WOW is definitely one of the cheapest in my experience, but not Icelandair. I search flights to Northern Europe weekly (not always for myself unfortunately) and WOW and Norwegian dominate the results regularly because of their basic fares (no meals, seats, carry-on or checked bags, etc. included). When you add in any of those things, the fares are typically comparable to full-service carriers. In my experience, the Star Alliance carriers (especially Swiss, Lufthansa, and Turkish) have the lowest fares to Northern Europe on a regular basis for anyone looking to check or carry on bags and select their seats. Icelandair is almost never a top result.
Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion
- Thread starter lexicon506
- Start date
WOW is definitely one of the cheapest in my experience, but not Icelandair. I search flights to Northern Europe weekly (not always for myself unfortunately) and WOW and Norwegian dominate the results regularly because of their basic fares (no meals, seats, carry-on or checked bags, etc. included). When you add in any of those things, the fares are typically comparable to full-service carriers. In my experience, the Star Alliance carriers (especially Swiss, Lufthansa, and Turkish) have the lowest fares to Northern Europe on a regular basis for anyone looking to check or carry on bags and select their seats. Icelandair is almost never a top result.
May not be a good idea for Norwegian to do this. Seems like they are taking a hit on Scandinavian Longhaul to USA. Stockholm was worst loss per seat - that's why we haven't seen it yet!
Hartford-Edinburgh must have been brutal since it was cut but Providence-Edinburgh was cut slightly and Newburgh-Edinburgh wasn't touched.
https://www.aviationanalytics.com/2018/01/09/norwegian-overstretched/
Cork was the most profitable!!! If Cork's runway was longer they could hub NAI there.
Who thought yellow was a good idea for a graphic? Can't see Bergin, Rome and Dublin.
They take a beating to the big Scandinavian cities.
We'll have to wait and see what becomes of this airline, they've been expanding at a rapid pace. Over on airliners.net there are a lot of people railing against them and seem giddy at the thought of their collapse.
Cause many of them work for the big US Airlines and aren't happy about Norwegians labour policies. The unions and the big US Airlines tried to block Norwegian (specifically the Irish subsidiary) from entering the US market.
Personally as a customer not employed by any airline I want to see them succeed. More competition is good for customers.
The labor angle certainly is a factor. I always an amazed (not in a good way) and humored at how worked up people get over different airlines, airports, routes, etc. over in airliners.net.
Especially a certain airport that was a former Northwest hub. The threads are insane - at least the Boston thread uses logic and critical thinking.
They do a decent cargo business too (Like, apparently, Icelandair) which probably offsets some lower loads to certain markets and factors into their route selection.
I've flown them a few times out of Boston. Frankly, I think their Premium economy is one of the best values in the sky. For not all that much more than a standard economy ticket on a mainline carrier like BA, Delta, Virgin, etc. You can have a 19 inch wide seat with 47 inches of pitch, leg/foot rest, and serious recline and great IFE on the Dreamliner. You also get priority access, lounge access in BOS and LGW, and priority boarding/deplaning. Service and food are comparable to economy products on those other carriers (with free booze), but the hard product alone (well, and the lounge access and expedited security) make it worth the difference on most trips. Especially when I want to sleep on the Eastbound leg.
So I want them to succeed, though I'm hesitant to fly their narrow bodies across the ocean.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
That's the one that gets you? I've just learned to ignore any thread that discusses Delta or Alaska. Those people are crazy. Also, I've learned that literally any new livery is both "hideous" and "vomit-inducing".
One interesting part of that (especially to you, since IIRC you're from New Bedford) is that the Boston fish processing market includes New Bedford. They're trucking fish up and down Route 24 from Logan. It might be worth the EWB airport manager looking into getting some Icelandair dedicated cargo service, IMHO.
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
fish flights
Is the existing 5400' runway at New Bedford long enough for those international flights?
Is the existing 5400' runway at New Bedford long enough for those international flights?
Oh it's definitely part of the reason it's interesting to me. New Bedford is the highest grossing port in the nation in terms of its catch, so I'd guess that it makes up a pretty significant portion of the market. I'd love to see them work to entice overseas cargo flights, but I doubt they can handle aircraft large enough to make such trips viable. I think a more likely scenario is more freight rail investment (since wetlands surround the airport and runway expansions are all but impossible) to pull trucks off the road and increase capacity to Logan. But I hope their pitching seafood freight potential as part of any effort to woo potential domestic passenger flights.
That's the one that gets you? I've just learned to ignore any thread that discusses Delta or Alaska. Those people are crazy. Also, I've learned that literally any new livery is both "hideous" and "vomit-inducing".
I think you are referring to Seattle and I was referring to Detroit!
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
Re: fish flights
The answer to that depends on trading cargo weight for fuel.
According to Boeing's fact sheet on the 757-200F (Icelandair's cargo plane), EWB-KEF's great circle distance of 2,130 nm is approx. 40% the maximum range of the aircraft. Assuming that you fill the plane near to its maximum take-off weight (MTOW), it requires somewhere between 7,000 and 9,000 feet to take off, depending on which engines Icelandair has installed.
HOWEVER, you might not be anywhere near MTOW. Fish is valuable by weight, which means it may be economical for the airline to send half-full planes half the maximum range. Under those assumptions, I bet 5,400' is enough.
Also, the last round of plans for airport expansion at New Bedford and the construction of a full-on cargo hub assumed extension of both runways into the 8,000' range. That would resolve any issues. That proposal failed because of local opposition to jet noise and impacts to the marsh north of the field. A more limited Iceland-only service would use quieter aircraft and require less or no runway extension, so it might have legs.
Also, Logan has less than zero cargo capacity remaining (literally, since they're at capacity and removing cargo space for Terminal E). MA needs EWB to do more, especially since it's so beautifully positioned for intermodal transfers.
Btw, Amazon also has an airline now, and their big warehouse is conveniently located in Fall River, and Baker's going to want any benefits/subsidies for HQ2 to benefit the whole Commonwealth, so...
The answer to that depends on trading cargo weight for fuel.
According to Boeing's fact sheet on the 757-200F (Icelandair's cargo plane), EWB-KEF's great circle distance of 2,130 nm is approx. 40% the maximum range of the aircraft. Assuming that you fill the plane near to its maximum take-off weight (MTOW), it requires somewhere between 7,000 and 9,000 feet to take off, depending on which engines Icelandair has installed.
HOWEVER, you might not be anywhere near MTOW. Fish is valuable by weight, which means it may be economical for the airline to send half-full planes half the maximum range. Under those assumptions, I bet 5,400' is enough.
Also, the last round of plans for airport expansion at New Bedford and the construction of a full-on cargo hub assumed extension of both runways into the 8,000' range. That would resolve any issues. That proposal failed because of local opposition to jet noise and impacts to the marsh north of the field. A more limited Iceland-only service would use quieter aircraft and require less or no runway extension, so it might have legs.
Also, Logan has less than zero cargo capacity remaining (literally, since they're at capacity and removing cargo space for Terminal E). MA needs EWB to do more, especially since it's so beautifully positioned for intermodal transfers.
Btw, Amazon also has an airline now, and their big warehouse is conveniently located in Fall River, and Baker's going to want any benefits/subsidies for HQ2 to benefit the whole Commonwealth, so...
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Re: fish flights
There's also the question of whether some plane other than the 757 might work better on a short runway, but I bet tracking down all the details of the answer to that is a pain.
Also, for commercial passenger flights, runway length requirements are typically based on the idea that if the most critical engine fails at the most unfortunate possible time, the plane can hit the brakes before takeoff and still be on the runway (except that apparently then the pilots sometimes don't bother to actually use the whole runway). A private pilot in a single engine Cessna 172 generally doesn't bother with such large safety margins. If there's a swamp beyond the runway that the plane might sink into in a worst case engine failure scenario, maybe that's a tolerable risk if it's just a few pilots and a bunch of dead fish. It might be interesting to compare runway construction cost to the insurance premium cost if you explain to the insurance company exactly what risk you want to take on the 5400' runway and they charge a premium to cover that risk.
There's also the question of whether some plane other than the 757 might work better on a short runway, but I bet tracking down all the details of the answer to that is a pain.
Also, for commercial passenger flights, runway length requirements are typically based on the idea that if the most critical engine fails at the most unfortunate possible time, the plane can hit the brakes before takeoff and still be on the runway (except that apparently then the pilots sometimes don't bother to actually use the whole runway). A private pilot in a single engine Cessna 172 generally doesn't bother with such large safety margins. If there's a swamp beyond the runway that the plane might sink into in a worst case engine failure scenario, maybe that's a tolerable risk if it's just a few pilots and a bunch of dead fish. It might be interesting to compare runway construction cost to the insurance premium cost if you explain to the insurance company exactly what risk you want to take on the 5400' runway and they charge a premium to cover that risk.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
Re: fish flights
It's not a pain, it's just what Icelandair flies. I doubt they'd buy a new type of cargo plane just to serve New Bedford (although conceivably they could lease or charter one).
There's a long a.net thread on what the take-off distance for a 757 actually is. It's not simple.
It's not a pain, it's just what Icelandair flies. I doubt they'd buy a new type of cargo plane just to serve New Bedford (although conceivably they could lease or charter one).
There's a long a.net thread on what the take-off distance for a 757 actually is. It's not simple.
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Re: fish flights
If Icelandair is committed to a plane that turns out to be suboptimal for New Bedford, is there any reason New Bedford should be committed to Icelandair?
If Icelandair is committed to a plane that turns out to be suboptimal for New Bedford, is there any reason New Bedford should be committed to Icelandair?
Jouhou
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2015
- Messages
- 669
- Reaction score
- 14
Thinking of things in charts like this, I wonder if their strategy is to try as many new routes as possible to uncover hidden gems and to just cut back all the unprofitable routes after a year. It might be a good way to find new routes with no competition.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
Re: fish flights
Yeah. They run the cold storage facility at Keflavik Airport. WOW also does belly freight fish between Logan and Iceland, but I suspect the volume is much lower.
Yeah. They run the cold storage facility at Keflavik Airport. WOW also does belly freight fish between Logan and Iceland, but I suspect the volume is much lower.
Not huge news, but Azores is replacing the A310s with new A321neos on BOS - PDL. That's a cut in capacity from 244 to 186 seats. The A310s were awfully dated and I'm sure the Neos are much more modern, but that's a decent cut in capacity, and I'm still not sold on single aisle transatlantic flights.
Ponta Delgada to Boston is roughly the same distance as Boston to Las Vegas. I can understand if you're a business class passenger not being into a single aisle plane (I am guessing most carriers using them to/from Europe don't have special configurations for their business class). But for most people I don't see a big difference between flying a 752 to Europe in coach vs. flying a 763/333/332/772 to Europe in coach.
Someone had posted a photo of their premium cabin on instagram with the caption "just walked out of 2017 and into 1985 on a jetbridge."