Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

Also, I think Portland can handle two flights. Given that Seattle now had four daily flights in the Summer (2 on Alaska and 2 on jetBlue), Portland can handle two. Yields may not be stellar but it's much the same dynamic as Seattle, with Alaska catering to the connections and Portland folks who are more likely to be loyal to Alaska and jetBlue currying favor with the Boston-based people. Plus, the jetBlue flight is summer-only. A wise decision to gauge interest.

Santiago is interesting. They did 'holiday season' flights (early-December to early-January) a few years ago to STI. It didn't come back but eventually the Santo Domingo flight came online. I had never even heard of Santiago, DR, but most domestic airlines are able to run daily heavies from STI to New York, a 3x weekly flight on an A320 might have a shot.
 
erikyow said:
I've heard the Turkish rumour for years. Apparently, they've been on Massport's radar as an airline of interest for some time. I actually would put some stock into what they're saying. They are trying to set up Istanbul as a competitor to the Gulf region hubs (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, etc.), so they'd be wise to jump into some markets that have a fairly strong local market in addition to connections. Boston has one of the larger Turkish populations in North America. However, they do need better connections to places like India, in order to compete with airlines like Emirates or Etihad Airways. A 3-5x weekly A330-200 with 250 seats is entirely feasible, especially if they increase their South Asian offerings.

Actually, an airline that one might keep an eye out for Middle East service is Qatar Airways. They typically try to jump into markets that are underserved before Emirates can get to them. For instance, they were the first in Washington DC, many secondary European markets and they just announced service to Montreal.

And Emirates, of course, has a massive backlog of aircraft on order. They will need to fly them somewhere. And with them really getting to critical mass with such a huge range of destinations and available flights, there are increasingly fewer cities that don't have them global demand for those flights.
Click to expand...

It's going to be very interesting to see what Emirates does, they have very strong and large expansion wishes. They also are quickly establishing Dubai as an amazing hub. I would not doubt that by 2016 we see them flying non-stop flights to Miami, Washington, D.C., Dallas/Ft. Worth, Seattle and Boston. Of course the European carriers are non too happy about their expansion.

My money is on Emirates first, then Turkish. Boston could not sustain 2 Gulf carriers at first, but then again they would not be flying daily. You bring up a good point about Qatar, they are a wild card I guess.


erikyow said:
Also, I think Portland can handle two flights. Given that Seattle now had four daily flights in the Summer (2 on Alaska and 2 on jetBlue), Portland can handle two. Yields may not be stellar but it's much the same dynamic as Seattle, with Alaska catering to the connections and Portland folks who are more likely to be loyal to Alaska and jetBlue currying favor with the Boston-based people. Plus, the jetBlue flight is summer-only. A wise decision to gauge interest.

Santiago is interesting. They did 'holiday season' flights (early-December to early-January) a few years ago to STI. It didn't come back but eventually the Santo Domingo flight came online. I had never even heard of Santiago, DR, but most domestic airlines are able to run daily heavies from STI to New York, a 3x weekly flight on an A320 might have a shot.
Click to expand...

I am hesitant to agree that Portland can handle 2 flights. Maybe during the high May through September season, but it's a long and thin route by Boston standards. Seattle has a larger business base using the route and also Alaska has a nice hub in Seattle to funnel pax to/from Alaska, the Pac Northwest and Western Canada.
 
Boston has one of the larger Turkish populations in North America.
Click to expand...

Really? Where are they all? Can anyone recommend a good Turkish restaurant?
 
Istanbu'lu in Teele Square, Somerville, but that's hardly a Turkish neighborhood.
 
Looks like Delta will be adding 2 x daily Kansas City flights on Comair CR7s.

A solid addition.
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-airlines-to-begin-tokyo-boston-route-2011-05-27

Here's the big one. Boston will finally have non-stop flights to Asia start in 2012. JAL, or Japan Airlines will make Boston one of its first 787 destinations by starting Boston to Tokyo Narita non-stop flights on April 22, 2012. The flights will initially start at 4 times a week and increase to daily starting in June.

This is a big announcement for Logan and the Greater Boston Area. These flights should do well.
 
Finally! After the false start back in '98 or so with American Airlines, this route is finally going to get off the ground.

Though I would comment that this is going to be JAL's FIRST 787 route. In addition, Tokyo-Boston is exactly the kind of route that the 787 was designed for. Long enough to require a wide-body aircraft, but not so big that it could profitably fill larger, existing aircraft. Also, Logan has the issue of having its longest runway only just over 10,000 feet. While that might seem like a lot, but isn't quite long enough for a fully-loaded 747 to take-off on an 85˚ day (this flight is scheduled to depart at 1:20pm). So the fact that JAL is diving right in with this plane on this route shows the faith that JAL has in the route (and to usurp main rival, ANA, which is taking delivery of the first 787s later this year, a couple of months before JAL will receive theirs, from announcing the route themselves).

In addition, JAL has been in shrinking mode the past few years. A bloated, intransigent workforce, fierce competition from ANA, as well as foreign competition, and a huge fleet of oversized 747s really brought that company to its knees. The article on boston.com states that this is the first new destination for JAL in the US in 13 years. What it doesn't mention is how many cities have been cut over the past 15-20 years in the US. In fact, they've only recently come out of the Japanese equivalent of Chapter 11. So this is great news for Logan, New England and JAL, who are finally able to start growing again.

Over 300,000 people travel to Asia from the Boston area every year, of which only about 75,000 (25%) of that travel to Tokyo. I have a feeling that Logan will probably get another Asian route (probably to China, or maybe Korea) in the coming years. JAL will be one of the first to fly the 787. Once more carriers start receiving theirs, I would think another route should follow.

Finally, one interesting quirk that travellers from Boston to Tokyo may need to get used to is that due to the shorter flight time and lack of layover, people travelling from Tokyo to Boston will arrive 10 minutes before they departed. The flight is scheduled to leave Tokyo at 11:30am and arrive in Boston at 11:20am the same day.
 
The market, Boston to Tokyo, is going to see some great stimulation with the non-stop flight coming on line. In addition, people who would normally fly out of Providence, Manchester, Portland and Hartford will not have a reason to head to Logan. Considering those people would normally have to make a connection via Detroit, Newark, Chicago, etc. A non-stop flight will save anywhere from 6-12 hours round trip on travel.
 
Awesome news. Very good chance I'll be Boston-bound from Tokyo sometime next year.
 
Does anyone know why Boston's runways are just a little too short? Looking at the satellite image of the airport, it seems there could easily be a few hundred feet added to at least two of the runways with only minor construction and certainly no harbor filling. Are the short runways due to politics or?
 
Yeah, politics plays a role. Also, there needs to be a buffer zone to runways so that if a plane overshoots the runway by a little bit, they're not stuck in the grass or in a ditch (or, in Logan's case, the drink). The idea being that if something goes wrong during the landing (the plane floats a bit too long and touches down a bit too late, or there are braking issues), there is a little room for error. The Canadian government recently released a report recommending that all airports extend their buffer zones in response to the Air France crash in Toronto a few years ago, in which a plane touched down late in heavy rain and, combined with a wind pushing it, went off the end of the runway and down a river embankment where it caught fire and was destroyed. A longer buffer zone or some sort of emergency arresting system might have prevented the accident.

That said, I'm not an expert on such matters, but I think a larger plane, like a 747, would need about 12,000 feet of runway for the hot days. Korean Air flew to Boston about 10 years ago. The flight was nonstop from Seoul but had to stop in Washington on the return which made the flight less attractive for many.
 
Dulles and Hartsfield are about the same distance as Boston to Tokyo (both a little longer actually), and both have nonstops to Tokyo with longest runways about 11,500'. Only 33L 15R at Logan could be made that long without filling, and it looks like it could be done. I don't think it's the best direction for Logan but really don't know that. For a couple of flights a day it seems possible.

I wonder if there are any airline buffs out there who know what's really going on at Logan.
 
It would be great is Massport would open up a connection between Terminal E and Terminal C. That way people could connect from this new Tokyo flight to JetBlue flights over in C. This was a person would not have to go out side and walk, or take a shuttle bus and make connections easier and faster.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have never understood why Massport didn't connect all the Terminals to each other with the moving sidewalk walkways when they first built them! Terminal A, B, and E are all directly connected to each other (though the connection between B and A is interrupted by A so have to walk through terminal A to hook up with the A-E connection) by these walkways! Terminal B, C and E should all have been connected by these walkways. We flew up a few weeks ago from Atlanta to Terminal A, walked over to Terminal E and flew out to Paris on an absolutely packed Air France 747! Was a very pleasant, piece of cake, walk from one side of the airport to the other! I've always loved those walkways, just always wondered why they didn't connect all the terminals instead of some just stopping in the parking garages. BTW, the ticketing area of Terminal E (or is it now D?) really is stunning with it's wood/glass interior! Definitely one of my favorite terminals in all the airports I've traveled through. Departure side however, not so much!
 
Actually, all the terminals ARE linked, with the exception of C to E. Terminal A and E have such a great link because they were able to construct it along the side of the parking garage, which was newly built at the time. Furthermore, the American Airlines side of Terminal B has forever had a link to Terminal C. In addition, A and the US Airways side of B are connected, though because of the active apron between them, it's a little bit indirect and requires one to be outside for about 30 seconds before going into the US Airways side of B. The one that needs to be completed is a C to E link, but unfortunately I don't see it happening. That said, I'm not sure if they've reopened the corridor that has long existed that passes behind the State Police barracks, but if they have then you only have to go outside for about 40 seconds between C and E.

One alternative would be to have a JFK-style Airtrain doing loops between the subway, the future consolidated car rental facility and the terminals. But that would probably be overkill given the size of Logan compared to JFK.
 
erikyow said:
Actually, all the terminals ARE linked, with the exception of C to E. Terminal A and E have such a great link because they were able to construct it along the side of the parking garage, which was newly built at the time. Furthermore, the American Airlines side of Terminal B has forever had a link to Terminal C. In addition, A and the US Airways side of B are connected, though because of the active apron between them, it's a little bit indirect and requires one to be outside for about 30 seconds before going into the US Airways side of B. The one that needs to be completed is a C to E link, but unfortunately I don't see it happening. That said, I'm not sure if they've reopened the corridor that has long existed that passes behind the State Police barracks, but if they have then you only have to go outside for about 40 seconds between C and E.

One alternative would be to have a JFK-style Airtrain doing loops between the subway, the future consolidated car rental facility and the terminals. But that would probably be overkill given the size of Logan compared to JFK.
Click to expand...

The location of the Airport T station is pathetic in itself. There's no incentive to use it because you have to take the shuttle out to the middle of nowhere to get to it. It's not really linked to the airport itself (like Reagan in DC, for example). The silver line is effective and convenient w/ curbside pickup, but there should be a much more solid rapid-transit link at Logan. There's really no turning back now either because they've just built a brand new station. It's just too bad.

Btw, yes, that dumpy corridor between C and E is open. Terminal C (and B) has seen thousands of better days.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top