Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

At least one new carrier is coming for 2017.

Someone on airliners Boston thread was on Google flights and noticed Air Europa, a fellow Skyteam partner of Delta's, had loaded Madrid-Boston flights starting June 12.

The schedule is Sun/Mon/Wed/Fri

UX31 MAD-BOS 3:30pm-5:20pm
UX32 BOS-MAD 10:50pm-11:40am

Air Europa's site is showing a later depature 11:40PM
 
Interesting. Is this a seasonal add?

Is Iberia year round again? What about Alitalia? Or do they both still drop Boston for December - February?
 
mass88 said:
Interesting. Is this a seasonal add?

Is Iberia year round again? What about Alitalia? Or do they both still drop Boston for December - February?
Click to expand...


Looks like June 12 through September 8th for this new flight....Many Euro carriers have schedules more than 11 months out but Air Europa may not be one of them so it could go a little bit longer.

Air Europa is getting 5-6 787's next year so they had the capability of adding a new destination which turns out to be Boston.

Boston-Madrid on Iberia is 3 weekly from now until end of December and then restarts in March and slowly ramps up to daily by summer.

Boston-Rome is not run between 2nd week of January and mid-March.
 
Bos77 said:
Hopefully in the mix for summer 2017!

British Airways removes planned A380 Boston service in 1Q17
Click to expand...

The A380 is now coming up on flights starting in late March on some Sunday Monday and Friday.

Lufthansa has also downguaged the second daily FRA flight to A333 from 744.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38...a-s17-boston-operation-changes-as-of-05oct16/

That's a loss of 100 or so seats.


SATA may have cut Boston-Lisbon too. The schedule seems to be getting tossed around like food in a frying pan right now.
 
mass88 said:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2016/10/logan_looks_to_level_off_noise

Logan's noise complaints have jumped quite a bit from 2012 to 2015. Milton has the most complaints.
Click to expand...

The complaints have jumped because that is the time when those cities started to ask their residents to complain about flight noise and made it easier to complain. Somerville even pushed its residents to download an app that listened at night for planes, so they could complain about planes while they slept, even if the noise did not wake them. Not a real scientifically sound comparison for the increase.
 
boston85 said:
The complaints have jumped because that is the time when those cities started to ask their residents to complain about flight noise and made it easier to complain. Somerville even pushed its residents to download an app that listened at night for planes, so they could complain about planes while they slept, even if the noise did not wake them. Not a real scientifically sound comparison for the increase.
Click to expand...

The adoption of GPS-based navigation (which the FAA began rolling out in 2013) has indeed forced more planes into narrower, more concentrated flight paths.

Flight patterns for runway 33L, from the Globe:
Green = flights from January 17, 22, & 27, 2013:
Red = flights from January 5, 10, & 15, 2015:

airport_WEB.jpg
 
Are these flight patterns arrivals or departures? The reason I ask is that every time I fly in from Atlanta we usually fly in over the shipping cranes and land. Departures always seem to be over the harbor. None seem to be in the the flight patterns shown.
 
atlantaden said:
Are these flight patterns arrivals or departures? The reason I ask is that every time I fly in from Atlanta we usually fly in over the shipping cranes and land. Departures always seem to be over the harbor. None seem to be in the the flight patterns shown.
Click to expand...

Those flight patterns are for "Runway 33L". When that same runway is used in the other direction it is known as "Runway 15R".
 
JumboBuc said:
The adoption of GPS-based navigation (which the FAA began rolling out in 2013) has indeed forced more planes into narrower, more concentrated flight paths.

Flight patterns for runway 33L, from the Globe:
Green = flights from January 17, 22, & 27, 2013:
Red = flights from January 5, 10, & 15, 2015:
Click to expand...

I did not dispute the fact that the planes are on narrower path. My point is that the increase in complaints is near meaningless statistic because in all practicality they changed the measurement of complaints from one time period to the next. They advocated the public to complain and increased the ease to complain after the flight paths were changed, not before. The opponents of the new flight paths gamed the comparison by making the public more aware of the noise for the period of time that suited their interest. You would logically see an increase in complaints even without any noticeable difference in overall noise.
 
boston85 said:
The complaints have jumped because that is the time when those cities started to ask their residents to complain about flight noise and made it easier to complain. Somerville even pushed its residents to download an app that listened at night for planes, so they could complain about planes while they slept, even if the noise did not wake them. Not a real scientifically sound comparison for the increase.
Click to expand...

Boston -- Yes and by comparison to the bad old era when there were more flight ops with many noisier planes -- this a golden era by comparison to say 2002

The issue is the concentration of flight ops into narrower bunches -- i think the best short-term plan is to use dense approach channels over water with diffused flight ops over the neighborhoods when needed. Massport can also work with the airlines to spread some of the tight times of arrivals and departures around some.

Long Term -- technology improvements in materials, computer modeling and sensors is continuing to make planes quieter with higher bypass ratio turbofans now being introduced in all the aircraft sectors

see for example
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-jet-quieter.html
Jet engines are getting quieter
July 8, 2015 by Jeremy Astley, The Conversation

With no sign of our appetite for air travel diminishing, we need to create quieter aircraft that are easier to live with. In fact, while those living near airports may beg to differ, data included in the Airports Commission report into a new runway for London shows a very significant reduction in aircraft noise over several decades.

The noisiness of an individual aircraft at departure and approach is described by its Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). This is measured when the aircraft enters service, and is used to track noise improvements between successive generations of aircraft.
As this Airports Commission report chart shows, EPNL has fallen since modern turbojet and turbofan engines were first introduced – roughly a halving of radiated acoustic energy per decade. This is a remarkable technical achievement – a 95% reduction in the sound power generated by aircraft jet engines since their introduction.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-07-jet-quieter.html#jCp
jetenginesar.png
Click to expand...

It's almost a "Moore's Law" for aircraft engine quietness :cool:
 
boston85 said:
I did not dispute the fact that the planes are on narrower path. My point is that the increase in complaints is near meaningless statistic because in all practicality they changed the measurement of complaints from one time period to the next. They advocated the public to complain and increased the ease to complain after the flight paths were changed, not before. The opponents of the new flight paths gamed the comparison by making the public more aware of the noise for the period of time that suited their interest. You would logically see an increase in complaints even without any noticeable difference in overall noise.
Click to expand...

But you would also logically see an increase in complaints even without any noticeable difference in complaint reporting.

Even if the complaints are being over counted, that doesn't mean that they are baseless. The presence of one causal element leading to an outcome does not invalidate the causality of all other elements. We cannot say that "the complaints have jumped because [...] those cities started to ask their residents to complain". That may be one reason behind the increase, but we also know that the flight paths are indeed more concentrated, and thus some neighborhoods do indeed have more noise.
 
Someone over on Airliners.net resurrected a thread from last year regarding Avianca starting Bogota-Boston flights. Avianca has received approval for the flights to Boston, and other US cities. One poster commented that they're waiting for the A319Neo planes to come into the fleet before starting the service. Wonder when/if the route will actually materialize.
 
I've been wondering that for a while now. I'm gonna guess zika scare days aren't playing out in their favor in terms of international traffic.
 
JumboBuc said:
The adoption of GPS-based navigation (which the FAA began rolling out in 2013) has indeed forced more planes into narrower, more concentrated flight paths.

Flight patterns for runway 33L, from the Globe:
Green = flights from January 17, 22, & 27, 2013:
Red = flights from January 5, 10, & 15, 2015:

airport_WEB.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting, I wonder if they could use the precision of GPS to randomize the approach path more to mitigate the complaints.
 
With better navigation, landings are essentially silent (planes glide from a long way out, engines idling for fuel savings, which works regardless of how noisy your engines are)

What mix of takeoffs and landings are the "flights" shown?
 
Arlington said:
With better navigation, landings are essentially silent (planes glide from a long way out, engines idling for fuel savings, which works regardless of how noisy your engines are)

What mix of takeoffs and landings are the "flights" shown?
Click to expand...

Arlington -- No -- as planes are "gliding" for a landing they have deployed all manner of non-aerodynamic appurtenances all of which interrupt or chaoticize the air stream. Some of messing with the clean stream of air is of course intentional such as flaps and slats and some such a wheels are needed for other functions

The net result is that as the plane approaches and prepares to land it generates a lot of turbulence and that translates into sound which spreads out from the flight path [eventually dissipated mostly as heat]

Same is true for take-off with the added noise from fully powered-up engines on the takeoff roll through the initial climb out
 
whighlander said:
Arlington -- No -- as planes are "gliding" for a landing they have deployed all manner of non-aerodynamic appurtenances all of which interrupt or chaoticize the air stream. Some of messing with the clean stream of air is of course intentional such as flaps and slats and some such a wheels are needed for other functions

The net result is that as the plane approaches and prepares to land it generates a lot of turbulence and that translates into sound which spreads out from the flight path [eventually dissipated mostly as heat]

Same is true for take-off with the added noise from fully powered-up engines on the takeoff roll through the initial climb out
Click to expand...

While your pedantic point that planes are not literally silent while landing is correct, the spirit of your post is wrong. They are in fact much quieter while landing:

https://www.broward.org/Airport/Community/Documents/Stage3and4presentation.pdf

The charts in that presentation show most modern planes are around 80-90 dB if you are directly under the approach and <7 miles from the runway. That noise level dissipates quickly to <80 dB if you are more than a quarter mile from the flight path. Also once the plane is 6-7 miles away from the runway the noise level drops below 80 dB. On the other hand, when taking off, the range of 80+ dB noise is much wider.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top