Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

They've already made their intentions for London service known, for over a year now. Based on that and that they list 6 coordinates that are BOS, JFK, FLL, SEA, SFO and LAX, I'd bet they will announce service to either Indianapolis, or St. Louis.
 
I've never flew in or out of Stansted. Obviously quieter than Heathrow and Gatwick but further away, no? Can you get to/from London city center in one train ride from Stansted or do you have to switch trains?
 
BosDevelop said:
I've never flew in or out of Stansted. Obviously quieter than Heathrow and Gatwick but further away, no? Can you get to/from London city center in one train ride from Stansted or do you have to switch trains?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity I checked Google maps and yes, there is a train station at Stanstead airport that's served by both regular intercity trains to/from London and Cambridge (and a few other places), as well as a special half-hourly shuttle service to London Liverpool Street.
 
Last edited:
I am going to guess these slots they acquired are their backup plan should they not be able to secure Heathrow slots. They announced back in mid-2019 their intent to add London in 2021. Rather than attempt pot get Heathrow slots and run the risk of not getting them, they at least can say they will still serve London, albeit from a less desirable and known airport in Stanstead.
 
Wash said:
Out of curiosity I checked Google maps and yes, there is a train station at Stanstead airport that's served by both regular intercity trains to/from London and Cambridge (and a few other places), as well as a special half-hourly shuttle service to London Liverpool Street.
Click to expand...

I did the trip once (I flew BOS-STN once during Primera's fleeting existence) and I would say it's fine for the average traveler. It takes nearly twice as long to get to the center of London by rail from STN as it does from LHR or LGW, but it's still under an hour and there are decent connections at Liverpool Street. If London is my final destination, I'd have few qualms with flying in to STN again (though I'd prefer LHR or LGW). The bigger issue is connectivity. STN is primarily a intra-European low cost carrier hub (with some exceptions). So for most TATL carriers, there's little connecting traffic. While it's not out of the realm of possibility that JetBlue would partner with a Ryanair type, it doesn't seem that that's the market they're targeting. They look to be aiming in between the ultra low cost leisure products (i.e. Norwegian and the now-defunct Primera, WOW, etc.) and the legacy carriers (AA, DL, BA, etc.) who have cut back on their TATL economy product while upgrading their premium cabins which go for untouchable prices for the average traveler.

JetBlue seems to believe that that they can beat the legacies with a better economy product (slightly more legroom, better entertainment, and better food/bev services) while also having a lie-flat premium cabin that is priced closer to legacy "premium economy" than business/first. I'll be the first to admit that I only fly legacy business/first when redeeming miles, but I enjoy it and would do it more often if it was a more affordable option. 2-3 hours of fairly comfortable sleep on an overnight flight would go a long way toward not wanting to pass out by 10am on the day of arrival. But when economy fares on Delta, Virgin, and British Airways are regularly sub-$400 out of Boston and Business is $3,000+, it's hard to justify the expense. Especially when LHR has a Yotel in terminal which rents out pods in blocks of 3 hours for $40ish where you can nap comfortably and shower upon arrival. It's also far cheaper to book the hotel starting on the departure date from the U.S. (rather than the arrival date in Europe) so that the room is ready when you arrive - even at 6:30am. If B6 offers ~$1,000- Mint seats to London, I'm sure there'll be a fairly strong market for it.
 
Lrfox said:
JetBlue seems to believe that that they can beat the legacies with a better economy product (slightly more legroom, better entertainment, and better food/bev services)
Click to expand...

Eh, this was before the brought in the guy from Spirit that started destroying that, including packing more seats in and adding fees left and right
 
Chatter about Aer Lingus starting Transatlantic service from Manchester. Boston will be served daily using a 321LR (in addition to service to New York - JFK, Chicago - O'Hare and Orlando).
 
mass88 said:
Chatter about Aer Lingus starting Transatlantic service from Manchester. Boston will be served daily using a 321LR (in addition to service to New York - JFK, Chicago - O'Hare and Orlando).
Click to expand...

This would make sense with the customs preclearance in SNN and DUB, presumably. Would MHT need any additional buildout to accommodate this?
 
Lrfox said:
I did the trip once (I flew BOS-STN once during Primera's fleeting existence) and I would say it's fine for the average traveler. It takes nearly twice as long to get to the center of London by rail from STN as it does from LHR or LGW, but it's still under an hour and there are decent connections at Liverpool Street. If London is my final destination, I'd have few qualms with flying in to STN again (though I'd prefer LHR or LGW). The bigger issue is connectivity. STN is primarily a intra-European low cost carrier hub (with some exceptions). So for most TATL carriers, there's little connecting traffic. While it's not out of the realm of possibility that JetBlue would partner with a Ryanair type, it doesn't seem that that's the market they're targeting. They look to be aiming in between the ultra low cost leisure products (i.e. Norwegian and the now-defunct Primera, WOW, etc.) and the legacy carriers (AA, DL, BA, etc.) who have cut back on their TATL economy product while upgrading their premium cabins which go for untouchable prices for the average traveler.

JetBlue seems to believe that that they can beat the legacies with a better economy product (slightly more legroom, better entertainment, and better food/bev services) while also having a lie-flat premium cabin that is priced closer to legacy "premium economy" than business/first. I'll be the first to admit that I only fly legacy business/first when redeeming miles, but I enjoy it and would do it more often if it was a more affordable option. 2-3 hours of fairly comfortable sleep on an overnight flight would go a long way toward not wanting to pass out by 10am on the day of arrival. But when economy fares on Delta, Virgin, and British Airways are regularly sub-$400 out of Boston and Business is $3,000+, it's hard to justify the expense. Especially when LHR has a Yotel in terminal which rents out pods in blocks of 3 hours for $40ish where you can nap comfortably and shower upon arrival. It's also far cheaper to book the hotel starting on the departure date from the U.S. (rather than the arrival date in Europe) so that the room is ready when you arrive - even at 6:30am. If B6 offers ~$1,000- Mint seats to London, I'm sure there'll be a fairly strong market for it.
Click to expand...

This post was incredibly insightful and appreciated. Thank you.
 
Layoffs coming to Boston Logan. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11...-down-massport-cuts-25-percent-its-workforce/

With Logan traffic still down, Massport cuts 25 percent of its workforce
Hundreds of jobs will be eliminated as the agency deals with a $100 million-plus budget gap.
By Jon Chesto Globe Staff,Updated November 19, 2020, 3:56 p.m.

The Massachusetts Port Authority is trimming about 25 percent of its workforce through layoffs and voluntary buyouts as it reacts to an unprecedented plunge in air travel at Logan Airport due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The port authority avoided layoffs in its first big round of budget cuts in the spring, but not this time. The downturn in jet passenger traffic has been far more protracted than Massport executives anticipated, forcing them to plug a new shortfall exceeding $100 million in this fiscal year’s budget.

“We are trending below our worst-case, business-activity forecast at Logan Airport,” Massport chief executive Lisa Wieland told the port authority board on Thursday. “It’s hard, and I hoped we wouldn’t be here. Unfortunately, we are.”
Click to expand...
 
A vaccine looks like it's coming very soon. It'll be interesting to see how fast air traffic comes back.

It's kinda late in the game to be starting layoffs tbh.
 
Last edited:
tysmith95 said:
A vaccine looks like it's coming very soon. It'll be interesting to see how fast air traffic comes back.

It's kinda late in the game to be starting layoffs tbh.
Click to expand...
According to public health officials I know, we are a year out from having broad enough coverage of the vaccines to actually knock back the virus spread. Getting the vaccine to enough people is going to be a logistical nightmare (two dose compliance, cryogenic distribution for the Pfizer version, and complete personal tracking because these are both totally new technology vaccines, so require heightened post release tracking to watch for ugly surprises).

The industry will remain hammered until we get the virus into serious retreat.
 
tysmith95 said:
A vaccine looks like it's coming very soon. It'll be interesting to see how fast air traffic comes back.

It's kinda late in the game to be starting layoffs tbh.
Click to expand...

As of this past summer, Massport isn't expecting numbers to hit 85% of pre-COVID until Q2 2022. Who knows if they have altered this since (their board meeting materials for the last 2 meetings aren't available yet). I think Q2 2022 sounds like a reasonable target.
 
tysmith95 said:
A vaccine looks like it's coming very soon. It'll be interesting to see how fast air traffic comes back.

It's kinda late in the game to be starting layoffs tbh.
Click to expand...
I imagine that we're looking at late spring/early summer for leisure travel to have a meaningful bounce back (but certainly not to pre-pandemic levels, that'll take years). People are itching to travel again and if case levels dip again (regardless of how widespread the vaccine is at this point), I can see a big rebound. Business travel will likely take quite a bit longer as most companies aren't going to want to start flying employees all over the place until risk levels are low enough that they can be certain they're not putting employees in danger.

I mean... it's really never too late to lay people off. If they were optimistic in the spring that we'd be returning to normal now, they'd hold off on layoffs. But now that it looks that any return to normal is some time off, it makes sense to begin downsizing now (it's not just layoffs, it's retirement incentives, furloughs, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top