Airliners.net

chrisnh wrote:

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.

The LF information that we have is 6 months old. A lot has changed since.
The laptop ban will have a severe impact on EK and QR's ability to sell tickets, especially the more premium tickets since business passengers are more likely to be carrying a laptop and no one in their right mind would check their work laptop. For that reason I don't think we will see an A380. As long as this ridiculous ban is in place, they will be struggling. What's worse is, B6 will feel the effects of it more than any other carrier at BOS.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

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

This is not happening everywhere. I bought my house in 2004 and it still hasn't fully recovered to the price I bought it for.

Latest T-100 capacity factors by major route (mostly international) - October 16

Last year equivalents in parantheses.

Asia
BOS-HKG - 92.8% (87.1%) - continues to impress...
BOS-NRT - 84.1% (85.8%)
BOS-PEK - 73.7% (72.1%)
BOS-PVG - 70.3% (69.5%)

Caribbean
BOS-AUA - 85.8% (87.8%)
BOS-BDA (B6) - 63.3% (74.7%)
BOS-BDA (DL) - 77.4% (0%)
BOS-PAP - 89.7% (0%)
BOS-PUJ - 84.4% (62.7%)
BOS-SDQ - 82.6% (62.5%)
BOS-SJU - 85.8% (80.1%)
BOS-STI - 84.0% (69.0%)
BOS-STT - 71.8% (79.8%)
BOS-SXM - 73.4% (86.7%)


Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 82.1% (63.7%)
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 73.7% (0%) - not started
BOS-YOW - 52.4% (58.4%)
BOS-YTZ - 69.7% (55.7%)
BOS-YUL - 70.9% (63.0%)
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 80.0% (68.4%)
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 77.9% (81.4%)
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 66.9% (0%) not started

Central America
BOS-CUN (B6) - 80.9% (88.6%)
BOS-MEX - 69.5% (79.5%)
BOS-PTY - 84.4% (61%)

Europe (no comparatives, as my schedule appears to be incorrect and it's on my other computer to fix)
BOS-AMS - 77.0%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 79.8%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 70.3%
BOS-CPH (DY) - 80.1%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 81.12%
BOS-DUB - 86.8%
BOS-DUS - 69.7%
BOS-FCO - 79.9%
BOS-FRA - 83.0%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 87.7%
BOS-KEF (WW) - 81.4%
BOS-LGW - 94.0% (if BOS only had the space for a daily + the CPH/OSL flights!)
BOS-LHR (BA) - 83.4%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 64.1%
BOS-LHR (VS) - 79.1%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 49.2% (ouch!)
BOS-LIS (TP) - 83.9%
BOS-MAD - 66.4%
BOS-MUC - 83.1%
BOS-OSL - 87.2% (possible case for frequency increase in 2017)
BOS-SNN (EI) - 83%
BOS-TER - 67.1%
BOS-ZRH - 84.7%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 80.8% (0%) - not started
BOS-DXB - 70.5% (45.1%) (sure it's better, but this was the month they suspended the 2nd flight)
BOS-IST - 71.0% (69.2%) (yes, also an uptick, but reduced frequency)
BOS-TLV - 85.7% (68.8%) - glad this route is doing ok.

ORH-FLL - 74.3% (81.2%) - the doom and gloom merchants will be out in force on this one.
ORH-MCO - 74.0% (86.2%)

BOS-LIS (S4) - 49.2% (ouch!)
I have a feeling TAP is gonna push them off this one

aaflyer777 wrote:

BOS-LIS (S4) - 49.2% (ouch!)
I have a feeling TAP is gonna push them off this one

That's a no brainer. There's absolutely no reason to put up with S4's crappy service to LIS anymore. TP should consider going 2x daily from BOS.

B6 took a big hit on BDA; you think that was all from DL?

The STT and SXM figures also make me chuckle...the Caribbean traffic is so emotionally driven, people get sick of going to the same islands over and over again which cause the LF to always be in a stat of flux.

AviationAddict wrote:

B6 took a big hit on BDA; you think that was all from DL?

The STT and SXM figures also make me chuckle...the Caribbean traffic is so emotionally driven, people get sick of going to the same islands over and over again which cause the LF to always be in a stat of flux.

I just don't think there's that much leisure demand to Bermuda and the Caribbean in October. The DR and PR have strong VFR traffic but places like BDA, STT, SXM are all leisure driven.

ORH-FLL - 74.3% (81.2%) - the doom and gloom merchants will be out in force on this one.
I don't think B6 is in Worcester because it makes organic sense to be there but rather as a quid pro quo to Massport in exchange for 'favors' prior and yet to come.

Tough to comment on things such as "Caribbean loads stink" and "S4 should drop BOS-LIS" when you just look at October which is a good month for two things: business travel and leaf peepers. For all intents and purposes - BOS-LIS was a weekly for the month and may have been flown for utilization purposes. They were in the 80's for July and August for LF.

Also was initially impressed by QR's performance but then dug into things a bit.

QR's numbers are off on available seats: I did the math and only got an average of 219 seats offered per flight - should be 283. If the pax total are correct (big if) they were at 62.5% for the month.

March numbers are up. International flights up 11,3%, Domestic up 5.9% and total up 6.9%.. numbers look good for another great year. A small red flag is the drop in Middle East passengers not by much but maybe a start of a bigger drop soon.

https://www.massport.com/media/432874/0 ... ummary.pdf

Heard a rumor that another carrier at Boston will be bringing the 787. Not a new carrier, just an equipment switch later this year.

FGITD wrote:

Heard a rumor that another carrier at Boston will be bringing the 787. Not a new carrier, just an equipment switch later this year.

Here's my guesses in order of likelihood

1. AF
2. LY
3. UA for BOS-SFO

Delta adding service starting Sep 10. All bookable on Delta.com:

BOS-BUF 08:55-10:25 CRJ-200. x67
BOS-BUF 15:00-16:30 CRJ-200
BOS-BUF 18:55-20:25 CRJ-200
BUF-BOS 07:00-08:20 CRJ-200 x67
BUF-BOS 11:00-12:20 CRJ-200
BUF-BOS 17:00-18:20 CRJ-200

BOS-JAX 07:00-09:55 E-170
JAX-BOS 10:30-13:25 E-170

BOS-MCI 09:00-11:21 CRJ-900 x6
MCI-BOS 19:55-23:47 CRJ-900 x6

BOS-AUS 19:30-23:10 A319 x6
AUS-BOS 06:30-12:20 A319 (begins Sep 11) x7

BOS-ORF 07:00-09:00 CRJ-700 (begins Sep 11) x7
ORF-BOS 19:55-21:55 CRJ-700 (begins Sep 11) x6

Second flight:
BOS-BNA 16:30-18:21 E-170 (begins Sep 11) x6
BNA-BOS 18:55-22:35 E-170 (begins Sep 11) x6

Wow - This proves and makes the discussion complete that DL is dead serious at Logan. AA ends service August-21. B6 will be the monopoly on that route for only 2 weeks. MCI, AUS and ORF seemed a longshot - in the sense we had discussed SDF could be a possibility considering DL used to serve that route. They are also making sure nobody has a monopoly on routes. C'mon DL - make it to ORD, PHL and DCA

DL seems to love to add and drop BOS-JAX a lot. How long will it last this time I wonder?

WOW! Not surprised about BUF but everything else I am. DL done BOS-BUF in the past? They have been in everything else but BOS-AUS. A lot of this seems directed at WN.

[quote="B757rocket"]Delta adding service starting Sep 10. All bookable on Delta.com:

BOS-AUS 19:30-23:10 A319 x6
AUS-BOS 06:30-12:20 A319 (begins Sep 11) x7

YES!!!!!, finally someone has figured out that not everyone wants to get back to BOS from AUS at 11 at night... or go via JFK... as much as i love B6, this one is extremely tempting for me when i go there later this year.
up to now, i've been getting a 6am and going via JFK for the return. the out flight is a little late for my liking, but i'll take it.

DL CEO on Logan
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/ ... re-of.html

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

It will be AF with the 787-9 W17/18, displacing the tired 777-200s on the route now.

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

Another SEA. Incredible. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, particularly given Delta's guidance to analysts on capacity discipline.

It is truly remarkable to witness how divergent Delta's network strategy seems to be - at least as it relates to non-hubs - as compared with AA and United. Delta's single largest hub (ATL, obviously) comprises a higher percentage of Delta's overall system capacity than either AA's (DFW) or United's (ORD), but the disparity in this metric is also seemingly larger between ATL and Delta's other hubs as compared to DFW vs AA's other hubs and ORD and United's other hubs. And related, and to the point, Delta seems far more interested in adventures in new hubs, focus cities and gateways - like LAX, SEA, RDU, BOS. Whereas AA and United seem intent on bulking up their hubs - just about all of their hubs - Delta seems to be shifting capacity around everywhere. Fascinating to watch.

commavia wrote:

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

Another SEA. Incredible. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, particularly given Delta's guidance to analysts on capacity discipline.

It is truly remarkable to witness how divergent Delta's network strategy seems to be - at least as it relates to non-hubs - as compared with AA and United. Delta's single largest hub (ATL, obviously) comprises a higher percentage of Delta's overall system capacity than either AA's (DFW) or United's (ORD), but the disparity in this metric is also seemingly larger between ATL and Delta's other hubs as compared to DFW vs AA's other hubs and ORD and United's other hubs. And related, and to the point, Delta seems far more interested in adventures in new hubs, focus cities and gateways - like LAX, SEA, RDU, BOS. Whereas AA and United seem intent on bulking up their hubs - just about all of their hubs - Delta seems to be shifting capacity around everywhere. Fascinating to watch.

It is, and seems largely to prevent others from creating their own version of ATL. DL knows the power of a fortress hub, and can't let someone like B6 or AS do that in BOS/SEA. LAX is too critical to let any one carrier become dominant as well, and RDU is to protect the ATL/Southeast market that they own. If nobody else was building BOS/SEA/RDU/LAX then I'll bet DL wouldn't have touched them, or at least not to the same extent.

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

not surprised, 150 departures a day still won't match what B6 will be doing with C (stated aim 200), but it will certainly be one of the most significant operations at BOS. To me the interesting aspect is which way will they go with those additional flights? additional destinations, more frequency or more likely a mixture of both. Cue "where will DL fly next from BOS" thread. We all know the aim is for WN to shift to B probably in 2018, but what happens to WS? it's only 1-2 gates that they use, but B is probably going to be tapped out when WN move, so do they move to C? if so could they go on the 40-42 pier with AS/VX and SY, is there room for them to do that? and is the plan for AS/VX to move back to B? not heard anything so i will assume not.

Always nice to hear about expansion prospects, concerning a bit about the TSA piece, i wonder if that's just a bit of sabre rattling, or there is a genuine issue there. I don't find it too bad, but then i have Pre-Check so it doesn't hold me up much.

flyby519 wrote:

It is, and seems largely to prevent others from creating their own version of ATL. DL knows the power of a fortress hub, and can't let someone like B6 or AS do that in BOS/SEA. LAX is too critical to let any one carrier become dominant as well, and RDU is to protect the ATL/Southeast market that they own. If nobody else was building BOS/SEA/RDU/LAX then I'll bet DL wouldn't have touched them, or at least not to the same extent.

Right - I get the logic from Delta's perspective. The part I find fascinating, though, is how this logic interacts with Delta's overall network and hub structure. With Delta messaging to Wall St that it's overall system capacity will be experiencing only minimal growth overall, what that effectively means in practice is that significant growth in one place - be it SEA, LAX, BOS or RDU - has to, often, be matched with cuts elsewhere. And my perception - could be wrong - is that, to at least an extent, part of the means by which Delta is funding this growth in non-hubs or "small hubs" is with cuts in some of its bigger hubs (though not, of course, ATL). That's just a very, very interesting strategy - for multiple reasons. First and foremost, three of those four hubs happen to be incredibly, intensely competitive markets with significant capacity by lower-cost operators (Alaska at SEA, Southwest at LAX, and JetBlue at BOS). Secondly, that strategy seems to contrast so starkly with what AA and United appear to be doing, which is bulking up all of their hubs.

chrisnh wrote:

It will be AF with the 787-9 W17/18, displacing the tired 777-200s on the route now.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-436422/

It is indeed AF but I wouldn't call it tired: AF upgraded the premium seats on these planes.
http://www.luxurytravelmagazine.com/new ... -24617.php

I wouldn't rule out LY - They should have 4 787's by March 2018 though I wonder if they start off with TLV-LHR/CDG first and then convert BOS and launch MIA. They could use the BOS route to start due to the schedule (lots of time on the ground in BOS).

Come the end of 2018 when all of the work is done in Terminal B, DL will get sole use of Terminal A. Its interesting, at that point DL, UA and AA will all have nicer facilities in BOS than B6.

B752OS wrote:

Come the end of 2018 when all of the work is done in Terminal B, DL will get sole use of Terminal A. Its interesting, at that point DL, UA and AA will all have nicer facilities in BOS than B6.

I agree - Delta's and United's gates at BOS are already quite nice, and the refurb of the soon-to-be-AA side of B also looks quite nice.

That said, on a slightly related note, it seems like the alleyway between A and B, and between B and the FedEx ramp, is going to be getting a lot more congested once AA consolidates its operations.

DL is certainly one for aggressive moves. If they want to actually get to 150 flights a day, they will have to get in or increasing flights on places like SFO, LAX, IAD, BWI, DCA, ORD, MIA/FLL, houston, dallas where they are competing with lower frequency and/or worse products again AA, UA, WN and of course B6.

Those $900 R/T delta one fares on BOS to SFO can't be making any money.

Today's inbound AF is indeed a 77W, so I guess this begins their 'summer season.'

tphuang wrote:

DL is certainly one for aggressive moves. If they want to actually get to 150 flights a day, they will have to get in or increasing flights on places like SFO, LAX, IAD, BWI, DCA, ORD, MIA/FLL, houston, dallas where they are competing with lower frequency and/or worse products again AA, UA, WN and of course B6.

Those $900 R/T delta one fares on BOS to SFO can't be making any money.

Possibly DL moves to go international in a big way? AA has a large market share difference compared to DL serving mostly domestic destinations - DFW, ORD, DCA, PHL, CLT, MIA, PIT which are not served by DL. PIT seems to the logical next route for DL in the near term considering AA may sunset that route anytime soon (speculation). I'm sure AA routing managers may be already taking note of the DL moves. B6 is a different discussion AA also benefits with a larger proportion of One World partners that DL doesn't have. Good times hopefully for DL.

commavia wrote:

B752OS wrote:

Come the end of 2018 when all of the work is done in Terminal B, DL will get sole use of Terminal A. Its interesting, at that point DL, UA and AA will all have nicer facilities in BOS than B6.

I agree - Delta's and United's gates at BOS are already quite nice, and the refurb of the soon-to-be-AA side of B also looks quite nice.
.

I agree as far as UA, but there is absolutely nothing special about terminal A. It's as barren as it gets. Yes the walls are newer but as far as post security restaurants and shopping, terminal C is much better than A.

iyerhari wrote:

Possibly DL moves to go international in a big way?

Not if they want 150 flights. Teminal A can't really add many more widebody departures without blocking adjacent gates, and it doesn't have CBP. Any major international expansion would requires space at terminal E.

iyerhari wrote:

PIT seems to the logical next route for DL in the near term considering AA may sunset that route anytime soon (speculation).

AA has continued to slash that routes frequency much to B6's delight. They keep adding more capacity to make up for the loss. In fact B6 said during a recent investors call, it was one of their most profitable routes. DL would certainly be able to support the route and would be appreciated by their business clients.

airbazar wrote:

commavia wrote:

B752OS wrote:

Come the end of 2018 when all of the work is done in Terminal B, DL will get sole use of Terminal A. Its interesting, at that point DL, UA and AA will all have nicer facilities in BOS than B6.

I agree - Delta's and United's gates at BOS are already quite nice, and the refurb of the soon-to-be-AA side of B also looks quite nice.
.

I agree as far as UA, but there is absolutely nothing special about terminal A. It's as barren as it gets. Yes the walls are newer but as far as post security restaurants and shopping, terminal C is much better than A.

iyerhari wrote:

Possibly DL moves to go international in a big way?

Not if they want 150 flights. Teminal A can't really add many more widebody departures without blocking adjacent gates, and it doesn't have CBP. Any major international expansion would requires space at terminal E.

Interesting, I have the opposite view! I like Legals and Lucky's in Terminal A.

It is interesting to hypothesize about how they get to 150 flights per day. I do think some frequency increases will happen, and they've demostrated this with cities like MKE, SEA - start out with a single flight and then add. I do think we'll see this with Austin, Nashville etc.. For example, I would bet that they eventually add an AM flight from BOS-AUS at some point. However, that 5:30AM - 8AM bank is getting pretty crowded.

I also think that they'll add frequencies to some of the bigger corporate cities - SFO, SEA.

Possibly some additional Florida and island flying?

Possibly another destination or two in Europe?

But that's not going to be 50 flights. They're going to have to add new cities. The obvious candidates (DCA, ORD) are not without problems. I will be interested to watch things evolve.

commavia wrote:

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

Another SEA. Incredible. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, particularly given Delta's guidance to analysts on capacity discipline.

It is truly remarkable to witness how divergent Delta's network strategy seems to be - at least as it relates to non-hubs - as compared with AA and United. Delta's single largest hub (ATL, obviously) comprises a higher percentage of Delta's overall system capacity than either AA's (DFW) or United's (ORD), but the disparity in this metric is also seemingly larger between ATL and Delta's other hubs as compared to DFW vs AA's other hubs and ORD and United's other hubs. And related, and to the point, Delta seems far more interested in adventures in new hubs, focus cities and gateways - like LAX, SEA, RDU, BOS. Whereas AA and United seem intent on bulking up their hubs - just about all of their hubs - Delta seems to be shifting capacity around everywhere. Fascinating to watch.

It is just DL focusing on several markets where they expect sustainable growth. I think it has more to do with the actual market and less with a strategy to build up "mini-hubs". I agree these markets are very competitive but DL probably expects to overwhelm the competition and a few of the competitors to drop.

tlecam wrote:

It is interesting to hypothesize about how they get to 150 flights per day. I do think some frequency increases will happen, and they've demostrated this with cities like MKE, SEA - start out with a single flight and then add. I do think we'll see this with Austin, Nashville etc.. For example, I would bet that they eventually add an AM flight from BOS-AUS at some point. However, that 5:30AM - 8AM bank is getting pretty crowded.

I also think that they'll add frequencies to some of the bigger corporate cities - SFO, SEA.

Possibly some additional Florida and island flying?

Possibly another destination or two in Europe?

But that's not going to be 50 flights. They're going to have to add new cities. The obvious candidates (DCA, ORD) are not without problems. I will be interested to watch things evolve.

I don't see how they can add frequencies to places like SFO or LAX without getting major retaliation. And any flights to washington regions and ORD are going to be major bloodbath and they will get serious push backs by AA/UA. This is not Seattle where they can just add flights without seriously encroaching on other legacies that can hurt them on other routes.

Just go by SFO to BOS, they have 2 frequencies against 7 from UA, 4 from B6 and 3 from VX. And there is no product advantage from DL even with delta one. Given UA's network advantage here, it should seriously dominate DL on routes like this.

tlecam wrote:

It is interesting to hypothesize about how they get to 150 flights per day. I do think some frequency increases will happen, and they've demostrated this with cities like MKE, SEA - start out with a single flight and then add. I do think we'll see this with Austin, Nashville etc.. For example, I would bet that they eventually add an AM flight from BOS-AUS at some point. However, that 5:30AM - 8AM bank is getting pretty crowded.

I also think that they'll add frequencies to some of the bigger corporate cities - SFO, SEA.

Possibly some additional Florida and island flying?

Possibly another destination or two in Europe?

But that's not going to be 50 flights. They're going to have to add new cities. The obvious candidates (DCA, ORD) are not without problems. I will be interested to watch things evolve.

Interesting to consider, indeed. I agree that some of the domestic candidates are obvious - new flights, assuming they could get sufficient slots and gates, to DCA, ORD, possibly DFW, MIA/FLL, maybe SAN, etc., added frequencies on transcons, etc. But, as said, that's a lot easier said than done - where is Delta going to get slots at DCA, or gates at ORD? And how are AA, JetBlue and United going to respond to incursions into some of their hubs and core markets? As I mentioned in a previous post - that should be fascinating to watch!

VS11 wrote:

It is just DL focusing on several markets where they expect sustainable growth. I think it has more to do with the actual market and less with a strategy to build up "mini-hubs". I agree these markets are very competitive but DL probably expects to overwhelm the competition and a few of the competitors to drop.

Right - again, I'm sure that's Delta's internal logic and rationale. The question, I think, is going to be whether or not Delta can actually achieve "sustainable" growth in these highly competitive markets without materially eroding said markets' economics. I would be surprised if Delta was banking on its ability to "overwhelm the competition" and drive a few of them to drop out of certain markets. The experience in SEA should, if nothing else, have validated that competitors are fully capable of pushing back. And frankly, if anything, I'd argue that JetBlue in some ways is actually an even stronger competitor in BOS than Alaska is in SEA.

tphuang wrote:

I don't see how they can add frequencies to places like SFO or LAX without getting major retaliation. And any flights to washington regions and ORD are going to be major bloodbath and they will get serious push backs by AA/UA. This is not Seattle where they can just add flights without seriously encroaching on other legacies that can hurt them on other routes.

Just go by SFO to BOS, they have 2 frequencies against 7 from UA, 4 from B6 and 3 from VX. And there is no product advantage from DL even with delta one. Given UA's network advantage here, it should seriously dominate DL on routes like this.

I generally agree. I'm sure Delta can add lots of additional flights out of BOS, including to lots of places overlapping existing capacity on AA, JetBlue and United - but that is going to entail overlaying a lot of capacity on top of airlines that have been established, entrenched and (in some cases) dominant in some of these markets for years. All of that is to say - I see now plausible way that Delta could dump that much additional capacity into the BOS market without eroding yields.

commavia wrote:

All of that is to say - I see no plausible way that Delta could dump that much additional capacity into the BOS market without eroding yields.

I don't, either. Ergo, 'fare sales.' And then retrenchment. Like the bottle of shampoo says, "Lather, rinse, repeat." We'll know things have gotten silly if someone adds Boston-Albuquerque and calls it the 'Breaking Bad Express.'

Hopefully the DL and B6 expansion mitigates some of the international reduction as far as EOY numbers

pitbosflyer wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

PIT seems to the logical next route for DL in the near term considering AA may sunset that route anytime soon (speculation).

AA has continued to slash that routes frequency much to B6's delight. They keep adding more capacity to make up for the loss. In fact B6 said during a recent investors call, it was one of their most profitable routes. DL would certainly be able to support the route and would be appreciated by their business clients.

B6 uses the PIT-BOS for connections on EK and probably now on QR to India. I remember when taking that flight, it used to filled with India connections. In retrospect, there weren't many connections on US and now AA from PIT-BOS.

Hopefully, with DL expanding in BOS, Massport builds the Terminal A to E connector for connections.

tphuang wrote:

I don't see how they can add frequencies to places like SFO or LAX without getting major retaliation. And any flights to washington regions and ORD are going to be major bloodbath and they will get serious push backs by AA/UA. This is not Seattle where they can just add flights without seriously encroaching on other legacies that can hurt them on other routes.

Just go by SFO to BOS, they have 2 frequencies against 7 from UA, 4 from B6 and 3 from VX. And there is no product advantage from DL even with delta one. Given UA's network advantage here, it should seriously dominate DL on routes like this.

But BOS is a DL hub so who is retaliating on who?

BOSMEMFlyer wrote:

Hopefully the DL and B6 expansion mitigates some of the international reduction as far as EOY numbers

What international reduction? Other then a few places such as the ME carriers being impacted by the laptop ban, overall international traffic at BOS is still growing at over 4% YOY.

iyerhari wrote:

Hopefully, with DL expanding in BOS, Massport builds the Terminal A to E connector for connections.

There's already one. With moving walkways nonetheless, and without having to step outside the building. Try to do that from E to C and you can't.

I'm sure B6 has been benefiting from the C to E connector hallway.

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

That's going to be a lot of turns per gate; I'm not sure Terminal A can handle 150 departures unless there are going to be a lot of small RJs. DL has been really increasing the size of the operation. Back in '07 when DL was last running around 100 flights, at least two-fifths of the flights were on 50-seaters and the old gates 10-11-12 were actually 7 separate hard-stands with zero European departures.

N717TW wrote:

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

That's going to be a lot of turns per gate; I'm not sure Terminal A can handle 150 departures unless there are going to be a lot of small RJs. DL has been really increasing the size of the operation. Back in '07 when DL was last running around 100 flights, at least two-fifths of the flights were on 50-seaters and the old gates 10-11-12 were actually 7 separate hard-stands with zero European departures.

Well once WN vacate their 5 gates, that leaves Delta with 20 gates if they manage to snag the remaining gate back from WS, that leaves them with the full compliment of 21. (goes up to A22, but no A12 currently). if you use the WN model of turns that would allow up to 210 departures a day even a few more as i've seen WN use 3 of their gates 11 times a day. But with the widebody departures clearly that's not going to be possible. so let's say you knock 4 gates down to 5 a day to allow for the widebodies (this is just a theory, I am sure we could figure out the actual), so that's 20 less departures. then assume DL will have a longer turn time than WN usually does, and say an average of 8 in the rest of the gates - 17 * 8 = 136 plus the 20 at the remaining 4 = 156. So theoretically doable, but boy is that area going to be busy with that amount of movements coming in and out, roughly 113,000 movements per annum at that level.

For all the doomsayers, Norwegian has great loads. Would they add other destinations like ARN or BCN?

B6 attempts for Cuba.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201 ... story.html

Just an aside to all the posts in recent days about Cathay "going" daily, they already have. CX812/811 went daily with the start of the IATA summer season on 26MAR.

Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with some of what one poster has pointed out regarding the desirability of moving to MA (I have repeatedly ruled out moving back to Massachusetts due to the cost of living compared to what I pay or have paid to live in Chicago or Toronto) but it would seem many disagree with us. While the cost of living certainly prevents Greater Boston from growing as fast as it should given the number of graduates it produces every year, that isn't stopping the region from growing. Since 2010 the Boston MSA and CSA have been growing at faster rates than in previous decades and faster than most other large, northern metros, including New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. In fact, of non-southeast/sunbelt MSAs greater than 3 million, only Minneapolis and Seattle are growing faster. Expanding that definition to MSAs of 2+ million only adds Portland and Denver to the list. The city proper alone is gaining +/- 10,000 residents per year and the MSA and CSA have gained an estimated 250,000 and 300,000 residents over the last six years, respectively.

Greater Boston (and significant chunks of MA), much like its high cost brother, the Bay Area (an even more expensive region that's growing slightly faster than Greater Boston), has done a good job harnessing the new economy and bringing high paying jobs to the region. I can't say that naysayer predictions about the long-term viability of the service gains made over the last five years won't come true (no one can). I'd even say it's likely that another carrier or two may join the ranks of EW. But if those doomsday predictions come to pass it'll be due to future global economic conditions and/or another run-up of the price of oil or JetBlue deciding to buy a bunch of widebodies and fling them around the globe. And you'll be seeing similar situations occurring in SFO, SEA, ORD and other cities that have seen jumps in international service in recent years. It will not be due to the cost of living in one of the country's wealthiest, most educated urban centres that routinely ranks as one of the USs most economically important and livable cities.

I noticed that the UA 77W last week was also the second SFO transcon rotation and has primarily been doing transcons, presumably to break the plane in before sending it over the Pacific. I wonder if we can expect BOS to see the occasional 77W sub while UA continues to take delivery of them.

Heard a rumor that another carrier at Boston will be bringing the 787. Not a new carrier, just an equipment switch later this year.

Of 787 carriers currently serving BOS with other aircraft:

• Aeromexico, Air Canada and American aren't likely;
• Unless Avianca have tapped into the unserved market of the century, they'll be an Airbus narrowbody for a while;
• British Airways have already flown the 787 to BOS and it's probable they will resume it at some point in the future so a seasonal resumption is not really noteworthy;
• Delta cancelled their order;
• El Al's first 787s are of the -9 variety and I believe those are slated to replace the 747s. Also, LY may opt to expand some (like MIA or ORD resumptions) keeping the remaining, younger 767s on the BOS and YYZ routes longer. LY 787s are an inevitability (assuming the route sticks around) but nothing has been said to make one think they're coming in the near future;
• Icelandair's single remaining order has a question mark over who will operate it, should FI even take delivery and not either swap it for more 737MAX or sell the delivery slot to another airline, like they did with Norwegian with the other 3 FI ordered;
• Qatar's frames aren't configured to fly to North America;
• United's fleet is engaged with their transpacific and West Coast-Europe routes, aside from some hub-to-hub teething flights. I could see the occasional one-off (much like the 77W the other day) but I'm not sure if that would constitute anything worthy of a rumour.

That leaves us with Air France. Aside from one additional economy seat AF's 789s have essentially the same seat composition as the A340s. It makes perfect sense should AF decide to replace the Airbus on the second summer flight or even swap out the 772 next winter. Granted current schedules show the later flight operated by a 332, which has a larger business cabin, though it's possible they may be seeing advance premium bookings flagging a bit over previous years.

LH423

SCQ83 wrote:

For all the doomsayers, Norwegian has great loads. Would they add other destinations like ARN or BCN?

In theory i bet they would, the issue is gate space in Terminal E at the times they would want to arrive and depart. I think that's why we haven't seen LGW go daily as part of reasoning. Loads at 90+% should be doing ok even if we don't know the yields they are getting from that.

VS4ever wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

For all the doomsayers, Norwegian has great loads. Would they add other destinations like ARN or BCN?

In theory i bet they would, the issue is gate space in Terminal E at the times they would want to arrive and depart. I think that's why we haven't seen LGW go daily as part of reasoning. Loads at 90+% should be doing ok even if we don't know the yields they are getting from that.

Is there room for a 10 pm landing and 11:55 pm departure for a 3x LGW 2x ARN 2x BCN?

VS4ever wrote:

N717TW wrote:

tlecam wrote:

He says they want exclusive use of Terminal A and wants to expand BOS flights by 50% - up to 150 flights a day. Will happen over the next couple of years.

That's going to be a lot of turns per gate; I'm not sure Terminal A can handle 150 departures unless there are going to be a lot of small RJs. DL has been really increasing the size of the operation. Back in '07 when DL was last running around 100 flights, at least two-fifths of the flights were on 50-seaters and the old gates 10-11-12 were actually 7 separate hard-stands with zero European departures.

Well once WN vacate their 5 gates, that leaves Delta with 20 gates if they manage to snag the remaining gate back from WS, that leaves them with the full compliment of 21. (goes up to A22, but no A12 currently). if you use the WN model of turns that would allow up to 210 departures a day even a few more as i've seen WN use 3 of their gates 11 times a day. But with the widebody departures clearly that's not going to be possible. so let's say you knock 4 gates down to 5 a day to allow for the widebodies (this is just a theory, I am sure we could figure out the actual), so that's 20 less departures. then assume DL will have a longer turn time than WN usually does, and say an average of 8 in the rest of the gates - 17 * 8 = 136 plus the 20 at the remaining 4 = 156. So theoretically doable, but boy is that area going to be busy with that amount of movements coming in and out, roughly 113,000 movements per annum at that level.

While DL can clearly do 8 or even 9 turns per gate (heck they are doing 10+ at LAX right now) the scheduling flow in BOS is what really makes that hard. BOS, with its location at the corner of the country, creates a lot of departure demand between 6-9 am and from 3-7pm. With the exception of the Shuttle and ATL/DTW/MSP, there aren't many DL flights between 9 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon and almost zero domestic departures after 7pm. Plus B6 and UA/AA are pretty similar ghost towns in the middle of the day (B6 with their leisure focus and willingness to connect traffic from the northeast over BOS is slightly busier). Unless DL is going to reenter the PHL, BWI and DC bloodbaths (and using scarce DCA slots for BOS wouldn't be a great idea unless they walk into new slots) there probably won't be a lot of demand for mid-day flights. That means a really busy ramp in the morning and afternoon...and the SkyClubs are going to be out of control (they are already standing room only around 5 pm).

Updated on DL website: http://news.delta.com/delta-builds-posi ... ier-boston

Hopefully soon: PHL, DCA, SDF, ORD to start with. This should hopefully tied the reduced numbers from EK especially and able to get past MSP this calendar year.