded. It's Logan so there's never going to be a lot of space but it's miles better than any other part of the terminal. Sadly however, it just reinforced my opinion that the jetbridges we poorly designed. If the second jetbridge were to connect to the building at a lower height it could serve both decks of an airplane. However, at close inspection, the upper jetbridge is so high up on the building that it actually has to descend just to get to the A380 upper deck. I have never seen any gate at any airport where a jetbridge descends in order to meet the upper deck door of an A380.

There are airports where the jetbridge does descend from a height to the upper deck of the A380 but they usually have two lower deck jetbridges already. JFK and DXB come to mind immediately. I do agree overall that this is bad design as BOS could definitely make use of dual jetbridge boarding from even just the main level, given their small terminal size.

FGITD wrote:

Looks like a few diversions came in last night

I was wondering if anything happened last night. I picked up a family member (slow baggage claim - 35 minutes!!!! by B6 as an aside). Between 8 and 8:30 I did notice a AF plane on hard stand while I was at cellphone lot - was that one of the diversions or is that normal ops for AF? Also saw a FI plane on hard stand as well.

kq747 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I flew out of gate 12 last Friday and it seemed adequate, albeit crowded. It's Logan so there's never going to be a lot of space but it's miles better than any other part of the terminal. Sadly however, it just reinforced my opinion that the jetbridges we poorly designed. If the second jetbridge were to connect to the building at a lower height it could serve both decks of an airplane. However, at close inspection, the upper jetbridge is so high up on the building that it actually has to descend just to get to the A380 upper deck. I have never seen any gate at any airport where a jetbridge descends in order to meet the upper deck door of an A380.

There are airports where the jetbridge does descend from a height to the upper deck of the A380 but they usually have two lower deck jetbridges already. JFK and DXB come to mind immediately. I do agree overall that this is bad design as BOS could definitely make use of dual jetbridge boarding from even just the main level, given their small terminal size.

LAX is another example. When I came in on a QF 388 they had 3 jet bridges at the gate - 2 on the lower level (which can be used for dual loading on a 77W for example) and one at the higher level.

The Globe did a Q&A with Massport CEO Tom Glynn about the future of Logan. Not too much new info. He mentions the 7 gates that are going to be added to E among other things. The most interesting new piece of info I noticed was he discusses the possibility of a people mover being added to the airport - cool!

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... ure-logan/

Very hard to believe that the airport will never expand. Funny how he talked about how the airport in 1974 had 12 gates for 1.1m passengers/year and now the same 12 gates take 6m per year; 1974 also had 10,000 parking spots for 10m passengers and today 18,000 spaces for 36m passengers... how much has the acreage for the airport changed since 1974? For all purpose being runway, terminal, parking, rental cars, everything. I'll bet it's not by much.

I still stand by my theory that one day the whole layout and infrastructure of the airport's roadways and terminals will get 100% rebuilt in a way like SLC is doing it. The airport is congested, has a lot of old infrastructure in Terminal B and C, and growth keeps on coming. Things will be different in 60 years and you can't just keep on doing projects to refresh the interior of a building. Like what is happening at LGA, it will be a lot more worth while to just start from scratch.

tjerome wrote:

I still stand by my theory that one day the whole layout and infrastructure of the airport's roadways and terminals will get 100% rebuilt in a way like SLC is doing it. The airport is congested, has a lot of old infrastructure in Terminal B and C, and growth keeps on coming. Things will be different in 60 years and you can't just keep on doing projects to refresh the interior of a building. Like what is happening at LGA, it will be a lot more worth while to just start from scratch.

I agree that a total rebuild is inevitable, although it still may be 25+ years out. It would be interesting to see what the design of a new airport would look like. Can you imagine what 10 years of construction at BOS will look like??!!

It will look like LGA, right now. They'd have to do something similar - build a new terminal behind the existing terminals while the continue to operate.

tjerome wrote:

Very hard to believe that the airport will never expand. Funny how he talked about how the airport in 1974 had 12 gates for 1.1m passengers/year and now the same 12 gates take 6m per year; 1974 also had 10,000 parking spots for 10m passengers and today 18,000 spaces for 36m passengers... how much has the acreage for the airport changed since 1974? For all purpose being runway, terminal, parking, rental cars, everything. I'll bet it's not by much.

I still stand by my theory that one day the whole layout and infrastructure of the airport's roadways and terminals will get 100% rebuilt in a way like SLC is doing it. The airport is congested, has a lot of old infrastructure in Terminal B and C, and growth keeps on coming. Things will be different in 60 years and you can't just keep on doing projects to refresh the interior of a building. Like what is happening at LGA, it will be a lot more worth while to just start from scratch.

What I understood from that interview is that the FOOTPRINT of the airport won't change ... the triangular island jutting out in the harbor. There would certainly be major renovations or changes within the airport infrastructure itself - but that island size probably is all fixed for the foreseeable future.

It will be interesting to see how the increased popularity of ride-sharing as well as the arrival of fully autonomous vehicles will affect Logan. The automotive industry is planning on a future that sees a good chunk, if not the overwhelming majority, of new vehicle sales in the next couple of decades going not to individuals but to groups of owners or to companies like Uber. Autonomous vehicles will eventually have the ability to drive themselves with or without anyone on board, which means your car could drive you to the airport and then drive itself home while you're away. When you return the car could then come back and pick you up. As crazy as it sounds we're probably only about a decade, at most, away from that being reality. Despite the continued growth at Logan in another 10-20 years we could actually see a lot of empty parking spaces at the airport.

ASA wrote:

tjerome wrote:

Very hard to believe that the airport will never expand. Funny how he talked about how the airport in 1974 had 12 gates for 1.1m passengers/year and now the same 12 gates take 6m per year; 1974 also had 10,000 parking spots for 10m passengers and today 18,000 spaces for 36m passengers... how much has the acreage for the airport changed since 1974? For all purpose being runway, terminal, parking, rental cars, everything. I'll bet it's not by much.

I still stand by my theory that one day the whole layout and infrastructure of the airport's roadways and terminals will get 100% rebuilt in a way like SLC is doing it. The airport is congested, has a lot of old infrastructure in Terminal B and C, and growth keeps on coming. Things will be different in 60 years and you can't just keep on doing projects to refresh the interior of a building. Like what is happening at LGA, it will be a lot more worth while to just start from scratch.

What I understood from that interview is that the FOOTPRINT of the airport won't change ... the triangular island jutting out in the harbor. There would certainly be major renovations or changes within the airport infrastructure itself - but that island size probably is all fixed for the foreseeable future.

Right I wasn't talking about the runways (with the exception of possibly 14/32 getting torn up), but more so the terminals and roadways.

What I'd like to see is what SLC originally was - central terminal that wraps around the roadway (getting rid of Terminal B loop) and having piers extend out. You could have 2 large (20+ gate) piers where current A/B are and several smaller ones as you wrap around the current C and E. That along with a lot more FIS space, airside connection to all terminals...would be really nice to see one day.

AviationAddict wrote:

Autonomous vehicles will eventually have the ability to drive themselves with or without anyone on board, which means your car could drive you to the airport and then drive itself home while you're away. When you return the car could then come back and pick you up. As crazy as it sounds we're probably only about a decade, at most, away from that being reality. Despite the continued growth at Logan in another 10-20 years we could actually see a lot of empty parking spaces at the airport.

When that day arrives, people won't own their own cars. You'll share them which means, the car won't go back home as you suggest. Rather, it will get used by someone else while you're away. I'm not sure that that will happen in the next 20 years but it will still happen in my lifetime. I know it sounds crazy to suggest that in this country people will no longer own their own cars but I believe that that is where we're heading.

tjerome wrote:

Right I wasn't talking about the runways (with the exception of possibly 14/32 getting torn up), but more so the terminals and roadways.

What I'd like to see is what SLC originally was - central terminal that wraps around the roadway (getting rid of Terminal B loop) and having piers extend out. You could have 2 large (20+ gate) piers where current A/B are and several smaller ones as you wrap around the current C and E. That along with a lot more FIS space, airside connection to all terminals...would be really nice to see one day.

[/quote][/quote]

I'd prefer Logan to look like YYZ - namely Terminal 1.

33L/15R could be moved 250-300 feet to the right with a modest amount of infill it would also not disrupt any waterways that boats currently use.

I'm have a few questions on the BOS- MAN flights on Condor/MT.

- is this a condor O&D flight or an MT flight for vacation packages? Their website seems a bit ambiguous but i think it is a condor flight
- the ITA matrix shows there being a first/business class section. MT's website says that all MAN departures on a A330 do not have it because it is all economy (https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/f ... jsp#c81615). What's up with this? Are they subbing planes?
- Have they announced what they'll do after the 3 year lease is up? Will the RAF take back their plane? Google was not helpful for this

Thanks