Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion
- Thread starter lexicon506
- Start date
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,598
- Reaction score
- 2,711
Very good news! Departures will most likely happen from Delta's beautiful Terminal A and arrivals from Terminal E. Arriving passengers connecting on other Delta flights will have an easy/very pleasant walk from E to A on the moving sidewalk that connects the two terminals. If these flights are successful maybe Delta will add more international flights in the near future.
BOS-LHR is a very large market. It is also a very lucrative market. BOS-LHR is one of British Airway's best performing routes. Lots of first and business class demand.
With that said, it is not that crazy of a move on Delta's part. The slots are lying around and if anything, they can send some overflow from their DTW, JFK, or ATL flights up to Boston.
If Massport were to put customs in terminal A, we would probably see a lot more. Sky Team controls a large share of the Boston-Europe market. But until A gets the facilities, the LHR and AMS flights are all we will see.
But, if they were to get the facilities, I could see DL setting up a decent sized mini hub using 752As and 763s. Brussels, Manchester, Dublin, Milan and Lisbon on 752As and LHR on 763s could work. Brussels is one of the largest European cities without non-stop service to Boston. AA has even taken advantage of this with tag on service from LHR. So a person can go same plane BOS-LHR-BRU.
AdamBC
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 18
Doesn't that walk entail going outside of security? While still easy - makes it less pleasant.
erikyow
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 1
That was DL's plan way back in the day. They had planned, when announcing the construction of the new Terminal A, a gradual ramp up of service. Of course, that was before jetBlue and long before Southwest came along and trashed the yields of the big boys at Logan. So, this is certainly interesting news, but unless we start seeing a commensurate number of domestic feeder flights, I'm skeptical that anything more will come of this on the international front, except with the possibility of an NRT flight, should no one start that route up in the mean time (ANA being a strong contender, being the launch customer of the 787 and all).
As for FIS in A: It ain't gonna happen. It's not just Massport who was reluctant about it after dumping a ton of money into the Terminal E expansion, but from what was told to me directly by CBP guys a few years ago when I worked at Terminal E, they're not too keen to start running a split operation. So, even if Delta and Massport built FIS facilities in A, there's no guarantee the CBP would staff it.
That said, I'm sure that's a relatively small hurdle to jump. The bigger problem that remains is to ensure enough traffic to make such an investment feasible, you'd need more than just the LHR and AMS flights. You'd need to get Air France and Alitalia over to A as well. Easy enough, but where are you going to put DL's 767s and A330s, AF's 747s and (eventually) 77Ws and AZ's 767s and A330s?
Unless DL pulls down its mainline to the point that they could ensure that the domestic operation could be run from one side or the other, there's no way you can get the traffic necessary to make FIS investment worthwhile, simply because the reduction of gates in order to accommodate the widebodies would cripple the rest of the operation. Unfortunately, once the FIS ship sailed, the gates were set up with a primarily narrowbody operation in mind and that will be a huge barrier to any increase in international traffic out of Terminal A.
That said, the airliners.net thread, to my knowledge, didn't show the press release with a preliminary schedule (obviously, exact times will be based on the slots negotiated with AA/BA). I would have expected either something a bit earlier, around 18:30 and 20:45, or keep the 19:30 departure but pair it up with something around 22:30, to capture the business travellers who want to be in the city all day, seeing as DL probably won't be expecting too many connecting passengers in London - that said, 21:50 does make it the last departure to LHR, based on BA's traditional schedule.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens. With AA most likely exiting the market and BA filling the gap with an additional flight, there is definitely some wiggle room in the market, one of the largest transatlantic markets out there. Delta, furthermore, has a pretty big frequent flyer base to tap into, though their main handicap will be the fact that they cut back their domestic operations the past few years, meaning they don't have much in the way of connections on the route beyond what they can route in from elsewhere in the US and what their SkyTeam partners can do on the LHR side of things (SkyTeam are the smallest of the three alliances at LHR). Of the airlines serving the market, AA/BA are the strongest, tapping into AA's feeble connections at BOS but BA's massive network at LHR and Virgin Atlantic with some longhaul connections out of LHR. Therefore, DL of the three of them, will have to try the hardest seeing as this is primarily a point-to-point (P2P) route for them. That said, I'm cautiously optimistic for this route's success, though I wouldn't be surprised if one of them downgauged to a 757, especially during the winter.
Anyway, that's my analysis. Sorry to be so long-winded.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,598
- Reaction score
- 2,711
Erikyow, thanks for your analysis! I never understood why FIS makes such a fuss about splitting operations. JFK, LAX, Newark, etc., have customs/INS in several terminals depending of the operations. I've always heard from reliable sources that it was MassPort's decision to keep all International Arrivals in Terminal E. I can understand their reasoning but at the very least, the should have invested in some sort of tram to make transfers from E to all the other terminals as painless and comfortable as possible. As it stands now, it's very easy to access Terminal A from E through the enclosed walkway, but it becomes much more difficult for the transfer to B and C and visa versa. Never have understood why they didn't make the investment to connect all the terminals with walkways or trams when all the garage and terminal construction was going on. Oh well, it seems short sightedness is not restricted to just the Mayor's office.
Even though yields have gone down that to the large influx of LCC carries, JetBlue, Air Tran, Southwest, Spirit, etc. revenue per passengers into and out of Logan is solid and Logan is one of the better airports in the country for airline revenue.
That's interesting about the FIS in terminal A. But as far as Delta adding international flights, those would probably be on 752A aircraft which would not require any sacrifice in gates. Both Alitalia and Air France could remain in terminal E.
I think Delta will be able to survive. A lot of signs are pointing to AA leaving the route and BA most likely adding a 4th daily. Last time Delta tried Boston-London they went to Gatwick which hurt. Delta also has a lot of loyal fliers in the area and a good FF base.
That's interesting about the FIS in terminal A. But as far as Delta adding international flights, those would probably be on 752A aircraft which would not require any sacrifice in gates. Both Alitalia and Air France could remain in terminal E.
I think Delta will be able to survive. A lot of signs are pointing to AA leaving the route and BA most likely adding a 4th daily. Last time Delta tried Boston-London they went to Gatwick which hurt. Delta also has a lot of loyal fliers in the area and a good FF base.
What about Virgin Atlantic? Will they do anything? Will Branson's decision to setup a fully-integrated frequent flier program with all the Virgin airlines have an impact on Virgin America and Virgin Atlantic in Boston?
I've read that Virgin Atlantic might look to merge with someone (maybe BMI) at some point which would provide it inter-Europe feed that it doesn't have.
Such as?
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
From JFK they now fly to, among others, Abuja, Accra, Amman, Athens, Berlin, Bogot?, Brussels, Budapest, Cairo, Copenhagen, Dakar, Istanbul, Kiev, Manchester, Milan, Moscow, Mumbai, Nice, Pisa, Port-au-Prince, Prague, S?o Paulo, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, and Venice.
Of course, not all of those markets might work from Boston. But one or two might, and since many must rely on connecting traffic from elsewhere in the US, it wouldn't be that harmful to move a couple from NY, even.
Of course, not all of those markets might work from Boston. But one or two might, and since many must rely on connecting traffic from elsewhere in the US, it wouldn't be that harmful to move a couple from NY, even.
On trips to London, I have used AA's or BA's morning flights whenever possible. Would morning flights to other Eurpoean destinations - e.g. Paris, Frankfurt - be feasible? Or does the 6-hour time difference make them impractical?
Paris and Frankfurt would be feasible due to the large hub and onward connecting flights. However, daylight flights are tough because by the time they arrive to Europe, they miss most of the connecting flight banks. So you need to have a good amount of O&D between the cities (in which case there is between Boston, Paris and Frankfurt). Only an east coast city or perhaps Chicago can handle them due to distance and time change.
erikyow
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 1
Air France tried a daylight flight from Kennedy a couple of years ago and I think it lasted a summer.
The reason London works from Boston, New York, Chicago and Toronto (the only cities with daylight flights to LHR) is that each city has a solid O&D market and they're within a certain flight time that will allow the flights to connect with the last remaining flights, mostly to Southeast Asia and Australia.
With Paris, the flights would be almost entirely reliant on connections (the local markets are by no means small, but not quite big enough for a morning flight to capture a significant chunk of the market), and even though the flight time from Boston or New York to Paris is roughly the same as to London, the fact that there's a one hour difference in time zones means the flight needs to leave ridiculously early (no later than 07:30) or it risks missing the last departures.
Frankfurt is in a similar boat. It might have a slightly better O&D base than Paris, given the economic synergies (finance, primarily), but connections would still be a vital part of the flight's makeup, and the longer flight time would mean the flight would need to leave no later than 07:00. And when you consider that people need to be up to get to the airport about 2 hours ahead of time, for many that's a 2:30-3am wake up call.
That said, I worked for BA and while getting up sucks, if London was your intended destination, I don't know why anyone would fly anything BUT the daylight flight. You have to wake up early, but you get to central London by about 21:00, no waiting to check into your hotel, grab a quick bite to eat and go to bed and get 8-10 hours of sleep and wake up at a normal hour in the morning. The people who would take the early evening departure to London would arrive there at around midnight Boston time, just in time to be awake for a full day (not to mention having to wait about 7 hours for their hotel room to be ready).
The reason London works from Boston, New York, Chicago and Toronto (the only cities with daylight flights to LHR) is that each city has a solid O&D market and they're within a certain flight time that will allow the flights to connect with the last remaining flights, mostly to Southeast Asia and Australia.
With Paris, the flights would be almost entirely reliant on connections (the local markets are by no means small, but not quite big enough for a morning flight to capture a significant chunk of the market), and even though the flight time from Boston or New York to Paris is roughly the same as to London, the fact that there's a one hour difference in time zones means the flight needs to leave ridiculously early (no later than 07:30) or it risks missing the last departures.
Frankfurt is in a similar boat. It might have a slightly better O&D base than Paris, given the economic synergies (finance, primarily), but connections would still be a vital part of the flight's makeup, and the longer flight time would mean the flight would need to leave no later than 07:00. And when you consider that people need to be up to get to the airport about 2 hours ahead of time, for many that's a 2:30-3am wake up call.
That said, I worked for BA and while getting up sucks, if London was your intended destination, I don't know why anyone would fly anything BUT the daylight flight. You have to wake up early, but you get to central London by about 21:00, no waiting to check into your hotel, grab a quick bite to eat and go to bed and get 8-10 hours of sleep and wake up at a normal hour in the morning. The people who would take the early evening departure to London would arrive there at around midnight Boston time, just in time to be awake for a full day (not to mention having to wait about 7 hours for their hotel room to be ready).
erikyow
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 1
Also, it's interesting that the first post of this thread mentions a flight to Brussels.
There have been rumours that Brussels Airlines is going to re-start transatlantic flights at some point, initially to JFK but expanding (YUL was a possibility, but now that Air Canada is already in that market, they might take a pass). Boston was, supposedly, SABENA's most profitable transatlantic route back in the day and a large part of that was due to the fact that SABENA had a fantastic network to Africa, one that today's SN has maintained (and the primary reason why VG Airlines failed). So, that might be interesting to see if that ever materlializes. If not on SN, that could definitely be a market that either DL or AA could jump into with a 757 (if AA ever decides that it wants to add routes to BOS, instead of just ceding more and more market share to B6, FL and WN).
There have been rumours that Brussels Airlines is going to re-start transatlantic flights at some point, initially to JFK but expanding (YUL was a possibility, but now that Air Canada is already in that market, they might take a pass). Boston was, supposedly, SABENA's most profitable transatlantic route back in the day and a large part of that was due to the fact that SABENA had a fantastic network to Africa, one that today's SN has maintained (and the primary reason why VG Airlines failed). So, that might be interesting to see if that ever materlializes. If not on SN, that could definitely be a market that either DL or AA could jump into with a 757 (if AA ever decides that it wants to add routes to BOS, instead of just ceding more and more market share to B6, FL and WN).
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
When the terminals at Logan were built, did Airport Station (obviously would have been called something else) and Wood Island Station already exist? I wonder what things would be like if Terminal A were at Airport and Terminal E were at Wood Island, with all the others in between.
The only problem is that such a thing would have required foresight. Something I'm not sure this city knows, though I could be wrong.
The runways as we know them would probably have had to been rotated clockwise, just a little bit, to account for the terminals' positioning.
The only problem is that such a thing would have required foresight. Something I'm not sure this city knows, though I could be wrong.
The runways as we know them would probably have had to been rotated clockwise, just a little bit, to account for the terminals' positioning.
belmont square
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 0
The airport predates Airport Station, and I believe when Airport Station opened it represented the best airport/rapid transit connection in the nation.
One could argue that siting a major international aiport within 2 miles of the downtown of a dense centuries-old city represents some pretty good foresight. As well as building a rapid transit system 100 years ago that, despite its faults, is still the envy of all but 2 or 3 cities in the nation.
With the new ATI for One World, AA sending a 752 on BOS-BRU becomes more attractive. The costs would be shared. I too have heard that Boston did very well for Sabena. Brussels is one of the largest markets in Europe that Boston does not have non-stop service to.
If AA were to add a BRU flight, it would not have an affect on the market share loss to FL, WN and B6. Most legacy carriers in this country are cutting a lot of point 2 point routes. AA has recently started a restructuring to focus solely on their hubs at LAX, MIA, DFW, ORD and JFK. US has also recently said they are going to focus on PHL, CLT, PHX and to a lesser extent DCA.