Logan Airport Capital Projects

My 8/2 flight from EDI required us to deplane on the tarmac and take a shuttle bus. Clearly the terminal E expansion is needed. But was a neat opportunity to get a pic from the rear.
1F8AED8A-AA83-4512-AFC3-6E557E0E4219.jpeg
 
cubbe8 said:
They may be using jetways that split into 2 jetways like what Las Vegas uses.
Click to expand...
If you look at massport supplied renders, it shows the second jetways coming from the front, silver part of the structure (the "stem"). Moreover, Vegas style split jetways geometrically don't make sense here. In Vegas, the "stem" comes straight out of the terminal building, while here, the silver-lined structure would function as the "stem".
screen-shot-2021-06-23-at-10-17-00-pm.png
 
Chickenman said:
If you look at massport supplied renders, it shows the second jetways coming from the front, silver part of the structure (the "stem"). Moreover, Vegas style split jetways geometrically don't make sense here. In Vegas, the "stem" comes straight out of the terminal building, while here, the silver-lined structure would function as the "stem".
screen-shot-2021-06-23-at-10-17-00-pm.png
Click to expand...
Why does the rendering show 2 jetways then?
 
cubbe8 said:
Why does the rendering show 2 jetways then?
Click to expand...
Because they originally planned to have 2? That was my initial point, they've since cut the second one since there's no second doorways for the other jetbridge.
Then again, now that I'm looking at it, the E12 jetbridge config in the render is completely off, so these probably aren't the most reliable sources.
 
Chickenman said:
Because they originally planned to have 2? That was my initial point, they've since cut the second one since there's no second doorways for the other jetbridge.
Then again, now that I'm looking at it, the E12 jetbridge config in the render is completely off, so these probably aren't the most reliable sources.
Click to expand...
The expansion was supposed to include redoing E10-E12 with 3 jetways (2 for lower deck one for upper). We can hope that now that the airport bill is passed which includes “jetway improvements” that they cut out new doorways.
 
LtKije said:
My 8/2 flight from EDI required us to deplane on the tarmac and take a shuttle bus. Clearly the terminal E expansion is needed. But was a neat opportunity to get a pic from the rear. View attachment 27092
Click to expand...

Why is Massport allowed to buy the low-floor buses with tons of doors that no other US agency can seem to acquire?
 
jass said:
Why is Massport allowed to buy the low-floor buses with tons of doors that no other US agency can seem to acquire?
Click to expand...
Because that one specifically is what is known as an apron bus. It's super low floor because it works at an airport, and there is no tolerance whatsoever for road undulations, as approach angles are assumed to be tiny. Plus, these things are wide - substantially more so than a road bus. Basically, these things are designed to swallow 100 passengers getting off a plane and operate on an uniform, flat expanse of concrete with them for at most 15 minutes (there's next to no seats on these). They're not actually road legal.
cobus_3000_front.jpg


 
Unrelated to logan but Frontier is building a new terminal area in Denver without jet bridges, moving towards Ryanair style outdoor both door boardings.
thepointsguy.com

Frontier Airlines wants to ditch jet bridges in Denver - The Points Guy

Prepare to get some fresh air if you're flying Frontier Airlines out of its Denver hub starting in 2024.
thepointsguy.com thepointsguy.com

It'll be interesting to see if this catches on elsewhere (and at Logan). It's definitely speeds up boarding times when both the front and rear doors are used.
 
Stlin said:
Because that one specifically is what is known as an apron bus. It's super low floor because it works at an airport, and there is no tolerance whatsoever for road undulations, as approach angles are assumed to be tiny. Plus, these things are wide - substantially more so than a road bus. Basically, these things are designed to swallow 100 passengers getting off a plane and operate on an uniform, flat expanse of concrete with them for at most 15 minutes (there's next to no seats on these). They're not actually road legal.
View attachment 27150

Click to expand...

Close the roads, use them for orange line shuttle service!
 
tysmith95 said:
It'll be interesting to see if this catches on elsewhere (and at Logan). It's definitely speeds up boarding times when both the front and rear doors are used.
Click to expand...

For the not so ultra low cost end of things, it's puzzled me that dual jet-bridges have never really taken off for your typical narrowbody. Albany had some (Southwest 737s - gates C2 + C3) for most of the past 15 years, but retired them. It seems like consistently shaving at least a few minutes on loading/unloading would pay for the modestly increased costs. Obviously the airlines seem to disagree, but it does surprise me a bit.

I'm also curious how this Southwest pilot has been going, which seems like a more palatable approach for ground boarding to the average person - give you the option of the stairs but not the requirement. Which presumably also means the airline doesn't need to deal with handicap lifts/ramps. https://www.southwest.com/html/travel-experience/dualdoor.html
 
millerm277 said:
For the not so ultra low cost end of things, it's puzzled me that dual jet-bridges have never really taken off for your typical narrowbody. Albany had some (Southwest 737s - gates C2 + C3) for most of the past 15 years, but retired them. It seems like consistently shaving at least a few minutes on loading/unloading would pay for the modestly increased costs. Obviously the airlines seem to disagree, but it does surprise me a bit.
Click to expand...

I don't think they much care about specifically how long it takes to load and unload, so much as about the overall turn time between flights. (Southwest, once upon a time, could turn a 737 in ten minutes) If baggage loading/unloading, galley replenishment, any crew changes, and paperwork mean that you're just going to have the passengers sitting on the plane for ten minutes instead of in the terminal, it's not really a gain for the airline.

millerm277 said:
I'm also curious how this Southwest pilot has been going, which seems like a more palatable approach for ground boarding to the average person - give you the option of the stairs but not the requirement. Which presumably also means the airline doesn't need to deal with handicap lifts/ramps. https://www.southwest.com/html/travel-experience/dualdoor.html
Click to expand...

US Airways allowed rear-stair disembarking on its Shuttle flights (I assume its predecessors probably did as well, I expect American has discontinued such), though not boarding. In my experience it was quite useful even as an unload-only option, particularly if you were near the back of the plane (though one memorable experience involved a traffic jam wherein a passenger near the rear did not want to use the stairs, yet for some reason thought that entitled her to priority above everyone ahead of her waiting for the bridge). I'd also be curious to note how that's going for WN. (Though as someone who's never failed to get a window seat on Southwest in large part by heading for the back of the plane regardless of boarding group, I don't know how I feel about general dual-boarding 🙃 )
 
Cool as Terminal E is, I won't be happy until Massport catches a clue about really connecting public transportation. We need a smooth, non-bus connection to the T.
Next time I'm stuck on one of the airport shuttle busses I'll put a microphone near the front shocks and luggage racks and record when those stupid busses go over a bump. It sounds like somebody dropped a hamster cage onto a steel door from three stories up! We've all been trained to suck it up and just accept the noise without realizing how nerve-wracking and jarring each noise is. That goes without mentioning the cold/hot/wet wait outdoors, the plastic seat discomfort, the diesel stank, the filthy windows... the overall lack of attention paid to the non-car Logan visitor. It makes us look low-rent, old... and just plain mean.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
Cool as Terminal E is, I won't be happy until Massport catches a clue about really connecting public transportation. We need a smooth, non-bus connection to the T.
Next time I'm stuck on one of the airport shuttle busses I'll put a microphone near the front shocks and luggage racks and record when those stupid busses go over a bump. It sounds like somebody dropped a hamster cage onto a steel door from three stories up! We've all been trained to suck it up and just accept the noise without realizing how nerve-wracking and jarring each noise is. That goes without mentioning the cold/hot/wet wait outdoors, the plastic seat discomfort, the diesel stank, the filthy windows... the overall lack of attention paid to the non-car Logan visitor. It makes us look low-rent, old... and just plain mean.
Click to expand...

At one point in recent years they'd been planning a proper people-mover, though I haven't heard anything about that lately. I don't know if that got outright cancelled or just temporarily suspended (though around here "temporarily suspended" has a nasty tendency to turn into "cancelled").
 
Brattle Loop said:
At one point in recent years they'd been planning a proper people-mover, though I haven't heard anything about that lately. I don't know if that got outright cancelled or just temporarily suspended (though around here "temporarily suspended" has a nasty tendency to turn into "cancelled").
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware it and the terminal E garage were "indefinitely deferred" in June 2020 for obvious reasons - but it got moved from on going to "completed" in the FY21-23 capital plan so it's probably not happening anytime soon. That said, I recall reading somewhere in the original bid packages that the B-C connector structures were built with columns in place to support the future APM on it's roof, and the Terminal C roadways were explicitly built with clearances in mind, so it's still an option going forward if the money is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top