Logan Airport Capital Projects

mass88 said:
Couldn't the area where Virgin America currently operates out of be adjust to add a third gate?
Click to expand...

I think only if they build a B to C post-security connector, that would get to the two JetBlue orphan gates in C.
 
Is there a map showing specifically which areas are grouped together post-security?

Also, what is the plan for inter-terminal transportation once all terminals are linked together post-security? If you had to transfer from A to E, that's a hell of walk. Would you just have to leave and re-enter?
 
Equilibria said:
Could be Delta, or could be Alaska. Virgin America's about to lose their current gate area, so I could see the future Alaska consolidating over there.



I believe that JetBlue has more input on their gate areas (and more direct investment) than the other airlines do. It's uneven that way. United paid a lot for their gate expansion, which is why American couldn't be consolidated by shifting United a few gates down. It doesn't seem like AA is paying anything for this, though, and certainly Southwest isn't paying for any of their moves.

I think the C piers will get renovated on JetBlue's schedule, not Massport's.
Click to expand...

Equilibria -- the total for this project is estimated to be $125M -- Massport Board approved $45M -- it looks as if American or someone else will pony-up the approximately $80M

The current model for Logan seems to be whenever a project can be identified with one or a few direct beneficiaries -- Massport essentially puts-up a substantial chunk of seed funding, or in keeping with the metaphor, a seedling sized transplant in a small pot; and then the end beneficiaries put up what it tales to grow the project to harvest

So I would expect the same kind of redo of Terminal C with Jet Blue and possibly Emirates paying the bulk of the tab
 
According to the Massport website, the $45 million that was approved is for only part of the project, "partial project budget".

(The executive session portion of the meeting indicated they discussed designation of the Summer St hotel developer.)
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Is there a map showing specifically which areas are grouped together post-security?

Also, what is the plan for inter-terminal transportation once all terminals are linked together post-security? If you had to transfer from A to E, that's a hell of walk. Would you just have to leave and re-enter?
Click to expand...

No map that I know of, but
* connector between C and E
* connector between the piers of C (except for the two C orphan gates, off the pre-security concourse between C and B)
* connector between the United/American side of B and the USAir side of B, except for the two orphan gates for Virgin America.

Under construction, or soon to be:
* connecting the two Virgin America orphan gates with the rest of B

Proposed (early design?)
* Post-security connector between A and B

The remaining post-security connector would be between B and C.

AFAIK, there is no proposed post-security shortcut between A and E, and the cost is likely to be prohibitive (you probably would have to tunnel).
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Is there a map showing specifically which areas are grouped together post-security?

Also, what is the plan for inter-terminal transportation once all terminals are linked together post-security? If you had to transfer from A to E, that's a hell of walk. Would you just have to leave and re-enter?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would love to see the map and hear of the plan (assuming there's a plan) of linking all terminals post-security. An interesting, efficient inter-terminal system would be HUGE for Logan as a leading US airport.
 
These connectors are really just to give the airlines in one terminal the occasional flexibility of using a gate in an adjacent terminal, or even just giving them full use of the terminal that they were nominally in. E+C, C-C-C, B-B are the big ones. A-B is easy but not useful (who does inter alliance transfers?).

Towing planes and bussing passengers airside seem the best you can economically do for A-E (but seems to me it could be built elevated, not tunnelled if the business model worked)
 
Arlington said:
These connectors are really just to give the airlines in one terminal the occasional flexibility of using a gate in an adjacent terminal, or even just giving them full use of the terminal that they were nominally in. E+C, C-C-C, B-B are the big ones. A-B is easy but not useful (who does inter alliance transfers?).

Towing planes and bussing passengers airside seem the best you can economically do for A-E (but seems to me it could be built elevated, not tunnelled if the business model worked)
Click to expand...

The practicable solution would be a transfer bus/van between the post-security sides of E and A. The bus/van would stay entirely on the air-side. But, as you suggest, the business model would have to show sufficient demand for such, -- unless you charged every passenger utilizing the service $20-25-50.
 
stellarfun said:
The practicable solution would be a transfer bus/van between the post-security sides of E and A. The bus/van would stay entirely on the air-side. But, as you suggest, the business model would have to show sufficient demand for such, -- unless you charged every passenger utilizing the service $20-25-50.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that bus service A=>E and B=>E air side would make a lot of sense for outbound international connecting passengers, particularly for Air Alliance Partners. You could probably get the airlines to pay for it. It makes no sense though the other way unless you have customs pre-clearance flights arriving at E.
 
Arlington said:
These connectors are really just to give the airlines in one terminal the occasional flexibility of using a gate in an adjacent terminal, or even just giving them full use of the terminal that they were nominally in. E+C, C-C-C, B-B are the big ones. A-B is easy but not useful (who does inter alliance transfers?).

Towing planes and bussing passengers airside seem the best you can economically do for A-E (but seems to me it could be built elevated, not tunnelled if the business model worked)
Click to expand...

Arlington -- the Post security A-E would just be a corridor through the garage paralleling the existing "Caution the Moving Walkway is nearing its end" -- but a true sealed Gerbil Tube with no escape for the claustrophobic

A more useful link is to wrap the exterior of Central Parking with a gerbil tube connecting the beginnings of the Bridges to A, B, C, E -- allowing weather-free parking and terminal journeying
 
stellarfun said:
* connector between the piers of C (except for the two C orphan gates, off the pre-security concourse between C and B)

There were drawings with the C/E connector for a C40-42 connector/redesign of the food court on that side, but I haven't seen anything happen with that. I've always thought that's good place to expand gate capacity if you need it, just put a wider bar there with 2-3 more gates.
Click to expand...
 
Equilibria said:
stellarfun said:
* connector between the piers of C (except for the two C orphan gates, off the pre-security concourse between C and B)

There were drawings with the C/E connector for a C40-42 connector/redesign of the food court on that side, but I haven't seen anything happen with that. I've always thought that's good place to expand gate capacity if you need it, just put a wider bar there with 2-3 more gates.
Click to expand...

Equilibria, I also remember those drawings. The amount of new building volume to be constructed was greater than for connecting C and E. At the time, I thought they would do this after C and E was done, but it seems to have been shelved or deferred, and, instead, they have moved forward on B's two orphan gates.
Click to expand...
 
I know this has come up before with a dire warning of the huge costs this would entail, but I wonder if it's really all that costly. Certainly, rebranding/naming takes money but it happens all the time on much bigger scales at other airports. If MassPort is pretty sure that there will only be 4 terminals in this configuration around a central parking garage*, isn't it less confusing in the long-term not to have a phantom Terminal D?

*In some unforeseen future, maybe another terminal (for SpaceX? :)) could be built in some other corner of Logan, but I think we can safely say we will have this complex of 4 terminals.
 
It gives locals the opportunity to confuse tourists by telling them to take the A line to Terminal D.
 
It would have made sense to do it when they renamed D as part of C. They were already changing signs everywhere.
 
The kind of person who would be paralyzed by confusion when confronted by A-B-C-E would have absolutely no hope at all once they got out of the airport and into the rest of the Boston area.

Like, the difference in the scale of irrational complexity is laughable.

I think it's safe to assume that A-B-C-E is here for the long term.
 
The change is more than just changing Logan signs. The MBTA would have to change all of its maps & marketing too.
 
2edd0gj.png


I highlighted possible areas for future gate expansion at Logan Airport. Logan already plans to expand terminal E out to the blue line. I also highlighted a possible Terminal B pier that could possible be built in the future if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top