Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

Lrfox said:
Yeah, they were running 2x daily up to that point. Boston was one of a bunch of US destinations that saw reduced frequency as a result.
Click to expand...

I think the market was a bit oversaturated at that point too. 3 daily flights to the persian gulf (quatar entered). Plus Turkish and the other European carriers competing for connecting traffic.
 
tysmith95 said:
I think the market was a bit oversaturated at that point too. 3 daily flights to the persian gulf (quatar entered). Plus Turkish and the other European carriers competing for connecting traffic.
Click to expand...

Well, European competition meant that meant it was really easy for business travellers to re-route their trip through laptop friendly countries, meaning the hit in traffic was very immediate.
 
Small update re: Worcester - Delta has opened booking for flights from ORH.
 
Royal Air Maroc's request to serve Casablanca-Boston has been approved. Their new terminal will be in use by the time the flight starts.

Also - LATAM increases Sao Paulo - Boston to 5 weekly in early April.

Logan Airport almost hit 41 million passengers too for 2018.
 
Lrfox said:
Small update re: Worcester - Delta has opened booking for flights from ORH.
Click to expand...

Nice growth at ORH
2013 MCO on B6
2013 TPA on B6
2018 JFK on B6
2018 PHL on AA
2019 DTW on DL
 
Royal Air Maroc has secured US DOT approval for non-stop Casablanca to Boston flights.

Starting June 22, 2019, they will operate the flights 3 times a week on Boeing 788 aircraft.

AT210 CMN1705 – 1930BOS 788 146
AT211 BOS2115 – 0850+1CMN 788 146
 
Airbus is ceasing production of the A380. Last deliveries in 2021, apparently to Emirates.
 
^^Damn... at least we locked in A380 service from a couple airlines before they disappear entirely.
 
stellarfun said:
Airbus is ceasing production of the A380. Last deliveries in 2021, apparently to Emirates.
Click to expand...

Although its sad, it makes sense the turnaround time of a380s was massive, the flight crew was massive, airports had to redesign gates for it, and it just doesn't fit the new trend of direct flights between smaller locations, it was solidly built in the age of hub and spoke flights...

Now, I must get myself on an a380 in the next 20 years or so before they start being phased out, I've done pretty much every other plane but a380s rarely fly just transatlantic hops that I'm flying...
 
HelloBostonHi said:
Now, I must get myself on an a380 in the next 20 years or so before they start being phased out
Click to expand...

I read this as "I must get myself an A380", as if it were a used car you could pick up once the airlines eat the depreciation hit. No tire-kickers please, I know what I got.
 
Not surprising. The entire A380 program has been a failure. Not a single commercial airline in North America, South America or Africa bought the plane. It has a purpose in a very small segment of air routes, hardly enough to keep the program going.
 
CSTH said:
Too many engines per passenger....
Click to expand...

Huh? The typical A380 has four engines and carries about 575 passengers. That's 144 passengers per engine. The 737 Max 8 has 2 engines and typically carries about 162 passengers. That's 81 passengers per engine. The 737 is the best selling plane of all time, and the Max variant has over 5,000 orders. There are currently more 737 Maxes in service (over 330) than there were total orders for A380s (313). The Max has been produced for 5 years, the A380 has been produced for nearly 16.

The issue isn't "engines per passenger." It's a complete misfire in terms of understanding which direction the industry was heading. It has been trending towards direct flights on smaller/more efficient aircraft vs. hub/spoke systems with A380/747 type aircraft doing the hub to hub flying. The 787, the MAX, the A350, the A220, etc. are all doing it right. The A380 was doomed from the start.
 
Lrfox said:
It's a complete misfire in terms of understanding which direction the industry was heading. It has been trending towards direct flights on smaller/more efficient aircraft vs. hub/spoke systems.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

There was a similar collapse at the other end of the scale. If my memory is correct, Alaska is the only major US airline still flying turboprops, which are actually more efficient than jet engines at the size category. And the ones they do fly are big.

The US industry has been moving to wipe out all aircraft below 76 seats, which in turn means the elimination of direct flights to smaller markets. Instead, those folks are being asked to drive to a larger regional airport.

American Eagle, for example, had a fleet of 100 Saab 340 planes, which held ~35 passengers. No major airline brand is flying that size anymore.

And before someone rushes in and says Cape Air...

Cape Air is not a major airline.
 
jass said:
There was a similar collapse at the other end of the scale. If my memory is correct, Alaska is the only major US airline still flying turboprops, which are actually more efficient than jet engines at the size category. And the ones they do fly are big.
Click to expand...

Turboprops are doing fine in other markets worldwide though, that's largely specific to the US market.

The A380 (obviously) wasn't.
 
Lrfox said:
Huh? The typical A380 has four engines and carries about 575 passengers. That's 144 passengers per engine. The 737 Max 8 has 2 engines and typically carries about 162 passengers. That's 81 passengers per engine. The 737 is the best selling plane of all time, and the Max variant has over 5,000 orders. There are currently more 737 Maxes in service (over 330) than there were total orders for A380s (313). The Max has been produced for 5 years, the A380 has been produced for nearly 16.

The issue isn't "engines per passenger." ...
Click to expand...

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....)
 
jass said:
Yes and no.

There was a similar collapse at the other end of the scale. If my memory is correct, Alaska is the only major US airline still flying turboprops, which are actually more efficient than jet engines at the size category. And the ones they do fly are big.

The US industry has been moving to wipe out all aircraft below 76 seats, which in turn means the elimination of direct flights to smaller markets. Instead, those folks are being asked to drive to a larger regional airport.

American Eagle, for example, had a fleet of 100 Saab 340 planes, which held ~35 passengers. No major airline brand is flying that size anymore.

And before someone rushes in and says Cape Air...

Cape Air is not a major airline.
Click to expand...

Not wrong, but the reasoning is different and not as big a mark against the utility of turboprop aircraft. Turboprops are very effective on short hops and they're extremely popular worldwide on these routes. Sometimes more efficient than regional jets. However, they're not as versatile as regional jets in U.S. markets. For example, the E-175 has a range that's double that of a Q400. So that range opens up a lot more route opportunities for an airline like American Eagle. Economically, it makes sense to buy one plane that can fly LGA to SYR or ORD to FAT (both actual flights operated by E-175 aircraft) than different planes for each route.

Turboprops, especially the larger ones (like the Q400) still serve an important niche on short hauls and regional routes. Alaska uses them still obviously, and Porter (yes, not a U.S. airline) has done exceptionally well with theirs. You see turboprops all over Europe with its dense clusters of populated areas. But for the U.S. which has dense clusters along the coast, it makes more sense to use the regional jets which can serve the dense clusters, but also work on longer routes outside of those clusters.

The A380 doesn't have as strong of a niche. It's good on the busiest hub to hub routes. That's about it. If it weren't for Emirates, which accounts for more than 1/2 of the A380 orders, it probably would have died a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top