Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

I'd say they should completely overhaul the whole terminal placing Terminal A and B at Airport Station, Terminal C and D (D = current E, since old D merged into C) at Wood Island Station.

This would completely kill runway 15R - 33L though. But if they could manage to lobby hard to lengthen 15L - 33R they could remove 15R in return. Perhaps something along the lines of a 12-30ish could be made aswell, with only sea approach/takeoff.


But anyways, before I go into detail, the airport should be moved out anyways. Fill in a cluster of Harbor Islands. Oh wait- those are sacred ground these days.
 
stellarfun said:
Mass88 was the poster who said United/Continental would move to B. If so, it would seem, if American is reducing its flights, that it would move to A, and its gates would be given to United/Continental. Just my two cents. I think the problem for United is that some of its flights, e.g., going to Denver or San Francisco, don't lend themselves to quick turns at the gate.
Click to expand...

United uses Boeing 757-200s on a regular basis into Boston. I would estimate that they send probably 8-11 a day as it is used on flights to every city it serves out of Boston - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver and Washington, D.C. so space would at a crunch.

I believe Kinton said during his Q&A the other week that the combined UA/CO will be moving into the US Airways side of terminal B.
 
kmp1284 said:
For domestic numbers:

http://www.faremeasure.com/View-Airport-BOS-Logan_International_Airport.html

As for Israel I'm not sure what the numbers are but the general consensus on Boston-Israel is that there's a fairly significant amount of traffic between the two places, but a lack of premium demand is holding the airlines back from entering the market. If I recall correctly even Miami has lost its Israel flight and Miami has a far more significant Israeli expat population plus a lot more in the way of high end tourism. From what I've heard Swiss and Lufthansa do a very good business on connections from Boston to Israel.
Click to expand...


South Florida and Israel do not have that many business ties. Boston on the other hand does thanks to the bio tech industry. Also, roughly 72,000 people a year fly between Boston and Tel Aviv, a decent sized market. Miami lost their flights because the 762 El Al was sending on the route was a gas guzzler and the loads were also poor, which looked even worse considering the flight was less than daily. Miami never took off the way Los Angeles did.


Also to note, there is a decent chance that Boston could gain non-stop service to Istanbul in the not too distant future. Boston is one of the largest markets out of Istanbul.
 
mass88 said:
South Florida and Israel do not have that many business ties. Boston on the other hand does thanks to the bio tech industry. Also, roughly 72,000 people a year fly between Boston and Tel Aviv, a decent sized market. Miami lost their flights because the 762 El Al was sending on the route was a gas guzzler and the loads were also poor, which looked even worse considering the flight was less than daily. Miami never took off the way Los Angeles did.


Also to note, there is a decent chance that Boston could gain non-stop service to Istanbul in the not too distant future. Boston is one of the largest markets out of Istanbul.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the international numbers? Any links for them?

Istanbul? Really? I'm guessing this would be handled by Turkish Airlines.
 
Direct flights to istanbul would be awesome! I dont have any facts on how profitable or anything, but i have been wanting to go for some time and this would be awesome.
 
kmp1284 said:
Just out of curiosity, along what lines have your sketches been, additions to the terminal layout as it is now or knocking down and rebuilding the whole terminal/parking arrangement?
Click to expand...

The idea is to tear down as little as possible. Any solution, I believe, begins with filling in post-security connections between B and C and between C and E (former D, realigned). This can be done in phases with relatively minimal disruptions to currently used gates. Once that's done, something has to be done about Terminal B.

To address Stellarfun, Terminal B is, obviously, 2 unconnected terminals. The idea of combining UA, CO and US in 1 terminal is to ease connections between these alliance sharers. For those unfamiliar with alliances, these three airlines have a high degree of interoperability (especially once they're only 2 airlines). Joint itineraries and codeshares are common. Not that most people transfer through Logan, but for the few that might (from Canada, perhaps), it's important to have all those airlines under 1 roof. Thus, the US side.

Ideally, Terminal B, which was designed for another era, is inefficiently arranged, and is a barrier to further connections airside because of its spatial orientation, would be torn down entirely and be replaced by a landside-satellite arrangement like Terminal A. In a less radical proposal, the US Airways side remains, but it is connected by a new landside portion to a newly built pier replacing the American side (with new roadways and requiring new parking... a garage in front of Terminal E makes sense).

Finally (and to bring this back into this thread), the Immigration and Customs should be moved long-term from E to a more central location. Once a passenger can walk from A to E indoors (and without crossing through central parking), efficient connections for arriving international passengers could become much easier at Logan, perhaps even enhancing its reputation as a less-crowded alternative to JFK (particularly on AA-BA and Lufthansa/Aer Lingus-Jet Blue) and leading to... International Flight Additions.
 
choo said:
Direct flights to istanbul would be awesome! I dont have any facts on how profitable or anything, but i have been wanting to go for some time and this would be awesome.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it would be Turkish Airlines that would operate the route. Turkish Airlines is adding a lot of planes, investing a lot in their product and service, and building up a well-positioned hub in Istanbul for service beyond Turkey and into the Middle East and India/Southeast Asia.

I know Istanbul is a big, economic power city (along with the rest of Turkey's economy) that is on the rise; but i didn't know the Istanbul-Boston market was that big. Does Boston have any headquarters or sizable operations of Turkish companies? Or vice versa? I know the tourism are important economic drivers in both cities, but I'm guessing you need the premium traffic to make it viable.

It would be a bit of a haul though. :)
 
Equilibria said:
The idea is to tear down as little as possible. Any solution, I believe, begins with filling in post-security connections between B and C and between C and E (former D, realigned). This can be done in phases with relatively minimal disruptions to currently used gates. Once that's done, something has to be done about Terminal B.

To address Stellarfun, Terminal B is, obviously, 2 unconnected terminals. The idea of combining UA, CO and US in 1 terminal is to ease connections between these alliance sharers. For those unfamiliar with alliances, these three airlines have a high degree of interoperability (especially once they're only 2 airlines). Joint itineraries and codeshares are common. Not that most people transfer through Logan, but for the few that might (from Canada, perhaps), it's important to have all those airlines under 1 roof. Thus, the US side.

Ideally, Terminal B, which was designed for another era, is inefficiently arranged, and is a barrier to further connections airside because of its spatial orientation, would be torn down entirely and be replaced by a landside-satellite arrangement like Terminal A. In a less radical proposal, the US Airways side remains, but it is connected by a new landside portion to a newly built pier replacing the American side (with new roadways and requiring new parking... a garage in front of Terminal E makes sense).

Finally (and to bring this back into this thread), the Immigration and Customs should be moved long-term from E to a more central location. Once a passenger can walk from A to E indoors (and without crossing through central parking), efficient connections for arriving international passengers could become much easier at Logan, perhaps even enhancing its reputation as a less-crowded alternative to JFK (particularly on AA-BA and Lufthansa/Aer Lingus-Jet Blue) and leading to... International Flight Additions.
Click to expand...


Would your plans include any room for expanding the runways? Maybe enough to allow fully-fueled 747/777/340 flights to Asia?
 
Oakley said:
I'm guessing it would be Turkish Airlines that would operate the route. Turkish Airlines is adding a lot of planes, investing a lot in their product and service, and building up a well-positioned hub in Istanbul for service beyond Turkey and into the Middle East and India/Southeast Asia.

I know Istanbul is a big, economic power city (along with the rest of Turkey's economy) that is on the rise; but i didn't know the Istanbul-Boston market was that big. Does Boston have any headquarters or sizable operations of Turkish companies? Or vice versa? I know the tourism are important economic drivers in both cities, but I'm guessing you need the premium traffic to make it viable.

It would be a bit of a haul though. :)
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head....I can't think of any major business ties. However, Istanbul is very well positioned for traffic to flow to/from the Middle East and central Asia...namely India. There would be some good business traffic that would use that route in addition to those visiting. The Boston area is home to a sizable Turkish population and it is quite popular with modern Turkish migration.



Those are some interesting proposals. Sadly, Logan will probably remain in its current form for the next several decades. The only way to make Logan a true world class airport and one that is conducive to connecting traffic we would need to start fresh and have lots of space. Boston would be perfect for a medium sized hub for European flights thanks to our large local market and close proximity to Europe. 752s can easily reach most major European cities without issue (London, Manchester, Dublin, Shannon, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Mile, Zurich, etc.)
 
mass88 said:
Those are some interesting proposals. Sadly, Logan will probably remain in its current form for the next several decades. The only way to make Logan a true world class airport and one that is conducive to connecting traffic we would need to start fresh and have lots of space. Boston would be perfect for a medium sized hub for European flights thanks to our large local market and close proximity to Europe. 752s can easily reach most major European cities without issue (London, Manchester, Dublin, Shannon, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Mile, Zurich, etc.)
Click to expand...

I agree with you that Logan likely will not change that much and that Boston as a city can support a European gateway. I do think, however, that an airport filling that role can be built on the current site, and without much disruption to the current layout.

The immediate problem, however, is not transfers from international flights, but the inadequacy of the current isolated terminals to handle merged airlines and strong alliances requiring ever-shifting blocks of gates. This flexibility is why modern airports look like Detroit or Atlanta, not Boston and JFK. Massport has pumped money into airport improvements over the past decade, including the replacement of A with Delta. It isn't inconceivable that expansions with small footprints to connect the terminals could happen before too long.
 
mass88 said:
Off the top of my head....I can't think of any major business ties. However, Istanbul is very well positioned for traffic to flow to/from the Middle East and central Asia...namely India. There would be some good business traffic that would use that route in addition to those visiting. The Boston area is home to a sizable Turkish population and it is quite popular with modern Turkish migration.



Those are some interesting proposals. Sadly, Logan will probably remain in its current form for the next several decades. The only way to make Logan a true world class airport and one that is conducive to connecting traffic we would need to start fresh and have lots of space. Boston would be perfect for a medium sized hub for European flights thanks to our large local market and close proximity to Europe. 752s can easily reach most major European cities without issue (London, Manchester, Dublin, Shannon, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Mile, Zurich, etc.)
Click to expand...


The flow to the Middle East and India is huge. I know that is what Emirates is trying to do and why Canada and the UAE are having diplomatic problems (The UAE want more flights into Canada and Canada said no; UAE then told Canada to moves their troops of its base in UAE.)


Would be nice to have a new or expanded international terminal (especially if the growth is predicated in that area). New space for shops, food and beverage outlets, lounges for the airlines, and maybe new gates?

The biggest problem with Logan, as others have pointed, is the lack of connecting through the airports (At least without having to leave terminal and going through another security check-point).
 
Equilibria said:
I agree with you that Logan likely will not change that much and that Boston as a city can support a European gateway. I do think, however, that an airport filling that role can be built on the current site, and without much disruption to the current layout.

The immediate problem, however, is not transfers from international flights, but the inadequacy of the current isolated terminals to handle merged airlines and strong alliances requiring ever-shifting blocks of gates. This flexibility is why modern airports look like Detroit or Atlanta, not Boston and JFK. Massport has pumped money into airport improvements over the past decade, including the replacement of A with Delta. It isn't inconceivable that expansions with small footprints to connect the terminals could happen before too long.
Click to expand...

2 things you need to remember, Detroit is dominated by Delta (formerly Northwest) and Atlanta is dominated by Delta. Those 2 airports are also set up perfectly for connecting traffic, which makes up more than half the traffic at both airports. Atlanta has over 70% of its passengers using the airport for connections. The mid field terminal setup works well for hubs that have large portions of traffic on connections, not for airports that have more O&D like Boston does. Around 90% of pax use BOS as their starting or ending point.

Northwest, now Delta, had their own, massive and modern terminal built in Detroit, the other airlines are forced to use terminals similar in setup to Boston.
 
I've heard the rumours about Turkish for a number of years now. I know it's been on Massport's 'want' list for a while. However, I think in the end the market will only support one of the Middle Eastern airlines, so whoever decides to start service first will be it. My money is on Emirates, given their more aggressive approach, but I'm not ruling out Etihad or Qatar from getting in first.

Emirates, having the more extensive coverage in India and Australasia, would be able to garner a larger market share, largely at the expense of the European airlines.

Turkish, with their new and lower-capacity A330-200s, could make a go of it too. Turkish has made no secret of their expansion plans to turn Istanbul into the next Dubai or Abu Dhabi. Whether they'll succeed or not is a different story. The UAE has invested extensively in the infrastructure of their airports. Whether the Turkish government will do the same remains to be seen and right now, Istanbul's airport just doesn't cut it when compared to Dubai or the plans that Abu Dhabi Emirate have.

That said, a Middle Eastern airline is a when, not an if. The market to the Middle East and beyond is too great to be ignored and Emirates is buying planes like they're toys and they'll need to send them somewhere. It's just a matter of who gets here first since I'm not convinced the market could support more than one.
 
erikyow said:
I've heard the rumours about Turkish for a number of years now. I know it's been on Massport's 'want' list for a while. However, I think in the end the market will only support one of the Middle Eastern airlines, so whoever decides to start service first will be it. My money is on Emirates, given their more aggressive approach, but I'm not ruling out Etihad or Qatar from getting in first.

Emirates, having the more extensive coverage in India and Australasia, would be able to garner a larger market share, largely at the expense of the European airlines.

Turkish, with their new and lower-capacity A330-200s, could make a go of it too. Turkish has made no secret of their expansion plans to turn Istanbul into the next Dubai or Abu Dhabi. Whether they'll succeed or not is a different story. The UAE has invested extensively in the infrastructure of their airports. Whether the Turkish government will do the same remains to be seen and right now, Istanbul's airport just doesn't cut it when compared to Dubai or the plans that Abu Dhabi Emirate have.

That said, a Middle Eastern airline is a when, not an if. The market to the Middle East and beyond is too great to be ignored and Emirates is buying planes like they're toys and they'll need to send them somewhere. It's just a matter of who gets here first since I'm not convinced the market could support more than one.
Click to expand...

The UAE needs to careful it doesn't piss off Canada more than it has. By this, Canada could revoke the fly-over rights from the UAE airlines in which they use for US flights.
 
Yeah, the diplomatic slaps in the fact that were the booting the Canadians out of Camp Mirage and refusing landing permission to the Canadian Defence Minister who was en route back from Afghanistan were not taken to too lightly here. But Nav Canada would lobby to prevent over-fly rights being taken away since Emirates and Etihad are cash cows for them (Nav Canada is the private organization responsible for Canada's ATC).

I, personally, support a moderated version of Canada's stance. The government's position for not allowing additional flights is that the flights' primary goal should be to serve the market that exists between the two countries. Given that there is little in the way of business links and an almost non-existent expat community in Canada, the daily flights serve their purpose and the UAE should not be given nearly what they're asking for (upwards of 50 weekly slots), especially since there's little evidence that any of it would be reciprocal to Canadian interests (Air Canada has shown little evidence that it wants anything to do in the Middle East beyond its current Toronto-Tel Aviv flights and a proposed Montreal-Beirut service which was to start in 2005 but got its permission revoked two days before flights were to start).

That said, Canada has no problems allowing airlines like British Airways and Lufthansa unfettered access to the Canadian market and one would have to be quite naive if they didn't think that significant amounts of people on those airlines weren't using the UK or Germany to connect to other places, particularly the same exact places that Emirates would connect people to, namely South Asia. So, I do think that the Canadian government needs to stop protecting the entrenched players who stand to lose from an increased presence by Emirates and Etihad and open the market up a little bit.

I don't think the government will engage in any more retaliatory measures. Camp Mirage was set to be closed in early-2012 anyway. However, I do think the UAE shot themselves in the foot. The CDN government will be even less likely to budge, if for no other reason than to save face.
 
Looks like I was wrong. The Canada-UAE saga is not over. Latest is that the UAE is now requiring Canadian citizens to apply for visas for entry to the UAE. Some might say that this is just a tit-for-tat maneuver to bring UAE's visa policy in-line with those imposed by Canada on UAE citizens. However, the timing is rather suspicious.
 
76370_447726662980_18560027980_5345548_999468_n.jpg


76160_447726602980_18560027980_5345544_93539_n.jpg


Got these from Logan's Facebook page. 2 renders of the Terminal C development.
 
Can I just reiterate that for all the flak they take in Boston (and around the aviation community), Massport has actually been doing an impressive job of what was a miserable airport for travelers livable over the past 10 years or so? Renderings are of course not reality, but the pictures above simply do not look like how anyone would have pictured Logan Airport in the Big Dig era (this also applies to A and E these days).

I also love the Facebook page. Random citizens asking random questions about construction and development plans, and some relatively informed Massport employee giving straight, friendly, rapid answers. What a concept in MA government.
 
Ugh, look at the street level on that thing! What were they thinking??
 
As a newcomer, I don't have a historical perspective on Logan, but I think the terminals I've been in are perfectly nice, if not cutting edge. The only real downside, in my view, is the shuttle bus between terminals both in terms of their slow, sporadic nature and the fact that it doesn't operate on the airside and thus requires re-entering security when transfering from one airline to another. Also, the connection to the Blue Line is lousy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top