Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

FenwayResident said:
I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

According to this source the fuel CASM (cost per available seat mile) is $0.134 for an A340-500 (type used by SQ to on SIN-EWR) vs $0.083 for an A350-900. What that means is the A350 is roughly 60% more fuel efficient than an A340 on a per-passenger basis.

We can use that information to compare to SQ's failed SIN-EWR flight in order to come up with a minimum demand required for profitability. Boston would need to have more than 60% of the demand that the NYC flight had in order to have a chance of viability. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that that is not the case.
Click to expand...

What? The seats weren't empty, fuel costs had become too high. With an a350 the cost of fuels overall volatility won't weigh them down. They could serve both cities just fine.
 
Arlington said:
How big a change is this from what's there now? This looks like a fairly mundane rehab. I was (for no good reason) expecting a real airside connection from B to C. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I think the full B/C connector is pretty far in the future. They're getting ready to RFQ A/B in July (I think). B/C wouldn't start until after that's done, probably.

https://www.massport.com/business-with-massport/opportunities-at-massport/capital-programs/

I'm not sure what's up with the C40-42 connector, which was supposed to be concurrent with the C/E work. That's a likely prerequisite to the B/C connector, as is this project, to start to close the gap.

I'm still not sure why this project isn't tied to the general Pier A renovation (flooring and paint) that will be done first, or why it isn't timed for the AA consolidation. Maybe it's because they know Virgin will be moving to C with Alaska. Again, my guess is that this whole area including the pier ends up as Southwest (and perhaps Alaska if JetBlue keeps sucking up gates in C).
 
$16 million and 18 month construction period seems like a lot of money and a long time.

I also don't understand why American Airlines will still have space there when done, other than consolidation on the other side of B will not be done by February 2018.
 
Just to confirm, AA is moving all of their operation into the US side of B? When is this supposed to happen?

It'd be nice if they do move entirely over to the US side of B, that Massport demolished and completely rebuilt that side of B. Once that was done move one pier of JetBlue into that area and demolish and rebuild the pier in C, move the other pier into the pier and demolish and rebuild the other pier. We're never going to get a brand new airport, so it would be nice if Massport slowly rebuilt what we have.
 
mass88 said:
Just to confirm, AA is moving all of their operation into the US side of B? When is this supposed to happen?

It'd be nice if they do move entirely over to the US side of B, that Massport demolished and completely rebuilt that side of B. Once that was done move one pier of JetBlue into that area and demolish and rebuild the pier in C, move the other pier into the pier and demolish and rebuild the other pier. We're never going to get a brand new airport, so it would be nice if Massport slowly rebuilt what we have.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that doesn't seem to be the plan. I'm pretty sure AA is moving - MassDOT received submissions from architects and has selected finalists. I doubt they'll firm a completion date until they go out for construction managers.
 
hard sleeper said:
Maybe a bafflingly nonsensical idea, but would it make any sense to operate seaplane out of the Charles River Basin? I know there have been complications regarding cross traffic in the harbor.
Click to expand...

Not an aviation expert by any stretch, but I'd imagine the short distance between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge (about 4,800/4,900 feet according to google maps) would be an issue. The fact that there are really only two directions a plane could take off or land (NE or SW) would probably be a limiting factor as well (though the direction isn't too far off from 4L/R and 22L/R at Logan).
 
I think a seaplane on the Charles would be construed as an obstruction to navigation (i.e., interfere with recreational users of the river). For it to be feasible, one would have to create the equivalent of a runway, and require users of the Charles to stay clear of that zone.

Fat chance.
 
Cape Air is quite sensibly proposing "Boston Harbor", not the Charles basin.

So I picture going from someplace like Long Wharf or the New England Aquarium or NYC's East 23rd St seaplane base

IF they could do Ft Point Channel between Gillette and Summer St that'd be mind-blowingly convenient, but I don't know if that gives them enough "runway", but it would let them complement Acela the way that the competing DL/AA air shuttles do every half hour.
 
The value proposition is deplaning in Manhattan on the NY end. Not much time saving in Boston from locating on downtown side vs. the logan side of the harbor - a little for some passengers, but not a lot for anyone. Almost certainly outweighed by the logistics savings for Cape Air from operating from the ferry dock at logan. Plus, connecting pax.

As for the actual 'runway' - think outer harbor. Those things are noisy and they need a lot of room - not just for the actual splash, but for some 'oh shit' buffer as well. That's not happening anywhere east of Castle Island. Plus they need to be able to pick a direction that faces the wind.

EDIT: I definitely didn't read the article; fortunately, Mongo did ...
 
Last edited:
Did no one but me actually read the article?

Cape Air’s chief executive, Dan Wolf, also a state senator from Cape Cod, said his Hyannis-based company aims to find a docking site along the South Boston Waterfront, ideally a spot that’s close to the Financial District. In New York, Cape Air would land at an existing seaplane dock in the East River, near 23rd Street.
Click to expand...

There’s no question the demand is there,” said developer Joseph Fallon, whose Fan Pier office in the Seaport is within walking distance of a likely seaplane departure point.
Click to expand...
 
Arlington said:
Southwest has announced 2x Daily PVD-DCA.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see Southwest prioritizing PVD again. It seems like they reduced service to PVD and MHT after arriving at Logan Airport, flying out of the smaller airports is usually a better experience than flying out of Logan.
 
Equilibria said:
B37-B38 Conceptual Plans:

https://www.massport.com/capitalprogramsattachments/L1430-C1/L1430-C1 EXHIBIT A FIGURES 1 AND 2.pdf

2iiygx2.png
Click to expand...

Equilibria -- here's the timetable from the document dump

Begin Construction January 2017
Substantial Completion February 2018
Click to expand...

So the reality is that as of now the project after they sign all the papers will take 1 year and a bit

Once again Logan is gowing through rapid transformation although you have to be on the secure-side to see all of it:
C-E already open,
this year some additional work in C
2018 B37-38 and then E-A380

Somewhere in that time period the last of the connections on the Open-side between Terminals and Central Parking will be finished

Somewhat later circa 2025 the Secure connections between all the terminals and the West Concourse of E with the Blue Line connection will be complete
 
tysmith95 said:
April Passenger numbers up 5.4% over last April. YTD its up 9.6%. International passengers in April up a whopping 22.7% over last April.

https://www.massport.com/media/396517/0416-avstats-airport-traffic-summary.pdf
Click to expand...

Average load to Europe was 185 passengers - Average load to Asia was 180 passengers - Average load to the Middle East was 188 passengers - Average Load to Central America was 104 passengers.

It will be interesting to see what kind of load factors Emirates and Qatar have been getting on the Dubai and Doha flights.
 
How are TSA lines at Logan these days?

Many big airports are telling travelers to get there 2 hours before their flights and to expect long lines. JetBlue just sent me an email to this effect. Really? What's the deal?

I have an 8:45am JetBlue flight Wed. Do I really need to get to Terminal C at 6:45am? [UPDATE: Prob 25-30 mins to get through the C security as a plebian, so given a boarding time of 8:15 there was about :50 of slack--I would recommend 1:20 to 1:30 for a leisure trip this summer (not 2 hrs) but tastes differ.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
How are TSA lines at Logan these days?

Many big airports are telling travelers to get there 2 hours before their flights and to expect long lines. JetBlue just sent me an email to this effect. Really? What's the deal?

I have an 8:45am JetBlue flight Wed. Do I really need to get to Terminal C at 6:45am? [UPDATE: Prob 25-30 mins to get through the C security as a plebian, so given a boarding time of 8:15 there was about :50 of slack--I would recommend 1:20 to 1:30 for a leisure trip this summer (not 2 hrs) but tastes differ.
Click to expand...

I was actually chewed by a United attendant at a security checkpoint at Terminal B (United) a few weeks (April Vacation week) ago for not being 2 hours early. Probably because I was traveling with two small children, but we've flown enough with them to be pretty efficient at security. We got through in about 20 minutes and still had about 20 to kill before the scheduled boarding time. I'd say two hours is overkill for all but the slowest, most bag-checkingist, schedule adjustingist passengers. If I'm not checking backs, I only give it 45-50 minutes before departure (just walk to security, then go to thegate). And I'm a pleb. so it's standard security for me.
 
The last 3 times I've flown out of Logan (on JetBlue) over the last couple of months have not been too bad. Thankfully, in my experiences Logan is not seeing lines like Midway out in Chicago is getting. I have a buddy who lives out there and he posted some photos of the lines the other day which were insane. Took him almost an hour and a half just to get through security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top