Logan Airport Capital Projects

[stellarfun]

How is there 4 A380 gates? And the dual jetways are for single level wide bodies. And the upper level jet ways can’t be lowered to the lower deck.

You are correct, according to the 2015 ENF.
https://www.massport.com/media/2241/compiled_enf_10292015.pdf

According to the ENF, the new gates in Terminal E's expansion are designed for Group IV and Group V aircraft. Group IV aircraft include 757s and 767s. Group V aircraft include 777s, A-340s, 787s, A-330s, earlier versions of the 747 Group VI aircraft are A-380s and 747-800s. Only the three existing gates in Terminal E that were modified for Group VI aircraft will handle these large aircraft going forward.

 

[Jahvon09]

I was told by a friend that the A-380 can't come to Boston because there supposedly aren't enough body bags in case the monster has an accident!!

 

[tysmith95]

With Delta growing at Logan, I feel like they're going to quickly run into gate issues in A.

I wonder if when the A to B connection is built if they could repurpose the 3 stand alone gates that Air Canada uses to delta gates and move Air Canada to the expanded international terminal, or to another part of B/C

 

[Stlin]

With Delta growing at Logan, I feel like they're going to quickly run into gate issues in A.

I wonder if when the A to B connection is built if they could repurpose the 3 stand alone gates that Air Canada uses to delta gates and move Air Canada to the expanded international terminal, or to another part of B/C

Err, while I haven't exactly been over there to check, I'm pretty sure those 3 gates got a post-security connection to the rest of Terminal B as part of the Terminal B optimization project that was completed in 2019. That said, I'm looking at the ramp configuration there and even if an A-B connector was to be built, it would be a very tight squeeze to fit in any additional aircraft stands into that gap, or even just to avoid compromising the manuvering space needed to push back aircraft. It's tight and deep, unlike B-C or C-E, and I think even if you could, you maybe shouldn't given how difficult moving aircraft would be.

 

[mass88]

Err, while I haven't exactly been over there to check, I'm pretty sure those 3 gates got a post-security connection to the rest of Terminal B as part of the Terminal B optimization project that was completed in 2019. That said, I'm looking at the ramp configuration there and even if an A-B connector was to be built, it would be a very tight squeeze to fit in any additional aircraft stands into that gap, or even just to avoid compromising the manuvering space needed to push back aircraft. It's tight and deep, unlike B-C or C-E, and I think even if you could, you maybe shouldn't given how difficult moving aircraft would be.

Yes, as part of the terminal B expansion and optimization, Air Canada's 3 gates were opened up to the rest of terminal B and it has dramatically changed the flying experience for Air Canada passengers in Boston. Before the project, post security, you had a small food stand. Now you can freely walk through all of terminal B. Where would you put them if they get moved out of there? Besides, the A to B connector is not a priority future project.

I think the idea is to have the bulk of Delta's European flights arrive and depart from terminal E in an effort to not put too much pressure over on A. Of course hindsight is 2020, but Massport should have begun the full E expansion back in 2015 when they built the expanded E10-12 area. Something tells me that with the way traffic at Boston has rebounded, and its been outpacing Massport's high-end projections, that the second phase of terminal E will become a priority in their next funding round in 2023(?). Hopefully they'll also be successful in getting customs at full staffing levels.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I was told by a friend that the A-380 can't come to Boston because there supposedly aren't enough body bags in case the plane has an accident!!

Well, either that's a deeply macabre joke of some kind, or flat-out wrong. British Airways operates a daily A380 flight to Boston; today's is due to land about an hour from now (based on time of posting).

That said, I'm looking at the ramp configuration there and even if an A-B connector was to be built, it would be a very tight squeeze to fit in any additional aircraft stands into that gap, or even just to avoid compromising the manuvering space needed to push back aircraft. It's tight and deep, unlike B-C or C-E, and I think even if you could, you maybe shouldn't given how difficult moving aircraft would be.

I agree with this assessment. I do wonder if something like a Cape Air-style operator with very small aircraft could theoretically be stuffed into that corner (though there's probably a couple of better options, but I don't think any significant-size aircraft could park in there without compromising the closest A and B gates.

 

[Jahvon09]

Well, either that's a deeply macabre joke of some kind, or flat-out wrong. British Airways operates a daily A380 flight to Boston; today's is due to land about an hour from now (based on time of posting).



I agree with this assessment. I do wonder if something like a Cape Air-style operator with very small aircraft could theoretically be stuffed into that corner (though there's probably a couple of better options, but I don't think any significant-size aircraft could park in there without compromising the closest A and B gates.

In the case of 'tight squeezes between gates, that is where the new yet-to-be-acquired 777X would benefit from that. Because its wing tips can be folded upright to go into tight space between the gates without touching any of the other aircraft's wings parked at the other gates.

 

[Brattle Loop]

In the case of 'tight squeezes between gates, that is where the new yet-to-be-acquired 777X would benefit from that. Because its wing tips can be folded to go into tight space between the gates without touching any of the other aircraft's wings parked at the other gates.

Probably not any of those gates, given none of the ones in that corner between A and B are designed for widebodies. 777x is a Group V aircraft, meaning it can fit at any of the gates that fit the 777s and 787s we get now. The folding wingtips take off something like 22 feet off the wingspan when folded, but that still leaves it with a 212-foot-plus wingspan, so while a useful feature it's hardly a game-changer for Logan. That said, if it should be successful enough that we start seeing smaller planes using folding wings to drop down a group category, that could open up some meaningful space over time.

 

[Jahvon09]

Probably not any of those gates, given none of the ones in that corner between A and B are designed for widebodies. 777x is a Group V aircraft, meaning it can fit at any of the gates that fit the 777s and 787s we get now. The folding wingtips take off something like 22 feet off the wingspan when folded, but that still leaves it with a 212-foot-plus wingspan, so while a useful feature it's hardly a game-changer for Logan. That said, if it should be successful enough that we start seeing smaller planes using folding wings to drop down a group category, that could open up some meaningful space over time.

The 777-9 & 8 probably will both be flagship jetliners & smaller planes such as the 787 Dreamliner wouldn't have the folding wing tips, at least not for a while. The 777X-9 will replace the 747-8-I, which will be going out of production soon after having had a long & illustrious 50-year career of flying travelers around the world.

 

[cubbe8]

I just came back from a trip today and while taxiing in I saw 2 jetways at e3 which is something I have never seen before. Does anyone know if this is new to accommodate wide body aircraft? At the time I saw that only one was in operation because it was a jet blue plane there.

 

[BeeLine]

IMG_0061 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_0062 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

 

[atlantaden]

The B to C connector is looking good. Chatted with one of the contractors who said give it a few more weeks to a month and it’ll be open.

 

[Draw7]

Looking forward to it opening! A nice upgrade to what was probably the ugliest area of the airport. That said, the blue seems like an odd choice. It looks good, but I do not understand why there is no effort whatsoever to use a common design language on all new projects. Incredibly myopic design practices and just leads to the impression of Logan not being a good airport. Very glad to see this and the Terminal E addition, but it would be nice to see further work to create a more cohesive, modern airport. Massport should take a look at Laguardia for inspiration on how a busy, spatially constrained airport can be modernized.

 

[Arlington]

How long before that red roof on the new Terminal E starts to "chalk" and turn pink (the same way that all dark aircraft colors do)?

 

[millerm277]

Massport should take a look at Laguardia for inspiration on how a busy, physically constrained airport can be modernized.

Uh, LGA's been demolished and rebuilt from scratch. (aside from the small, separate, historic Marine Air Terminal). There's been about zero renovation/modernization AFAIK. It's fairly easy to have consistent design language when you're building the entire airport as one large project, at the same time.

I agree there could be better design coordination, to be clear. Just not sure LGA offers much in lessons for modernizing existing facilities, and I don't think BOS is in a state where it's really justified to be clean-slating the airport at massive cost.

 

[Java King]

It looks good, but I do not understand why there is no effort whatsoever to use a common design language on all new projects. Incredibly myopic design practices and just leads to the impression of Logan not being a good airport. Very glad to see this and the Terminal E addition, but it would be nice to see further work to create a more cohesive, modern airport.

I've been saying this for YEARS! Terminals don't have to look exactly the same, but there should be some thread of design consistency or material usage to unify the design! Currently, it looks like each expansion is designed in a complete vacuum with no thought to the overall context.

 

[Draw7]

I realize that LGA has essentially been clean-sheeted, just meant that larger scale improvements are possible even in congested airports like LGA and Logan, rather than the very piecemeal approach we've been getting. I also agree that clean-sheeting Logan to the extent of LGA is not necessary. The Terminal E addition is a reasonably large project (though certainly not by world standards), but work on existing terminals is glacial and lacking in scope and ambition. While indeed new projects like E and C-B Connector will be a good improvement, there needs to be a broader, more wholistic vision for upgrading the existing facilities and the airport as a whole. Otherwise, Logan will always be what is today: an aging hodgepodge not befitting a city like Boston.

 

[Equilibria]

I realize that LGA has essentially been clean-sheeted, just meant that larger scale improvements are possible even in congested airports like LGA and Logan, rather than the very piecemeal approach we've been getting. I also agree that clean-sheeting Logan to the extent of LGA is not necessary. The Terminal E addition is a reasonably large project (though certainly not by world standards), but work on existing terminals is glacial and lacking in scope and ambition. While indeed new projects like E and C-B Connector will be a good improvement, there needs to be a broader, more wholistic vision for upgrading the existing facilities and the airport as a whole. Otherwise, Logan will always be what is today: an aging hodgepodge not befitting a city like Boston.

A couple of rebuttal points: LGA has cost north of $10B to build, while renovated parts of Logan terminals provide similar comfort at a tiny fraction of the cost. Also, not only has renovation not historically occurred at LGA, it's unlikely to occur much moving forward. The prior LGA terminals were world-class when they opened, too. The hodge-podge approach allows continuous modernization somewhere in the complex while not having to contend with maintaining the integrity of a master design.

Also, the hodge-podge will happen anyway and you'll wish for it if it doesn't. Austin built a beautiful single terminal in 1998 but by 2018 was tacking on gates in a completely different design language. O'Hare is doing the same at Terminal 5. There are many showpiece airports around the world where you'll be bused out to remote stands instead of building more utilitarian gate areas as needed.

It is kind of weird, though, that Massport has actually done a good job of aligning interior designs - the great hall areas of Terminal B and Terminal E have a similar look to the columns, terrazzo is consistent throughout, signage is logical and color-coded, etc. - without making any effort to do the same for the exterior.

 

[Stlin]

It is kind of weird, though, that Massport has actually done a good job of aligning interior designs - the great hall areas of Terminal B and Terminal E have a similar look to the columns, terrazzo is consistent throughout, signage is logical and color-coded, etc. - without making any effort to do the same for the exterior.

I assume it's because most people (not architecture nerds) barely look at the exterior of the airport. It's just a space to pass through, as people get off their shuttle bus, out of a car etc. I know very few people who linger outside at an airport, so as long as it looks ok, modernish to a passing glance, it serves its purpose. Especially airside - on an airliners, at most 50% of a planes passengers has access to a window - and even then most people attention is Inside the plane, not outside of it.

Inside an airport though, that's where most people experience it for the longest time, and I would tend to assert that the interior experience is more important than architectural grandeur. Given that's where you're spending the most time, they should be inwardly focused. In that way, they're like a shopping mall, in more ways than one, but the bland box exterior doesn't hurt them. I've been through most of the Architectural Statement airports in Asia - the ones that win awards etc. Very few are functional experiences, or particularly attuned to passenger desires. PEK, SZX, PVG all have a dearth of dining, and good luck finding an outlet anywhere outside of a lounge - and they're aging very poorly. The last time I was through SZX all of that white was scuffed and very dirty, and I'm not convinced the AC at PEK works. The ones that do it well don't have statement exteriors - they have statement interiors - Singapore Changi is genuinely an amazing place to spend time. Either way, I'm very curious as to which way the passenger experience will hew at a place like new ORD.

 

[Draw7]

These are all legitimate points, however if one is doing new construction at the very same time like the E Addition and C-B Connector, it seems incomprehensible why one would not coordinate both the interior and exterior. Indeed, most people's attention are toward interior spaces, however people do spend time in gate areas gazing out windows and taking snapshots where the airside is visible. Nothing wrong with adopting exterior design standards and having a guiding framework for future construction and renovations. Example: the Terminal E Addition and the A380 Gates, just a few years apart in age, but not the same design. There's no reason for that aside from poor planning.