Apart from new stimulation, stealing passengers who would normally have flown on other airlines, and the JetBlue factor, I am going to assume there are people choosing the non-stop out of Boston now that there's one available, rather than flying out of an airport that's closer/easier for them. Example, my friend's father has to travel to China multiple times a year. He, and most of his team who also are sent to China multiple times a year, live closer to Providence. Before he would always use Green because it is easier for him and he knew even if he flew out of Boston he would still have to connect. Now he can drive a little further to Boston and get a non-stop flight to Beijing, instead of connecting via JFK, or O'hare as he used to do.
Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion
- Thread starter lexicon506
- Start date
Apart from new stimulation, stealing passengers who would normally have flown on other airlines, and the JetBlue factor, I am going to assume there are people choosing the non-stop out of Boston now that there's one available, rather than flying out of an airport that's closer/easier for them. Example, my friend's father has to travel to China multiple times a year. He, and most of his team who also are sent to China multiple times a year, live closer to Providence. Before he would always use Green because it is easier for him and he knew even if he flew out of Boston he would still have to connect. Now he can drive a little further to Boston and get a non-stop flight to Beijing, instead of connecting via JFK, or O'hare as he used to do.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 7,620
The airlines know that. QR, EK, TK, etc. don't play by the same rules as US airlines. They can afford to waste money on half-empty planes for some amount of time hoping the other carriers blink first. If it takes 10 years worth of unnecessary A380s to drive QR and TK out of the airport (El Al is an entirely different animal, though TK competes) then it's worth it to EK.
I suspect that in the end Boston will end up with one Middle-Eastern carrier (and El Al). It'll take a while, but someone's going to bail.
It's not purely driven by great economics, I would think. The Gulf carriers are not "real" companies - they're also subsidized tools of Gulf states' foreign policy. They provide soft power and reach for those governments.
Just as the Saudis (via OPEC) are using the government's slush funds to keep the price of oil artificially low and keep pumping in order to gain share in today's market (particularly against US producers), so do the Gulf states' airlines use what would otherwise be government money (but not highly needed when you have 4 million citizens and $80K per citizen GDP) to artificially expand their flight networks to gain share in the international air market (first against the European carriers and now against the US ones).
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Equilib -- "Boston" has always been an international city with a global impact disproportionate to its size -- for example go back more than 200 years [Salem Maritime Society -- aka PEM], China Trade, etc.
The only thing which was holding Logan back in the jet age has been that the Heavy Long Haul Capables [i.e. the 747-400s, ER's etc.,] .couldn't be accommodated by the length of the runways -- so only Europe was a realistic target
Now the new generation of smaller long haul aircraft [e.g 787] will free Logan from the flight distance limits -- once you do that -- then you have much, much more of the globe to target -- I fully expect to see more destinations and more carriers as the new-gen Asian carriers start stretching out
Tombstoner
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 1
Boston does indeed have an international profile, but I think Equilibria is making the point that the Boston market is just too small and JFK too near to sustain too many international carriers, and certainly not so many from any one region. I think a Southern Cone carrier (LAN/TAM) is really the only potentially viable player not already here. And as a side-note, as a SkyTeam hostage I will continue to make international connections through CDG/AMS using Delta/AF/KLM so that's also a factor in thinking of who is going to be attracted by these carriers. I really wish some other SkyTeam affiliated companies would enter the market here, but everyone seems to be affiliated with Star or oneworld.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 7,620
You've identified the reason that Boston has service from JAL, Cathay, and hopefully a Korean carrier in the future. Qatar, Emirates, and Etihad are in a slightly different business. Their purpose is to skim Boston/ME, Boston/India, and Boston/Africa traffic off of European and US carriers.
The problem is that since there isn't much demand for Boston-to-Dubai or Boston-to-Doha, anything they serve will necessarily be one-stop. At that point, you could fly through any European hub or US hubs like JFK, PHL, ATL, etc. Effectively, EK and now QR are competing with nearly every carrier currently operating from Logan.
It's possible that university and biotech traffic can support multiple carriers from the Persian Gulf, but it's much more likely that these companies are just throwing money out the window to try and establish a foothold. Also, they're trying to get their expansion in before the FAA puts the brakes on them (AA, DL, and UA have sued them for taking unlawful support from their governments, which they clearly have). It's not a competition that's driven by what the market can support, so it won't have many survivors.
Tombstoner
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 1
duplicate
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Equilib -- you are forgetting the native flow between BOS and the Persian Gulf driven by the object of common interest -- Money
e.g.
Probably a $T of the Gulf's $s are managed and advised in Boston -- been that way for quite a while -- the Persian Gulf Flag Carriers new flights just make it more convenient for the route then when everyone had to change in FRA or LHR
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 1,357
I would not discount travelers, facing an inter-terminal transfer, wanting to avoid JFK like the plague. Once all the connectors are done, will it not be possible to walk post-security from B and C to E. Checked bags might be another matter, though.
Trade is increasing to Middle East especially UAE as well.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...-businesses/ehP0SP4qUu2hjplon3IiEJ/story.html
"The state’s exports to the UAE, led by technology products from Raytheon’s radar systems to ThermoFisher Scientific’s lab equipment, jumped more than 60 percent in 2013 to $225 million, making the Emirates the Commonwealth’s largest market in the Middle East. Of the state’s top 25 foreign markets (UAE ranks 23d), only Hong Kong and Switzerland grew faster last year."
C
cozzyd
Guest
Probably also makes it easier for local universities to entice rich Middle Eastern students.
Qatar and the UAE are both ramping up to start some major healthcare related projects that could go on for at least the next decade. Have you noticed the Dubai Healthcare City commercials on TV lately? Partners International and HMS will play a major role in the expansion of healthcare services in the region, the trickle down effect to other healthcare related companies is inevitable.
Tombstoner
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 1
I think you mean it WILL be possible? And are there no plans to connect-up A as well? It would be an annoying quirk to have only one terminal not connect post-security to the others...
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 7,620
All of which are excellent justification for one or maybe two ME carriers, not four. I realize that these are small countries, but you can connect to Dubai through Doha, and vice versa, and you can connect to either city through Istanbul. Again, not to mention connecting through Frankfurt, London, Paris, etc.
Really apart from New York, how many markets in North America can sustain, or require year round non-stop flights to Istanbul, Tel Aviv, Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi?
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Tomb -- I believe that Massport has eventual plans to link A with B post security
The eventual goal is to provide customers with routes under a roof from A to B to C to E and the garage and also to allow post security the crossing from A to E via intermediate points
However that's long term [unspecified] in the near-term [2 or so years]:
- existing Pre-Security under a roof:
- A main to B via moving walkway to garage
- B [North Pier]*1 to B [South Pier] via moving walkways to garage
- B [South Pier] to C via concourse foot path
- A to E via moving walkways to garage and with enclosed walking link to Hilton
- B to garage via moving walkway
- C to garage via moving walkway
- existing post security links
- A satellite to A main
- B [North Pier] to B[South Pier]
- under construction post security links
- C to E
- to be constructed near term post security
- Pre & Post-Sec Connector-Term A&B Project: L1313
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 7,620
DC, Miami, Toronto, and LA. Boston doesn't have Abu Dhabi yet. Miami doesn't have Tel Aviv.
Do you consider Turkish a Mid-east carrier? Massport does for their numbers but they are a bit different from Qatar and Emirates with what they offer.
They offer better connections in the Levant, weaker in India, and their schedule to SE Asia isn't the greatest. They also connect well to Greece and Eastern Europe (especially Balkans). Their African connections are top-notch and they are planning to connect to 50 African cities. Finally they get some Western Europe traffic as well.
I do agree that there's a lot of seats with Emirates and Qatar (991 seats each way daily come 3/16/2016) and I have no idea how they will fill all of them let alone 600 of them.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Mass -- there are at least 6 cities in the US as well as Boston where such international destinations are not particularly unusual -- I suggest the following list for various reasons:
- Houston -- all the oil ....
- Chicago ... general business
- Atlanta ... general business
- SF ... general business
- LAX ... general business
- DC ... for obvious reasons
- MIA
- Vegas Baby
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 7,620
I do, because while they're not ME3, they have a connections-based approach that drives them to serve medium-large markets with service to Istanbul, a place not that many people in Boston actually need to get to.
I definitely get that ME3 are a different animal (you're active on a.net so you know better than I do), but I think my point still stands. Airlines that go after connections between Boston and places outside of Western Europe have a collective ceiling, and there are too many competitors right now.