Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

LH421 said:
Running an underground subway/light rail costs upwards of $100 million/mile plus the costs of land acquisition and construction of a costly underground station. The PDX MAX system is of course at grade and is technically a modern light rail, but they have ample land surrounding the airport and nearby Cascade Station area by the IKEA and aloft complex.

Especially in our local area people who take public transit are accustomed to making transfers, navigating the antiquated and IMO inadequate MBTA system with all its oddities. There are other airports like DFW (light rail is only from Terminal A) or PHL (SEPTA doesn't stop at international terminal A-West and runs infrequently) that have direct airport access, but each has its pros and cons. Even with a set-up like at ORD or LHR to get to the Picadilly line or premium geared Heathrow Express, it can still be upwards of a 15 minute walk from the passenger terminals 2 or 3.
Click to expand...

Of course there is the counter example from a country that really gives a damn about serious rail connectivity, France.

At Charles de Gaulle outside Paris you not only have frequent RER service into central Paris, you have a full fledged TGV station right under the center of Terminal 2 (the major terminal) with high speed rail connections to most of the country. And Terminals 1 and 3 are connected to Terminal 2 by a very convenient local automated train the CDGVAL.
 
Just wanted to do a honorary post for the 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001 and recognize the impact and unique connection to our local area and Logan airport.

AA 11
AA 77

UA 93
UA 175

I'm told AA intends to move the flag pole affixed to the jet bridge on gate B32 with the forthcoming consolidation/relocation to the LUS B-1 South pier, as UA has done from their relocation from C.

May the memory of the passengers, crew members, and all victims be remembered today and every day.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Of course there is the counter example from a country that really gives a damn about serious rail connectivity, France.

At Charles de Gaulle outside Paris you not only have frequent RER service into central Paris, you have a full fledged TGV station right under the center of Terminal 2 (the major terminal) with high speed rail connections to most of the country. And Terminals 1 and 3 are connected to Terminal 2 by a very convenient local automated train the CDGVAL.
Click to expand...

+1.

Also Heathrow Airport - - we flew in, went underground to the Tube and were at our hotel on Gloucester Road in 35 minutes without ever having to clog a street.

I don't understand the pushback from some of the posters here to something that makes so much sense. In particular, to Jumbobuc, who has more stuff to carry and could use the closer location- - the air traveler or the local East Boston rider?
 
shmessy said:
I don't understand the pushback from some of the posters here to something that makes so much sense. In particular, to Jumbobuc, who has more stuff to carry and could use the closer location- - the air traveler or the local East Boston rider?
Click to expand...

The local East Boston rider, actually.

Airports are used by any given person (other than employees, who are a whole 'nother story) relatively rarely. Normal day-to-day transit is used ever single day. Airports are also used disproportionately by the relatively well off and disproportionately by out-of-towners. Public transit at large is used by the whole cross section of people (with a skew towards the less fortunate) and predominantly by locals. If you compare carrying a suitcase once a month to carrying groceries / whatever every single day, the local rider has more stuff carry over any realistic timeframe.

Making an entire neighborhood travel an extra km to the train every morning and night so that airline travelers can be spared a shuttle to their terminal is not a trade-off worth making.

If we lived in a world of infinite resources, then sure, Logan's transit connectivity should be improved. But we don't live in that world. It's silly to push more resources into Logan transit (which already has two connections, one of which is free) when so many other parts of our transit system are so lacking. And it's silly to push resources to help relatively richer out-of-towners at the expense of relatively poorer locals.

We already subsidize air travel very heavily. The cost of TSA alone comes out to a federal subsidy of roughly $8 per passenger (the portion not covered by airline ticket fees). That says nothing of all the other federal subsidies of various forms that air travelers receive. There's no reason to pile even more subsidy on the airline rider when that money could go to other uses.
 
JumboBuc said:
The local East Boston rider, actually.

Airports are used by any given person (other than employees, who are a whole 'nother story) relatively rarely. Normal day-to-day transit is used ever single day. Airports are also used disproportionately by the relatively well off and disproportionately by out-of-towners. Public transit at large is used by the whole cross section of people (with a skew towards the less fortunate) and predominantly by locals. If you compare carrying a suitcase once a month to carrying groceries / whatever every single day, the local rider has more stuff carry over any realistic timeframe.

Making an entire neighborhood travel an extra km to the train every morning and night so that airline travelers can be spared a shuttle to their terminal is not a trade-off worth making.

If we lived in a world of infinite resources, then sure, Logan's transit connectivity should be improved. But we don't live in that world. It's silly to push more resources into Logan transit (which already has two connections, one of which is free) when so many other parts of our transit system are so lacking. And it's silly to push resources to help relatively richer out-of-towners at the expense of relatively poorer locals.

We already subsidize air travel very heavily. The cost of TSA alone comes out to a federal subsidy of roughly $8 per passenger (the portion not covered by airline ticket fees). That says nothing of all the other federal subsidies of various forms that air travelers receive. There's no reason to pile even more subsidy on the airline rider when that money could go to other uses.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your economic argument there. Social/Civic, yes. But economic, no. The airline traveler gives far more revenue bang for the buck spent than the nice old lady schlepping her Shaws purchases. There's a reason why Mass General and other hospitals are racing to build hotel rooms for rich foreigners.

Once again, if you are talking social/civic reasons, then I'm on board with you. But the pure economic reasoning doesn't hold water.
 
shmessy said:
I don't agree with your economic argument there. Social/Civic, yes. But economic, no. The airline traveler gives far more revenue bang for the buck spent than the nice old lady schlepping her Shaws purchases. There's a reason why Mass General and other hospitals are racing to build hotel rooms for rich foreigners.

Once again, if you are talking social/civic reasons, then I'm on board with you. But the pure economic reasoning doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

What is this "economic argument" you allude to?

Logan transit connections are already really good. Again: Logan's already on two transit lines, one of them is free, and it's like two stops from the airport to Downtown. That's amazing! Other than National, Logan's already just about the easiest major airport to get in and out of from the core of a US city (and that applies to cars as well as transit).

Pushing additional funds into making Logan's transit connection even better would hit major diminishing returns.

It's not like the travel decisions of any "rich foreigners"--or anyone else for that matter--would change if Airport station were moved. Nobody's gonna choose to fly into Logan because of that. Just about everyone who accesses the airport by car today would still access the airport by car. People who access the airport by transit would see a slight improvement, but that improvement would be taking them from "really good" to "exceptionally good". That's not a very significant change in the overall big picture.

Marginal improvements to other parts of our transit system--where we can take things from "bad" to "good"--are a way bigger deal. Those would be more likely to actually induce changes in behavior leading to more efficient uses of resources. And that's where economic gains come from.
 
Found this in the airliners OAG thread for the week.

Copa will go to 11 weekly on BOS-PTY starting in February.

Schedule now is:

CM 312 BOS-PTY 8:06-14:13 Daily
CM 733 BOS-PTY 14:41-20:48 x246

CM 311 PTY-BOS 12:34-18:10 Daily
CM 732 PTY-BOS 7:45-13:21 x246

This adds improved connectivity to Deep South America. Example: CM 312 connects well to PTY-CNF (Belo Horizonte) but CNF-PTY doesn't for CM 311 since its a red-eye with early arrival into PTY.

Unfortunately, JetBlue has cut Boston-St. Maarten for the winter season due to Hurricane Irma.
 
adamh8297 said:
Two items for discussion.

JetBlue will launch 3 daily A320 Boston-Minneapolis on May 3rd. No press release yet but its bookable.


LATAM Brasil (formed from the merger of LAN Chile and TAM) has leaked out an intention to fly Sao Paulo-Boston. Stay tuned.

http://www.mercadoeeventos.com.br/n...ve-iniciar-voos-para-lisboa-e-boston-em-2018/
Click to expand...

Long overdue on the Brazil development. I have to fly through Newark for my trip in November. But great news for future travel.
 
Theres some folks here who need to put their bibs on because the crow has come home to roost
 
What Massport has done in the last 5-6 years is pretty remarkable and it has really transformed Logan into a true global airport.

Tokyo Narita - year round
Vancouver - seasonal
Mexico City - year round service returns
Panama City - year round
Bogota - year round
Hong Kong - year round
Shanghai - year round
Beijing - year round
London Gatwick - year round service returns
Istanbul - year round
Doha - year round
Dubai - year round
Lisbon - year round service returns
Copenhagen - year round
Oslo - seasonal
Tel Aviv - year round service returns
Toronto Billy Bishop - year round
Manchester UK - seasonal service returns
Sao Paulo - new service to start in 2018
 
^ how much of the credit actually belongs to the Boeing 787 and the low cost of fuel and not Massport?

It seems to me that it was Boeing's vision for a world of nonstop flights in long and thin markets that has driven change in Boston, either directly through new 787 service or indirectly from competitive responses from carriers with less appropriate aircraft but access to cheap jet fuel.

We will get another bump when A380 services ramp, but the big lift seems over--driven by the 787s vision of a breakthrough in long range flight that could use existing facilities.
 
^ I think there's been some of both.

Definitely a paradigm shift overtook the entire aircraft and airline industries: instead of pronounced hub-spoke systems dependent on enormous 747s connecting hubs, latest generation technology much more practically supports origin-destination networking. (btw, an analogous thing happened with domestic networks whereby the Embraer e-jets allowed O-D routes that never would have happened before)

I agree with Arlington that the above shift was prerequisite - no matter how hard Massport tried, they could not make that list of destinations happen without the new aircraft designs. I remember in the 1990s Korean Air wanted to fly Boston-Soeul w/ 747s, and it just wasn't going to happen....fully loaded/fueled/cargoed 747s couldn't make it there off of Boston's 10k-ft runways (e.g., as compared to JFK's 14k's).

But that said, we know there was tremendous outreach efforts going on in parallel w/ the launch of new aircraft designs.

I'd summarize as follows: the opportunity appeared (e.g., based on the new aircraft), and massport recognized it and launched a full-court press to seize the opportunity. There was enough proactivity going on to ensure Boston was among the first to capitalize on the new aircraft.
 
bigpicture7 said:
I'd summarize as follows: the opportunity appeared (e.g., based on the new aircraft), and massport recognized it and launched a full-court press to seize the opportunity. There was enough proactivity going on to ensure Boston was among the first to capitalize on the new aircraft.
Click to expand...

Agreed. An agency/administration(s) that didn't seize this opportunity would have wasted it.
 
Arlington said:
^ how much of the credit actually belongs to the Boeing 787 and the low cost of fuel and not Massport?

It seems to me that it was Boeing's vision for a world of nonstop flights in long and thin markets that has driven change in Boston, either directly through new 787 service or indirectly from competitive responses from carriers with less appropriate aircraft but access to cheap jet fuel.

We will get another bump when A380 services ramp, but the big lift seems over--driven by the 787s vision of a breakthrough in long range flight that could use existing facilities.
Click to expand...

That and jetblue using Boston as a focus city and their willingness to buddy up with foreign carriers for codeshares.
 
bigpicture7 said:
^ I think there's been some of both.

Definitely a paradigm shift overtook the entire aircraft and airline industries: instead of pronounced hub-spoke systems dependent on enormous 747s connecting hubs, latest generation technology much more practically supports origin-destination networking. (btw, an analogous thing happened with domestic networks whereby the Embraer e-jets allowed O-D routes that never would have happened before)

I agree with Arlington that the above shift was prerequisite - no matter how hard Massport tried, they could not make that list of destinations happen without the new aircraft designs. I remember in the 1990s Korean Air wanted to fly Boston-Soeul w/ 747s, and it just wasn't going to happen....fully loaded/fueled/cargoed 747s couldn't make it there off of Boston's 10k-ft runways (e.g., as compared to JFK's 14k's).

But that said, we know there was tremendous outreach efforts going on in parallel w/ the launch of new aircraft designs.

I'd summarize as follows: the opportunity appeared (e.g., based on the new aircraft), and massport recognized it and launched a full-court press to seize the opportunity. There was enough proactivity going on to ensure Boston was among the first to capitalize on the new aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well said and I agree on all points.

Now, if Massport can get the Terminal E expansion going things will really get interesting at Logan.
 
While all of the above points are valid, it's also important to give credit to Boston's economic boom. I think we would have seen a couple of these flights happen even if the 787 didn't exist. A deeper pool of high-yield customers always helps regardless of the aircraft available or incentives given.
 
FenwayResident said:
While all of the above points are valid, it's also important to give credit to Boston's economic boom. I think we would have seen a couple of these flights happen even if the 787 didn't exist. A deeper pool of high-yield customers always helps regardless of the aircraft available or incentives given.
Click to expand...

I also think all of the colleges and universities helped at least a bit initially with the post 9/11 increase in international non-stop travel to and from Logan.
 
mass88 said:
Now, if Massport can get the Terminal E expansion going things will really get interesting at Logan.
Click to expand...

Massport seems to be timid when it comes to large scale expansion projects, they seem to be more comfortable with smaller scale projects though I have to say, lately, the smaller scale projects that have come on line have been very, very nice.
 
Thoughts on Delta’s future in Boston with the new Bombardier C-series? It’s the next gen regional jet designed to fly “long, thin” routes. Routes where there is demand, but they are traditionally too long for a regional jet with too few passengers to justify a larger plane. This seems to be a good fit for a lot of borderline routes out of Boston. This could potentially do for domestic routes what the 787 has done for Boston with long haul routes. What’s more is that it could encourage Delta (or partners) to establish more long haul operations here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top