Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

CSTH said:
Ok. I'm no expert here.

But the A380 wasn't competing with the 737. It was competing with the 777, mostly. And a 777 can give you almost 400 pax on 2 engines. There have been 2,000 orders for 777s.

The reason that's relevant, btw, is lower maintenance cost per per passenger mile.

(That's why almost no one bought new 747s either, and that line is being retired as well....)
Click to expand...

Right, That makes sense. The industry is definitely trending toward the more efficient 2-engine aircraft on long-haul routes. I just don't think "passengers per engine" is metric anyone would use. Cost per passenger is dead on.

But the A380 was aiming to cater to what Airbus felt was a previously untapped market. In a normal 2 or 3 class config., the 777 is still carrying about 150-200 fewer passengers than an A380. And the 777 was around long before the A380 was. So again, it was a misfire in identifying the market direction. At least with the 747 which has been around nearly 50 largely successful years, you can make the case for obsolescence (and the 747-8F is still very successful). The 777 came about as a challenger to the tri-engine widebodies (DC-10 and L1011) because Boeing realized that the future of long haul travel will require a more efficient aircraft. Airbus had the success of the 777 to look at (the 777 launched in the mid-90s) and still thought the whale had the potential to be a big success. It was a mistake.
 
So, my question regarding the demise of the A380 is this: With BA and Emirates being the only two carriers to fly the 380 in/out of Logan, does is make sense for the Terminal E expansion to accommodate 380s to the degree that the plans currently call for, given that they might be flying for another 10-15 years, max or should they revise the plans for greater accommodation of 787s and 350s instead?
 
Hasn't the super-jumbo part of the expansion already been built?
 
CSTH said:
Hasn't the super-jumbo part of the expansion already been built?
Click to expand...

Massport finished the rebuild of gates E10-12 to make them capable of handling the A380. It also included 3 new airline clubs that British Airways, Lufthansa and Emirates have taken. Lufthansa is yet to bring the A380 to Boston. British Airways is the only of the three to have regular scheduled service. Someone can correct if Emirates has regular schedule service with the A380.
 
There was an Emirates A380 there yesterday afternoon when I came in from London on a BA 747. Not sure how often the Emirates A380 is scheduled though.
 
As someone who grew up in fly-over country, I can promise you that as soon as the first 1+2 configured ERJs came to my airport, I made sure to only fly those airlines. I refused to fly US Air for the longest time because of how long they kept turboprops as a major proportion of flights to my local airport. Those things were loud in the cabin, they flew much lower (and the air always seemed more choppy below the clouds). While turboprops may be more efficient than regional jets, I presume I was not alone in doing my part to nudge the airlines to move from prop to the small RJ option.
 
In what go down in business-forecasting history as one of the finest forecasts (by Boeing) and worst* forecasts (by Airbus) of market demand:
Boeing estimated that demand for super jumbo aircraft would amount to 250 units while Airbus thought the market would total 1,000.
Click to expand...
per John Walsh, quoted by Forbes in How Boeing Lured Airbus Into Now-Busted A380

Boeing's estimate, developed between 1995 and 2000, foresaw 250 super jumbos. Airbus, utterly captivated by confirmation bias and over-optimism, would only "see" data that confirmed its desire to produce the World's Largest Aircraft.

As of the announced cancellation of the program (now), Airbus has delivered 234 and will build another 17 before the line closes, for a total production of, as Boeing foresaw: 251.

Ok, technically, the Boeing "250" forecast would have included the market for its 747-8 (130 delivered, 24 to be built). So Boeing's 250 is low versus about 400 super jumbos produced since 2005. But *everyone* (except Airbus' management) knew that the A380 would cost them dearly and never produce enough units to pay back its development costs.

*Airbus' worst is worse than Lockheed's decision to build the L-1011, which while a wonderful plane, near-bankrupted Lockheed (together with the bribes they paid the Japanese to buy it) drove Lockheed out of commercial aviation .
 
Last edited:
Looks like Burlington, VT and Rochester, NY are competing for a direct flight to Boston: https://www.wcax.com/content/news/B...e-for-direct-flights-to-Boston-506156921.html

No airline has been named, but it's one that "already flies to Burlington." It has to be Delta/Connection, right? American Eagle and JetBlue already fly to Rochester, and United wouldn't be able to feed the route with connecting traffic like Delta could.
 
JetBlue has announced some service increases out of Boston.

Hourly service to Washington Reagan will begin this summer
Hourly service to NYC (JFK and LGA I would assume) will also begin this summer.

Service increases to 10 other cities, including Austin, Raleigh/Durham, Savannah and Cleveland.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190227005802/en/
 
More flights to Newark is good news for me. Screw United.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...oston-new-york-london-low-fares-a8807996.html

The buzz about Jet Blue flying across the pond to London has really ratched up, especially now that that a "save the date" e mail announcement was sent out to all Jet Blue employees...

"An announcement is expected early next month, with services likely to start from late 2019. Staff at jetBlue have been sent a “save the date” email about an event in New York on 10 April, described as “a chat about jetBlue’s vision and strategy”.
 
etween approximately 5:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. Logan flights will depart at the bottom of the hour for one of the three major New York area airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), LaGuardia Airport (LGA) or Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR).
Click to expand...

That's actually only about 15 to 18 flights,
Call it 5x to 6x (flights every third hour) to each of LGA EWR JFK
 
atlantaden said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...oston-new-york-london-low-fares-a8807996.html

The buzz about Jet Blue flying across the pond to London has really ratched up, especially now that that a "save the date" e mail announcement was sent out to all Jet Blue employees...

"An announcement is expected early next month, with services likely to start from late 2019. Staff at jetBlue have been sent a “save the date” email about an event in New York on 10 April, described as “a chat about jetBlue’s vision and strategy”.
Click to expand...

It definitely looks like London. The background of the Save the Date matches the Tube seat patterns. Cute little hint. To take the connection even further, LHR has Tube service, LCY and LGW do not. JetBlue has taken an "LHR or Bust!" stance as well - they don't want to fly to secondary airports.

Maybe a more fantastical question, but is it possible JetBlue could launch LCY-BOS/JFK on the A220? Deliveries are expected in 2020, so an April 2019 announcement for a Summer 2020 launch makes sense. I get that it's unrealistic, but consider the following:
  1. The A220 already flies to LCY (Swiss).
  2. Competition from Legacy Carriers will be stiff at LHR (or other LON airports)- this gives customers something Legacies don't offer - direct flights to Central London with connections to/from B6's domestic network at BOS/JFK.
  3. If MINT service is offered, lighter aircraft (which would be an issue on takeoff at LCY) with premium cabin (competing for business travelers).
  4. LCY has a Tube connection also so the print on the Save the Date makes sense here as well.

More realistically it's an a320/21 neo services (or even LR - an order for which would be part of the announcement next month), but the A220 to LCY is an interesting though (at least until someone who knows better quickly debunks it with their "facts" and "logic.").
 
Lrfox said:
It definitely looks like London. The background of the Save the Date matches the Tube seat patterns. Cute little hint. To take the connection even further, LHR has Tube service, LCY and LGW do not. JetBlue has taken an "LHR or Bust!" stance as well - they don't want to fly to secondary airports.

Maybe a more fantastical question, but is it possible JetBlue could launch LCY-BOS/JFK on the A220? Deliveries are expected in 2020, so an April 2019 announcement for a Summer 2020 launch makes sense. I get that it's unrealistic, but consider the following:
  1. The A220 already flies to LCY (Swiss).
  2. Competition from Legacy Carriers will be stiff at LHR (or other LON airports)- this gives customers something Legacies don't offer - direct flights to Central London with connections to/from B6's domestic network at BOS/JFK.
  3. If MINT service is offered, lighter aircraft (which would be an issue on takeoff at LCY) with premium cabin (competing for business travelers).
  4. LCY has a Tube connection also so the print on the Save the Date makes sense here as well.

More realistically it's an a320/21 neo services (or even LR - an order for which would be part of the announcement next month), but the A220 to LCY is an interesting though (at least until someone who knows better quickly debunks it with their "facts" and "logic.").
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to rationalize, but B6 has made it apparent they want to compete with the legacies apples to apples, specifically via the Mint product on BOS/JFK to LHR. They know they can undercut the legacies and still be decently profitable on the route(s). Plus, they'll be able to expand on their interline partnerships (hello BA) from LHR to the rest of Europe.
 
North Shore said:
I get what you're trying to rationalize, but B6 has made it apparent they want to compete with the legacies apples to apples, specifically via the Mint product on BOS/JFK to LHR. They know they can undercut the legacies and still be decently profitable on the route(s). Plus, they'll be able to expand on their interline partnerships (hello BA) from LHR to the rest of Europe.
Click to expand...

As laughable as the thought is of JetBlue having any meaningful impact on BA, I'm sure they'll terminate that interline agreement the instant JetBlue announces.
 
North Shore said:
I get what you're trying to rationalize, but B6 has made it apparent they want to compete with the legacies apples to apples, specifically via the Mint product on BOS/JFK to LHR. They know they can undercut the legacies and still be decently profitable on the route(s). Plus, they'll be able to expand on their interline partnerships (hello BA) from LHR to the rest of Europe.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, it was just a shot in the dark. I think LCY might make sense for direct TATL flights in the future (BA does it to JFK on an all-business A318, but that requires a stop at SNN on the Westbound leg), but not what B6 is trying to do right now.

Their domestic route network here, their on board product, and their partnerships in Europe make them a very real threat to the legacies. Others that have tried (Primera, Norwegian) don't have the same set of advantages. B6 is a threat if they get competitive slots at LHR.
 
kmp1284 said:
As laughable as the thought is of JetBlue having any meaningful impact on BA, I'm sure they'll terminate that interline agreement the instant JetBlue announces.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'll have an impact on BA, nor do I think BA is the target (especially at BOS). The target is DL who is their primary competitor at BOS. DL hasn't killed it on the BOS-LHR route, so there's room for B6 to slip in there. I don't know that BA kills the interline agreement either. VS is a BA competitor, and DL/VS are a pretty strong pair. Anything that puts a dent in VS/DL is also a win for BA.

Further evidence that B6 is targeting DL would be the rumors that AMS and CDG are the other two of the top 3 Europe targets for B6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top