tlecam wrote:

The DL flight to LAS is an odd one to me. I honestly don’t much about the LAS market, but my assumption is that it’s largely leisure travel. The average fares don’t seem too high. It just seems like there are better things Delta could do with a 738. On the other hand, it’s probably a dot they have to connect if Boston is an “important city” or hub or whatever, and they aren’t going up against AA or UA on it, unlike Chicago, Dallas, Charlotte etc..

DL has had a LAS flight intermittently for years. Most of the previous schedules were on a B757 that basically did an overnight round trip rather than sitting overnight at BOS. It would leave BOS about 1930 and come back to BOS as a red-eye. the flight attendants loved the flight because they could rack off lots of time doing the round trip. I was told that the flight nearly paid for itself by shipping seafood to Vegas restaurants.Don't know the veracity of that claim.

RobertS975 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

The DL flight to LAS is an odd one to me. I honestly don’t much about the LAS market, but my assumption is that it’s largely leisure travel. The average fares don’t seem too high. It just seems like there are better things Delta could do with a 738. On the other hand, it’s probably a dot they have to connect if Boston is an “important city” or hub or whatever, and they aren’t going up against AA or UA on it, unlike Chicago, Dallas, Charlotte etc..

DL has had a LAS flight intermittently for years. Most of the previous schedules were on a B757 that basically did an overnight round trip rather than sitting overnight at BOS. It would leave BOS about 1930 and come back to BOS as a red-eye. the flight attendants loved the flight because they could rack off lots of time doing the round trip. I was told that the flight nearly paid for itself by shipping seafood to Vegas restaurants.Don't know the veracity of that claim.

Interesting, thanks! I hadn't thought of the freight part.

I believe it. The sheer volume of seafood that goes through Logan is incredible. Both in and out.

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others)

Paris for example will have 5 flights on certain days to just CDG. ZRH has two flights.

Guess there just isn't the demand for a flight to Geneva, or Marseille for example. Though with France it seems like it's not just Boston. EVERY one goes through just CDG.

FGITD wrote:

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

They're using A332 I think.

FGITD wrote:

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others) Paris for example will have 5 flights on certain days to just CDG. ZRH has two flights. Guess there just isn't the demand for a flight to Geneva, or Marseille for example. Though with France it seems like it's not just Boston. EVERY one goes through just CDG.

I think that that has more to do with the other countries than it does with Boston. More than almost any other western country, France is its capital, Paris. Switzerland is just geographically too small to support multiple large, international airports. Are there more than a couple US cities served from GVA? Italy is different (in so many ways). I think MXP could support a BOS flight in addition to FCO, maybe even year-round. But the Italian market is fragmented and MXP is just a terrible airport.

Even Spain . . . I think that the success of BOS-BCN is a TBD. If may work on a seasonal basis, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if it didn't. I have to admit, it feels more like a seasonal 757 route to me.

NickolayAv wrote:

FGITD wrote:

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

They're using A332 I think.

You're correct, I was thinking of the normal Iberia flight to Madrid.

I think that's a good point regarding multiple flights to one country. Most tourists fly to France to see Paris. And even if you're not, you can take the train across the entire country in barely 4 hours.

Switzerland also, just too small. Too bad, i'd love a flight to Geneva.

Italy really is the interesting case. I think MXP would do better than Rome, actually.

It'll certainly be interesting to see what gets added next.

FGITD wrote:

I believe it. The sheer volume of seafood that goes through Logan is incredible. Both in and out.

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others)

Paris for example will have 5 flights on certain days to just CDG. ZRH has two flights.

Guess there just isn't the demand for a flight to Geneva, or Marseille for example. Though with France it seems like it's not just Boston. EVERY one goes through just CDG.

That's a good point you say. I compiled the list of carriers to and from US to the 2nd busiest airports onwards for 5 countries. There are only a handful flights and many of them are also seasonal.
Germany DUS ATL
TXL JFK, EWR
HAM EWR

France ORY EWR

Spain BCN MIA, JFK, CLT, ORD, PHL, ATL, EWR, IAD

Italy MXP MIA, JFK, ATL, EWR
VCE PHL, ORD, ATL, JFK, EWR

Switzerland GVA EWR, IAD

FGITD wrote:

Italy really is the interesting case. I think MXP would do better than Rome, actually.

It'll certainly be interesting to see what gets added next.

I really do think that BOS will see MXP if Air Italy is successful. Lots of business travel means they could make it very premium heavy too.

FGITD wrote:

I believe it. The sheer volume of seafood that goes through Logan is incredible. Both in and out.

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others)

Paris for example will have 5 flights on certain days to just CDG. ZRH has two flights.

Guess there just isn't the demand for a flight to Geneva, or Marseille for example. Though with France it seems like it's not just Boston. EVERY one goes through just CDG.

Part of the issue is the rail network in Europe, which is awesome, compared to even the likes of England and Ireland, which suck in terms of relative speed and access. Lyon to Paris, takes less than 2 hours for example on a TGV. but also look at the relative population sizes.

Paris has 12m people, the next biggest is Lyon with 2.1m and Marseille with 1.7m and it drops quickly from there. So the markets from those cities are limited, plus cheap air travel across Europe means, you can hop a plane from Marseille to a number of places for next to nothing, then connect from there to almost anywhere. Think of it like flying from say BDL or Means the non-stop market is small. Now... with the advent of the max/321LR's etc. it might be doable. I see a market potentially for a W pattern arrangement of 2-3 weekly from a number of the 2nd tier airports that say provide 300-400 seats a week from those markets. but it still has to be priced right, of course DY would be the obvious candidate, assuming their finances do not get the better of them.

up to now, running a daily 757/67 was the only way to get across the pond and markets like those you mention just can't sustain that. Even little ole BHX in the UK, which has a market the size of Lyon surrounding it, can barely hang on to TATL service, because just down the road is Birmingham International that can get you to other places by train pretty quick and right next door is the M42 that takes you to the M40 or M6 and be at LHR or MAN in 2 hours or less.

I believe we are still in the infancy of this market type arrangement, but you can also see other things happen. For example. What does FI do with TACV and Cape Verde, do they turn that into a southern version of KEF because KEF is becoming capacity limited. What about PDL? you could do a nice hub operation from there to numerous cities to fill the TATL options. Even DUB is becoming that way, let's not forget the population of DUB is around 1m and yet they support 300,000 people flying to BOS every year alone and that's before you add in JFK, BDL, MIA, PHL, SFO, LAX and the like.

Long story short, we may never get to point to point from all these airports, there just isn't a market from all of them to be viable, but careful picking and with the proper onward connections could make them so in the future.

33lspotter wrote:

That being said, my money would still be on EK.

Totally. That's where the safe money is. I'm just saying if it turns out to be LH from MUC it won't be all that surprising.

jworks158 wrote:

First of all from around October/Novemberish to the end of January LH did switch the A359 out for a A346 on what was seemingly a random assortment of days.

But the A346 and A359 have exactly the same number of seats. My point being that it was supposed to be down-gauged to an A333 over the Winter and it never happened.

FGITD wrote:

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others)

Interesting. Never thought of it that way but now that i think of it, I think there are political reasons to justify Spain and Germany.
Most European countries are very centralized politically and just about everything revolves around their capital. In Spain however it goes without saying that Catalonia doesn't quite see itself as part of Spain. Germany is a Federal republic with competing states similar to what we have in the U.S.A.

I think a lot of it has to do less with the country political boundaries that exist today and more with the histories of those cities / city states. Most of the cities with flights have been populations centers for much of history. The country or empire that "owned" them has changed over time. For the most part, the western European boundaries have been more or less stable for about a century (since WW1) and the eastern European boundaries underwent major change after WW2 and after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the cities with population are mostly where they've been for a very long time.

I think it is only Germany which is an exception. In-case of Germany, Berlin is most populous followed by Hamburg, Munich, Cologne and Frankfurt. I believe with E Germany and W Germany, FRA may have been established as the LH hub as I believe it is also the financial capital of Germany.

France - no brainer - Vs4ever already provided the details. Paris.

Spain - Madrid, Barcelona - which explains MAD and BCN

Switzerland - Zurich - ZRH and followed by GVA

Italy - Rome, Milan, Naples - Venice comes here because of the huge tourist population

The population of Europe cities are so small compared to cities in India (where I grew up) The population of Mumbai including unofficial estimates (slums, and registered) is upwards of 21.3 M.

iyerhari wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I believe it. The sheer volume of seafood that goes through Logan is incredible. Both in and out.

New tail at terminal E on its way today. Level starts up BCN with an a333.

Interesting that England, Ireland, Germany and Spain all seem capable of supporting flights from more than 1 city to Boston. Yet France, Italy, and Switzerland can only go from 1. (Amongst others)

Paris for example will have 5 flights on certain days to just CDG. ZRH has two flights.

Guess there just isn't the demand for a flight to Geneva, or Marseille for example. Though with France it seems like it's not just Boston. EVERY one goes through just CDG.

That's a good point you say. I compiled the list of carriers to and from US to the 2nd busiest airports onwards for 5 countries. There are only a handful flights and many of them are also seasonal.
Germany DUS ATL
TXL JFK, EWR
HAM EWR

France ORY EWR

Spain BCN MIA, JFK, CLT, ORD, PHL, ATL, EWR, IAD

Italy MXP MIA, JFK, ATL, EWR
VCE PHL, ORD, ATL, JFK, EWR

Switzerland GVA EWR, IAD

For GVA, you can also add JFK.

There is actually a good demand for a flight between GVA and BOS. A 4/5 weekly A321LR service would clearly work. Front rows would definitely be full.

xorrygva wrote:

There is actually a good demand for a flight between GVA and BOS. A 4/5 weekly A321LR service would clearly work. Front rows would definitely be full.

No question. A321LR and 797 open up lots from BOS - GVA, BRU, MXP. Maybe even seasonal EDI and NCE.

hinckley wrote:

xorrygva wrote:

There is actually a good demand for a flight between GVA and BOS. A 4/5 weekly A321LR service would clearly work. Front rows would definitely be full.

No question. A321LR and 797 open up lots from BOS - GVA, BRU, MXP. Maybe even seasonal EDI and NCE.

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

NickolayAv wrote:

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

“One time back in the 90s” and “the fares were low backtracking through JFK” probably aren’t good ways to begin assessments of a route’s potential performance. I think both could be viable 757 routes for Delta.

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

MXP was dropped since AZ consolidated in FCO.
Air Italy/IG could be the one to retry it but they would need strong hub structure in MXP to return.

There were a lot more cheap Euro Fares due to really cheap oil and healthier traffic upfront back in mid 90's.

BRU could go either way SN or B6 if it happens.

Concerning B6 and recent events - I think A321LR is going to serve BOS-LON/DUB/PAR and two out of DUS/BRU/AMS/GVA.

Welp, the KE/DL JV was approved. I am actively awaiting more non-news on any BOS-ICN service. haha

https://news.delta.com/delta-and-korean ... artnership

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -v-447185/
Says "The transport ministry says that the two carriers will be required to maintain their present level of capacity on US routes, and it will be subject to a review after three years."
If I understand correctly that means no flight for BOS.

NickolayAv wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-approves-delta-korean-air-transpacific-joint-v-447185/
Says "The transport ministry says that the two carriers will be required to maintain their present level of capacity on US routes, and it will be subject to a review after three years."
If I understand correctly that means no flight for BOS.

I interpret that more as they can't drop capacity on current US routes. Doesn't mean they can't add new US cities.

NickolayAv wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-approves-delta-korean-air-transpacific-joint-v-447185/
Says "The transport ministry says that the two carriers will be required to maintain their present level of capacity on US routes, and it will be subject to a review after three years."
If I understand correctly that means no flight for BOS.

No its just minimum capacity - there's no maximum capacity (more flights are good for the consumer!) They are not allowed to lower capacity to raise fares and they also have to maintain service in some specific markets.

How this could hurt BOS is that - DL or KE cannot trim ATL/SEA/DTW to serve BOS even if this allows them to keep (or even go well above) the minimum amount of capacity required.

adamh8297 wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-approves-delta-korean-air-transpacific-joint-v-447185/
Says "The transport ministry says that the two carriers will be required to maintain their present level of capacity on US routes, and it will be subject to a review after three years."
If I understand correctly that means no flight for BOS.

No its just minimum capacity - there's no maximum capacity (more flights are good for the consumer!) They are not allowed to lower capacity to raise fares and they also have to maintain service in some specific markets.

How this could hurt BOS is that - DL or KE cannot trim ATL/SEA/DTW to serve BOS even if this allows them to keep (or even go well above) the minimum amount of capacity required.

Ok, thanks for explaining.

OZ could consider launching ICN-BOS-ICN service in the next few years. Hopefully as Air Italy starts receiving their 788'S from QR they will launch MXP-BOS-MXP service. 3x or 4x could possibly work for them.
Any news on AV and their SAL-BOS-SAL proposed service? I am hoping they give it a try. If not I am hoping for LP to launch LIM-BOS-LIM service. Perhaps a longshot but LIM offers a lot of connection opportunities and Lima has a great food scene.
Any rumors of LY replacing their 763 with 789'S as their 787 fleet grows?

georgiabill wrote:

OZ could consider launching ICN-BOS-ICN service in the next few years. Hopefully as Air Italy starts receiving their 788'S from QR they will launch MXP-BOS-MXP service. 3x or 4x could possibly work for them.
Any news on AV and their SAL-BOS-SAL proposed service? I am hoping they give it a try. If not I am hoping for LP to launch LIM-BOS-LIM service. Perhaps a longshot but LIM offers a lot of connection opportunities and Lima has a great food scene.
Any rumors of LY replacing their 763 with 789'S as their 787 fleet grows?

LIM-BOS is almost impossible. If IAD couldn't make it work out there's almost no chance of BOS.
LY is more likely going to replace 763s with 788. 789 would be a huge capacity increase. No news on AV BOS-SAL.

Ty NickolayAv. I was thinking 3x or 4x with a 763 might work LIM-BOS-LIM on days the GRU-BOS-GRU does not operate. I meant 788'S when asking about LY'S TLV-BOS-TLV service. Perhaps someday the route might require the 789.

bagoldex wrote:

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

“One time back in the 90s” and “the fares were low backtracking through JFK” probably aren’t good ways to begin assessments of a route’s potential performance. I think both could be viable 757 routes for Delta.

And yet, absolutely no one has even hinted at interest in flying these routes. Shocking.

bagoldex wrote:

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I think both BRU and MXP could be done in an A330 and fill up nicely without the need for A321LR and 797. (Obviously depending on airline)

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

“One time back in the 90s” and “the fares were low backtracking through JFK” probably aren’t good ways to begin assessments of a route’s potential performance. I think both could be viable 757 routes for Delta.

Time will DL feels the same way. We’ll have to wait and see what their plans are for BOS once the Terminal B work is complete and WN moves from their 5 gates. I can’t see either BRU or MXP working year round. Perhaps seasonal (say mid-April through September) at 2-3 weekly. There really isn’t a whole lot left for BOS-Europe. When/if B6 enters the market, that’s going to push out some existing carriers I feel like.

NickolayAv wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

OZ could consider launching ICN-BOS-ICN service in the next few years. Hopefully as Air Italy starts receiving their 788'S from QR they will launch MXP-BOS-MXP service. 3x or 4x could possibly work for them.
Any news on AV and their SAL-BOS-SAL proposed service??

No news on AV BOS-SAL.

AV did increase BOS-BOG to daily last week for September and most of October. Not sure if the plan was to originally slot SAL in the off days. I'm wondering if the BOG route becomes daily summer and 4 weekly winter.

airbazar wrote:

bagoldex wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I don't think so. Both have been tried and I have a feeling they have been dropped for a reason. I recent experience flying BOS-JFK-MXP showed me that the fares are very low.
I also flew BOS-BRU-VIE back in the day with Sabena (mid 90's). It was cheap. Like sub-$200 r/t cheap
BRU punches above its weight for intra-Europe traffic because it's the location of the EU parliament which like DCA, generates a lot of high yielding government traffic but as far as the TATL market goes it's not that big or profitable. I agree that BOS-MXP and BOS-BRU should be the domain of a LCC operating narrowbodies.

“One time back in the 90s” and “the fares were low backtracking through JFK” probably aren’t good ways to begin assessments of a route’s potential performance. I think both could be viable 757 routes for Delta.

And yet, absolutely no one has even hinted at interest in flying these routes. Shocking.

While only one season, Delsey Airlines (AKA VG Airlines) flew BOS-BRU in 2002 with scheduled service on the A330.

On a related note, BRU is much like CBR in that traffic to/from it is mostly driven by bureaucrats and the city has little to offer in and of itself. SABENA mostly offered connections between North America and Africa as hardly any tourists going to Europe actually intend to visit Brussels itself.

styles9002 wrote:

On a related note, BRU is much like CBR in that traffic to/from it is mostly driven by bureaucrats and the city has little to offer in and of itself. SABENA mostly offered connections between North America and Africa as hardly any tourists going to Europe actually intend to visit Brussels itself.

Conceptually, you're right. But a BOS-BRU thrived for years even though there were also non-stops to CDG and AMS during most or all of that time. And let's face it, both of those airports are far better connecting airports than BRU has even been (Africa notwithstanding). And for those actually going to Brussels, AMS is about a 90 minute train trip to Brussels-Midi and CDG is about a two hour trip. So it had/has something going for it.

styles9002 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

bagoldex wrote:

While only one season, Delsey Airlines (AKA VG Airlines) flew BOS-BRU in 2002 with scheduled service on the A330.

Then there are fossils like me who remember when Braniff flew the Big Orange Pumpkin to BRU on certain days of the week

hinckley wrote:

Conceptually, you're right. But a BOS-BRU thrived for years even though there were also non-stops to CDG and AMS during most or all of that time. And let's face it, both of those airports are far better connecting airports than BRU has even been (Africa notwithstanding). And for those actually going to Brussels, AMS is about a 90 minute train trip to Brussels-Midi and CDG is about a two hour trip. So it had/has something going for it.

I wouldn't say it thrived. It was operated by a government owned airline that didn't need to be profitable until it did. And the rest is history. I doubt any of Sabena's routes were profitable in the 80's and 90's.
Sabena was just like TAP: Their entire reason for existing was to transport people to/from their colonies. The U.S. routes were prestige routes, When they lost their colonies the airline lost their reason for existing. They managed to stay in operation after that because the government kept pumping money into the airline but when the EU passed the rule that governments couldn't subsidize airlines, in the 80's, it was all over. TAP was lucky enough to have Brazil as one of the World's largest economies to keep it going, barely. Sabena wasn't so lucky.

Brussels (and the lowlands area, including Luxembourg) will likely also see increased business traffic as a result of Brexit.

B6 to HAV from BOS gets approval

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

I hate to torpedo my own credibility, but I heard today that there will in fact be no second a380 coming.

So to end the guessing, it was indeed supposed to be Emirates, starting June 1st or 2nd and running through the summer season.

No real indication as to why it's changed. Just that it's not coming. Apologies for misleading, it seemed all but certain up until today.

So, with that said, I think the next "Exciting" addition to Boston will be Primera, though I'm not sure when they start

Coincidentally or not, EK is pulling back FLL, MCO, SEA with a mix of fewer flights or smaller planes.

EK CEO was boasting about business rebounding but that seems not to be happening.

FGITD wrote:

I hate to torpedo my own credibility, but I heard today that there will in fact be no second a380 coming.

So to end the guessing, it was indeed supposed to be Emirates, starting June 1st or 2nd and running through the summer season.

No real indication as to why it's changed. Just that it's not coming. Apologies for misleading, it seemed all but certain up until today.

So, with that said, I think the next "Exciting" addition to Boston will be Primera, though I'm not sure when they start

Damn, disappointing, but thanks for keeping us informed.

With IAH recently being upgauged by EK back to an A388, does anyone know what the LF's are for BOS vs IAH on EK?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With IAH recently being upgauged by EK back to an A388, does anyone know what the LF's are for BOS vs IAH on EK?

I’m behind on running the data but last time I looked they were within 1% of each other on a rolling annual basis.

VS4ever wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With IAH recently being upgauged by EK back to an A388, does anyone know what the LF's are for BOS vs IAH on EK?

I’m behind on running the data but last time I looked they were within 1% of each other on a rolling annual basis.

Thanks VS4ever!

I wonder what EK's hesitation is then with officially upgauging BOS to the A388? Is the cargo just too much to change it? I keep seeing people post rumors that DFW is going to be upgauged again as well.

On a separate note I saw that SEA is dropping from a 77W to a 2-class 77L. Considering Sir Tim Clarke was recently quoted as saying that SEA & BOS were two contenders to have their frequencies increased, I say BOS made out okay with not seeing any other additional cuts (Aircraft or frequencies).

Any news on the LEVEL flights from/to Barcelona?

VS11 wrote:

Any news on the LEVEL flights from/to Barcelona?

They started this week. 2 flights have been completed.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With IAH recently being upgauged by EK back to an A388, does anyone know what the LF's are for BOS vs IAH on EK?

I’m behind on running the data but last time I looked they were within 1% of each other on a rolling annual basis.

Thanks VS4ever!

I wonder what EK's hesitation is then with officially upgauging BOS to the A388? Is the cargo just too much to change it? I keep seeing people post rumors that DFW is going to be upgauged again as well.

supposedly Emirates doesn't want to tow their 380 to a remote hardstand. And Massport doesn't want to have one gate at a far overcapacity terminal occupied by an empty plane for 8+ hours.

British does get their own gate, but it's here for about 5.5 hours, and the only aircraft that use that gate are usually BA. So the only operator who's operation is effected is....BA. you'll notice that in the summer during irregularities, the usual pattern for multi flight carriers is to have your problem effect only you. (IE a late LH flight will cause a gate hold for the next LH flight)

Would have a hard time explaining to other carriers that there's a 45 minute hold for a gate because an empty Emirates plane needs one.

FGITD wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

I’m behind on running the data but last time I looked they were within 1% of each other on a rolling annual basis.

Thanks VS4ever!

I wonder what EK's hesitation is then with officially upgauging BOS to the A388? Is the cargo just too much to change it? I keep seeing people post rumors that DFW is going to be upgauged again as well.

supposedly Emirates doesn't want to tow their 380 to a remote hardstand. And Massport doesn't want to have one gate at a far overcapacity terminal occupied by an empty plane for 8+ hours.

British does get their own gate, but it's here for about 5.5 hours, and the only aircraft that use that gate are usually BA. So the only operator who's operation is effected is....BA. you'll notice that in the summer during irregularities, the usual pattern for multi flight carriers is to have your problem effect only you. (IE a late LH flight will cause a gate hold for the next LH flight)

Would have a hard time explaining to other carriers that there's a 45 minute hold for a gate because an empty Emirates plane needs one.

I have seen the 777 moved to a hardstand, so is it just the problem of towing the A380 vs. a 777?

VS4ever wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With IAH recently being upgauged by EK back to an A388, does anyone know what the LF's are for BOS vs IAH on EK?

I’m behind on running the data but last time I looked they were within 1% of each other on a rolling annual basis.

I checked the BTS database and they have reported the details until Sep-2017 and the difference in LFs between DFW and BOS are miniscule.

DFW LF = 74.19%
BOS LF = 74.30% actually BOS is high and I took the cumulative average across all the months from Jan through Sep. June, July, August are very high months in BOS and both sides from BOS to DXB run in high 90s.

IAH LF = 75.31% within 1%

In all probability, DFW looks to get the A380 over BOS - the Indian community population is much higher in Dallas metro vs. Boston. EK could run a seasonal A380 upgauge for the peak months.

FGITD wrote:

supposedly Emirates doesn't want to tow their 380 to a remote hardstand. And Massport doesn't want to have one gate at a far overcapacity terminal occupied by an empty plane for 8+ hours

If this is indeed the issue, I wonder why it (allegedly) took so long to determine that this would be a problem. I feel like this is something they should have known might be problematic a while back, rather than have it be fine until push came to shove.

Looks like today’s A380 arrival/departure (BA212/213) has been cancelled. The snow is not accumulating so I wonder if it is the same issue they had last year with the de-icing trucks not able to accommodate the A380. Then again IIRC they just subbed it out for a 744 so maybe it’s something else?

I follow a BA 380 pilot on twitter and he commented that it's very tight maneuvering the whale around Logan. Maybe EK doesn't want the risk of a collision?

33lspotter wrote:

FGITD wrote:

supposedly Emirates doesn't want to tow their 380 to a remote hardstand. And Massport doesn't want to have one gate at a far overcapacity terminal occupied by an empty plane for 8+ hours

If this is indeed the issue, I wonder why it (allegedly) took so long to determine that this would be a problem. I feel like this is something they should have known might be problematic a while back, rather than have it be fine until push came to shove.

You'd be surprised how many things around the airport can be a game of "just wait, they'll give in..."

Massport of course does not play that game. And to their credit, they run a fair ship regarding terminal E.

Not sure why BA would cancel, but the snow is as good a guess as any. It doesn't take a whole lot of snow or frost to ground an airplane.