There's been some complaining about the BOS-ICN arrival time in Seoul-Incheon but here's everything on KE code you can connect to from the MCT (45 min for international to international in ICN) to 4 hours based on tomorrow's departures from ICN.

BKK, NRT/HND, SGN, HAN, DPS, PUS, PVG, BKI, FUK, SYD, CNX, DAD, PNH, SIN, PEK, MNL, RGN, NGO, ULN, HKT, URC, KIX, NAN, TAE, GUM, VTE, HKG, CEB, CXR, ROR

KUL is available with 5 hour layover and CGK is missed by 1 hour. Surprisingly not a lot of China connections!

adamh8297 wrote:

There's been some complaining about the BOS-ICN arrival time in Seoul-Incheon but here's everything on KE code you can connect to from the MCT (45 min for international to international in ICN) to 4 hours based on tomorrow's departures from ICN.

BKK, NRT/HND, SGN, HAN, DPS, PUS, PVG, BKI, FUK, SYD, CNX, DAD, PNH, SIN, PEK, MNL, RGN, NGO, ULN, HKT, URC, KIX, NAN, TAE, GUM, VTE, HKG, CEB, CXR, ROR

KUL is available with 5 hour layover and CGK is missed by 1 hour. Surprisingly not a lot of China connections!

Interesting that there is no SIN. I could imagine quite a few people would connect BOS-ICN-SIN if given the opportunity.

tlecam wrote:

Intermingled in that article were Bastian's comments on the Boeing NMA, and how they need that plane as a replacement for the 757s and the 767s.

I wonder how a plane that size would fit into Terminal A gates. I'd guess that the wings will be longer than the 767.

I wonder if at some point, Delta will work with Massport to create a solution for transfers between A and E.

What should happen is the cargo facilities for DL/FDX.etc. gets leveled and an extension to terminal A is built, with CBP. You could very well get 8 or 9 widebody gates out of that. Re-work the roadways a bit, expand the main terminal for a bigger checkpoint and more ticket counter space, add a couple more gates past 22 (again re-work the roadways to accommodate that). Get AF, AZ, AM, VS, and soon to be KL and KE out of Terminal E. Get rid of 14/32 and replace the cargo facilities down there. I don't see why DL and Massport aren't all over this. Win-win for everyone really. That's a way for DL to be able to continue their growth, get all their partners under the same roof, and reduce Massport's headache down at E.

VS4ever wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

How many flights could a hypothetical DL hub do with all 22 gates in A?

Well if they went all domestic quick turnaround, a la WN, they could do 220 (10 turns per gate) or maybe 232 (11 per gate), but here's some of the issues preventing that.
1. They won't get control of all 22 gates in A, because they have a sub-lease of A1 to WS, so that knocks at least 10 off that number, so we are down to 210.
2. A13-A17 see the international evening departure bank with A15 (if memory serves) blocked at times. So those would knock at least 3 turns off of each gate so let's call that another 15 gone, so now 195.
3. DL are no WN in terms of turn times, they are doing more like 8 per day across the non international banks, so right now that would knock another 2 from all the other gates, so that's another 32 gone (16x2), so now we are down to more like 163
4. DL's stated aim was to get to at least 150 at BOS, but as shown above, they could supposedly push to 160, but that would make the peak times super tight in there, as there really isn't a lot of room for all those movements.

Now could i be wrong on some of these assumptions, sure. But I bet i'm not too far off when all said and done.

Also keep in mind that it is technically 21 gates - A12 no longer exists. A1-11 and A13-22.

RL757PVD wrote:

for the NMA I imagine the issue for Terminal A would be the wingspan as opposed to length. Think 767 with a 787 wing. Not a major impact, only the 757 flights being upgauged.

While DUB is likely a loser for DL, I would expect DL to block any TATL opportunity for B6 to do with the 321, at least for major markets. (my guess is that's partly why they did it). The only real vacancy now is something in the DUS/FRA area. I'm thinking this is partly why B6 is in no rush, because it will be a bloodbath,.when (or if) the day comes.

Why is there this idea that Delta can block jetblue because they already flying it, but if it’s a route jetblue is flying the story is how Delta will push them off of it. I think we are giving Delta way to much credit here. If the 321lrs do make it they will make money. TATL is where the big guys are making money so I don’t see why with the operations in BOS and JFK jetblue can’t make it work. If it’s launched it will be successful. The annoying yet good thing about the current jetblue management is they are very slow but they don’t do things that “might” work.

NickolayAv wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

There's been some complaining about the BOS-ICN arrival time in Seoul-Incheon but here's everything on KE code you can connect to from the MCT (45 min for international to international in ICN) to 4 hours based on tomorrow's departures from ICN.

BKK, NRT/HND, SGN, HAN, DPS, PUS, PVG, BKI, FUK, SYD, CNX, DAD, PNH, SIN, PEK, MNL, RGN, NGO, ULN, HKT, URC, KIX, NAN, TAE, GUM, VTE, HKG, CEB, CXR, ROR

KUL is available with 5 hour layover and CGK is missed by 1 hour. Surprisingly not a lot of China connections!

Interesting that there is no SIN. I could imagine quite a few people would connect BOS-ICN-SIN if given the opportunity.

SIN is there. Also there maybe some Skyteam connections with CZ and MU. CZ does more than CAN in ICN. This is all subject to a S19 schedule which could change a bit.

Can't "rework" roadways past Gate 22... the Ted Williams Tunnel is there. I always believed that the FEDEX terminal is prime real estate that MassPort should try to place in a less central location. But acreage is really at a premium right now at Logan.

Speaking of acreage, does anyone have a count of aircraft operations on runway 14-32 in a given year?

fastmover wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

for the NMA I imagine the issue for Terminal A would be the wingspan as opposed to length. Think 767 with a 787 wing. Not a major impact, only the 757 flights being upgauged.

While DUB is likely a loser for DL, I would expect DL to block any TATL opportunity for B6 to do with the 321, at least for major markets. (my guess is that's partly why they did it). The only real vacancy now is something in the DUS/FRA area. I'm thinking this is partly why B6 is in no rush, because it will be a bloodbath,.when (or if) the day comes.

Why is there this idea that Delta can block jetblue because they already flying it, but if it’s a route jetblue is flying the story is how Delta will push them off of it. I think we are giving Delta way to much credit here. If the 321lrs do make it they will make money. TATL is where the big guys are making money so I don’t see why with the operations in BOS and JFK jetblue can’t make it work. If it’s launched it will be successful. The annoying yet good thing about the current jetblue management is they are very slow but they don’t do things that “might” work.

I think until B6 starts flying to london and dublin or even domestic routes like BOS-IND/CMH, there will always be doubters. Kind of strange theory when DL is clearly weaker than IAG to both london and dublin and when Robin have on several occasions said London is going to be there first European destination. B6 management does drive me crazy with how slow they move, because I can't wait for the TATL j fares to come down to a more reasonable level out of NYC.

If you want to see their willingness to battle out in a bloodbath, just look at the transcon market
LA area - went from 3 a day to LAX + 1 a day to LGB last year to 4 a day to LAX, 2 a day to LGB + 1 a day to BUR. So they added 16 J seat + 443 Y seat in one year
Bay Area - went from 3 a day to SFO + sub daily to SJC last year to 5 a day to SFO + daily to SJC. So they added 32 j seat + 286 Y seat in addition to more frequency on SJC in just over a year
SEA area - went from 2 daily on A320 to 3 daily on mint in summer time. Added 48 J seat + 138 y seat YoY

tphuang wrote:

fastmover wrote:

If you want to see their willingness to battle out in a bloodbath, just look at the transcon market
LA area - went from 3 a day to LAX + 1 a day to LGB last year to 4 a day to LAX, 2 a day to LGB + 1 a day to BUR. So they added 16 J seat + 443 Y seat in one year
Bay Area - went from 3 a day to SFO + sub daily to SJC last year to 5 a day to SFO + daily to SJC. So they added 32 j seat + 286 Y seat in addition to more frequency on SJC in just over a year
SEA area - went from 2 daily on A320 to 3 daily on mint in summer time. Added 48 J seat + 138 y seat YoY

They can only lose money on so many fronts... everyone this thread talks about loads and added seats, that doesn't translate to profits. B6 is an operational disaster right now combined with a transcon bloodbath.

At this point the biggest threat to BOS is if B6 goes away as a standalone entity because no other airline will show the same amount of low fare love to the market that B6 does (150 flights per day).

RL757PVD wrote:

tphuang wrote:

fastmover wrote:

If you want to see their willingness to battle out in a bloodbath, just look at the transcon market
LA area - went from 3 a day to LAX + 1 a day to LGB last year to 4 a day to LAX, 2 a day to LGB + 1 a day to BUR. So they added 16 J seat + 443 Y seat in one year
Bay Area - went from 3 a day to SFO + sub daily to SJC last year to 5 a day to SFO + daily to SJC. So they added 32 j seat + 286 Y seat in addition to more frequency on SJC in just over a year
SEA area - went from 2 daily on A320 to 3 daily on mint in summer time. Added 48 J seat + 138 y seat YoY

They can only lose money on so many fronts... everyone this thread talks about loads and added seats, that doesn't translate to profits. B6 is an operational disaster right now combined with a transcon bloodbath.

At this point the biggest threat to BOS is if B6 goes away as a standalone entity because no other airline will show the same amount of low fare love to the market that B6 does (150 flights per day).

I’ll give you the operation part of it, although funny enough we are doing better than last year (but hardly good enough)
I don’t think we are “losing money” on many fronts. This last q was a little special with the one time charge for the 190s, also our transcons are not in bad shape.
Maybe being a jetblue guy I am biased and I’ll be the first to admit we have problems to fix. But it just seems blue never gets any credit and is assumed to always be about to fail. They have carved out two strongholds on the east coast FLL and BOS from almost nothing. They just never seem to get credit for it.

tjerome wrote:

tlecam wrote:

Intermingled in that article were Bastian's comments on the Boeing NMA, and how they need that plane as a replacement for the 757s and the 767s.

I wonder how a plane that size would fit into Terminal A gates. I'd guess that the wings will be longer than the 767.

I wonder if at some point, Delta will work with Massport to create a solution for transfers between A and E.

What should happen is the cargo facilities for DL/FDX.etc. gets leveled and an extension to terminal A is built, with CBP. [...] I don't see why DL and Massport aren't all over this. Win-win for everyone really.

Cargo is far too important and profitable for Massport. That's why. Those cargo facilities aren't going anywhere. If DL wants to expand intl they will have to do it out of the new terminal E in a few years. If you search up a few pages someone posted the cargo numbers. Cargo growth is absolutely thru the roof at BOS and the biggest obstacle is that cargo at BOS travels mainly on passenger planes. So take away the cargo facilities and we lose passenger flights.

airbazar wrote:

tjerome wrote:

Cargo is far too important and profitable for Massport. That's why. Those cargo facilities aren't going anywhere. If DL wants to expand intl they will have to do it out of the new terminal E in a few years. If you search up a few pages someone posted the cargo numbers. Cargo growth is absolutely thru the roof at BOS and the biggest obstacle is that cargo at BOS travels mainly on passenger planes. So take away the cargo facilities and we lose passenger flights.

Not sure where you got that info but 1.5% growth isnt exactly through the roof...

https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_c ... o-data.pdf

I don't expect an exodus of cargo and Fedex/UPS aren't going to want to leave, but any major growth is likely to occur elsewhere.

RL757PVD wrote:

tphuang wrote:

fastmover wrote:

If you want to see their willingness to battle out in a bloodbath, just look at the transcon market
LA area - went from 3 a day to LAX + 1 a day to LGB last year to 4 a day to LAX, 2 a day to LGB + 1 a day to BUR. So they added 16 J seat + 443 Y seat in one year
Bay Area - went from 3 a day to SFO + sub daily to SJC last year to 5 a day to SFO + daily to SJC. So they added 32 j seat + 286 Y seat in addition to more frequency on SJC in just over a year
SEA area - went from 2 daily on A320 to 3 daily on mint in summer time. Added 48 J seat + 138 y seat YoY

They can only lose money on so many fronts... everyone this thread talks about loads and added seats, that doesn't translate to profits. B6 is an operational disaster right now combined with a transcon bloodbath.

At this point the biggest threat to BOS is if B6 goes away as a standalone entity because no other airline will show the same amount of low fare love to the market that B6 does (150 flights per day).

They are not loosing money. They are just making less money due to high fuel prices and more competition. And you can't increase profitability by running from competition. One thing I have seen in the past year is whatever resource B6 does have, it's putting that into BOS. BOS seems to be more important to them than JFK. I bet they hate seeing their customers flying DL or BA to Europe. Their On-time numbers out of BOS looks to be about average (maybe slightly below) when they have adequate number of gates in summer time, at least from my observation looking at flighstats.com. Those 6 new gates can't come fast enough.

tphuang wrote:

They are not loosing money.

Correct but they are under performing their peers which in wall street terms is losing money. They are a great airline and was mosaic on them for years when I lived in Boston. I loved that they focused on the customer rather than wall street. That all being said they are in Delta's crosshairs at BOS and with rising fuel and continued operational challenges they aren't going to be allowed to continue to underperform by neither wallstreet or their FF base.

Personally I don't think B6 will be a standalone carrier 5 years from now as they exist today.

Why does everyone assume that DL and B6 HAVE to be number one? I think is a little too much fanboy excitement over Boston. Fan think in terms of who is going to win. The airlines are more concerned with making money than they are with status, well at least the US based ones are. Delta is expanding because they think they can make money on these routes. Yes they are taking up another piece of the pie, but the pie is getting bigger.

Anyone know how full BOS is from a gate capacity standpoint? Especially the international terminal? Are there certain times of day when the terminal is completely full or is there still some wiggle room?

Thanks!

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

Anyone know how full BOS is from a gate capacity standpoint? Especially the international terminal? Are there certain times of day when the terminal is completely full or is there still some wiggle room? Thanks!

Welcome to the Boston thread!

There's a lot of conversation here about gate capacity - especially at E, the international terminal. BOS's international ops are very much Europe-centric so a lot of afternoon arrivals and evening departures. The terminal's at or near capacity from around 1 pm thru 11 pm. Some of the new routes that are being added - especially all the new Asia service - is trying to slot in around those times. There's a major construction project about to kick off that will significantly expand E beginning in 2022.

The other terminals are very full as well, but Massport does a masterful job moving airlines from terminal-to-terminal. In a couple of months, LAA and LUS with finally combine ops in one place allowing WN to move (their second terminal move in four years) and DL to expand. The chess pieces always seem to be moving at BOS.

RL757PVD wrote:

airbazar wrote:

tjerome wrote:

Cargo is far too important and profitable for Massport. That's why. Those cargo facilities aren't going anywhere. If DL wants to expand intl they will have to do it out of the new terminal E in a few years. If you search up a few pages someone posted the cargo numbers. Cargo growth is absolutely thru the roof at BOS and the biggest obstacle is that cargo at BOS travels mainly on passenger planes. So take away the cargo facilities and we lose passenger flights.

Not sure where you got that info but 1.5% growth isnt exactly through the roof...

https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_c ... o-data.pdf

I don't expect an exodus of cargo and Fedex/UPS aren't going to want to leave, but any major growth is likely to occur elsewhere.

Massport shows a 10.1% cargo growth in 2017 compared to 2016:
http://www.massport.com/media/2685/1217 ... ummary.pdf
I'd say that any double-digit growth is pretty impressive.
Passenger growth was "only" 5.9% for the same time period.
International cargo was especially high and that has to do with the fact that all of these international airlines are carrying loads of cargo.

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

Anyone know how full BOS is from a gate capacity standpoint? Especially the international terminal? Are there certain times of day when the terminal is completely full or is there still some wiggle room?

i think this will give you the answer you are looking for, for Terminal E.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... oLFLk/edit

Thanks!

I've never seen massport truly quote gate capacity standpoints, because it's a little subjective depending on an airlines parameters. WN for example would run up to 11 per day on a given gate, so for 5 gates, their capacity could be 55 flights. DL for example with slightly longer turns could say do 8 in those gates for a total of 40. The gate is fully utilized as far as the airline is concerned, but not necessarily totally maxed out. There are also places like C27, which is the 9K gate. B6 could use that 8 times a day, but as 9K run from it, they get to use it twice i think. Again, gate fully utilized, but not necessarily to theoretical capacity.
Movements at Logan are actually down significantly from years past, 1998 for example had 507,000 movements per massport. 2017 in comparison was 401k, which is the highest in a long time... however the format of flying has changed. Back in 1998, there was a lot of a regional flying meaning smaller planes and faster turns, average seat counts have gone way up as the regional 50 seaters were replaced by 150+ 737's, 320's and more.

Here's the breakdowns

1998
Regional: 195,973
Jet: 231,328
Other: 718
Domestic: 427,619

International: 48,118
GA: 31,712
Total: 507,449

2017
Regional: 69,139 (down 126,000)
Jet: 248,450 (up, 17,000)
Other: 478 (down 200)
Domestic: 310,403

International: 52,184 (up 4,000) - although this doesn't show Canada's flight's being lower by 50% to trade off against all the new service. Canada went from 31,534 in 1998 to 18,601 in 2017
GA: 31,120 (flat as a pancake)
Total: 401,371 (down 106,000 or 20%

Now with the MASSIVE caveat of the fact that cargo only flights are not split of the counts, especially on Domestic, so there will be some warping from reality, here's the average butts on seats , these numbers do not include GA flights.

Domestic 1998: 427,619 flights with 22,429,639 pax for an average of 52.45
International 1998: 48,118 flights with 3,985,954 pax for an average of 82.83

Domestic 2017: 318,067 flights with 31,100,950 pax for an average of 97.78 (45 pax PER flight! additional)
International 1998: 52,184 flights with 7,199,595 pax for an average of 137.97 (55 pax PER flight! additional)

RobertS975 wrote:

Can't "rework" roadways past Gate 22... the Ted Williams Tunnel is there. I always believed that the FEDEX terminal is prime real estate that MassPort should try to place in a less central location. But acreage is really at a premium right now at Logan.

Speaking of acreage, does anyone have a count of aircraft operations on runway 14-32 in a given year?

Massport only publish runway usage figures for JET aircraft as part of their noise abatement process, 14 is not used at all for jets, maybe for 9K, 32 was only used 336 times in the whole of 2017 (less than once per day), and 119 this year to June, which means they are on course for 338. So yes, a good idea to have a new runway, destroyed by building the hotel at the end of it and therefore the prime real estate question comes in potentially.

http://massport.com/media/2902/june-201 ... or-web.pdf

tjerome wrote:

What should happen is the cargo facilities for DL/FDX.etc. gets leveled and an extension to terminal A is built, with CBP. You could very well get 8 or 9 widebody gates out of that. Re-work the roadways a bit, expand the main terminal for a bigger checkpoint and more ticket counter space, add a couple more gates past 22 (again re-work the roadways to accommodate that). Get AF, AZ, AM, VS, and soon to be KL and KE out of Terminal E. Get rid of 14/32 and replace the cargo facilities down there. I don't see why DL and Massport aren't all over this. Win-win for everyone really. That's a way for DL to be able to continue their growth, get all their partners under the same roof, and reduce Massport's headache down at E.

DL spent all the money to make A. Now they are talking about just wanting to use all of the facility to get a return on their investment. Why should WN benefit from their facility, when they can just ramp up operations? I don't know if they are ready to spend more money quite yet.

pitbosflyer wrote:

tjerome wrote:

What should happen is the cargo facilities for DL/FDX.etc. gets leveled and an extension to terminal A is built, with CBP. You could very well get 8 or 9 widebody gates out of that. Re-work the roadways a bit, expand the main terminal for a bigger checkpoint and more ticket counter space, add a couple more gates past 22 (again re-work the roadways to accommodate that). Get AF, AZ, AM, VS, and soon to be KL and KE out of Terminal E. Get rid of 14/32 and replace the cargo facilities down there. I don't see why DL and Massport aren't all over this. Win-win for everyone really. That's a way for DL to be able to continue their growth, get all their partners under the same roof, and reduce Massport's headache down at E.

DL spent all the money to make A. Now they are talking about just wanting to use all of the facility to get a return on their investment. Why should WN benefit from their facility, when they can just ramp up operations? I don't know if they are ready to spend more money quite yet.

Someone else please feel free to correct me, but I believe when WN took over half of the A pier that DL then weren't responsible for the full payments on the terminal anymore I would have to believe. Yes, DL spent lots of money, but DL I have to believe also benefitted in some fashion financially when WN came in.

With KL and KE announcing they will begin schedule service to BOS as well as B6 adding HAV which cities does MassPORT look next for destinations and/or operators?

There was mention up thread about India but I don't know if that is something that will happen in the short to mid-term.

BRU (often mentioned as a resumption)
MIL (was there scheduled service from BOS previously?)
ATH (would likely only be Summer seasonal, maybe even only peak Summer)
WAW (does LO have any scope to serve BOS effectively with the connections they offer?)
HNL (would HA consider 3X a week or is demand too weak for a non-stop?)
PVR (or other Pacific Mexican destination)

styles9002 wrote:

With KL and KE announcing they will begin schedule service to BOS as well as B6 adding HAV which cities does MassPORT look next for destinations and/or operators?

There was mention up thread about India but I don't know if that is something that will happen in the short to mid-term.

BRU (often mentioned as a resumption)
MIL (was there scheduled service from BOS previously?)
ATH (would likely only be Summer seasonal, maybe even only peak Summer)
WAW (does LO have any scope to serve BOS effectively with the connections they offer?)
HNL (would HA consider 3X a week or is demand too weak for a non-stop?)
PVR (or other Pacific Mexican destination)

With the KE announcement, I think that the only big potential routes remaining are TPE, DEL and maybe another deep South America. I think TPE could happen, but for different reasons, I don't think either of the other two is near-term. BOS's expansion isn't done, but most other potential routes will be fill-ins at this point, including most of the ones that you've mentioned.

I wonder, what is the theoretical capacity cap at BOS? Meaning, how many flights could BOS in theory handle each day? 500 planes per day? 1,000? 5,000??

styles9002 wrote:

BRU (often mentioned as a resumption)
MIL (was there scheduled service from BOS previously?)
ATH (would likely only be Summer seasonal, maybe even only peak Summer)
WAW (does LO have any scope to serve BOS effectively with the connections they offer?)
HNL (would HA consider 3X a week or is demand too weak for a non-stop?)
PVR (or other Pacific Mexican destination)

Ok, reallistically. Boston (as a city) is growing as a business center and population wise, but realistically I thinks it's best if the market settles a bit before continuing to grow otherwise we are going to see some bad load factors.
I honestly believe that the next intl. airline BOS will see is going to be AT. With the 789s coming online I could imagine some 788s will free up and with the B6 partnership I could see them at BOS taking some southern European traffic.

Domestic:
SAT, SDF, Longshot (maybe HNL when some A332 free up)
All of these are long shots and are probably not going to happen any time soon
Intl:
Asia: Taipei, Delhi, Guangzhou, maybe Singapore when equipment allows
Europe: MXP on Air Italy, maybe BRU or WAW
S. America: SCL or EZE
In reality none of these are going to happen any time soon, right now the all the new airlines need to settle in and give some time for BOS to continue to grow, after that I could see SOME of these happening, by no means all.

Dieuwer wrote:

I wonder, what is the theoretical capacity cap at BOS? Meaning, how many flights could BOS in theory handle each day? 500 planes per day? 1,000? 5,000??

ok, this can be looked at a number of different ways. and it depends on an enormous amount of factors, however let's assume we can fill every gate on a WN style model of 11 turns a day for domestic (think DAL!) and we will go with 5 turns a day for international and 5 gates for DL at 5 turns, this also assumes no gates blocked for internationals
We will also work on the projects that have been approved thus far. (remember this is theoretical, the ultimate theory would be to treat E as domestic, but that's just not going to happen..
A - 21 gates, 16*11 + 5*5 = 201 turns or 402 flights per day
B - 37 (+2 from expansion) = 39 = 39*11 = 429 turns or 858 flights per day
C - 27 (+2 from expansion) = 29 (we will assume that C27 which is the 9K gate will take 25 turns) so 28*11 + 25 = 308 turns or 616 flights per day
E - 12 (+4 from expansion) = 16*5 + 6 per day from PD + 3 per day from 3M = 89 turns per day or 178 flights per day.

Total: 402+858+616+178 = 2,054 flights per day or 749,710 per year + 31,000 GA = 780,710/ 365 = 2,138 flights per day or 1,069 aircraft.
Passenger projection based on that number:
using Massport's 2017 report averages for Domestic of 107 and we should the International numbers of 114 (remember lots of Canadian and B6/DL flights drag the average way down ), but those will be accounted for in A.B and C, so for E, we will use a number in the range of 175 to take account of that fact.
International 50+178 = 228 flights x 365 x 175 = 14,563,500
Domestic +2138-228 = 1,910 flights x 365 x 107 = 74,595,050
GA is about 111,000 pax a year.
Total 89,269,550
Given this year will be 41,000,000, the theoretical max is way off, but shows you that regardless of how busy the airport is, you can always squeeze more through it.
I've tried to be somewhat realistic with the estimates, but other ways to calculate it I am sure.

Realistically:
i thought i had seen Massport general projections up to 45m, but frankly they are going to hit that by 2022 and the first round of new E gates coming on line, my gut feeling tells me the true max is around 50m, given plane sizing, gate structure and business determination of how deep they want to use the gate availability.

Multiplying gates with turns is all great and such, but planes do need to depart and land from runways as well without smashing into each other. Can you really have 2,000+ planes per day depart and land?
And if it really is constraint by gates, might as well build a few hundred extra gates!

Dieuwer wrote:

Multiplying gates with turns is all great and such, but planes do need to depart and land from runways as well without smashing into each other. Can you really have 2,000+ planes per day depart and land?
And if it really is constraint by gates, might as well build a few hundred extra gates!

That’s why it’s a theory ... 11 turns is doable by WN and you asked the question, so that’s my take on the situation. Realistically no way. In reality back in 1998 Massport did reach 507,000 movements which is about 65% of the number I came up with and around 695 per day In and out. But that’s a lot more smaller regional jets back then.

Movements has been recognized as not the capacity constraint, even last year Massport only just creeped over 400k again. Gates and turns are the constraint, which is why massport is trying to build up to 11 gates. (2 in C, 2 in B and up to 7 in E.)

So if you assume a roughly 18 hour day of 5am to 11pm, that’s 118 per hour or 59 landings and takeoffs or about 1 for every minute if you had constant usage of proper separated runways and taxiways like LHR for example it can be done easily as max flow is around 40’seconds spread time more for a 380 less for the smaller stuff and that converts to 90. Boston doesn’t really have that ability. At 507,000 that’s in the 38 each way range over that time and much more realistic. At 400,000, it’s about 30 each way.
Clearly there are huge peaks and troughs in those numbers on a daily basis for the main departure and arrival banks and summer will be way higher than winter, but you get the point.

It’s a subjective question that can be answered many different ways. But great question and certainly made me think for sure

DL to BOM? Could that work from BOS?

Natesantiago88 wrote:

DL to BOM? Could that work from BOS?

Biggest question is WHO will fly? DL has plans to fly to BOM from either ATL or JFK and there is a separate thread regarding that. AI has been adding flights to mostly *A hubs at this time - their situation does not look all that promising. 9W is having a cash crunch. Indian carriers start having problems when oil prices increase and domestic market is also extremely competitive. There are almost daily articles on Times of India regarding these two carriers. IMO, India may be a hole in BOS for quite sometime.

I flew back from MUC to BOS last night. What a comfortable Y section Lufthansa's A359 has with views from 3 aircraft cameras accessible through the personal entertainment system from chock-off to chock-on. To me, this is the best thing since United did away with providing ATC-to-Cockpit audio in one of the audio channels.

I did not realize that there is a new expanded immigration section with the eye and fingerprint bio identification ported to the self-serve kiosks.
After the kiosk visit, the line to get through the immigration booths was pleasantly short and quick moving.
One thing is that I did not notice any explicit lanes for Global Entry or Nexus travellers. Did I miss something?

Also, I found one of the duty-free shops in MUC Terminal 2, H-gate area to be selling full-sized Swiss Army knives! After going through the strict security checks, I found it funny to see these things for sale on the secure air-side. I did not ask if they also had Glock 19s or AK-47s available for sale.

I think that DL (and UA) have guessed correctly that flights to India require the infrastructure of a large connecting hub.

EWR is better situated than Atlanta, since it captures a lot of higher revenue O&D traffic for the NYC area. HOwever, IMO, ATL is the right place for DL, compared to JFK - at least to start.

Personally, I prefer to break up the trip, even when flying up front. SOmetimes, I'll even give myself a day or two in Europe.

NickolayAv wrote:

styles9002 wrote:

BRU (often mentioned as a resumption)
MIL (was there scheduled service from BOS previously?)
ATH (would likely only be Summer seasonal, maybe even only peak Summer)
WAW (does LO have any scope to serve BOS effectively with the connections they offer?)
HNL (would HA consider 3X a week or is demand too weak for a non-stop?)
PVR (or other Pacific Mexican destination)

Ok, reallistically. Boston (as a city) is growing as a business center and population wise, but realistically I thinks it's best if the market settles a bit before continuing to grow otherwise we are going to see some bad load factors.
I honestly believe that the next intl. airline BOS will see is going to be AT. With the 789s coming online I could imagine some 788s will free up and with the B6 partnership I could see them at BOS taking some southern European traffic.

Domestic:
SAT, SDF, Longshot (maybe HNL when some A332 free up)
All of these are long shots and are probably not going to happen any time soon
Intl:
Asia: Taipei, Delhi, Guangzhou, maybe Singapore when equipment allows
Europe: MXP on Air Italy, maybe BRU or WAW
S. America: SCL or EZE
In reality none of these are going to happen any time soon, right now the all the new airlines need to settle in and give some time for BOS to continue to grow, after that I could see SOME of these happening, by no means all.

I want to put a spin on this conversation and discuss what the A220 could open up. I think PVR/SJD has some potential especially with A220 for either DL or B6. They are transcon in distance and involve 2 hours more flying than the Caribbean destinations. It could make something like BOS-SMF/PDX viable year round as well.


Here's my thoughts on the "nexts"

Next domestic destination: BZN - B6 will launch it summer seasonal now that they opened a station there.
Next international destination: ARN 3x weekly summer by SK to complement the CPH route.
Next international carrier: Air Italy but it may be Summer 2020. I think its just going to be KL and KE for 2019.

Long haul thin markets on the A220 is a pipe dream unless its a route that commands a heft premium.

125 seats @ 2,200 miles at a $0.10 CASM would require $220 each way for every seat to break even which translates to a b/e fare of about $600 at an 85% LF.

adamh8297 wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

styles9002 wrote:

BRU (often mentioned as a resumption)
MIL (was there scheduled service from BOS previously?)
ATH (would likely only be Summer seasonal, maybe even only peak Summer)
WAW (does LO have any scope to serve BOS effectively with the connections they offer?)
HNL (would HA consider 3X a week or is demand too weak for a non-stop?)
PVR (or other Pacific Mexican destination)

Ok, reallistically. Boston (as a city) is growing as a business center and population wise, but realistically I thinks it's best if the market settles a bit before continuing to grow otherwise we are going to see some bad load factors.
I honestly believe that the next intl. airline BOS will see is going to be AT. With the 789s coming online I could imagine some 788s will free up and with the B6 partnership I could see them at BOS taking some southern European traffic.

Domestic:
SAT, SDF, Longshot (maybe HNL when some A332 free up)
All of these are long shots and are probably not going to happen any time soon
Intl:
Asia: Taipei, Delhi, Guangzhou, maybe Singapore when equipment allows
Europe: MXP on Air Italy, maybe BRU or WAW
S. America: SCL or EZE
In reality none of these are going to happen any time soon, right now the all the new airlines need to settle in and give some time for BOS to continue to grow, after that I could see SOME of these happening, by no means all.

I want to put a spin on this conversation and discuss what the A220 could open up. I think PVR/SJD has some potential especially with A220 for either DL or B6. They are transcon in distance and involve 2 hours more flying than the Caribbean destinations. It could make something like BOS-SMF/PDX viable year round as well.


Here's my thoughts on the "nexts"

Next domestic destination: BZN - B6 will launch it summer seasonal now that they opened a station there.
Next international destination: ARN 3x weekly summer by SK to complement the CPH route.
Next international carrier: Air Italy but it may be Summer 2020. I think its just going to be KL and KE for 2019.

Keep hearing rumors of a DY BOS-AMS. Thinking that’s why KL is trying to leap-frog them and lock up the market. But wouldn’t surprise me if they still tried it and/or MXP and/or FCO in 2019. BOS might not be done yet.

adamh8297 wrote:

Here's my thoughts on the "nexts"

Next domestic destination: BZN - B6 will launch it summer seasonal now that they opened a station there.
Next international destination: ARN 3x weekly summer by SK to complement the CPH route.
Next international carrier: Air Italy but it may be Summer 2020. I think its just going to be KL and KE for 2019.

I agree with that KL and KE will be the only ones for 2019 and BZN on B6. But I really do not see ARN on SK, considering how much they are struggling to make CPH route work. In that case, I think we are more likely to see AY from HEL if BOS gets a northern European route, could be good for connections from N. America to Asia, would love to see that resumption happen.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Someone else please feel free to correct me, but I believe when WN took over half of the A pier that DL then weren't responsible for the full payments on the terminal anymore I would have to believe. Yes, DL spent lots of money, but DL I have to believe also benefitted in some fashion financially when WN came in.

I'm sure I won't use the exact terminology here since I'm speaking from memory after a day at the beach but here it goes
During the DL bankruptcy Massport took control of part of the terminal from Delta and they did what any property owner does: rented it out to other tenants. I believe Continental was one of the first tenants of those vacant terminal A gates.

airbazar wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Someone else please feel free to correct me, but I believe when WN took over half of the A pier that DL then weren't responsible for the full payments on the terminal anymore I would have to believe. Yes, DL spent lots of money, but DL I have to believe also benefitted in some fashion financially when WN came in.

I'm sure I won't use the exact terminology here since I'm speaking from memory after a day at the beach but here it goes
During the DL bankruptcy Massport took control of part of the terminal from Delta and they did what any property owner does: rented it out to other tenants. I believe Continental was one of the first tenants of those vacant terminal A gates.

Extracts from the FY 2007 CAFR report produced by Massport, Pages 4 and 2 Respectively for the sections below.
http://www.massport.com/media/1344/fy2007_cafr.pdf

After Delta Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2005, the Authority and Delta Airlines
negotiated a restated and amended lease (the “Amended Lease”) for Terminal A pursuant to which Delta
Airlines reduced the number of gates that it occupied in Terminal A. The Amended Lease was approved
by the Bankruptcy Court and by Ambac Assurance Corporation (“Ambac”) as insurer of the Terminal A
Special Facility Bonds and is effective as of July 1, 2006. As a result, Delta now has a ten year lease,
which includes 12 of the 18 contact gates and four of the seven regional aircraft positions. Delta emerged
from bankruptcy on April 30, 2007. The Authority is under no obligation to assume any liability for the
Terminal A Special Facility bonds or to direct revenue, other than a portion of the Terminal A airline
billings, to service the special facility debt.

In September 2007, Continental Airlines and the Authority signed a lease to relocate from
2
Terminal C to four contact gates and two regional aircraft positions in Terminal A, which was completed
on November 11, 2007.

Dieuwer wrote:

Multiplying gates with turns is all great and such, but planes do need to depart and land from runways as well without smashing into each other. Can you really have 2,000+ planes per day depart and land?
And if it really is constraint by gates, might as well build a few hundred extra gates!

I found the answer to the question
http://www.massport.com/logan-airport/a ... -operates/

Massport can accommodate 120 ops per hour in ideal conditions so let’s assume that is the max
For an 18 hour day that 2,160. So actually my math was not far off. Basically what Massport is saying is they can handle an arrival or departure every 30 seconds.

https://www.massport.com/capitalprogram ... 0Final.pdf

Massport has released information on the C to B connector. Looks great and will only make the experience of Terminal C better.

VS4ever wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

How many flights could a hypothetical DL hub do with all 22 gates in A?

Well if they went all domestic quick turnaround, a la WN, they could do 220 (10 turns per gate) or maybe 232 (11 per gate), but here's some of the issues preventing that.
1. They won't get control of all 22 gates in A, because they have a sub-lease of A1 to WS, so that knocks at least 10 off that number, so we are down to 210.
2. A13-A17 see the international evening departure bank with A15 (if memory serves) blocked at times. So those would knock at least 3 turns off of each gate so let's call that another 15 gone, so now 195.
3. DL are no WN in terms of turn times, they are doing more like 8 per day across the non international banks, so right now that would knock another 2 from all the other gates, so that's another 32 gone (16x2), so now we are down to more like 163
4. DL's stated aim was to get to at least 150 at BOS, but as shown above, they could supposedly push to 160, but that would make the peak times super tight in there, as there really isn't a lot of room for all those movements.

Now could i be wrong on some of these assumptions, sure. But I bet i'm not too far off when all said and done.

While DL does sub-lease A1 to WS, they also use it for several of their own flights each day (~5 I believe). I don't have time to look at the full DL schedule for yesterday, but DL 4297 BOS-MKE departed from A1 yesterday, so A1 does provide for some usage still for DL.

UA is subbing a 77W on the 6:20pm BOS-SFO flight. Nice upgrade for the J passengers.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

UA is subbing a 77W on the 6:20pm BOS-SFO flight. Nice upgrade for the J passengers.

Interesting, any idea where it’s coming in from, because those pax get the benefit too.

EDIT: found it, it’s coming from SFO, although there’s no way the outbound will end up leaving 30 mins late

Is there any update on PF's plans for Boston. There are no tickets on sale past October. Are the cutting the routes? or are they making them seasonal?

VS4ever wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

UA is subbing a 77W on the 6:20pm BOS-SFO flight. Nice upgrade for the J passengers.

Interesting, any idea where it’s coming in from, because those pax get the benefit too.

EDIT: found it, it’s coming from SFO, although there’s no way the outbound will end up leaving 30 mins late

They have been operating this every once in a while since February. I have also noticed that service mostly occurs on Sundays (after Saturday where there is no 777 flight). I think it is because the first flight of the morning was cancelled today as well as an afternoon flight on Sat. out of SFO due to [i]operational difficulties[i]. UA seems to do well on that route with limited seats available last minute to re-book passengers to.

It's been a frequent sub since the 777 started on the SFO route. Initially, it was a pretty frequent occurence, apparently for crew and aircraft familiarization (along with other transcons to EWR and IAD) as new 77Ws came online. Since then it's been a regular visitor.

LH423

clrd4t8koff wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

How many flights could a hypothetical DL hub do with all 22 gates in A?

Well if they went all domestic quick turnaround, a la WN, they could do 220 (10 turns per gate) or maybe 232 (11 per gate), but here's some of the issues preventing that.
1. They won't get control of all 22 gates in A, because they have a sub-lease of A1 to WS, so that knocks at least 10 off that number, so we are down to 210.
2. A13-A17 see the international evening departure bank with A15 (if memory serves) blocked at times. So those would knock at least 3 turns off of each gate so let's call that another 15 gone, so now 195.
3. DL are no WN in terms of turn times, they are doing more like 8 per day across the non international banks, so right now that would knock another 2 from all the other gates, so that's another 32 gone (16x2), so now we are down to more like 163
4. DL's stated aim was to get to at least 150 at BOS, but as shown above, they could supposedly push to 160, but that would make the peak times super tight in there, as there really isn't a lot of room for all those movements.

Now could i be wrong on some of these assumptions, sure. But I bet i'm not too far off when all said and done.

While DL does sub-lease A1 to WS, they also use it for several of their own flights each day (~5 I believe). I don't have time to look at the full DL schedule for yesterday, but DL 4297 BOS-MKE departed from A1 yesterday, so A1 does provide for some usage still for DL.

So I remembered this post as I am pulling up to Terminal A for my fun flight BOS-MSP-AUS (don’t ask) and sure enough there’s a delta jet sitting at A1. Learn something new

With the new A321LR, can anyone see a direct flight BOS-GVA become a reality ? Rangewise it would be no problem and the capacity well adapted to a limited market like GVA. It's obvious that a BOS-GVA service will never be started by a Swiss or other European carrier as they are protecting their flights out of their hubs ( ZRH/FRA/LHR/CDG etc ), so I can only see an American carrier ( B6 ?).For this reason, I'm not using the Swiss Aviation thread but the Bosron one. It's been over 40 years since the last direct dervice ( not non-stop ) was operated, but I believe the route could pay off with a suitable aircraft. Any thoughts on that ?

hynithuchi wrote:

With the new A321LR, can anyone see a direct flight BOS-GVA become a reality ? Rangewise it would be no problem and the capacity well adapted to a limited market like GVA. It's obvious that a BOS-GVA service will never be started by a Swiss or other European carrier as they are protecting their flights out of their hubs ( ZRH/FRA/LHR/CDG etc ),

I doubt that any U.S. carrier will. DL doesn't even operate JFK-GVA. LX operates a good amount of flights from GVA including GVA-JFK with an A333. They have not yet decided if they want the A321neo. If LX doesn't do it I doubt a U.S. carrier would. Why would said carrier start BOS-GVA instead of BOS-ZRH?

airbazar wrote:

hynithuchi wrote:

With the new A321LR, can anyone see a direct flight BOS-GVA become a reality ? Rangewise it would be no problem and the capacity well adapted to a limited market like GVA. It's obvious that a BOS-GVA service will never be started by a Swiss or other European carrier as they are protecting their flights out of their hubs ( ZRH/FRA/LHR/CDG etc ),

I doubt that any U.S. carrier will. DL doesn't even operate JFK-GVA. LX operates a good amount of flights from GVA including GVA-JFK with an A333. They have not yet decided if they want the A321neo. If LX doesn't do it I doubt a U.S. carrier would. Why would said carrier start BOS-GVA instead of BOS-ZRH?

GVA has a niche market of it's own with quite a bit of premium traffic. A US carrier operating BOS-ZRH would mean taking on LX competition while at GVA there would be none at all. Yes, LX operates to JFK but that is about all except for a minor European network while of course feeding it's ZRH hub. I immagine there could be a demand for 4-5 weekly flights GVA-BOS that would be profitable, saving passengers transiting through other major hubs. At the same time, if onward connections were available out of BOS, I'm sure it would work. As I said before, LX of course has no interest as they want to protect their ZRH-BOS flight, so an initiative would have to come from the US side. If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

I am going to ask this here, as it happened on my flight From BOS this morning but does anyone else agree that Gogo internet on DL sucks. Cause mine sure did.