well it's on.... looks like Massport awarded the work to AECOM for $750m over 10 years, although interestingly it says the project will be done by 2022, but that has to just be phase 1. phase 2 will be a lot more work giving all the shifts and infrastructure changes that will need to be made hence the 2028 The crazy thing about this, is with Phase 1 being 4 gates, that means realistically around 16 flights a day additionally be accommodated. So from 2022, if we assume a mix of 330's 787's and 321LR's and about 250 seats per flight, that's an additional throughput of just shy of 3m seats and about 2.4m in pax (assuming around 80% loads) a year and I suspect TP would be one of those moving back from C at that point. Obviously the number to the airport will be higher as not all of that will be O&D
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/a ... ct/517282/

When they have those Routes America/Asia/Europe conferences, anna.aero and routesonline publish magazines with interviews with airline CEO's or Airport Directors.

http://cdn1.pps-publications.com/anna-a ... index.html

Would look at pages 12 and 24 of the magazine.

East Midlands (EMA), UK airport serving Leicester/Derby/Nottingham area, and Milan-Bergamo (BGY) airport directors have stated wanting service to BOS. Not sure they would get it anytime soon especially EMA with the BOS-BHX failure, unless its a hypothetical B6 and A321LR.

It is the first time I've seen someone on the Italian side wanting a Boston-Milan route.

adamh8297 wrote:

When they have those Routes America/Asia/Europe conferences, anna.aero and routesonline publish magazines with interviews with airline CEO's or Airport Directors.

http://cdn1.pps-publications.com/anna-a ... index.html

Would look at pages 12 and 24 of the magazine.

East Midlands (EMA), UK airport serving Leicester/Derby/Nottingham area, and Milan-Bergamo (BGY) airport directors have stated wanting service to BOS. Not sure they would get it anytime soon especially EMA with the BOS-BHX failure, unless its a hypothetical B6 and A321LR.

It is the first time I've seen someone on the Italian side wanting a Boston-Milan route.

Well I know EMA pretty well as that’s where I grew up and took my first ever flight to Spain when I was 6, along with a trip on 737 #737 with Orion Airways.

EMA suffers a similar issue to BHX in that its a great leisure airport and for offering links to AMS and others, but I am not convinced right now that a BOS-EMA flight would work, if BHX doesn’t work, can’t see EMA doing better. Probably a flight of fancy from the AD. The 321LR would make it more of a possibility, but I doubt more than 1x weekly would give you any decent loads. Tugs at my heart strings a bit, but reality says no.

I know a certain person here is going to come in and say the only part the only markets that can sustain service to Milan are New York, Miami and Los Angeles and he knows this because he has like 40,000 posts on this board and works as a travel agent but with some connections and Boston's stature in the finance and consulting arenas, along with some tourism, I'm reasonably bullish that Delta could make Milan(Malpensa) work on a 757.

Another topic I would like to mention - Could a DY/DI/D8 downfall be a golden opportunity for B6 and BOS?

VS4ever wrote:

EMA suffers a similar issue to BHX in that its a great leisure airport and for offering links to AMS and others, but I am not convinced right now that a BOS-EMA flight would work, if BHX doesn’t work, can’t see EMA doing better. Probably a flight of fancy from the AD. The 321LR would make it more of a possibility, but I doubt more than 1x weekly would give you any decent loads. Tugs at my heart strings a bit, but reality says no.

I was hoping you would shed light on this! Are you considering feed on B6's end as well? Many 1-stops to USA would be available.

bagoldex wrote:

but with some connections and Boston's stature in the finance and consulting arenas, along with some tourism, I'm reasonably bullish that Delta could make Milan(Malpensa) work on a 757.

Tourism is an interesting point. Though not what the average American thinks of when Italy is brought up many tours of Italy start or end in Milan. There's the Lakes Region near by too. In my opinion Milan makes a good jumping off point to visit various parts of Europe. When MXP was the hub for AZ it was run from 1999-2007 so you need a hub to serve it. Interesting note: O+D has grown post cutting of the route but not huge growth.

Short story: I think its B6 or bust on BOS-MXP. Early performance reports of A321neoLR appear that they could easily serve the route.

Also - BOS service for Europe and Metro population is interesting to look at. In European Union (Didn't include Russia which would add MOW/LED) - Top 5 unserved metros by population size are

Rhine/Ruhr (DUS/GCN)
Milan
Berlin
Hamburg
Athens

One thing in common with all five - You do not have a good a hub structure for Transatlantic at this present day. The last one is the largest BOS market out of the five (unless 2016-2017 had stimulation from AB + EW) and its been been beaten to death why its not offered.

Sorry if this has an obvious answer, but here’s my question: When B6 eventually gets the necessary planes and begins tagging routes, will any of the European countries throw up obstacles to prevent or delay the commencement of service?

VS4ever wrote:

EMA suffers a similar issue to BHX in that its a great leisure airport and for offering links to AMS and others, but I am not convinced right now that a BOS-EMA flight would work, if BHX doesn’t work, can’t see EMA doing better.

I don't know the area all that well but it appears to me that BHX suffers from being very well connected by road and train to both Manchester and London while EMA might not be as well connected.

chrisnh wrote:

Sorry if this has an obvious answer, but here’s my question: When B6 eventually gets the necessary planes and begins tagging routes, will any of the European countries throw up obstacles to prevent or delay the commencement of service?

With open skies they can do any route they want. The EU would have to give them an operator certificate. I don't think there will be a political firestorm ala DY/D8.

airbazar wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

EMA suffers a similar issue to BHX in that its a great leisure airport and for offering links to AMS and others, but I am not convinced right now that a BOS-EMA flight would work, if BHX doesn’t work, can’t see EMA doing better.

I don't know the area all that well but it appears to me that BHX suffers from being very well connected by road and train to both Manchester and London while EMA might not be as well connected.

adamh8297 wrote:

Another topic I would like to mention - Could a DY/DI/D8 downfall be a golden opportunity for B6 and BOS?

adamh8297 wrote:

I was hoping you would shed light on this! Are you considering feed on B6's end as well? Many 1-stops to USA would be available.

The EMA area is actually way more connected than you might think, hopefully the map link below works and you can see what I am talking about. The M1 is pretty much next door and runs directly into London and north to Leeds and Sheffield, along with Nottingham. Go about 2 miles north of the airport and you have the A50 and about 10 miles north you have the A52, both of which can connect you over to Manchester. As for Rail, if you look about 3 miles East you will see East Midlands Parkway station, next to the Power Station (Ratcliff on Trent), that has access to the Midland Main Line High Speed Rail straight into London St Pancras (about a 2 hour trip), so while it is not quite as connected as BHX is, it's pretty damn good. Also note just south of the airport is the A42, that takes you to the M42, which happens to run right past BHX further south. These are all reasons why EMA is actually one of the biggest cargo airports in the UK despite its relative size. It's a huge hub for DHL and I know UPS run a lot in there too. So as I said, it suffers from similar issues to BHX, albeit it's about 50 miles further north out of London.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.83520 ... a=!3m1!1e3

Now to the question of B6, and you make a very good point. IF they can market the US connections properly, they might have a shot, one of the reasons PF is failing with BHX was that they are relying on O&D and I think it needed the connections to succeed, because the O&D stuff is being handled by MAN/LHR and WW/FI via KEF along with feed via AMS/CDG (which is what I did this year). DI/D8 have more name recognition in the UK, than B6, but that's going to be the case whoever it is, unless it's one of the legacies (BA/AA etc...), so if the DI experiment also fails, there will be a vacuum to file, but I am not sure how high EMA would be on the list of places to go, it's not like B6 is going to have a huge TATL fleet to play with

I think purely from a selling stand point, there's no way JetBlue would ever start transatlantic by going to EMA. JetBlue is a big enough name that there them launching transatlantic would be a big to do. It's LHR or LGW or nothing.

I wonder if an airline will bring back (seasonally) BOS-DUS. The one time I used it the plane was packed (anecdotal evidence of course).
Especially for people traveling to the eastern part of Holland (me included), DUS is as convenient as AMS. Just a simple hop on the ICE and you're in Holland within an hour or two or so.

Dieuwer wrote:

I wonder if an airline will bring back (seasonally) BOS-DUS. The one time I used it the plane was packed (anecdotal evidence of course).
Especially for people traveling to the eastern part of Holland (me included), DUS is as convenient as AMS. Just a simple hop on the ICE and you're in Holland within an hour or two or so.

I think that Lufthansa will probably do it on Eurowings, especially with Eurowings business class being ok for premium travelers. Boston does need the service to that region and Lufthansa knows that the load factors on the Air Berlin flight were good.

adamh8297 wrote:

Another topic I would like to mention - Could a DY/DI/D8 downfall be a golden opportunity for B6 and BOS?

VS4ever wrote:

EMA suffers a similar issue to BHX in that its a great leisure airport and for offering links to AMS and others, but I am not convinced right now that a BOS-EMA flight would work, if BHX doesn’t work, can’t see EMA doing better. Probably a flight of fancy from the AD. The 321LR would make it more of a possibility, but I doubt more than 1x weekly would give you any decent loads. Tugs at my heart strings a bit, but reality says no.

I was hoping you would shed light on this! Are you considering feed on B6's end as well? Many 1-stops to USA would be available.

bagoldex wrote:

but with some connections and Boston's stature in the finance and consulting arenas, along with some tourism, I'm reasonably bullish that Delta could make Milan(Malpensa) work on a 757.

Tourism is an interesting point. Though not what the average American thinks of when Italy is brought up many tours of Italy start or end in Milan. There's the Lakes Region near by too. In my opinion Milan makes a good jumping off point to visit various parts of Europe. When MXP was the hub for AZ it was run from 1999-2007 so you need a hub to serve it. Interesting note: O+D has grown post cutting of the route but not huge growth.

Short story: I think its B6 or bust on BOS-MXP. Early performance reports of A321neoLR appear that they could easily serve the route.

Also - BOS service for Europe and Metro population is interesting to look at. In European Union (Didn't include Russia which would add MOW/LED) - Top 5 unserved metros by population size are

Rhine/Ruhr (DUS/GCN)
Milan
Berlin
Hamburg
Athens

One thing in common with all five - You do not have a good a hub structure for Transatlantic at this present day. The last one is the largest BOS market out of the five (unless 2016-2017 had stimulation from AB + EW) and its been been beaten to death why its not offered.

Given that we are at the peak of the economic cycle and DY/DI/D8 are all struggling, it's hard to see them remaining long-term threats for B6's ultimate TATL ambitions. And even so, B6's franchise in BOS (and NYC) is strong enough to make a TATL operation work with BOS point-of-sale alone.

I don't see B6 entering a secondary (or tertiary) market as its first TATL destination. My bet is on something a bit more mainstream, like DUB/LON. But I have no doubt that, if successful, B6 will make a go for niche European markets, in some ways emulating its quirky domestic network.

Hard to believe Berlin isn't served from BOS. Perhaps a market that will eventually fit in B6's niche...

NickolayAv wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I wonder if an airline will bring back (seasonally) BOS-DUS. The one time I used it the plane was packed (anecdotal evidence of course).
Especially for people traveling to the eastern part of Holland (me included), DUS is as convenient as AMS. Just a simple hop on the ICE and you're in Holland within an hour or two or so.

I think that Lufthansa will probably do it on Eurowings, especially with Eurowings business class being ok for premium travelers. Boston does need the service to that region and Lufthansa knows that the load factors on the Air Berlin flight were good.

See I’m not so sure that they will unless the reconfigure the flights for FRA and MUC, there definitely Data to suggest that the AB flight took a bunch of pax away from LH when it was running and let’s not forget they already tried EW to CGN and that didn’t fare so well either. It’s a delicate balance. Loads have rebounded nicely on the regular routes and I am sure yields will have improved without EW/AB and to an extent DE at PVD.
I have the AB loads and they certainly weren’t terrible and if LH do decide to launch DUS then it will be on EW metal most likely, but I am not 100% convinced they want to.

I do know if LH would be keen to start a new station to BOS considering they just bought AB. If at all, LH would not be keen to mess out their fortress hubs in FRA or MUC. I do not think DL would be keen considering they only have a seasonal flight to TXL from JFK and DUS from ATL.

https://www.reuters.com/article/emirate ... SL8N1PK186

Looks like EK second flight to BOS is very likely along with SEA.

iyerhari wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-usa-airlines/emirates-restores-some-capacity-on-u-s-routes-idUSL8N1PK186

Looks like EK second flight to BOS is very likely along with SEA.

I wonder who will bring the 2nd A380 to BOS if it's not EK.

I flew in from LGA Sunday night on B6 (great "enhanced" service onboard IMO) and when we arrived saw a B6 plane at gate C27. I thought that this gate was typically used for Cape Air's flights but instead an E190 was parked there and I saw no 402C's around. Today it shows 9K departures are out of C27. Can they fit both an E190 or A320 at C27 and then have 402C's parked off to the side, "double utilizing" the gate?

mikegigs wrote:

I flew in from LGA Sunday night on B6 (great "enhanced" service onboard IMO) and when we arrived saw a B6 plane at gate C27. I thought that this gate was typically used for Cape Air's flights but instead an E190 was parked there and I saw no 402C's around. Today it shows 9K departures are out of C27. Can they fit both an E190 or A320 at C27 and then have 402C's parked off to the side, "double utilizing" the gate?

Yep, that's almost exactly what they do, they have an early morning departure out of there. I think I went to ORD from that gate one time. 9K don't start until after 8am and their C402's are parked off to the side giving room to slot it in there, once that flight is gone, it's turned over to 9K for their flight suite, then i suspect gets a RON after 9k are done with their schedule. So they don't double utilize it, more take advantage of 9K's timings to utilize the gate outside of that.

NickolayAv wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-usa-airlines/emirates-restores-some-capacity-on-u-s-routes-idUSL8N1PK186

Looks like EK second flight to BOS is very likely along with SEA.

I wonder who will bring the 2nd A380 to BOS if it's not EK.[/quote

Just my $0.02 but I don’t think EK ever had enough business for two flights on this route. If one 77W is in the high 90% range it isn’t axiomatic that two of them would be. And that morning flight was probably never higher than the 70s. I’ve said that one A380 would provide about the capacity of 1.5 77Ws, which is what I think the market can bear. But freight matters, and maybe that tips things in the direction of 2x 777s, no matter how many people are upstairs.

Apparently QR is going to tab an east-coast U.S. city as a A350-1000 route. I’d guess ATL, but it would be cool to see this one at Logan.

interesting bit from JetBlue 2017 annual report on Boston gate situation.
Boston - We had an initial five year lease agreement with Massport for five gates in Terminal C that started on May 1, 2005 and allowed JetBlue to grow to 11 gates by 2008. We negotiated an extension as of May 1, 2010 whereby the lease had 20 successive one-year automatic renewals, each from May 1 through to April 30. With the continued growth of our operations in Boston, we increased the number of leased gates from Massport to 16 and signed an amendment in May 2014 to lease an additional eight gates and related support spaces in Terminal C that were previously occupied by United Airlines. We further amended our lease in December 2017, which allows us to gradually lease up to six additional gates. and related support spaces. As of December 31, 2017, we leased 25 gates in Boston.

The last part seems to imply that they will get to lease 30 gates up from 24 previously.

chrisnh wrote:

Apparently QR is going to tab an east-coast U.S. city as a A350-1000 route. I’d guess ATL, but it would be cool to see this one at Logan.

With QR's loads struggling recently from BOS, I don't see them bringing the A35K here.

tphuang wrote:

interesting bit from JetBlue 2017 annual report on Boston gate situation.
Boston - We had an initial five year lease agreement with Massport for five gates in Terminal C that started on May 1, 2005 and allowed JetBlue to grow to 11 gates by 2008. We negotiated an extension as of May 1, 2010 whereby the lease had 20 successive one-year automatic renewals, each from May 1 through to April 30. With the continued growth of our operations in Boston, we increased the number of leased gates from Massport to 16 and signed an amendment in May 2014 to lease an additional eight gates and related support spaces in Terminal C that were previously occupied by United Airlines. We further amended our lease in December 2017, which allows us to gradually lease up to six additional gates. and related support spaces. As of December 31, 2017, we leased 25 gates in Boston.

The last part seems to imply that they will get to lease 30 gates up from 24 previously.

Thats' very curious, so the 24 is the current footprint of C8 to C36 on the 2 piers and the C to E connect, this includes the 4 gates subleased to TP, EI and 9K, which B6 also use when not occupied by those 3. (in the case of 9K's gate C27, it's an early morning departure, late evening arrival use). Then it becomes interesting. According to the deck that Massport put out, C40-C42 are common use (C40) and AS/VX (C41-C42), but with the move of them to B in 2019, that opens up 3 gates for B6, so that gets them to 27, add in the new C43 and the yet unnumbered gate on Pier C (looks to be between C19 and C20), that gets them to 29. However 2 things strike me. I don't see how they get to 25 or 30. They to 25 if they take over the lease of C40, I guess, but SY are still using that for at least another year. but I unless I am missing something I can't see 30 gates there and while it definitely adds up that way, the only way i can see 30 is if once the new E extension is complete, whether E1 gets transferred to B6 for TATL/Non-US territory ops. They already use it, but it's technically a common use gate right now and is clearly needed for general international flights. Next update on this will likely come from Massport when they issue their year end report for July 17 to June 18, because for right now, as the lease agreement only changed in December, it won't be reported elsewhere.

Note by the way that the projects for C to B are as follows:
L1429 - C optimization and C to B connector $35m
L1332 - B to C roadway improvements - $15m
L1548 - C Canopy and Upper Deck - $10m
So a total of $60m, amounts taken from the 1/18 board agenda http://www.massport.com/media/2671/agenda_1-18-18.pdf

There was no board meeting in December and nothing on the agenda about lease renewals, so clearly being handled behind the scenes. But something doesn't quite stack right on the gate counts.

As far as gate counts go, I seem to recall seeing in the latest board presentation that, in the section regarding construction and expansion, they were playing with the idea of adding more gates to the old United pier of Terminal C. 6 gates certainly could not fit in there, but by the looks of satellite images definitely 2, maybe 3 can be added. They would be closed when widebodies from TP or EI use adjacent gates, but still counts as increased count of B6 leased gated. Still, no clue where the other 2-3 gates would come from to get to their count of 30.

mikegigs wrote:

As far as gate counts go, I seem to recall seeing in the latest board presentation that, in the section regarding construction and expansion, they were playing with the idea of adding more gates to the old United pier of Terminal C. 6 gates certainly could not fit in there, but by the looks of satellite images definitely 2, maybe 3 can be added. They would be closed when widebodies from TP or EI use adjacent gates, but still counts as increased count of B6 leased gated. Still, no clue where the other 2-3 gates would come from to get to their count of 30.

Well Massport are adding 2, one when the new B to C connector is completed (C43) and then one between C19 and C20, which i agree with you, will not have space when a 330 is sitting next door for 4 hours. They are also adding 2 more to B in Pier A for WN to get their 5 total that they need for operations.
As I said, 24 is the current count with 4 subleased but also used by B6 at other times. 3 more will come from C40-C42 when those get vacated, plus the 2 talked about, that's 29, it's #30 i find hard to figure out.

Per the Massport presentation from January, they're adding a total of 4 new gates to B and C. One gate will be on the B6 pier where they're adding upgraded bathrooms and concessions. The other will be in the new B to C connector and the other 2 will be in the old AA pier in Terminal B.

BOS Jan-2018 numbers are out.

VS4ever will provide the detailed stats. Quick snapshot summary:

Total pax for January 2018: 2,576,261, international pax: 468,439, international pax as a % of total pax: 18.18%
Total pax for January 2017: 2,603,998, international pax: 494,741 international pax as a % of total pax: 19.1%

AAGR with Jan-2017: -1.07%

Based on what I see, Middle East and Caribbean has taken the highest reduction as compared to Jan-2017. Central America has seen a bump with a rate of 18% increase.

Additional commentary from VS4ever. Enjoy!

iyerhari wrote:

BOS Jan-2018 numbers are out.

VS4ever will provide the detailed stats. Quick snapshot summary:

Total pax for January 2018: 2,576,261, international pax: 468,439, international pax as a % of total pax: 18.18%
Total pax for January 2017: 2,603,998, international pax: 494,741 international pax as a % of total pax: 19.1%

AAGR with Jan-2017: -1.07%

Based on what I see, Middle East and Caribbean has taken the highest reduction as compared to Jan-2017. Central America has seen a bump with a rate of 18% increase.

Additional commentary from VS4ever. Enjoy!

I think you hit the high points, although there was definitely a mixed bag. Mainline domestic was up slightly, but the commuter level took a bit of a hammering, probably due to the weather early in the month. The one that raised the eyebrows for me was Europe, now it wasn't down a lot, however it was down. Middle East is still showing the impacts of EK moving down to single daily and will do for a couple of months yet. Caribbean got hammered because of the capacity reductions following Irma. Jan is normally one of the busiest months for schlepping out of the
frozen tundra to the warmer waters. Nice to see Canada still moving up and equally impressive is Central America, nice little business going on there. Avianca must be delighted with the BOG-BOS run, unless they are selling ridiculously cheap tickets, If they are using their 120 seater, it's 4,200 seats and 3,791 pax for a 90% load, in Jan! That to me is the bright spot.

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

chrisnh wrote:

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

AviationAddict wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

The only major advantage (for the passengers) I can see for the two 777s daily would be the freedom to choose a departure time and cargo (Emirates' main interest). The A380 would be an upgrade for the passengers though, the cabin is quieter and much more spacious for the economy passengers, can't say for upper-class passengers though.

It doesn't have to be A380 OR 2x 77W. Perhaps EK can fly the A380 on quiet weekdays and double daily 77W on busy weekdays.

NickolayAv wrote:

The only major advantage (for the passengers) I can see for the two 777s daily would be the freedom to choose a departure time and cargo (Emirates' main interest). The A380 would be an upgrade for the passengers though, the cabin is quieter and much more spacious for the economy passengers, can't say for upper-class passengers though.

I always think I'm a heretic for thinking this, but as a fairly frequent long-haul J-class passenger, I have no interest in EK. No lie-flat seats (A388 excluded), three across center section, no direct-aisle access. It's simply an inferior product imo.

Dup post

NickolayAv wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

The only major advantage (for the passengers) I can see for the two 777s daily would be the freedom to choose a departure time and cargo (Emirates' main interest). The A380 would be an upgrade for the passengers though, the cabin is quieter and much more spacious for the economy passengers, can't say for upper-class passengers though.

Yeah, sorry, I meant from a scheduling standpoint. I've never flown on EK though so can't speak to the quality of the ride/product on the A380 vs 777.

I am wondering if EK might try to obtain fifth freedom rights from MXP and or ATH to help fill 2nd flight from BOS when and if it is reinstated?

Any news on AV's proposed SAL-BOS-SAL service?

AviationAddict wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

The only way the 380 would help congestion would be if it was a quick turn. Which it wouldn't be...

No way Massport lets Emirates tie up a gate all afternoon and evening by keeping an a380 posted there.

BA only gets that benefit because usually the only users of that gate are BA all day

FGITD wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

With their CEO commenting about 'restoring' U.S. service to prior levels, I'm surprised that EK hasn't announced anything for BOS and SEA. I suppose it's any day now, hopefully. One A380 or two 77Ws. Man, that's a dilemma. I can see a case made for either.

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

The only way the 380 would help congestion would be if it was a quick turn. Which it wouldn't be...

No way Massport lets Emirates tie up a gate all afternoon and evening by keeping an a380 posted there.

BA only gets that benefit because usually the only users of that gate are BA all day

I thought the three airlines who used those new gates were the three airlines that invested in new clubs - BA, EK & LH - as they connect directly from the club to the gates. Who else uses that gate other than EK?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

FGITD wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

From a spotting standpoint, the A380 is clearly the king. I think the argument could be made it would help the congestion at Terminal E too. But, from a passenger convenience and possibly even airport revenue position I assume the twice-daily 77W, or maybe a 77W & 77L combo would be better.

The only way the 380 would help congestion would be if it was a quick turn. Which it wouldn't be...

No way Massport lets Emirates tie up a gate all afternoon and evening by keeping an a380 posted there.

BA only gets that benefit because usually the only users of that gate are BA all day

I thought the three airlines who used those new gates were the three airlines that invested in new clubs - BA, EK & LH - as they connect directly from the club to the gates. Who else uses that gate other than EK?

They get that gate for departure, but bear in mind that aircraft sits on the ground for 7-8 hours. Usually they arrive, offload, then get towed to a hardstand and do the rest of the servicing there, before towing back an hour or so before departure.

During that time, the same gate may be used by Hainan, a few jetblue internationals, and Swiss, just as examples

FGITD wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

FGITD wrote:

The only way the 380 would help congestion would be if it was a quick turn. Which it wouldn't be...

No way Massport lets Emirates tie up a gate all afternoon and evening by keeping an a380 posted there.

BA only gets that benefit because usually the only users of that gate are BA all day

I thought the three airlines who used those new gates were the three airlines that invested in new clubs - BA, EK & LH - as they connect directly from the club to the gates. Who else uses that gate other than EK?

They get that gate for departure, but bear in mind that aircraft sits on the ground for 7-8 hours. Usually they arrive, offload, then get towed to a hardstand and do the rest of the servicing there, before towing back an hour or so before departure.

During that time, the same gate may be used by Hainan, a few jetblue internationals, and Swiss, just as examples

My thinking was that from a movements standpoint one aircraft makes for less congestion than two (in theory). I'm not saying it will definitely make a difference but given the gate crunch terminal E is currently experiencing having one less aircraft on the ground at any given time helps.

AviationAddict wrote:

FGITD wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

I thought the three airlines who used those new gates were the three airlines that invested in new clubs - BA, EK & LH - as they connect directly from the club to the gates. Who else uses that gate other than EK?

They get that gate for departure, but bear in mind that aircraft sits on the ground for 7-8 hours. Usually they arrive, offload, then get towed to a hardstand and do the rest of the servicing there, before towing back an hour or so before departure.

During that time, the same gate may be used by Hainan, a few jetblue internationals, and Swiss, just as examples

My thinking was that from a movements standpoint one aircraft makes for less congestion than two (in theory). I'm not saying it will definitely make a difference but given the gate crunch terminal E is currently experiencing having one less aircraft on the ground at any given time helps.

That is accurate, and would absolutely help. But in the past when EK operated 2, they were never on the ground simultaneously. At least not intentionally.

The best arrangement is to have a morning flight as the add on. Very little other traffic at the airport, plus it gives a nice variety of departure times for passengers

VS4ever wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

BOS Jan-2018 numbers are out.

VS4ever will provide the detailed stats. Quick snapshot summary:

Total pax for January 2018: 2,576,261, international pax: 468,439, international pax as a % of total pax: 18.18%
Total pax for January 2017: 2,603,998, international pax: 494,741 international pax as a % of total pax: 19.1%

AAGR with Jan-2017: -1.07%

Based on what I see, Middle East and Caribbean has taken the highest reduction as compared to Jan-2017. Central America has seen a bump with a rate of 18% increase.

Additional commentary from VS4ever. Enjoy!

I think you hit the high points, although there was definitely a mixed bag. Mainline domestic was up slightly, but the commuter level took a bit of a hammering, probably due to the weather early in the month. The one that raised the eyebrows for me was Europe, now it wasn't down a lot, however it was down. Middle East is still showing the impacts of EK moving down to single daily and will do for a couple of months yet. Caribbean got hammered because of the capacity reductions following Irma. Jan is normally one of the busiest months for schlepping out of the
frozen tundra to the warmer waters. Nice to see Canada still moving up and equally impressive is Central America, nice little business going on there. Avianca must be delighted with the BOG-BOS run, unless they are selling ridiculously cheap tickets, If they are using their 120 seater, it's 4,200 seats and 3,791 pax for a 90% load, in Jan! That to me is the bright spot.

BOS is definitely going to record a higher number compared to 2017 for sure.

DL: AUA, CHS, SAV
B6: MSP
TAM: GRU
Level: BCN
Primera: STN, CDG

Hopefully EK comes through and it will be definitely good.

Anecdotally I read a Tweet from a BA A380 captain that Logan was a 'tight' airport to maneuver around. So I don't know if that has anything to do with any sort of reluctance on the part of EK.

iyerhari wrote:

BOS is definitely going to record a higher number compared to 2017 for sure.

DL: AUA, CHS, SAV
B6: MSP
TAM: GRU
Level: BCN
Primera: STN, CDG

Hopefully EK comes through and it will be definitely good.

Full year of DL recent additions and AV BOS-BOG and WS BOS-YUL too

B6 BOS-SJU rebound as well

Hopefully new weekly Caribbean destination too from B6 in late Fall.

FGITD wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

FGITD wrote:

They get that gate for departure, but bear in mind that aircraft sits on the ground for 7-8 hours. Usually they arrive, offload, then get towed to a hardstand and do the rest of the servicing there, before towing back an hour or so before departure.

During that time, the same gate may be used by Hainan, a few jetblue internationals, and Swiss, just as examples

My thinking was that from a movements standpoint one aircraft makes for less congestion than two (in theory). I'm not saying it will definitely make a difference but given the gate crunch terminal E is currently experiencing having one less aircraft on the ground at any given time helps.

That is accurate, and would absolutely help. But in the past when EK operated 2, they were never on the ground simultaneously. At least not intentionally.

The best arrangement is to have a morning flight as the add on. Very little other traffic at the airport, plus it gives a nice variety of departure times for passengers

That was actually the arrangement before the 2nd flight was cancelled.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... s%20boston

Arrives at 8am in the morning and left at 11am (ish), dead time for Terminal E, the ones that would be super happy would be the concessions who would suddenly get 200 odd people in the morning! EK seemed happy with 70 (ish)% loads on the two flights combined. So I would not be surprised. If they stick with 1 flight per day, expect to see the Whale seasonally I would suspect, as that is absolutely when they need the additional capacity. If it's 2, it will be 77W's, not enough 77L's. Now long term, I could see a 380 and maybe a 787 once those come on stream, that might rightsize the route against the capacity, but that's a long way from now.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/n ... oogle.com/

Interesting article regarding the storm earlier this year that crippled JFK while Boston was smooth sailing. Raises some very interesting points.

Gotta say that Massport does snow removal right. There may be many things that they can be criticized about, but when it comes to clearing the airfield they never cease to come through.

I think it's important to have a central agency running the overall scheme of things.

FGITD wrote:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/nyregion/boston-logan-jfk-airports-snowstorm.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Interesting article regarding the storm earlier this year that crippled JFK while Boston was smooth sailing. Raises some very interesting points.

Gotta say that Massport does snow removal right. There may be many things that they can be criticized about, but when it comes to clearing the airfield they never cease to come through.

I think it's important to have a central agency running the overall scheme of things.

NY Times wrote:

Rick Cotton, the executive director of the Port Authority, has repeatedly apologized and vowed that there would not be a repeat

.

Right!!
In fact, every winter It is EXACTLY THE SAME STORY: Canceled flights, diverted flights, overstuffed terminals, management chaos, etc. etc.
I remember clearly my flight from PEK to JFK about 5 years ago when we were diverted to Boston due to the "Snow Snafu" at JFK. I vowed to NEVER EVER connect in NYC again.

FGITD wrote:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/nyregion/boston-logan-jfk-airports-snowstorm.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Interesting article regarding the storm earlier this year that crippled JFK while Boston was smooth sailing. Raises some very interesting points.

Gotta say that Massport does snow removal right. There may be many things that they can be criticized about, but when it comes to clearing the airfield they never cease to come through.

These days airports are much more than just a place to catch a flight. They are huge economic contributors for an entire region. It's important to be prepared for all kinds of weather situations. We've seen what happens (in JFK, LHR, BRU, FRA, etc), when airports are not prepared. Weather happens.

The thing that bugs me when there is a storm is that while BOS is operating quite well, airlines still chose to not fly planes in and our flights get cancelled or delayed.

With regards to the whispers about a second A380 coming this summer, I am somewhat skeptical. It would be awesome, but I feel like something would have been announced by now...aren't summer schedules usually out by now? I may be totally off base, but we did already know about BA bringing the A380 last March (for the duration of the summer) in October 2016 if I remember correctly.